Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Ancient Egyptian race controversy Arbitrator views and discussion: making my big picture statement on DS and why I don't think it necessary for this topic area based on evidence seen so far
Line 83: Line 83:
;Discussion by arbitrators
;Discussion by arbitrators
# <s>This is an area that for which I have some articles on my watchlist, and while I haven't seen a recent bad flare-up, I am not ready to say that we can dispense with this DS. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 15:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)</s> Changed to oppose. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
# <s>This is an area that for which I have some articles on my watchlist, and while I haven't seen a recent bad flare-up, I am not ready to say that we can dispense with this DS. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 15:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)</s> Changed to oppose. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
*I've made some comments responding to this idea, but I'm going to put it here so it doesn't get lost. There's a sense from several editors that this area remains fraught. I believe that. But just because a topic area experiences challenges doesn't mean DS is necessary. DS is an extraordinary grant of power to admins, in the literal out of the normal definition of extraordinary. We have decided that admins have certain power, but normally they don't have the power to just TBAN people. With DS, ArbCom is saying "Admin, we're going to delegate you a portion of our power in order to stop disruption." As such, I feel, ArbCom should be doing this with great intention and doing so in as limited of a way as possible per [[WP:ARBPOL]].{{pb}}So when re-evaluating existing DS, I would ask myself "Based on evidence of disruption presented, if I were getting this request for the first time, would I support DS?" When considering DS I look for evidence like noticeboard discussions, socking, and sanctions given by admin to make a decision. At the moment there has been nowhere close to the evidence of these things necessary for me to say that a small dose of ArbCom powers is appropriate. If recent evidence of this type were to be presented I would reconsider. And absent that evidence I ask my fellow Arbs to vote to revoke this DS. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


====Ancient Egyptian race controversy Community discussion====
====Ancient Egyptian race controversy Community discussion====

Revision as of 16:54, 29 January 2022

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024
Motion name Date posted
Discretionary sanctions topic area changes 27 January 2022

Motions


Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad. This discussion is intended to focus on those areas. Community feedback is invited and welcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku islands

Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Senkaku islands Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. No sanctions since 2013 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would also note that the only user ever subject to these sanctions got indef blocked 8 years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BDD (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  • I would support if Thryduulf's suggestion "the Committee will consider a request to reinstate the DS by motion following an ARCA request" were incorporated. The topic's volatility is more contingent on PRC/ROC/JPN diplomacy or the need of any one of those 3 nations for some distraction from domestic politics than our DS policy. Keeping a speedier reaction in our toolbox, quicker than working through a new case, may be prudent. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the discussion down the way about the tension in philosophy, if this needs an actual response I would think one of the community mechanisms (RFPP, EWN, even ANI) more efficient to sorting out any particular issue that should pop up rather than remembering that there are DS that haven't been used in close to a decade, given how small the topic area under DS is and how flashpoint it is rather than an area with a steady state need for removal of bad actors and extraordinary page protection.... Izno (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku islands Community discussion

  • In their respective countries, island ownership disputes end up being a flashpoint for nationalism and people get very passionate about it. I've seen this firsthand in real life. Dokdo is another example. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth adding a note that should this flare up again that the Committee will consider a request to reinstate the DS by motion following an ARCA request. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general, and purely semantic, comment applicable to all these motions, I would suggest using the word "terminated" rather than "rescinded." I believe "terminated" makes it clear that the sanctions were valid from the time they were imposed through the present, but now are coming to an end because they are no longer needed. The word "rescinded" could potentially be misread as meaning the Committee has decided the sanctions never should have been imposed to begin with, which is clearly not the intention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most people are familiar with the concept of laws or rules being rescinded once they are no longer needed, particularly during this period of health-related rules. However I'm not strongly opinionated about using rescinded versus terminated. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the mind that DS create more problems than they resolve - depending on one's perspective, of course. I sincerely believe DS/AE is a failed process, and adds nothing over what a trusted administrator can already do with few exceptions. DS/AE opens the door to WP:POV creep and all but eliminates admin accountability. Forgive my boldness for taking what some may consider an unfavorable position by lump summing our woes into one big snowball rolling downhill. I consider open discussion to be the highway to resolution, whereas silencing editors and working against open discussion under the guise of DS/AE (even when 1RR/consensus is required) is a bumpy backroad that gives first-mover advantage and opens the door to WP:POV creep regardless of the topic. Please consider my response to be project wide and relative to ALL topics brought here by ArbCom. Ironically, DS consensus required can result in an editor unfairly being sanctioned for "bludgeoning" when that may not have been the case at all. We even have an essay about CIVIL POV PUSHING that is often misrepresented as a violation of WP:TE and considered disruption - all for the purpose of ridding the topic area of opposing views, especially when the responses are meaningful enough to persuade outcomes. I've also seen no smoking gun cases for disruption result in t-bans per WP:POV railroad. Do we simply ignore the injustices, or convince ourselves that the decision to site ban/t-ban/block an editor per DS/AE was fair and reasonable even in cases when it wasn't? I'm not saying all actions have been unwarranted, but the few that weren't are reason enough to reconsider. A DS/AE action is nearly impossible to reverse, so how does that actually benefit the project when an injustice is involved? I can't help but be reminded of The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta and the essay, WP:IDGAF - it's all quite relative when considering where DS/AE is taking us. I was reluctant to add this url, but based on my prior experiences as a corporate executive overseeing "damage control" I thought it best to share it. I imagine many have already seen it circulating on social media. The only reason I watched it was because of my dedication to this project. Every little chip that comprises the foundation of WP is worth examining. Atsme 💬 📧 04:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At present, administrators don't have liberty in general to impose editing restrictions (such as on a page, a topic area, or an individual editor). I'm not sure, though, if you feel that editing restrictions are unnecessary on English Wikipedia, as they are a restriction on open discussion? isaacl (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issacl, see this motion. DS/AE inadvertently restricts the kind of open discussion/debate needed to reach consensus (and ultimately NPOV) but I'm of the mind, and arguably so, that the majority of our problems may be caused by aggressive (not so much bold) editors and their AE admin allies who share the same POV. DS/AE makes bold admins even bolder, so those whose nature it is to control the narrative have the advantage in DS restricted topic areas. I do know for a fact that when an admin ambush attacks an editor, that action is rarely, if ever, questioned while under the umbrella of AE, and much harder if not impossible to overturn. Perhaps rotation of admins in controversial topic areas would help resolve some of the issues, or at least offer some of us peace of mind. PAs should never be allowed but at the same time, AE isn't the only remedy. Any admin can nip disruption in the bud with a simple warning and hatting of the offensive comment(s), or in a worse case scenario, impose a short article ban against the offending editor. I'm of the mind that DS/AE gives rise to WP:POV creep which amplifies the problems. It's odd that DS result from a committee decision because no other DR process was able to provide a remedy, yet DS/AE allows for sole discretion enforcement by ambush attack which unfairly places editors at a disadvantage with a slim chance of presenting a proper defense against an action that cannot be easily overturned, and where admins have a clear advantage. It should be repealed, and sole discretion limited to disruptive trolling and other unambiguous disruption that harms the project. Long term productive editors should not be subjected to such draconian measures, especially those arising from DS/AE. This AfD discussion is an excellent example to model after for consensus building. The close was well thought out by four highly respected admins who included the following in their closing statement: We therefore strongly recommend that the DRN process be resumed and pick up the attempts at source analysis carried out in this discussion, which show promise in breaking the deadlock. If nothing else, the failure of more than 200 editors to reach any actionable consensus in this discussion shows that there is an urgent need to better define and refine the core elements of this dispute into a more manageable set of questions, if they are to be put to the wider editing community. A few editors who weren't getting the results they wanted insisted on closing the discussion early, and an admin responded with this comment. I don't think any veteran editor was blocked or t-banned, much less warned for bludgeoning, TE, or over-zealousness in their approach. I consider it progress. Atsme 💬 📧 19:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I was reflecting solely on your comment that authorizing administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion doesn't add anything over what an administrator can already do. If I understand your response, I believe you are saying that, in your view, this additional discretion is unnnecessary and can hamper discussion. I appreciate the time spent in your comments. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf education

The first sentence of the January 2013 motion in the Waldorf education case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Waldorf education Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. No sanctions since 2014 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Waldorf education Community discussion

  • Aw, my favourite example of the Weird DS Topic. I read the case for this one a while back; it seemed more circumscribed than most things we'd put under DS, and the parties involved seem to have left the topic. Vaticidalprophet 00:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Ancient Egyptian race controversy Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. No sanctions since 2014 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Barkeep below - even with a recent alert, looks like disruption here is overall rare enough that it can be handled by normal community processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I think we should keep this available a little longer. - Donald Albury 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  1. This is an area that for which I have some articles on my watchlist, and while I haven't seen a recent bad flare-up, I am not ready to say that we can dispense with this DS. - Donald Albury 15:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Changed to oppose. - Donald Albury 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some comments responding to this idea, but I'm going to put it here so it doesn't get lost. There's a sense from several editors that this area remains fraught. I believe that. But just because a topic area experiences challenges doesn't mean DS is necessary. DS is an extraordinary grant of power to admins, in the literal out of the normal definition of extraordinary. We have decided that admins have certain power, but normally they don't have the power to just TBAN people. With DS, ArbCom is saying "Admin, we're going to delegate you a portion of our power in order to stop disruption." As such, I feel, ArbCom should be doing this with great intention and doing so in as limited of a way as possible per WP:ARBPOL.
    So when re-evaluating existing DS, I would ask myself "Based on evidence of disruption presented, if I were getting this request for the first time, would I support DS?" When considering DS I look for evidence like noticeboard discussions, socking, and sanctions given by admin to make a decision. At the moment there has been nowhere close to the evidence of these things necessary for me to say that a small dose of ArbCom powers is appropriate. If recent evidence of this type were to be presented I would reconsider. And absent that evidence I ask my fellow Arbs to vote to revoke this DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy Community discussion

  • I understand the urge to be tidy but issues like this never disappear. I issued an alert very recently. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple thoughts. 1) an alert does not mean there has been wrong doing. For me the lack of sanctions is more relevant than the presence, or not, of alerts. 2) Repealing DS is not to say that the topic area lacks any issue. Just that the extraordinary tools of Discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary. Instead normal tools and processes should be sufficient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure but that was one of the alerts that I fully expect will need a follow up (a topic ban) in due course. There is no reasonable way for normal processes to deal with people on a mission other than a very bold WP:NOTHERE indef. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We do, of course, have other ways of issuing topic bans besides DS, most notably we can do so as a community at ANI. Reasonable people can of course differ on this, but for me even a single topic ban in 8 years would not suggest DS is still necessary. It says to me that this topic area is no longer one of our "most contentious and strife-torn" to quote from WP:AC/DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: it may be that lack of sanctions is due to lack of knowledge about the area being under sanctions. For instance there's nothing at Talk:Afrocentricity about them. And despite them being on the top of Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy I somehow forgot about them. There is still active disruption and frequent enough on various pages that I see no benefit in getting rid of sanctions for this area. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I'd been aware of the sanctions I would definitely have brought several editors to AE since 2014. As I said, I don't think the active editors in this area have all been aware of the sanctions. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point, I've been an active editor in the Ancient Egypt topic space for years including involvement in a so-called 'race dispute', but this is the first I'm hearing about there being DS in the area. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller @Mr rnddude let me suggest that you are reaffirming why I think they should be revoked. DS is not the default. We don't do DS because it's nice for admin to have. It is an exceptional grant of power for exceptional circumstances. If we've been managing disruption in the area without DS then it's not needed in my view. What would change my mind is evidence of recent notice board discussions suggesting that the community can't, on its own, handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that it's difficult to deal with non-cooperative editors in any area. To date, in most areas they are dealt with by holding a community discussion to determine if any appropriate editing restrictions are warranted. In some areas, there are so many editors to deal with that it would be difficult to keep up with community discussions, and administrators have been authorized to levy sanctions based on their personal judgment. Are there still too many disruptive editors in this area such that community discussions can't handle them? Conversely, is community discussion unable to deal with disruptive editors in most or all areas? (I can see how one could make a case for this, considering the amount of time that has to be spent in discussion, but I am dubious if it is a consensus view, particularly since the alternatives means some form of hierarchy.) isaacl (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the "things" (we know what they are) that should remain on the statute book, as it were, ad infinitum, or almost at least: there's good reason for it to be there, and little for it to be removed, IMHO. SN54129 10:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend that sanctions be retained at Ancient Egyptian race controversy a bit longer. We do still get POV-pushers from time to time. Some accept a consensus against them, and some are more militant. I don't know if keeping sanctions here would cause any harm? Wdford (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Scientology Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. 1 topic ban and 3 page protections since 2010. Current disruption seems like it could be handled using the standard enforcement actions - for instance there is no indication that the indefinite page protections would be changed if they were not "protected" by DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  • Barkeep49 Double checking, the intent in the motion indicates to me that those indefinite page protections will remain as DS actions until someone appeals those successfully or we move to remove them. Is that a correct reading? --IznoPublic (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Not Barkeep but that's my understanding. The relevant administrators (Oshwah for Dianetics, El C for Nathan Rich) may also choose to modify the actions or abrogate the AE status of those protections. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno the intent is to do as Kevin suggests. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Community discussion

  • Abrogate — I learn a new word! Anyway, if the relevant notices reflect the rescinding, I think that suffices. Though, in the case of Nathan Rich, there's both a {{Ds/talk notice|topic=blp}} and a {{Ds/talk notice|topic=sci}}, neither of which added by me, btw. Also, for some reason, the sci DS is framed inside of the WikiProject Scientology notice (that's marked inactive), I just noticed. I don't know what's happening. El_C 20:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark worldwide

The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Landmark worldwide Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. No sanctions since 2015. To the extent that this is still needed it may need to be more about new religious movements but that would likely need to be its own case/request. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BDD (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Landmark worldwide Community discussion

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

Remedy 5 of the India-Pakistan case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is amended to read as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including but not limited to castes. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. The current scope of this area is much broader than some other equally fractious areas, including American Politics and Palestine-Israel. For instance American railroads are not covered by DS but under the current wording Indian railroads could be. This attempts to name the scope of the dispute in a way more consistent with other sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We would never think to authorize discretionary sanctions for "Europe and the United States, broadly construed". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I'm closely following community comments and am open to a broader scope or explicitly listing out additional examples of what would be in-scope. I'll wait for more comments before proposing a change to this motion or a new motion, though. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per Vanamonde's comment in the consultation, I don't believe narrowing the scope is in the best interest of the encyclopedia; I prefer the broad scope. I share the intuition that narrower is neater, but that rule of thumb doesn't always hold. Community members have raised interesting questions about the scope of "politics" for example. Just on its own terms, that word can have very wide or narrow scope depending on who is doing the reading. That can make our enforcement unpredictable and unfair for editors. While edge cases may be covered by other DS or GS regimes, lack of overlap can actually make our responses worse. If someone is warned about this narrow scope, but then goes and causes problem on out-of-scope India-Pakistan BLPs we'd need to issue an entirely new alert before addressing the issue. We wind up playing whack-a-mole across DS areas rather than having a clear and unambiguous way for administrators to deal with what can be complex and unpredictable nationalistic disruption. I'm open to considering whatever new wordings people suggest, but for myself I simply can't imagine a good way of rewording this that winds up being a net positive. I'm glad it was brought up for discussion though, as we should reconsider past decisions and not let them sit just out of inertia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Community discussion

The following was copied from the discussion El C references just above:

There could be other possible overlaps, but one thing that comes to mind would be IPA/AA2 military pages. I'm not sure "political" (or "religious") would apply to disputes which would generally involve, say, opponents/proponents arguing over inflating/deflating of military strength (for e.g., like how many this or that instrument of death does this or that IPA/AA2 country have, and so on). @Barkeep49 and L235: courtesy pings. El_C 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

To some extent the bounds of "political" will need to be fleshed out by AE "case law", of a sort. If you, in your reasonable judgment as an enforcing administrator, want to sanction something and believe that it fits within the DS authorization broadly construed, you can do so – and your action is presumed to be correct unless it's reversed by a full consensus at AE, or a full ArbCom majority. In effect, this means that if you have a reasonable argument that something is "political", you can assume DS powers. I don't have specific answers for you other than if something is "on the margin", the "broadly construed" makes it fall within the scope. Hope this answers your question; if you have any followups just ask. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Defer, defer, defer! Kevin, I guess what I'm getting at with that example are editing disputes which are emblematic of a political rivalry between those countries, but which are otherwise technically outside the domain of politics itself (even loosely defined; as an undercurrent). So, for example, in a dispute over whether an IPA/AA2 country has, say, 300 or whether it has 600 x-model tanks — could it fall under the narrower DS? And if so, what, like, in spirit? Thanks! El_C 19:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@El C can you post these comments to somewhere on A/R/M so we have consolidated discussion? Here or here could work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49, just refactor wherever you think is good. I'm confused by this set up — whose allowed to comment where. El_C 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC) — I figured it out! El_C 20:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Would the wars between India and Pakistan be politics in your minds. By a reasonable definition no, but there are so many issues there -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, what about when the rivalry spills over into language, both linguistics and naming disputes? El_C 20:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

--Izno (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, what about AA2? There isn't really a distinction between IPA and AA2 wrt the military and language examples I brought up. Thanks! El_C 20:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I only copied it once; I don't want to have two discussions if the proposed clarification applies to both. Izno (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fore sure, split discussions are a splitting headache. Anyway, I emphasized/refactored at the AA2 thread. El_C 20:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Fowler&fowler I think I have been pinged, though I did not check the reasons. The "broadly construed" is aptly formulated. Here are my thoughts born of 15 years of WP experience working in the area: It is not really India-Pakistan-Afghanistan anymore. It is mostly India and Pakistan, and of the two it is mostly India. There used to be Pakistan POV-pushers (never galore though), but they for the most part gave up circa 2015 or thereabouts. And, usually, when the Pak-POV-pushers broke the rules they did so with such abandon and so flagrantly as to constitute obvious vandalism for which ARBIPA was not needed. That leaves India. Well, I don't know what it is: the fact that nationalism came late to India, i.e. the sub-nationalism are still bickering violently; that the 2,500-year-old caste-system has cast a pall of hierarchy (Louis Dumont's Homo hierarchicus) as to lie on all discourse; that Hinduism has not come to terms with its civilization being creamed first by the Muslims and then the British; that the solution does not lie in denial or blaming the victors; ... take your pick, but it exists. It is not just history, or caste, or region, or language, or religion, or politics, ... it is the body politic. Sad to say, but there is no India-related topic area that is free of the low-intensity but relentless vandalism or POV promotion (i.e. well-enough organized and coldly-enough polite to fly just under the radar and not constitute blatant vandalism). It needs the ARBIPA sanctions in their full strength and generality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS Now that I recall, I was even part of the dispute that might have led to ARBIPA: in 2007 an admin, and blatant but obviously rule-abiding India- and Hinduism-POV-pusher (Rama's Arrow) was fighting three rule-breaking Pakistan POV defenders, flailing deer in the headlights. I had to fight on behalf of the deer, unsure myself how such fights were to be undertaken. Needless to say, the three deer were banned (for good reasons I'm sure, but I'm suggesting that had ARBIPA been in place the judgments might not have been so stark, so black and white.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that no other DS regime is as broadly worded, and thus revision might be in order as a matter of principle, though I believe there is next to no evidence that the breadth of this has been a negative to Wikipedia. I do wish the wording had been posted for review before the arbs began !voting on it. I have commented elsewhere about why any revision would need to be carefully worded, and I won't repeat those comments. With the present wording, I am seriously concerned about the following points. 1) Armed conflict isn't explicitly covered: describing the Kargil war as "politics" might be stretching a point, especially when the scope isn't "broadly construed". There's endless potential for wikilawyering here. 2) "Castes" is too narrow. I would strongly recommend "social groups". A considerable portion of the population of South Asia ostensibly has no caste identity, but is still involved in conflict similar to that which bedevils caste pages. 3) The biggest problem in my view is that history isn't covered. Indigenous Aryanism, for instance, has been the locus of extreme disruption for a considerable period; and it is ostensibly neither political nor religious (though please note, it is related to social groups; see point 2). 4) The omission of the phrase "broadly construed". Much disruption concerns whether a given topic is religious conflict or not. If the scope were broadly construed, all such pages and edits would be included; as it is, you're opening AE up to endless wikilawyering about scope. I'm unwell, and am limiting my Wikipedia time as a consequence; please ping me if you need my attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the arbitrators came across your comment in the previous meta-discussion yet went about doing precisely what was suggested against but without any in-depth justification. I, for one, will like some explanation. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Often "I demand an explanation" is a stand-in for "I disagree with this" which is of course is fine but often means an explanation is not helpful. I'm not sure how exciting the explanation is in this case but since it's simple I'll go ahead and give it. There were several comments. All were considered and thought about. Kevin and I as drafters then attempted to draft language considering the totality of feedback, including Vanamonde's. Then we posted in a place and in a way to encourage feedback such as what has been offered here. Now the committee as a whole is considering what to do; alternatives may get proposed. This may get voted down. The process is playing out in the way that is normal for ArbCom/Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You chose to float the rewrite and argue in favor of it, using the particular example of railroads, something that V93 had explicitly noted to be in the domain of ARBIPA - is this some attempt at humor? V93 had already made a case for why history shall be mentioned at all costs. In light of that, your reply to my very-similar query is not very confidence-inspiring?
    Overall, the two of you reiterated Chess' opening arguments. Nothing more and nothing less. I understand (and concede) if you are more convinced by Chess than V93—rational people can agree to disagree, and we have a plurality of arbitrators to facilitate a plurality of views—but you need to show how you arrived at that conclusion. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: I, for one, am not demanding explanations. I've worked with several of y'all in different areas, and I trust your intentions. As stated, I agree in principle with the need to narrow the scope here. I do think it would be helpful to discuss the reasons for and against explicitly including history, social groups besides caste, and violent conflict. I've explained my reasoning, here and in the linked comments; if you, or other arbs, disagree with it, it would enhance my trust in the process if you were willing to discuss your reasoning too. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93 indeed you haven't made that demand and I was not referring to you there. I've been thinking over the substance of your comments about castes but I guess I should have replied to your other points. As these are standard discretionary sanctions, they are, by definition, broadly construed so the language isn't needed. Given that we haven't specified a period of time, unlike the DS in several other areas such as AP2 and IRANPOL, I would say historical events around politics and religion (broadly construed) are definitely included just as they are now even though we don't say historical. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: Okay, thanks for clarifying. Also, I'm glad to hear my concern about the scope being broadly construed was misplaced. With respect to history, I don't think politics and religion alone will cut it. I pointed you to Indigenous Aryanism, a locus of much disruption. It is not really a political aspect of history, in that it has nothing to do with group decision making and systems of governance. That stream of thought is occasionally examined as part of a political movement, but the underlying history, of human migration to the Indian subcontinent, is not; and that history desperately needs DS (if you want me to provide evidence of that, let me know). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that we are now using the reworded version that is somewhat clearer, this is certainly an improvement with its reduction in scope. I'm not active in the field, but how major is the ongoing issues with regard to Afghanistan? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't seen any. I had edited a few pages when Taliban was in the front-page-news but never spotted any sort of egregious POV pushing etc.
    It is not warranted to have Afghanistan grouped with India and Pakistan at all. India, Pakistan (and Bangladesh) comprises what is called the Indian subcontinent by many scholars: they share a common history and culture going back to over a millennia and since the partition on religious lines, have evolved into mutual minefields, necessitating these sanctions. Unlike Afghanistan whose history became divorced from that of the subcontinent since late 900 and remained so.
    I will support removing Afghanistan from the remedy. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Bishonen, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Abecedare, Doug Weller, EdJohnston, Rosguill, Johnuniq, and Dennis Brown:, as admins that I know have engaged in enforcing ARBIPA DS in the relatively recent past. Apologies if I've missed anyone, I don't have the time to dig through many AE archives. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: - I am not sure that the previous ping went through. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen is a template all admins should compare themselves to. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixing the rest of Vanamonde's ping: @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Abecedare, Doug Weller, EdJohnston, Rosguill, Johnuniq, and Dennis Brown:. And thank you, GeneralNotability, you must be referring to this example of my highmindedness. Bishonen | tålk 07:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks, Bish, and apologies all for screwed up formatting. As I've said, I've been unwell... Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Johnuniq: Pinging all admins whom I have seen enforcing ARBIPA sanctions. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to see "historical" explicitly mentioned in the wording. Indian historiography is often driven by religious and social group biases that go unstated and can easily become the focus of wikilawyering. We have, for example, the various sock farms that focus on the history of the Meenas, Yadavs, Ahirs, etc., who, as they become more sophisticated, write about kingdoms of dubious historical certainty without explicit reference to social groups, even though that is the subtext of their content. I also agree that we should use the term "social groups" rather than castes because caste refers to something specific in Hinduism while social groups are a broader term (I have a hard time figuring out the distinction - is, for example, "Bishnoi", another sock focus, a social group or a caste?). --RegentsPark (comment) 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely support the inclusion of "historical" and "social groups" for the reasons given by User:RegentsPark. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, Already exists. Is this proposal to merge the two? Venkat TL (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the scopes remain fairly distinct (see above: I don't think this changes anything vis-a-vis GS/CASTE, as GS/CASTE is broader in territorial scope than IPA. (Indian/Pakistani castes were definitely already covered by ARBPIA, regardless of this motion and regardless of GS/CASTE.)). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235 thanks for clarifying. I think you meant ARBIPA and ARBPIA is a typo. After full reading I understand that this proposal reduces the scope of ARBIPA from "broadly construed" to "religious, political and caste". If I broadly understood it correctly, then I support the proposal. Vague sanctions are not good, so this is a step in the right direction. Venkat TL (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's correct, my bad on the typo. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I'm active in placing DS in this area, I'll comment. The old wording is certainly overly broad, but the new leaves me unsure whether nationalist editing by pro-Indian and pro-Pakistani editors is included, for instance concerning Kashmir. Edit warring over a map doesn't necessarily look political, but if it's a map with Kashmir on it, then it probably is. Fowler & fowler makes this point more fully above. Also, I agree with Tranga Bellam that historical topics may deserve a specific mention, because our nationalists and POV-pushers are extremely interested in them. I realize we can't have too much instruction creep, but perhaps something on the lines of "all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in India and Pakistan, including but not limited to conflicts between those nations, historical subjects, and social groups"? (Yes, Afganistan probably doesn't need DS any more, and yes, "castes" is too narrow.) Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: yeah, I completely see where you're coming from. Do you have any suggestions for good wording, or at least any questions we should ponder to find better wording? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [Bishzilla is extremely offended.] Little Shonen's wording fine as is! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 22:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    [Hastily] Shorter would be better, but it's hard to avoid a list effect if all the important stuff wants to crowd in. Perhaps a more empirical approach would be better? Vanamonde points out above that narrowing the scope is perhaps more a matter of principle and optics, while "there is next to no evidence that the breadth of this has been a negative to Wikipedia". I'm not aware of it ever being a negative to Wikipedia either, or indeed of the overworked and harassed admins in this area availing themselves of the "privilege" of broadly phrased sanctions to "do whatever they want", per Chess.[1] I think I've talked myself into agreeing with Wugapodes that the scope doesn't need narrowing. Bishonen | tålk 22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    I believe principle and optics are incredibly valuable. The optics of the situation is that a mostly white and Western cadre of admins has been given near unlimited power to block and ban people involved in India/Pakistan related topics due to ongoing controversy. Unlimited geographic sanctions are typically applied to non-Western countries while topic limited sanctions are given when a Western country is involved. Also consider that WP:PIA is a lot more controversial and has more disruption than WP:IPA, but WP:PIA sanctions are limited to just the conflict while WP:IPA sanctions apply to everything. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple explanation for the current sanctions regime is that while there is disruption in the PIA area, it almost always concerns taking a side in the political conflict—it rarely relates to WP:CIR. However, there is a never ending stream of misguided edits all over the IPA area. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kevin, elsewhere I had proposed "history, religion, politics, ethnic strife, intergroup relations, and violent conflict". Reading it now "ethnic strife" is likely redundant, but what do you think of the rest of it? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A difficult example is at WP:AE permalink. On the one hand, we should patiently explain editing principles while encouraging better English. On the other hand, that's not scalable. I closed the AE request with a topic ban to stop the damage, and to help the very few editors who monitor related articles. If those editors burn out, the area will be wide open to abuse. With the wording in the proposed motion, topic bans like that will have to be replaced with WP:NOTHERE indefinite blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call me a former AE regular (I generally don't participate there anymore), so this is coming from someone who has dealt with it first-hand, but who at this point is probably distanced enough from the day-to-day to reflect on what is actually necessary and what is overkill.
    I think one of the difficult things about the South Asian topic area is how intertwined all the various very passionate arguments are, which is one thing that makes it different than say, the Arab-Israeli conflict. Generally speaking, Israeli films aren't going to be something that even a Palestinian nationalist editor is going to feel like causing disruption over. In the India-Pakistan space, there are so many different topics that could possibly come up in film that would cause a fight. That's one of the more extreme examples, but it also isn't really that outlandish. If something like that could feasibly crop up in film, what other unseen topic areas could conflict occur in that would be on the edge of the proposed sanctions?
    While you could argue that history, religion, or politics was the reason for that, in AE, you don't really want to give people room to wikilawyer, because the people who end up there tend to be skilled wikilawyers. There's no real evidence of abuse of discretion, even the principle one that Vanamonde93 raises as a potential reason to narrow the scope has its flaws. The central argument to this is that we're treating a developing region of the world more strictly than we are the rest of the world (that's either a spoken or unspoken underlying current in a lot of the arguments.) Arguably, treating every country uniformly without recognizing the differences is more problematic: India and Pakistan are not the United States and Israel. They have diverse and rich social histories and they are complicated by the fact that the partition was hastily done decades ago, and because of that many of these issues permeate society and culture in a way that is not the case in other countries. That make it significantly harder to limit scope.
    Editors from these regions and who are interested in these regions have a right to edit free from harassment and disruption in areas where there is potential risk of that. Because it is more difficult to determine what areas are at risk for disruption because of the unique histories of these nations, limiting the scope the way we would limit it for many Western nations would make it harder for good faith editors to edit in peace, not easier. Being culturally sensitive/aware of the way we treat people from non-Western regions doesn't mean treating the topics the same as we treat Western topics. It means ensuring that they have the same ability to edit free from disruption that we would extend to Westerners editing Western topics. Narrowing the scope here would likely hinder that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an editor that works in the IPA space and find the DS extremely valuable. Usually a DS-Alert itself is enough to curb disruption. The AE cases have reduced over the years, and India-Pakistan conflicts are now negligible (on Wikipedia, not in the real world). I would be in favour of narrowing the scope to "political, religious, social and historical topics" (broadly construed). These should cover the majority of topics that face disruption and WP:NOTHERE sanctions can cover the rest. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
  • As an editor/admin who has been active in this topic area, I'll +1 the comments and observations made by Vanamonde93 and Bishonen above. In short, my recommendations would be:
    1. It's worthwhile to narrow the scope of the ARBIPA DS-regime as a matter of principal even if the current language is not being abused.
      • Personally, I would even be fine with excluding Afghanistan altogether but perhaps editors/admins who work on Afghanistan-related articles are better positioned to comment on that.
      • And while our recommendations regarding the narrowing may not match, TonyBallioni observations regarding the intertwined conflicts and skilled wiki-lawyering in this topic area are spot on!
    2. Please do explicitly mention 'history' in any revised language, since that is a central cause and locus on conflict.
    3. Any (even contemporary) Indo-Pak conflict is founded on political, religious, and historical grounds and should remain within the scope of the sanctions. This can be achieved by either retaining the 'broadly construed' language of the original remedy or explicitly mentioning 'Indo-Pak relations' in the update. Else, with the narrower scope, in 2019 editors would have wikilawyered that events like 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes were neither political, religious nor historical and thus not covered by the sanctions.
    4. And please broaden 'caste' to 'social groups' since linguistic and ethnic divisions, and not caste per se, are a common cause for on-wiki disruption.
Let me know if you would like me to expand on any of the above points. Abecedare (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia/Azerbaijan

The remedies documented in the "Standard discretionary sanctions" section of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case are rescinded. The following remedy is added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case: 3) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in Armenia and Azerbaijan, including but not limited to the Armenian genocide. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Armenia/Azerbaijan Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. The current scope of this area is much broader than some other areas, including American Politics and Palestine-Israel. For instance American railroads are not covered by DS but under the current wording Armenian railroads could be. This attempts to name the scope of the dispute in a way more consistent with other sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We would never think to authorize discretionary sanctions for "Europe and the United States, broadly construed". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Armenia/Azerbaijan Community discussion

  • my opinion is that the current scope is adequate, given that a large range of subject witness edit warring, tendentious editing, POV-pushing etc., besides the predictable targets of BLPs and settlements and geographic features and historic events articles other subjects that I remember having similar issues in food articles, musical instruments, Dairy products and, the most surprising to me, a flower species. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kevo327 in looking over those examples, I don't see any DS actually used. The closest is at Matzoon which noted nationalist issues in the protection log, but was not protected as an actual DS. This goes to a deeper belief that I've seen through the DS consult and my study of the area. I think a lot of time page protections can be justified under normal policy and would be uncontroversial in its application (so the first mover advantage of DS does not make a difference). If nationalist issues cause a problem on a page, under our "broadly construed" principle this DS would continue to be available for admins to use. The same is true of sanctions against editors who might disrupt such pages. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: Using "broadly construed" here is going to cause so much wikilawyering -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero the wise DS scholar L235 has pointed out to me in the past that broadly construed are a part of the standard procedure and so these sanctions are already broadly construed. So there would be no increase in wikilawyering with this amendment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my few years editing on Wikipedia, it has become painfully clear that the current AA2 restrictions(if any) do not work. Before a user can edit the AA2 area, they should have a minimum of 500 edits and 6 months editing. As Kevo has indicated, food and even plants are being targeted(seriously?). The sockpuppetry is still rampant, yet we have to jump through a set of hoops just to prove user:Z(who has just arrived having never editing anything) restarts an edit war/disruption that user:Y had just been indef blocked. A set minimum of edits and months editing would keep the disruption down, and possibly cut down on the number of SPIs that need to be filed, over and over again. Example:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClassicYoghurt. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We might as well tell all new Azeri/Armenian editors to fuck off then because they're not welcome. Many people like editing in areas related to their own country and this would prevent that. We don't do this for the Israel-Palestine area because even though there's endless disputes over food like falafel or hummus we recognize that putting entire countries on 500/30 is questionable. There has to be some restraint. If there's an issue with food articles being targeted as an extension of the conflict then admins can ECP as a discretionary sanctions action. We do the same for WP:PIA. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral on the scope change: thinking on the times I've intervened in AA2, the newly proposed regime would still have adequately enabled me to act, but it's a change that has more to do with standardizing our bureaucracy than actually addressing real problems of editing these related topics (after all, I have yet to hear anyone complain that we have too much admin oversight of AA2). I think that Kansas Bear's suggestion to adopt a P/I-style 500/30 regime for political topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan (or more narrowly, to topics related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ethnic rivalry between Armenia and Azerbaijan) seems appropriate and would help curb disruption. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are "new" IPs and "new" accounts every.single.day whose sole purpose is to shove irredentist/negationist/revisionist POVs into WP:AA2. Every single day. There are entire groups at Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube comments operated by youngsters trying to bring in more disruption (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Based on my long-time experience as editor within the topic area, I would also support a minimum edit count/time for any new user who wants to edit within WP:AA2. Not just political topics, but also definitely history-related articles. And indeed as mentioned earlier; it is far from being limited from actual articles within contemporary Armenia-Azerbaijan. WP:AA2 stretches well into Iran and Turkey as well. I have lost count the amount of times Iranian historic (and contemporary) figures get renamed as "Azerbaijani" without sources or whatsoever. Or Iranian cities suddenly getting an Azerbaijani name in the lede in the Latin script (which is only officially used in the Azerbaijan Republic). If anyone would ask me, I could probably post a hundred diffs from the past few weeks alone, in which various Iranian figures/cities/etc. have been targeted with such irredentism. The current WP:AA2 measures are outdated and extremely time consuming for editors who are here to build this encyclopaedia, and thus in turn destructive to the community. Wikipedia should adjust to the changing situation, and introduce a minimum edit count for WP:AA2 (political and history-related articles being a bare minimum, IMO). - LouisAragon (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for those who would enjoy reading, here is the mentioned railway/transport kerfuffle article. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Politics can, indeed, touch on many areas of life. But that doesn't mean that all areas of life need DS, it means that when non-political (or religious) areas intersect with political areas that DS is appropriate. This is why DS are broadly construed. To give an American example, american sleep products are not inherently controversial and in need of DS, but MyPillow became political and now has a DS applied to it but Pillow Pets is not political and would not be eligible for DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, what about a dispute over 300 vs 600 tanks? It could have all the hallmarks of DS partisanship, but still be limited to an editing dispute, per se. (i.e. no MyTank discussed in RS as a political point of contention). El_C 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C I would look to von Caluseitz and say within the scope of DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, if I can broaden: are you basically saying that any dispute involving IPA/AA2 partisanship, even in peripheral areas, continue to remain within the scope? El_C 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that disputes involving topics that are broadly related to IPA/AA2 politics/religions (including but not limited to the specific topics identified in the motions) continue to remain in scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm still a bit confused, but maybe that can't be helped until it's put into practice. I'm just wondering if there's been over-reach that prompted going from broadly-broadly to narrowly-broadly? Just trying to be preventative so as to avoid a lot of time spent on misfires, clarifications and so on. El_C 02:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DS is an extraordinary grant of power and I philosophically believe DS should be as narrowly tailored as is reasonable to stop disruption. This is why, for instance, I supported amending AP to 1992 last year. And why I don't think we should have similar scope of DS for similar types of disputes. We don't say everything in Palestine and Israel is under DS for instance. And that is the way it should be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree with that philosophy, too. But for example, Hummus has been a source of bitter ARBPIA rivalry. Confusingly, I just noticed it displays {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}}, but is only semiprotected. Anyway, all I'm saying is that it might get tricky. But I'm along for the ride! El_C 03:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share most of the opinions above that 1) AA2 DS are much needed to control this topic full of disruptive nationalist editing 2) minimum number and duration of edits has to be in place, that’s the only way realistic way of repelling increasing numbers of battleground-minded new users arriving from those social media groups, plus A) anonymous IPs (who can be really disruptive) should not be allowed to edit AA2 topics and B) It’s not just Armenia and Azerbaijan but also Turkey - Azerbaijan and Turkey are entangled together to the point of “2 countries 1 nation” motto being iterated from 2020. Finally, there is a lot negative going on between users from Azerbaijan and Iran as well, but that can be a Azerbaijan-Iran DS perhaps? --Armatura (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this covers the full extent of the disruption. For example, I would like to see the history of the region covered explicitly; disputes in this area often arise over that even when it is not explicitly the history of a political matter. I also think the proposed 30/500 for the area should be given serious consideration. I cannot count the number of times I've seen AE requests in this area filed by a "new" account that almost certainly isn't operated by a new editor (and indeed, in many cases, is often later confirmed not to be). Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation revocation

  1. Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
  2. Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
  3. Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
  4. Remedy 14.3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
  5. The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the article probation referenced in Finding of Fact 3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles placed on probation") and subject to review in Remedy 1.1 of the Obama articles case ("Article probation review") is no longer in effect pursuant to a March 2015 community discussion, but related articles may be covered by remedies in the American politics 2 case.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Article probation revocation Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. Cleans up any lingering sanctions from the predecessors to formalized DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Article probation revocation Community discussion

Transcendental Meditation movement

Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm curious how this gap got created but the 10 minutes of research I was willing to put into it didn't reveal an answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've meditated on this and agree with the motion — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Transcendental Meditation movement Community discussion

This is something I noticed when I was doing my Arbitration Enforcement sanction assessment. I ran into it in archives from about mid-2011, and double-checked it (since it's not listed on the active sanctions list). There hasn't been a sanction levied under this since 2013 so far as I can determine, and the log stopped including headers for this DS regime in 2016. When I sussed it out, I let a clerk know to alert ArbCom to it. This was at most a couple weeks ago, and I'm guessing it wasn't included in the initial list because of how recently it's been put on their radar. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 02:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Senkaku islands 8 0 0 Passing ·
Waldorf education 9 0 0 Passing ·
Ancient Egyptian race controversy 5 1 0 Currently not passing 3
Scientology 9 0 0 Passing ·
Landmark worldwide 9 0 0 Passing ·
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan 2 1 0 Currently not passing 6
Armenia/Azerbaijan 2 0 0 Currently not passing 6
Article probation revocation 8 0 0 Passing ·
Transcendental Meditation movement 7 0 0 Currently not passing 1
Notes


Other discussion of Discretionary sanctions topic areas

  • Noting for the benefit of the community that these topic-specific changes were informed by WP:DS2021 but there is more to come on the broader DS2021 plan. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be scope for the committee to consider revoking the discretionary sanctions in re Electronic cigarette; the remedies from the more recent Medicine case have a large degree of overlap and those newer remedies have completely stopped the EC-related disruption. As far as I know, no enforcement action under the EC discretionary sanctions has ever taken place, and they are certainly without purpose now.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like enforcement action has happened under this DS. See Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020 § Electronic Cigarettes and Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019 § Electronic Cigarettes. Two DS actions have happened in the the space of 2 3 years. This still could be argued as too few to be worth the extra DS. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, S Marshall, I'm not seeing how the DS in the Medicine case would cover this topic area. The DS in Medicine are for pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. E-cigs don't seem to me to be pharmaceutical drugs, and even if they were it wouldn't cover anything but the prices of e-cigs. These two comments are without my official clerk hat on, so don't see my comments as a response from the arbs. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, you're correct. Two actions were logged after all. I apologize and retract. One of the remedies from the medicines case topic-banned one editor from all medical articles. Well, consensus exists that electronic cigarettes should fall within the scope of WikiProject Medicine because of the health claims made about them and their occasional use as therapeutic devices by quit-smoking specialists, and it turns out that topic-banning that one editor was sufficient to restore a tranquil and collaborative editing environment. There is no urgency about this decision and if the committee would prefer to retain the sanctions for the time being then I have no objection.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The intent with the revocations was to go after the lowest hanging fruit. There are probably 2 or 3 other DS that I'd support revoking but were not quite as clearcut as the ones above and so we decided not to propose them. If there's further support here, additional ones could be added or an editor could file an ARCA in the future asking for e-cigs or some other DS to be re-considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarizing my critique: Just noting for the record, that the IPA/AA2 motions are the real meat in this series (the rest seem like fairly uncontroversial clean up of inactive DSs). This key distinction is not made expressly clear in this series of motions, which concerns me a bit. I'd caution arbitrators against possibly placing an ideal type over and above WP:ENC, seemingly for no other reason than just to do it. No, the US (WP:AP2) is not a good example, as the stable editorial pool for IPA/AA2 countries (including language fluency, etc.) isn't even on the same galaxy. I'm not saying at this point that this is a solution in search of a problem, and maybe the wording could improve, but as Opabinia regalis notes, it needs better fleshing out.
Endless disputes, from Hummus-equivalents to naming conventions to whatever, might arise over this revised less-broadly-than-broadly IPA/AA2 scope, and these are likely to arise at the same time as enforcement is attempted (against disruptive IPA/AA2 partisanship, as before, through whatever form it takes). So I'd advise both a wider lens and taking it slow. And again, inadvertently lumping together mostly-inactive DSs with the highly-active, highly-corrosive IPA/AA2, that seems a bit problematic to me. Thanks everyone! El_C 16:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1068654599"