Jump to content

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 Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) at 11:47, 30 August 2022 (→Sunset of Muhammed images: +). 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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Muhammad images 17 August 2022

Motions

Muhammad images

Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded.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 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. Not used since 2016. Maxim(talk) 12:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BDD (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Back on the fence, I suppose. I do value the feedback below. It's also possible the DS is having a desired preventive effect, though that's more speculative, and perhaps a slippery slope. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Enterprisey (talk!) 15:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Striking per Firefangledfeathers. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There have been 2 logged actions about this. Ever. There were also 2 ARCAs about this in 2012. The fact that they are equivalent shows just how unnecessary this has proven. The sanction has been appropriately listed at WP:AC/DS and Template:Ds/alert and yet it's still not been used. All this says to me, per my comment below, that it is not an appropriate use of ArbCom's power under policy. The community can do lots of things that would not be appropriate for ArbCom to do and for me this includes passing GS that are not used. So, if the community thinks it's appropriate for this to exist it would be entirely appropriate for it to pass as GS. Given the lack of usage in general and the complete lack of usage over the past 6 years, I don't think we need to sunset this to give the community time to consider it especially because GS authorizations can happen incredibly quickly when there is consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to point out that based on the feedback below we have 2 editors suggesting it remains necessary, 1 editor clearly saying it isn't, and 2 others supporting a gradual plan to get rid of it. So far arbs that are really considering community feedback I think it important to consider all feedback, not just those saying it needs be kept. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Barkeep, but also per the lack of use in the past 6 years specifically. --Izno (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to the sunset motion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per community comments. WormTT(talk) 08:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that since I'm in the minority, I should probably explain my reasoning here. Discretionary sanctions are meant as an "extraordinary" grant of power in an area that needs it. One measure of whether those sanctions are still useful is how many times they are used, and I do believe that we should spot DS areas which are not being used and remove them. However, as much as that is a tangible and numerical value, there are other ways to measure usefulness. If disruption has eased in the area, it could be that the protagonists have moved away, or the controversy has fizzled out but equally, it could be that individuals are respecting the line and simply the threat of more harsh sanctions is enough to hold a controversy at bay.
    Since we're not on the ground and working in the area - we should absolutely listen to the administrators and editors who are - and if they say they still find it useful, I believe we should retain it. I am fully persuaded by the community comments that the controversy about depictions of Muhammad is still fresh in the real world (I mean, come on, Salman Rushdie was stabbed last week) and the crystal clear statement from Doug that he is still finds it useful.
    Now is not the time to remove it. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Still useful, even if not used. Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I respect Doug Weller's opinions, and Worm That Turned presents a good argument. - Donald Albury 17:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This seems to be an issue of failing to properly list and advertise the DS, not that it isn't useful. Having helped deal with various floods of Islam related complaints on UTRS, I think the DS remains prescient. Given that commentators have generally asked for us to retain it, I don't see why we would get rid of it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Apologies for the 11th-hour change, this somehow slipped off my radar. These sanctions are in place because the community found the issue to be otherwise intractable. This motion was made because it appeared to the Committee that it was no longer needed, but according to members of the community it is still of concern. If the community thinks this is still an issue that requires extraordinary sanctions we should not be removing it purely because no sanctions have actually been levied. Primefac (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Sunset of Muhammed images

Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded two months after this motion is enacted. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Support
  1. Community general sanctions have been enacted in less than a day (COVID) but generally seem to take a week or two to gain consensus. The most recent took about a month, which was the longest of any of the community GS I looked at and so I suggest twice that amount of time is more than sufficient for the community to decide to pass this if they wish. Second choice to the original motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal choice. In response to the comments below, I see the use of a DS regime as an exceptional measure. As there have been no logged sanctions in years, I don't believe that the situation now is exceptional enough to warrant DS. As ArbCom retains jurisdictions over previous cases, we should be able to reimpose DS by motion if the need arises. Maxim(talk) 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice, thanks for proposing. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BDD (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Donald Albury 19:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not my preferred, but since the other is stalled, support. Izno (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per my vote on the first motion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I prefer this but still oppose per my comments on the other motion. I'd certainly have no objection to revisiting in 2 months, but would prefer not to "sleepwalk" into a mess. Perhaps the community will pick up the issue though. WormTT(talk) 11:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. Per my comments on the primary motion, if the community thinks these sanctions are important, but it was just a case of not knowing and/or forgetting they existed, this motion has clearly brought them to light. That being said, I am of two minds here. The first is to agree with the delayed rescinding, since that gives a window of time in which editors may now either demonstrate that the sanctions are still necessary, or convert them to a community-based sanction. However, my concern is that we will simply be revisiting this in two months to rescind the motion to rescind. If this were worded more like one of our suspended cases and included a clause to cancel this motion if substantial opposition was raised I would be in support, but I cannot find enough reason to oppose entirely. Primefac (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion by arbitrators

  • Am considering @Firefangledfeathers's note. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sanctions may not have been used but the topic is still an irritant to many muslims. I've handled emails at info-en on the topic in the last year. I'm unconvinced that the ability of admins to set boundaries for civil discourse on the topic is a tool which should be removed from the toolbox. Still considering the point... Cabayi (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a hard time saying "this is still useful even if it's not used". Discretionary sanctions are an extraordinary grant of power to admins and hugely limit the community's chosen resolution processes. I can justify that in extraordinary circumstances (the behavioral equivalent of extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence). If the community decides that despite lack of use it would be appropriate to do as community authorized GS, well I have no issues with that, but cannot support subverting and interfering with community chosen processes as an arbcom except as necessary. This is in the discussion section because I have not had time to do a full examination of whether it might be appropriate with this topic. But I wanted to lay the marker out as a general philosophy for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support this, but I think there is a viable compromise suggested by Isaac: set a sunset date which allows the community time to take up the regime as General Sanctions. I would propose something like Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded, effective 1 August 2023.... which gives the community a year to figure out what they want to do. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good compromise to me. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have proposed a version of this above. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

I urge the arbitrators to reconsider. The 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy is still fresh. That article needed EC protection in June, which was done under ARBIPA. Other related articles have seen Muhammad-related disruption, including Aisha, Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Islam, and Criticism of the Quran. All of those would not be covered by IPA or any other DS topic area. I encourage a review of Talk:Criticism of Islam for insight into the kinds of protracted disputes (sometimes leading to blocks) that have been common in the past few months. Current admin attention, by which I mainly just mean Doug Weller, has been invaluable in keeping discussion reasonably civil.

Unlike some of the recent DS topic areas considered for rescindment, this area does have editors made formally aware. 12 DS alerts have gone out since the case, with four (1, 2, 3, and 4). One was done by me. 25 users have declared awareness of the topic area using the ds/aware template (2 blocked, 1 me).

Admittedly, this is a DS topic area which needs more clerical attention, in that many affected articles and interested editors have not been tagged or alerted. I suppose the strongest counterargument I can imagine is that it appears regular admin action and DS enforcement from other topic areas has been sufficient to fight this ongoing disruption. To me, there's evidence that this DS topic area has been contributing at least a small amount to the fight—enough, I think, to outweigh the burden of one additional topic area in the lengthy list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC) inserted text 16:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: For what is it worth, I was the one who alerted the Arbitrators to this as I noticed it's had barely any sanctions under the provisions of the case for the ten years it's existed, with no logged sanctions for six years, no entry on the DS logging page since 2017, and no entry at WP:General sanctions#Active sanctions - a situation very similar to the state I found the TM case's DS in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jéské Couriano. I agree those are all good reasons to support rescinding the remedy. In general, I support review of the topic areas and removal of ones that aren't needed. When TM DS was rescinded, no alert had been given in the topic area in over two years. No sanction would have even been possible, except against those named in the original case or those who'd already been sanctioned; some ds/aware users might have been sanctionable, but I am no longer able to tell who. I think this case's recent alerts, flare-up in disruption, and topic-adjacent admin action justify some caution here that would not have been warranted in the other recent cases. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; this seems like a situation where the DS was forgotten about and people ended up looking for the closest peg to fit the square hole. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove this DS. As one of the editors involved in this area I find it useful. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can a discretionary sanctions regime be useful if no sanctions are given out in years? I find myself at an odd sort of impasse. Had there been no DS regime in place already, would we be talking about imposing one? But, given that one already exists, perhaps it's better to leave if there are (a) some formal awareness notices given out, and (b) some use of DS that could have fallen under the scope of this regime, but went under a different one. At this point, I find myself ever so slightly leaning towards rescinding but that vote is not yet set in stone whatsoever. Maxim(talk) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of it is that the regime isn't listed on WP:GS#Active sanctions, which might explain it's seeming lack of use. While this wouldn't necessarily help with it actually being used it'd at least make people working in the topic area aware that yes, this is A ThingTM and that there should be less tolerance for provocative and wilfully-ignorant behaviour. Hell, the 2022 remarks controversy article above doesn't even have a MI DS tag, so it's not entirely clear the DS is actually in effect there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the difference is supposed to be between WP:GS#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions and WP:DSTOPICS, but this is what I found:
  • The table at WP:GS lacks any mention of the sanctions on Climate change, Editing of WP:BLPs, and Muhammad images.
  • The table at WP:GS lists Antisemitism in Poland as a "Special DS", whatever that means, but WP:DSTOPICS doesn't list anything like that (unless I missed it).
So WP:GS#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions is not just a rehash of the list of active discretionary sanctions, but I don't know what purpose the list is supposed to serve that's different from the list at WP:DSTOPICS. Philbert2.71828 01:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it’s not in Twinkle or have I missed it? If not, no wonder it’s not used. I know the covid DS isn’t in Twinkle either, but that’s an obvious one. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the problem in the script. Line 43 defines what the script recognizes as a DS topic code -- importantly, the code is limited to being between 1 and 4 characters. The code for this one is "muh-im", which is six characters, so the script doesn't see it. Same goes for "iranpol". You can see this by going to [1] and pasting in the top box /(\|+.{1,4}=)/g and pasting the contents of Template:Ds/topics into the "test string" box. Unfortunately, @Bellezzasolo, who maintained the script, looks to be much less active than before (though we always hope to see them around). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. I'm one of the Twinkle maintainers. Just a quick note that I think you're talking about User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb, which isn't technically Twinkle, it's a user script that uses Twinkle's menu and interface. I would love for the maintainer of that one to come back and work on it, it's definitely a useful script. I have a couple open bug reports at User talk:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still around, although with a job in software user scripts can get a bit samey...
I think there was a technical reason for restricting the tag to 4 characters, with longer tags capturing more than just the tag. I think a lazy capture group would sort that issue. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could also add shortened topic codes. I brought this up at the DS template talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per Barkeep49's comments, I suggest that if the arbitration committee were to rescind its authorization for discretionary sanctions in this area, it could specify a future date when the authorization ends. This will allow the community the chance to authorize discretionary sanctions in replacement, should it wish. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fair point by Isaacl. While I personally am reticent to think it should, I think their overarching reason of giving time for community consideration in edge cases of DS removal is a reasonable one. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a someone who came from Muslim-majority country, I oppose the removal of this DS, even if it is rarely used. As far as I know, Wikipedia has long avoided big controversies sorrounding Islam which is a little bit of a miracle, considering other big sites like YouTube or video games like Fortnite wasn't able to avoid the controversy. If Wikipedia were to be put in this position, it could have a lot of implications especially with authorities in countries like Pakistan, or even Indonesia, for example. We should avoid this risk, or it is going to be a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop us being the target of manufactured controversy. Still, if there's support for keeping this around, at a minimum I'd support figuring out a way to make it more visible than it has been. It seems to me like a lot of the "inactivity" is more just a collective amnesia that this sanctions regime even exists. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen, the controversy almost got major figures talking about it, which could have made this issue spread like a wildfire. Luckily, we got this solved VERY quickly, or otherwise it would have been a PR disaster. MarioJump83 (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have personally never made use of the Muhammad DS because (1) I somehow assumed that it was limited to Muhammad images and didn't realize that it covered "all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted" (mea culpa), (2) it's not listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions (why?!), and, (3) since I usually admin Islam-related articles that are also related to South Asia, I have access to WP:ARBIPA instead. But despite Muhammad-related articles not being a focus of my activities, even I have come across situations where the DS would have been useful had I been aware of it. To give a concrete example: the on-wiki disruption related to the (real-life) 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy spread to the Aisha article (see the recent uptick in activity at both the, already semi-protected since 2014, article and its talkpage; including by members of the Souniel Yadav and SherylOfficial sock farms). While it could have been a stretch to add the ARBIPA {{Ds/talk notice}} to Talk:Aisha, the Muhammad DS talk notice should have been added and the availability of the Muhammad DS could potentially have helped around the margins.
(TL;DR)  I wonder if the Muhammad DS isn't being used more because of a lack of awareness/proper documentation rather than a lack of need. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare I'm convinced that's the case. @Wugapodes, Izno, Barkeep49, and Maxim: I don't want to be a pain, but how much weight have you given to this? Again, as it wasn't in Twinkle I didn't know it existed. It's clear I'm not the only one. I don't see what harm it can do to keep it. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sanction has been appropriately listed at the two places I see as the committee's responsibility to maintain: WP:AC/DS and Template:Ds/alert. The fact that the community never saw fit to update other places says to me how little value was seen for it in general. The issues above doen't seem to have made its way to a conduct noticeboard (where not for nothing the existence of this ds may have been mentioned) which suggests to me that the issues are not so troubling that admins can't address it through normal, rather than extraordinary, processes. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a pain, thanks for the ping. Adding to what Barkeep said, I'm sympathetic to the community not realizing this was an option, but I believe the maintenance of this regime is better left to the community than arbcom. Even if the community were widely aware of it, I doubt it would be commonly used (compared to other DS regimes) and it has large overlap with much broader DS areas like IPA and PIA. The harms in keeping it are, partly, why it wasn't part of twinkle: when a DS regime is barely used and not particularly consequential, it gets overlooked or forgotten because each additional regime adds to the overhead. There are also issues which Barkeep raised regarding the subversion of typical community resolution. DS authorizes quite extraordinary interventions from administrators, and we should maintain them only where obviously needed to deal with high volume and complex issues. I'm not convinced these incidents couldn't have been handled by regular community processes, and we should prefer community-maintained resolution systems whenever possible.
Going beyond the issues with keeping the DS regime out of an abundance of caution, I think making extension a community decision will have additional benefits. There is clearly some disagreement about the usefulness of this regime, and I would rather the community discuss and come to a consensus on that; I don't see this as so controversial that ArbCom needs to be the one calling the shots. That discussion will give everyone a chance to re-evaluate what the disruption looks like today (as opposed to years ago), and lead to changes that would improve the regime rather than simply keeping it around, and this would include how it should interact with the broader ArbCom DS regimes in terms of scope and restrictions. And ultimately, I think it's a good thing that ArbCom gives control of regimes back to the community; we sometimes assume GS sanctions, but I don't think that power should only flow one way. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has edited in the topic area, and been excruciatingly involved in discussions, such as about the Muhammad images, I would oppose removal of the DS. Even if it hasn't been used specifically for a block or official warning, it's useful in casual conversation to mention it, to try and lower the heat in a conversation. There are still regular reverts going on regarding PBUH, so the area is not entirely stable. To remove the DS, and then say that the community needs to re-discuss things to get a new sanction, is kind of terrifying. Previous discussions of this nature were so hot that they took literally years to try and craft a consensus. We do *not* need to re-open that can of worms (no offense, WTT). In other words, I'm of the opinion of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Please leave the sanction in place. --Elonka 06:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1107517787"