Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SQL (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 20 September 2021 (→‎Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion: Begin closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Motion name Date posted
Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion 20 September 2021

Motions

Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion

In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

Extended confirmed restriction

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:

Extended confirmed restriction

7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:

Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.

Enacted - SQLQuery Me! 10:07, 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. WormTT(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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1045390397"