Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2	none	(orig. case)	23 December 2020
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale	none	none	1 January 2021
Clarification request: Eastern Europe	none	(orig. case)	3 January 2021

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

• Change the sanctions to affect American politics to a later date. I recommend 1944, but I am open to other interpretations.

Statement by Interstellarity

It's been over five years since the ammendment to set sanctions on post-1932 American politics went in place. When we look at historical events from a distant future, we can get a better idea on how the event affected history. I am not requesting to repeal these sanctions, I am requesting that the sanction be lowered to something like 1944. It is easier to write an article on a president such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln then someone like Donald Trump or Joe Biden because the news can be too biased to get the big picture. I imagine the news was also biased back then, but we have modern historical evaluations on the event that help us to write better articles. That's how I feel about this in a nutshell. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk)

1932 really is still the beginning of contemporary US politics. It is when FDR was first elected, and FDR's policy approaches are still a political battleground in the present day. William Leuchtenburg's book In the Shadow of FDR traces FDR's influence through all the subsequent US presidents up to Obama (in the 2009 edition). I read it for a school requirement and found it enlightening. If there is good cause to restrict someone from editing about post-FDR US politics, they probably shouldn't be editing about the FDR era either. The stuff that happened then is still contentious in today's partisan battlegrounds. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Geogene

I think any cutoff year you choose will potentially be debatable. But is the current 1932 cutoff already causing problems that need to be addressed? If so, this request would be more compelling with evidence and examples of those problems. Geogene (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I don't think I've ever processed an AP2 dispute or sanction where the locus of dispute was something that happened between 1932 and 1944 (indeed the vast majority are centred on current issues). That's not to say they don't exist, but I think I'd like to see the diffs before changing the cutoff date. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller

Echoing Black Kite to an extent, I'm eager to see what are the loci of dispute now, but I'll go further. This is incredibly broad brush and doesn't feel like a good measure at all. Having briefly looked into the morass of the case that prompted it, I'm wondering if Arbcom at the time were both rather exasperated and reluctant to issue a huge swathe of personal sanctions. Anyway, that's speculation. More to the point, I feel this measure is bad for Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter (American politics 2)

All sanctions (theoretically) must be recorded in the log at WP:ACDSLOG. For 2020, I see there only two articles which relate to something else than post-1990 politics: Frank Rizzo which I have protected myself (and this is the only time I remember involving AP2 for not contemporary politics, and I am not shy in imposing AE sanctions), and Three Red Banners which is probably there in error (I do not see how it is related to AP2). In any case, both articles are post-1950.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

I support changing this, to some date not after 1992. From a quick glance, with the one exception Ymblanter noted, the oldest topic I found discussed in the sanctions log was Vince Foster. The vast majority of American Politics issues relate to current events, but the Clintons are still regularly the subject of contentious discussion. There was a preference for a wide buffer region in the original imposition of AP2 to avoid doubt in marginal cases; I think either 1960 or 1980 would be reasonable choices. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to say that Vince Foster would be covered under post-2010 American Politics; we don't have "broadly construed" here and he died in 1993. Sure, Trump talked about him, but having the sanctions be "everything Trump talks about" seems like the wrong way to include topics in the sanctions; in that case rather than a year we might as well just say "current". power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The difference between starting in 1932 and starting in 1944 is that the period from 1932 to 1944 featured FDR and the New Deal, isolationism regarding involvement in World War II, the attempt at Supreme Court packing, the American Nazi movement and the anti-Nazi boycotts -- all of which have tendrils which connect them to current American politics. Is MAGA isolationism re-born? Will the Democrats attempt to counter Trump's Supreme Court nominations by packing the court? Is the alt-right the re-birth of an American fascist movement? What do we do about the newly powerful populist movement in Europe? How involved should the US government be in controlling the effects of capitalism? These questions are all intimately connected to what happened from 1932 to 1944, which argues against changing the starting point. 1932 does not seem to me to be an arbitrary choice, but the actual beginning of modern American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Whereas it's arguable that 1944 (1945, really) is the start of the post-war international structure (the UN, NATO, World Bank, IMF etc.), so it would make sense for a discretionary sanctions regime which was concerned with modern international geo-politics. It doesn't really make all the much sense as a starting point for American politics, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn's data is interesting. I would only suggest that if the start date is moved up, admins take note of disputes and disruption which would have been covered if the date hadn't been adjusted, if any. I still don't see any real harm in leaving the start date where it is, though, under the rubric "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Per "range of choices", leaving it at 1932 should not be forgotten. I agree that an RfC should be held before an ArbCom motion, as a content matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

I'm concerned by people stating that Interstellarity should be providing cases of 1932-1944 that this clarification would resolve. Quite the opposite - everyone else should be being required to provide cases that demonstrate that that set of years should also be covered by DS. It's supposed to cover the minimum possible to avoid issues. I actually think a good case could be made for moving it up to, say, the start of the Vietnam war, and if we're happy to have a discussion on that, that's great, but for the meantime, I'm a strong supporter. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Eggishorn

I think everyone is agreed that the cutoff of 1932 is arbitrary and that any year that the ArbCom of the time picked would necessarily be arbitrary. Any other date would also be arbitrary but need not be equally arbitrary; i.e., there may be less arbitrary dates available. It is clear from the AP2 Proposed Decision that the ArbCom of the time picked 1932 for no there reason than it was somewhere between the extremes of 1980 (too recent) and all of American history (too far back). If anything, this is a good demonstration of how the Goldilocks principle can guide rational people to suboptimal results. Neither the AP nor the AP2 cases involved anything that reached anywhere near as far back as 1932 and Ymblanter and power~enwiki have already demonstrated that the topics that AP2 sanctions have been invoked for are also recent. Beyond My Ken makes a cogent argument that there is ideological continuity of issues from the Roosevelt presidency era to issues of great controversy today but that is not a reason to keep the 1932 date. If we were to accept the continuity of ideologies argument, then the same issues that FDR faced were faced in recognizable form by his cousin Theodore and that these issues have ideological continuity all the way back to Jacksonian democracy and even to Jeffersonianism and Federalism. The committee implicitly rejected this approach since that would have turned the AP2 discretionary sanctions into American History discretionary sanctions. I think that any argument to keep the 1932 cutoff has to substantiate 1932-present as the narrowest possible range to prevent significant disruption. The record at hand does not present any evidence of this being the case. If anything, it shows that 1932 is far too broad and that this violates the principle that sanctions and restrictions should allow the greatest freedom of editing. WP:5P3 still has some purpose here, after all. The ArbCom of the time picked 1932 not through detailed inquiry of the best cutoff but through what seems like expediency and abundance of caution. The ArbCom of today has the benefit of a record that shows the 1932 date was overbroad and can pick a date that better matches the evidence shown. Looking through the sanctions log for this year and last, it is difficult to find anything even post-2000, never mind after the 1980 date the original ArbCom felt was too recent. Please consider moving the date forward significantly, to at least 1988 (the George H. W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis presidential election). This date would be a better fit for the evidence of disruption that is available and also match BMK's ideological continuity of issues argument while being closer to the idealized least restrictive option and therefore be less arbitrary than 1932. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of AP2 sanctions

At the implicit invitation of Barkeep49's request for better data and because I'm seeing dates picked based on what looks like speculation of what might or could happen, I thought it necessary to present what has happened under the current regime. Debates, however fierce, in the wider society that are not directly reflected in on-wiki disruption should not be the basis for sanctions. Therefore, the record of sanctions was searched for on-wiki disruption and correlated to the time period that the disruption was directly linked to.

Extended Content

Methodology The Arbitration enforcement log was examined for blocks, bans, and other editor sanctions placed by administrators from 2016 to 2020 under the authority of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the American Politics 2 arbitration case. Only restrictions placed on editors were counted, not those on articles. Each sanction as a separate action is counted separately. If an editor was given an edit restriction or topic ban, then violated that and was blocked, then returned and violated it again and was banned, those three separate events are are counted three times. If an editor was blocked or topic banned for violating AP2 restrictions based on multiple edits reported to WP:AE (including, in one notable case, 71 edits) then that one event is counted once. Community bans are not counted, even if they were related to American politics articles, because those actions are taken under the community's authority and not the committee's. ArbCom bans were included if explicitly invoked under the American Politics 2 case or subsequent motions. Warnings are not counted as sanctions, even if the DS was invoked as a basis for the warning, because warnings do not have the effect of restricting edits through the wiki software. Probations or other irregular and custom sanctions are treated as warnings and so also not counted for the same reason. Topic bans lifted upon appeal are not counted as sanctions. Topic bans that resulted in a block but which were lifted on appeal were counted as a sanction if the block took place before the ban was lifted. There were a small number of users blocked, unblocked, and reblocked under these sanctions. If the individual blocks were triggered by different edits or there were "new" edits that were significant evidence for further sanctions, then those were considered separate events. Rejected appeals are not counted as separate sanctions. The time periods are divided by Presidential administration to break the 88 year time period covered by these discretionary sanctions into comprehensible time periods. The time period a sanction was assigned to is based on the edit or edits triggering sanctions. This results the an apparent anomaly that edits related to, e.g., Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign are counted under the "Obama" row and not the "Trump" row. This is inevitable given that each election cycle lasts at least 2 years and there are multiple contestants. Unless clearly otherwise indicated, edits concerning events that took place during the short January lame duck period were counted as sanctions under the following administration for clarity and because politics during this time period are almost entirely concerned with the incoming presidency and not the outgoing one. FDR's presidency was divided into pre-war and war years due to its length and the amendment request above. Edits triggering sanctions that were to articles not about events (e.g., biographical articles, places, etc.) were treated as follows: If there was a source associated with the edit (either adding or removing) then the date of that source was used to categorize the edit. If the edit was not linked to a source or the source did not have a date then any identifiable event that the edit might have been connected to (e.g., the arrest of a person) was used to categorize the edit. If there was no dated source or identifiable event, then the date of the edit was used to categorize the edit on the basis that edits on political topics are more likely to be triggered by contemporary media coverage than historical coverage. The data was compiled in a Google Sheets document available here. Results The editing restrictions, blocks, and bans placed under AP2 restrictions since 2016 greatly favor the 2016-present time period and there is almost no record of AP2 sanctions for events prior to 1993. AP2 sanctions by year and presidency Presidential Administration 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total FDR pre-war 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDR war years 0 0 0 0 0 0 Truman 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eisenhower 0 0 1 0 0 1 Kennedy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnson 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nixon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ford 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carter 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reagan 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bush Sr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clinton 0 2 0 1 2 5 Bush Jr. 0 0 0 0 2 2 Obama 42 13 4 0 4 63 Trump 0 40 46 43 48 177 Total 42 55 51 44 56 248

Discussion

Of the total 248 discretionary sanctions placed in the 4 years since they were authorized under the current ArbCom remedies , 240 or 96.7% were for edits concerning events after 2016. The almost complete lack of sanctions for events in the time period from 1932 to 1988 shows that the current remedies are not currently narrowly-tailored to the actual disruption experienced on this site. Speculation that sanctions need to encompass the period before 1988 are not supported by the evidence of disruption reported. Although the methodology is believed sound, discrepancies would not change that the evidence is very clear. Even if there were massive errors in time period categorization, the evidence of disruption is clustered is so tightly to time periods after 2009 that there can be no rational argument that sanctions have been invoked to curtail actual disruption for fully 86% of the time period currently covered by the DS regime. Although page protections and similar page-level invocations of the authority granted under AP2 was not explicitly tallied, cursory investigation did not disclose results which differed significantly from the results of the editor-level sanctions and so has not been worth the time to compile. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

I was one of the drafting arbs for this case and can answer what was going through our heads at the time. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

In short, I concur with Nosebagbear on burden, and with so many others here in having concerns about how sweeping these DS have been. In detail, I think this should be narrowed to 1960 onward (so it starts with JFK's presidential election campaign – there's always going to be fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense about JFK), or to an even later date, maybe starting with 1988 (George H. W. Bush's campaign), but start no later than 1992 (Bill Clinton; the Clintons are still the subject of a lot of fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense themselves).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

I wouldn't comment, but some of the arb comments below seem like speculation to me. Rather than guess what years are troublesome, why not look at WP:AELOG? There's years of knowledge of how DS is actually used (minus the intimidation of templates) in that log - practically everything one needs not just for larger DS reform, but also to make evidence-based determinations in small requests like this.

At a skim, I see no page restrictions based inherently on 20th century politics. Too lazy to check the editor sanctions but I'm guessing same applies there. 1980s or even up to the Clinton era makes sense to me. It can always be changed back if this turns out to have been too restrictive. Guerillero was there a particular reason for 1932? The PD doesn't give much insight. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

I am not seeing any problem with 1932. If there is no disruption between 1932 and, say, 1960, then there will be no enforcement. So why take an arrow out of Admins' quiver for 1932-1960 in case it's ever needed? Bigger picture I am not convinced the current setup is worth the trouble in American Politics. Arbcom principles are basically WP policy that Admins can enforce regardless of DS. The page restrictions in AP add little or nothing. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Katie, on 1933ff articles with no problem, I don't see that there are page restrictions or extra notices. For example, [1] SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

To get to this noticeboard and create this much discussion; seems to me that a serious problem with the current arbitrary date being any more problematic than a new arbitrary date need be detailed. And, with all due respect to DGG, I won’t believe that Jan. 20 will mark a milestone in ending the current political millstones until that occurs. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

I'd support 1992 per Egg's data. "Anybody can edit"/"not a bureaucracy" should be the default position. Any restrictions on that should be only as broad as necessary. The data shows that before 1992 is not necessary, as there has only been one case prior to 1992, out of 248 total. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

It would be better for the committee to decide this here and now by motion than to take up the editor time required for an RFC. If the range of options are 1960, 1980, or 1992, I submit that it won't make a big difference which date the committee picks. If the community disagrees with the committee's decision, someone can start an RFC to overturn it. But if the committee picks a new date and everyone is fine with it, it'll save a bunch of editors a bunch of time. Setting the scope of DS is a core function that editors elect arbs to perform, so I don't think it's a stretch to say the community would trust Arbcom to change the AP2 start date without requiring an RFC. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum

I think pushing it back to 1960 makes the most sense. Keeping it at 1960 rather than 1980 ensures that Vietnam and Watergate would remain under the scope, among other topics. 1980 would be the furthest I would go, because anything later would omit the Reagan years, which have always been a point of controversy. -- Calidum 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

• just as a suggestion, perhaps it would be better to discuss this after Jan. 20? DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  With the holidays and new year and new Arbs incoming, I don' think we'll have reviewed this much sooner anyway. Technically, January 20th is not that relevant for articles about events 80 years ago but since this is a pretty active and sensitive area, I would recommend scheduling plenty of time for community comments anyway. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Any cut-off date of this kind is going to be at least a little bit arbitrary. I'd be interested in knowing whether the current 1932 date is causing any practical issues, e.g., are there people being sanctioned for disputed edits or edits being unnecessarily deterred covering the period from 1932 to, say, 1960? Off the top of my head I'd say the major flare-ups have concerned the politics and politicians of the past 20 years or so, but I'd welcome input from the AE admins and the editors active in the area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Interstellarity, what is currently covered in that 1932–1944 time period that you think ought not to be covered by DS? I can see the potential argument for adjusting the time frame of the DS topic area, but I don't know if changing it that minimally is really worth the time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Looking at the examples given here of older topics covered under this DS area: Frank Rizzo is covered due to a statue of him being torn down in 2020, Three Red Banners is covered due to a conspiracy theory involving the Biden/Harris logo, and Vince Foster is covered due to ongoing conspiracy theories involving his death. I think it's fair to say that all three of these articles would still be covered regardless of the cut-off date for discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and instead we should be looking at trying to delineate politics from history. Perhaps the line separating the two could be drawn much closer to the present than is being proposed here. – bradv🍁 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• I've always thought that setting a date from which DS would apply was more of a content decision that ArbCom normally makes. Further, the reasoning offered here by some editors (e.g. Beyond My Ken, SMcCandlish) about why it should be certain dates again reads to me more like a content decision making than behavioral determination. The reason why ArbCom does this is pretty obvious - ArbCom owns DS and DS is normally created in the middle of a case, so of course it needs to make a decision around the parameters. However, in this case ArbCom isn’t under the time pressure of a case. Therefore, I would be inclined to want to see a normal content resolution method, in this case an advisory RfC, to justify voting to change the years of DS or else more behavioral analysis (such as what is offered by Eggishorn) in order to support a change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  Eek: I think there's a good argument to be made that the onus on us is to limit the scope of extraordinary administrative powers (through DS) to the minimum necessary range and thus a good reason for the 1980 date suggested a couple times above (and also what Guerillero indicated to me was their original proposal). What, beyond what has been presented here by Interstallar and some others, would be a reason for you to re-evaluate the date? My answer is above but I'm curious what yours is because I am not clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  I want to publicly acknoweldge what Eggishorn has done here. The data he has collected is impressive on its own merits and very useful for me in my decision making process. Thank you to him. I remain open to an advisory RfC, as seems to have been supported by Worm, but I'm also open to just deciding it here if there is consensus among editors (and to be clear I'd want more comments made to be clear that's the case) and arbs generated by the data we now have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• A few thoughts: I can see myself supporting a much more recent cutoff than 1932 – plausibly I could end up supporting something in the neighborhood of the 1980s. I don't know if it's really worth it to move it up to something like 1944; is there much actual benefit? I could also support an advisory RfC like Barkeep49 proposes, but I'm not sure I agree it's a "content decision". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would personally support a date such as 1945 (the end of WWII and the beginning of the current world order) or 1955 (the start of the Vietnam war). If the community would like it, absolutely, and an advisory RfC as Barkeep suggests would be a great idea. But I wonder if it is even necessary to revisit the date at this time. It was arbitrary to begin with, and anything we would come up with would also be somewhat arbitrary. I am not seeing a compelling reason that the 1932 cutoff is causing problems, and changing it will result in a lot of bureaucratic overhead. If the adjustment would be minor and have limited effects, I think our energy best be saved for a broader look at DS later this year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  BK: I can buy that the onus is on us to limit extraordinary powers, like DS, and am open to seeing the date move up. But I disagree with 1980 (Reagan's election), I think that remains too recent, and excludes much that remains a sorespot in the American political memory. I see that power~enwiki and SMcCandlish both mention 1960 (JFK's election), which I would accept more readily than 1980. I think the date should certainly not be sooner than 1980, as the Reagan years remain fiercely debated and form the foundation of the current political divide. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  I greatly congratulate Eggishorn's analysis, thank you for the solid data, that has changed my mind. It seems apparent that we could choose 1992 or later and still be fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Eggishorn, for that data – most helpful. I understand the original 1932 date, FDR and New Deal and so on. It's certainly not causing any difficulty to anyone, since there are no sanctions being issued, but if we don't need it, we don't need it, and I don't like having unnecessary sanctions and their notice boxes and advisory requirements and so forth. I'd be willing to amend to 1980, but in no event should it be any sooner than 1992. Katie^talk 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm on board with moving to a more modern date, limiting the DS area. That said, I'm not keen on the committee chosing the date, as it does seem to be a content issue. Therefore, I particularly like Barkeeps' suggestion of an advisory RfC, to get community thoughts (also thank you to the community members who have commented so far). Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm open to changing the date and I agree that "when did modern politics start?" is a content question, so an advisory RFC seems like a good idea but in the end, this Committee has to decide which date to set (but hopefully wiser after community input). Regards SoWhy 07:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'll echo SoWhy in endorsing an advisory RfC to help us make the final decision. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Eggishorn makes a solid case for why we should move the date closer (and a potential starting point). The question of when is somewhat up for debate. On the one hand, I feel like any date we pick will be criticized (though I've seen some fairly compelling reasons for certain dates above). On the other hand, asking the community to decide would likely result in a hundred people all splitting their opinions between every year between 1932 and 2016 (i.e. at the moment I would not be in favour of some sort of advisory RfC).

TLDR: I'm willing to be convinced either direction, but at the moment I'm a "yes" for changing the date and a "no" for a community RfC on it. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/934849515

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Special:Diff/934849515

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

• Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Special:Diff/934849515

• Relax restrictions.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

Please replace my 1 article a week AFC submission with a particular number I can create per week, day or month etc.

• Tier 1, all topics such as BUAs and Domesday places that aren't higher.
• Tier 2, former civil parishes.
• Tier 3, current (and recently abolished) civil parishes (as well as Welsh communities and unparished areas) (around 500-600).
• Tier 4, settlement parishes (including those that are as such Welsh communities and unparished areas) (~60).

Times

Tiers	Tier 3	Tier 4
6 months	~3 a day	~2 a week
12 months	~1.5 a day	~1 a week

I'm not specifying a specific number here since in my last appeal I was advised to "ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions" well I have attempted to do that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC and although there is a consensus against a bot creating them (unless perhaps someone knows how to correctly program it) there it does seem like as long as the articles have meaningful content people are fine. Please specify how many of such articles I should be allowed to create per week, month or day etc.

Can I also have the appeal time modified back to 6 months please, namely so that I can appeal on 1 July.

Can I also be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages as long as I keep in mind WP:RDELETE and WP:COSTLY.

I don't think the move restriction really needs to be removed given I can file as many WP:RMT or WP:RM as I want if we do approve the ability to create directly as proposed a move exception should be to move pages from draftspace or userspace etc to mainspace in accordance with such creation limits. If we don't relax the creations restrictions significantly (say only a few a week) then I'd suggest allowing me to move pages as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least 7 days since although I can still do this now people might question if I'm not allowed to move them myself and have to use RMT for move requests I close. However if one of the tier 3 options (or similar) happens then I'd say that this would be unnecessary since I should be encouraged to focus on creating good articles rather than potentially rushing it in order to do other things.

• @CaptainEek: the appeal isn't that complicated its just that I have given multiple options and I'm wandering what one will be successful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Newyorkbrad: Marston, Milwich and Pillerton Priors for (current) settlement parishes, Great and Little Wigborough for a non settlement CP and Stratton, Gloucestershire for a settlement that was a CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• @SoWhy: I agree that the RFC isn't positive but as noted there doesn't seem to be consensus that they shouldn't be created at all just that they need decent content. Those examples given above do surely contain decent content. Why shouldn't these articles exist? Why can't England have a full house of its lower level units like many other countries do (I can't find any other than Wales that don't) and why should I be penalized due to my incompetence a decade ago? Yes I accept that English parishes don't have as much significance as some similar units in other countries but they clearly do still meet our inclusion guidelines. What is the problem with one of the lower options like 1 parish a week? Are there any other suggestions like allowing me ask an admin to "approve" articles I draft? Please just something? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: Would a modification of (1) allow a set number or creation or all of them on the condition that there is consensus for it (this would be assessed by an arbitrator after the RFC) and/or (2) allowing me to ask (a specified set of users like AC members or admins) to "approve" an article meaning they can move it into mainspace or remove the redirect. The latter would give peace of mind to you about floods of poor quality articles and it would give peace of mind to in that I know I'm not going to get into trouble for such articles. The latter would work in the sense that would create an article in draftspace (or behind a redirect if a redirect has substantial history) and would go to the specified user(s) talk page and ask about the article and they could either (a) decline or (b) accept, if they accept they would either move the article to mainspace (or for a redirect remove the redirect) or say I can move it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: In response to Iridescent's point I'd also note that its the civil parishes themselves not the councils that should be created, I specifically stated at the RFC that parish councils should not be created also User:PamD said last year that parishes are significant and worthy of articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Worm That Turned: Seriously? Even with the articles I have produced above? Are you really saying that dispute every effort to get things right you're just dismissing them all not being good enough? Really??? I thought this was supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit? I can't see any basis in policy etc for why these articles shouldn't exist. Is there really any point in me trying to do the right thing if all you are going to do is dismiss every attempt to do so? Every attempt to try to adjust by behaviour seems to have been dismissed and I feel I'm just wasting my time. No one else that I'm aware of has had to obtain consensus for creating a few hundred articles manually and no other country that I'm aware of has been required to obtain consensus for creating its lowest level units so why have special pleading here? If these articles already existed or I wasn't banned I have no doubt that no one would rush to delete/merge them or ban me from creating them? We should base things on the merits of the situation not on bad fortune of long past actions. I even had autopatrolled back in 2010 when I didn't even understand how that worked now that I have more understanding and I create much better articles I believe I could use that though I'm not asking for it now. If you're really not happy with me creating these myself why isn't the suggestion that I can draft them and ask you (or another admin etc) to approve them? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: Thankyou for you're reply, I'm not convinced that if they existed they would be merged, a few probably would but most wouldn't also I still doubt that if I were creating the articles with meaningful content anyone would seriously question it. Regarding the last point this isn't really the case, I'm saying that I can ask you (or some other user(s)) to approve any number of articles. I'm not very keen on the AFC submission process and I though it was only temporary until the next appeal, as was noted 2 years ago AFC is backlogged and I think its babyish for an editor of my experience to use it, can I suggest if this appeal isn't successful that we just revoke the AFC submission access namely something like "The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined furthermore the ability to submit articles to AFC is also revoked". As far as I'm aware requests for loosening can only be made every 6 months (or year in my case) but a proposal to revoke could be made at anytime. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: If you feel explicit consensus is required to create them then maybe something like "conditional decline" would be more appropriate for if I do gain consensus so that we don't need to wait until next year if I do later succeed in getting consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: regarding the other things if we agree to a 1 week creation then what about the other things like creating redirects and DAB pages and reducing the appeal time back to 6 months? And what about page moves for closing move requests, as I said above while I can technically close requests if I have to file a RMT to complete it people may wander. Given that I may also need to move drafts to mainspace in accordance with the creation rule would something alone the limes of "Crouch, Swale may only move pages (1) in his userspace, (2) as part of his 1 article a week rule or (3) as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least a week". Note for 2 I use "as part of" since if I am given page mover in the future I may need to move a redirect out of the way to make way for a draft. The 1st, moves in my userspace is already in place, the 2nd would probably be needed as part of the creation process anyway but any views on the 3rd since I have filed so many move requests do you agree it would be helpful for me to be involved in closing some? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: By "revoke" I was meaning prohibit me to submit anymore (other than possibly any of my 1 a week that I haven't yet done). I couldn't really see myself editing happily in the future unless we find ways to deal with the missing parishes. I'm a bit unsure why WTT doesn't accept the proposal that I can ask someone like them to approve articles since that would mean the articles would only be approved at the agreement of someone like WTT so as long as the articles were acceptable who cares how many I create? But if the concern is frequency then allowing me to create 1 article a week directly would definitely be better. Obviously if we do find a way to create the parishes I'd still appeal my ban every 6 months or year but I'd be a lot happier and would be far less likely to push for anything. We probably need to ask how the articles can be created then? By bot? there seems to be a consensus against that with respect to technical (and also possibly quality) issues. By me directly? that's the main question here but it seems people aren't allowing that. By approval of an arbitrator (or similar) that's the latest proposal but WTT has rejected it. Another option I can think of is sorting the missing articles by county and users who are interested in general or in specific county could create some and county's Wikiprojects could be notified (or the county articles) to recruit editors, if we got 10 editors each would only need to create around 50 for this to be done and if we got 50 ediotrs each would only need to create around 10. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• @BDD: Note that the RFC is still open though the tag has been removed since it was started over a month ago (now 2 months, I hadn't noticed the tag had been removed!) so I'm not really sure what to do though I suppose I could continue discussing things there but it probably won't get any outside audience. As a side note my appeal wasn't a few hours early I was unblocked at 17:47 (even though it was enacted at 16:49 Special:Diff/817961869) 31.12.2017 and appealed a few hours late in July the next year because I was at an event and didn't want to cut that short for the sake of a few hours. My other appeals were at 17:48 at the end of December 2018, July 2019 and December 2019, in the last appeal I was told I had to wait until 1 January 2021. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Almost exactly a year ago I said (in part) This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place.[2] Everyone is one year older and there have been many changes in the world since then, but I am still not seeing any evidence that Crouch, Swale understands why they were placed under these restrictions and no evidence they understand why previous appeals were declined. The request to be allowed to appeal every six months speaks volumes to this last point imo. So I recommend that this appeal is declined. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Crouch, Swale: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale: Arbitrator views and discussion

• This appeal does not appear to have a glimmer of recognizance about why the restriction was placed, and contains nothing that would incline me to grant it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Fuchs, and add that this appeal is so complex I think its enforcement and implementation would be a nightmare. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Having read through the RfC I don't see any consensus of the kind called for by the current restriction. I'm sympathetic to the frustration of having to operate under an edit restriction but the gulf between Crouch, Swale's desired kind of article and the community's receptivity to those kinds of articles seems to remain. As such this restriction still appears to be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: let's imagine that we agree to remove your AfC requirement (not saying we or even I will). Could you imagine yourself editing happily with your other restrictions for the indefinite future? By indefinite I don't mean 12 months. I mean 24, 48, 60, or more months. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale: I too am an editor in a niche topic area so I am generally of the "whatever floats your boat" disposition when it comes to how competent volunteers spend their time. Want to add categories to pages? Sure, go for it. Want to make sure dashes and emdashes are used correctly? Have fun. Want to sift through new articles as quality control? Hey me too. The problem here is that your enthusiasm for your particular niche area far outstrips the community's excitement for it.

  If you think of an excitement scale for new articles that goes from 10 (need to create this article right now) to -10 (need to delete this article right now) you're seemingly at a 10. The community's excitement level seems to be closer to a -1. If you were say at a 2 or a 3 about creating parish articles you could happily go along without anyone bothering you despite the mismatch; in fact that seems to be what the restrictions have done, throttle you back to the enthusiasm of someone who is at a 2 or 3. However, you're still a 10. For me the two options are either for you to find contentment with being at a 2 or a 3 or to find a new way to express your enthusiasm for this topic. I just don't see the community, in any near term time horizon, moving its tolerance level and so I, as an elected representative of the community, can't see myself supporting the kinds of changes you seem to be looking for. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've spent a little time re-acquainting myself with this situation and reviewing that RFC and I have to agree with what's already been said, the community doesn't seem to want this, and I find the request rather tone-deaf and not compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that the RfC consensus seems to be against creating rafts of "civil parish" articles, which as others have noted above, weighs strongly against this request. @Crouch, Swale: bearing this in mind, can you point us to the three best articles you've created in the past year that typify the work you would like to do if the restriction were relaxed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm awaiting more community input here, but at the moment I agree with David Fuchs. Discretionary sanctions aren't as complicated as the scheme proposed here. Katie^talk 13:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Agreeing with David Fuchs here, I see nothing in this appeal that should lead us to a different conclusion than last year. If anything, in the RFC linked to users seem to largely agree that such articles should not be created. Regards SoWhy 14:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: Whether "they clearly do still meet our inclusion guidelines" seems to be one of the points where people disagree with you. The RFC you started basically presupposes consensus in favor of such articles but in the last ARCA, it was pretty clear that "clearly" is not the right word to describe consensus wrt to these articles. As Iridescent for example wrote, "there's no indication that anyone other than you has ever thought that separate articles for parish councils is a sensible idea". So, before we can consider lifting any such restrictions, this content-related question needs to be addressed first and that is outside our purview. Imho, the correct way to address this would first be to establish consensus on all articles you wish to create (i.e. whether each subject is worthy of inclusion) and only if there is a consensus-approved list of articles that actually need to be created, we can discuss whether you should be the one creating them. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Crouch, Swale approached me on my talk page about this - I told him it was a bad idea. I'll re-iterate that. The community's views do not match Crouch, Swale's views on creation of these articles. Crouch, Swale has been topic banned due to his actions in this area, and given the distance between the community views and his views - I have no doubt any relaxation of the topic ban will lead to an increase in problematic behaviour. I firmly decline this request. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale, yes, seriously. We have relaxed your restrictions as far as I am comfortable doing so. Consistently, I have sought to make it clear that you that I would not be supporting you creating large numbers of articles on UK settlements. We have allowed you to create some at a significantly reduced rate, and I am glad you are using that sensibly - however it is still clear that the community does not agree that the large numbers of articles you want to create should exist. As to your arguments:

  1. "I thought this was supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit", I'm sure this point is rhetorical, but I will answer it anyway. Yes, anyone can edit, until they can't. In other words, this is an encyclopedia built by a social group - and if you cannot work with that social group, you can no longer edit. Which brings me to your next point.
  2. "I can't see any basis in policy etc for why these articles shouldn't exist" - One of out top level policies is WP:CONSENSUS. The RfC you started showed a consensus that they probably shouldn't exist and that you shouldn't be judging whether they should.
  3. "Is there really any point in me trying to do the right thing if all you are going to do is dismiss every attempt to do so? Every attempt to try to adjust by behaviour seems to have been dismissed and I feel I'm just wasting my time" I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hoped that allowing you free access to the majority of the encyclopedia as well as limited access to creating articles in the area you have a history of problematic behaviour would be sufficient. However, I go back to my point 2 years ago - "to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby"
  4. "If these articles already existed or I wasn't banned I have no doubt that no one would rush to delete/merge them or ban me from creating them?" There, we disagree. Articles would be deleted eventually, and if you were mass creating against consensus, you would be banned. Similarly, I am looking at your appeal on it's current merits, and what I see is "your view does not match the community view" and therefore your appeal to mass create articles against the consensus should be declined
  5. "If you're really not happy with me creating these myself why isn't the suggestion that I can draft them and ask you (or another admin etc) to approve them?" This is status quo (although not me, or an admin) at a throttled rate of ~50 articles per year, that you may create articles that can be reviewed and submitted.

  I hope this clarifies things for you Crouch, Swale, but I do not intend to go round in circles, when we have had very similar discussions in the past. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'd like to hear the views of the community and other arbs, but I could accept removing the AFC requirement, as long as the throttle of 1 per week remains. Worm^TT(talk) 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale you still seem to be missing the point - you have pre-supposed that the articles should be all created, which goes against existing consensus and are unwilling to listen to the many editors telling you that they should not be. No single editor should be forced to check your contributions, especially if you were mass creating articles against consensus. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am open to removing the AfC requirement without changing the throttle level. Crouch, Swale has demonstrated that he can make quality articles in this area. But that RfC is extremely recent, and should have made him think again before requesting a lifting of restrictions the moment he was allowed to do so again (it looks like he was even a few hours early). Here's my advice to you, Crouch, Swale: impress us. Continue to make quality articles within your restrictions. And take a step back. Understand why the restrictions are in place, why the recent RfC was met with skepticism. I'm not saying I'd automatically decline if you ask again as soon as you're able, but strongly consider not doing so. Let the merits of your editing convince us and the community that lifting the restrictions will be in the encyclopedia's best interests. I genuinely hope you're able to do so. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale, thank you for the clarification, but the RfC still being technically open just reinforces what I said. In terms of "a few hours early", I was just referring to the most recent appeal and the requirement to wait for 1 January 2021. I could've sworn I saw an earlier timestamp above, but it's possible I was looking at something else. Again, basic point still stands. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Eastern Europe

Initiated by EvergreenFir at 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Eastern Europe arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by EvergreenFir

Does the scope of the discretionary sanctions promulgated by this amendment or original case include Turkey? I ask because I recently have noticed an increase in complaints around nationalist editing for and against Turkey, as well as disruptive editing around Turkey and Armenia. Examples include:

• Special:Permalink/998091874#Account dedicated to anti-Turkish agenda
• [3]
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC_Closure_Review_Request
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive421#User:Konli17_reported_by_User:Beshogur_(Result:_Blocked)

Eastern_Europe#Southeast_Europe says the part of Turkey is in Eastern Europe, but only a small portion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Further clarification: If Turkey is included, then would Uyghurs be included as well? This is another area full of disruption. The article describes the Uyghurs as a "Turkic ethnic group". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

The sanctions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 were put in place, per the 2013 Clarification request, to deal with cases of ethnic conflicts similarly related to the one of Armenia/Azerbaijan. This would likely include the conflict between Armenia and Turkey, but I can't imagine it would be so permissive to include just Turkey (and certainly not the Uyghurs). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter (Eastern Europe)

I am sure the EE discretionary sanctions do not include Turkey-Armenia relations. They are rooted in WP:EEML, and Turkey has never been an issue there. On the other hand, recently the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh intensified in real life, because Azerbaijan took an offensive against this Armenia-held area with the support of Turkey, and was able to regain control over a considerable part of it (with Armenians being evacuated). This caused escalation of Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes all over the internet, including Wikipedia. The reason that Turkey-Armenia issues escalated are in this conflict, and it would be reasonable to add them to the Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions. Furthermore, if we are talking about Turkey-Syria issues, these are neither Eastern Europe nor Armenia-Azerbaijan. They are currently covered by general sanctions, and I believe upgrading them to DS could be a good idea but it would require a full case and can not be done as clarification.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghurs live in China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, I do not see them being relevant for the EE DS however broadly we interpret them.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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

• Procedural comment: @Worm That Turned: One of the forgotten about tools in your toolbox is the review case. I think the last time the committee used it was R&I, but it is an option --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: I'm just stating options, not advocating for one course of action :P --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I don't believe the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions have ever included Turkey. However, note that there is a separate DS authorization for Armenia and Azerbaijan. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with NYB and think that if we're going to expand a DS to include Turkey, A&A2 would be a better candidate. If folks think its warranted, I would also be a fan of just passing a separate Turkey DS by motion, but I'd like feedback to know the extent of the problem so we have a good idea what the scope should be. I find including Uyghurs under either to be...a stretch. Sure there are a few Uyghurs in Turkey, but it is mostly a China issue. The "related ethnic conflict" wording of A&A2 is broad, but I think not broad enough to include Uyghurs. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• A&A2 did include Turkey for some editors, however I feel loathed to just stick in DS for the area, without giving it a review - A&A2 was in 2008 and hasn't been modified since 2013 - alternatively a fresh case might be an option. I agree with the above arbs that Eastern Europe would not be the best case to link to. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Guerillero shudder, do we want to open that box? Pandora seems to be holding it. Worm^TT(talk) 16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, Turkey is not included in the Eastern Europe case. I would really like to leave it at that... but it's hard to see how "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" won't ensnare a fair amount of Turkey. Still, the 2013 A&A amendment did not add "Turkey, broadly interpreted", much less "Turkic peoples, broadly interpreted". --BDD (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Agree that EE does not include Turkey. If there are problems that need review and which are outside the A&A scope, it would probably need a full case. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think WTT's statement reflect my thinking well on this matter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---