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 GeneralNotability (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 2 February 2022 (→‎Scientology: enact). 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
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Motion name Date posted
Discretionary sanctions topic area changes 27 January 2022

Motions


Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

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

Senkaku islands

Motion passed. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded.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

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

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku islands Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. No sanctions since 2013 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would also note that the only user ever subject to these sanctions got indef blocked 8 years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BDD (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  • I would support if Thryduulf's suggestion "the Committee will consider a request to reinstate the DS by motion following an ARCA request" were incorporated. The topic's volatility is more contingent on PRC/ROC/JPN diplomacy or the need of any one of those 3 nations for some distraction from domestic politics than our DS policy. Keeping a speedier reaction in our toolbox, quicker than working through a new case, may be prudent. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the discussion down the way about the tension in philosophy, if this needs an actual response I would think one of the community mechanisms (RFPP, EWN, even ANI) more efficient to sorting out any particular issue that should pop up rather than remembering that there are DS that haven't been used in close to a decade, given how small the topic area under DS is and how flashpoint it is rather than an area with a steady state need for removal of bad actors and extraordinary page protection.... Izno (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku islands Community discussion

  • In their respective countries, island ownership disputes end up being a flashpoint for nationalism and people get very passionate about it. I've seen this firsthand in real life. Dokdo is another example. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth adding a note that should this flare up again that the Committee will consider a request to reinstate the DS by motion following an ARCA request. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general, and purely semantic, comment applicable to all these motions, I would suggest using the word "terminated" rather than "rescinded." I believe "terminated" makes it clear that the sanctions were valid from the time they were imposed through the present, but now are coming to an end because they are no longer needed. The word "rescinded" could potentially be misread as meaning the Committee has decided the sanctions never should have been imposed to begin with, which is clearly not the intention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most people are familiar with the concept of laws or rules being rescinded once they are no longer needed, particularly during this period of health-related rules. However I'm not strongly opinionated about using rescinded versus terminated. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the mind that DS create more problems than they resolve - depending on one's perspective, of course. I sincerely believe DS/AE is a failed process, and adds nothing over what a trusted administrator can already do with few exceptions. DS/AE opens the door to WP:POV creep and all but eliminates admin accountability. Forgive my boldness for taking what some may consider an unfavorable position by lump summing our woes into one big snowball rolling downhill. I consider open discussion to be the highway to resolution, whereas silencing editors and working against open discussion under the guise of DS/AE (even when 1RR/consensus is required) is a bumpy backroad that gives first-mover advantage and opens the door to WP:POV creep regardless of the topic. Please consider my response to be project wide and relative to ALL topics brought here by ArbCom. Ironically, DS consensus required can result in an editor unfairly being sanctioned for "bludgeoning" when that may not have been the case at all. We even have an essay about CIVIL POV PUSHING that is often misrepresented as a violation of WP:TE and considered disruption - all for the purpose of ridding the topic area of opposing views, especially when the responses are meaningful enough to persuade outcomes. I've also seen no smoking gun cases for disruption result in t-bans per WP:POV railroad. Do we simply ignore the injustices, or convince ourselves that the decision to site ban/t-ban/block an editor per DS/AE was fair and reasonable even in cases when it wasn't? I'm not saying all actions have been unwarranted, but the few that weren't are reason enough to reconsider. A DS/AE action is nearly impossible to reverse, so how does that actually benefit the project when an injustice is involved? I can't help but be reminded of The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta and the essay, WP:IDGAF - it's all quite relative when considering where DS/AE is taking us. I was reluctant to add this url, but based on my prior experiences as a corporate executive overseeing "damage control" I thought it best to share it. I imagine many have already seen it circulating on social media. The only reason I watched it was because of my dedication to this project. Every little chip that comprises the foundation of WP is worth examining. Atsme 💬 📧 04:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At present, administrators don't have liberty in general to impose editing restrictions (such as on a page, a topic area, or an individual editor). I'm not sure, though, if you feel that editing restrictions are unnecessary on English Wikipedia, as they are a restriction on open discussion? isaacl (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issacl, see this motion. DS/AE inadvertently restricts the kind of open discussion/debate needed to reach consensus (and ultimately NPOV) but I'm of the mind, and arguably so, that the majority of our problems may be caused by aggressive (not so much bold) editors and their AE admin allies who share the same POV. DS/AE makes bold admins even bolder, so those whose nature it is to control the narrative have the advantage in DS restricted topic areas. I do know for a fact that when an admin ambush attacks an editor, that action is rarely, if ever, questioned while under the umbrella of AE, and much harder if not impossible to overturn. Perhaps rotation of admins in controversial topic areas would help resolve some of the issues, or at least offer some of us peace of mind. PAs should never be allowed but at the same time, AE isn't the only remedy. Any admin can nip disruption in the bud with a simple warning and hatting of the offensive comment(s), or in a worse case scenario, impose a short article ban against the offending editor. I'm of the mind that DS/AE gives rise to WP:POV creep which amplifies the problems. It's odd that DS result from a committee decision because no other DR process was able to provide a remedy, yet DS/AE allows for sole discretion enforcement by ambush attack which unfairly places editors at a disadvantage with a slim chance of presenting a proper defense against an action that cannot be easily overturned, and where admins have a clear advantage. It should be repealed, and sole discretion limited to disruptive trolling and other unambiguous disruption that harms the project. Long term productive editors should not be subjected to such draconian measures, especially those arising from DS/AE. This AfD discussion is an excellent example to model after for consensus building. The close was well thought out by four highly respected admins who included the following in their closing statement: We therefore strongly recommend that the DRN process be resumed and pick up the attempts at source analysis carried out in this discussion, which show promise in breaking the deadlock. If nothing else, the failure of more than 200 editors to reach any actionable consensus in this discussion shows that there is an urgent need to better define and refine the core elements of this dispute into a more manageable set of questions, if they are to be put to the wider editing community. A few editors who weren't getting the results they wanted insisted on closing the discussion early, and an admin responded with this comment. I don't think any veteran editor was blocked or t-banned, much less warned for bludgeoning, TE, or over-zealousness in their approach. I consider it progress. Atsme 💬 📧 19:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I was reflecting solely on your comment that authorizing administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion doesn't add anything over what an administrator can already do. If I understand your response, I believe you are saying that, in your view, this additional discretion is unnnecessary and can hamper discussion. I appreciate the time spent in your comments. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other naming and island-control disputes are more contentious than this and survive without discretionary sanctions, two examples being the Spratly Islands and Imia/Kardak. There is also the Liancourt Rocks dispute; I am not sure what the state of sanctions is on that topic but there were DS in the past. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf education

Motion passed. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf education Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. No sanctions since 2014 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Waldorf education Community discussion

  • Aw, my favourite example of the Weird DS Topic. I read the case for this one a while back; it seemed more circumscribed than most things we'd put under DS, and the parties involved seem to have left the topic. Vaticidalprophet 00:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is presently a motion at WP:A/R/M regarding DS on the topic of Waldorf Education. Being broadly construed, these DS clearly covers all of the article on the creator of Waldorf Education, Rudolf Steiner. A thread relating to this article began at WP:FTN on 1 January 2022. More recently, Clean Copy has been editing this article and has initiated a talk page discussion regarding sourcing and the use of variations on the term "pseudoscience." Following those edits, tgeorgescu has posted DS notifications to Clean Copy (citing WP:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS, not the Waldorf case) and has also added a new subsection to the FTN discussion and initiated an AE thread on Clean Copy. In the AE thread, Alexbrn has noted that Clean Copy previously edited as Hgilbert and I note that there were adverse findings of fact regarding Hgilbert in the original Waldorf education case. The history of the page user:Hgilbert shows that it was made into a redirect to user:Clean Copy on 12 July 2016 as part of the renaming, so the link that Alexbrn notes between the Hgilbert and Clean Copy accounts is verified.
    It may well be that allegedly problematic edits relating to Steiner's beliefs and views are adequately covered by the pseudoscience or other cases, but will the same be true of all areas caught by the Waldorf DS? I suggest that ArbCom might want to reconsider the motion when there is active discussion of one of the editors who was part of the original case. Hgilbert was found to have been advocating for Waldorf Education and it is unclear to me whether the Waldorf DS regime is entirely redundant to PS and CAM. Barkeep49's statement at the motion that there have been no sanctions under Waldorf since 2014 may be unintentionally misleading if sanctions have been imposed in the area using other regimes, and so there may actually be signs of disruption (other than possibly the present Clean Copy issues) relating to the area that are less obvious as they fall into areas of overlap between DS domains. I don't know whether the Waldorf DS are still needed and I am not offering any comment on Clean Copy's recent edits; however, in light of recent events, I suggest that ArbCom reconsider the question. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not change my assertion that this DS is unneeded to deal with disruption. To the extent that there is disruption admin are handling it using other tools and processes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen has posted to the AE thread to recommended a topic ban "from, at the least, Rudolf Steiner and anthrosophy, broadly construed." Such a ban would clearly be within the central scope of the Waldorf DS regime, no broadly construed required. Would it also fall entirely within the discretion of the PS and / or CAM regimes? Certainly parts of Steiner's article deals with pseudoscience, but what about other parts of it, or the article on Waldorf Education itself, or other parts of that topic area? I agree with ArbCom's move to do away with sanctions and DS regimes which are redundant or no longer necessary in general... I am just concerned that recent events suggest that this topic area may not have become as unproblematic as it first appears. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

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

Ancient Egyptian race controversy Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. No sanctions since 2014 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Barkeep below - even with a recent alert, looks like disruption here is overall rare enough that it can be handled by normal community processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that there is occasional, controllable disruption in this area despite widespread lack of awareness of the sanctions is IMO an argument for getting rid of them, not for keeping them. I agree with the suggestions below by Doug that fringe science in archeology can be treated like fringe science in any other field. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. One alert does not a problematic area make. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that these issues are probably best dealt with by the extant pseudoscience DS anyway. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sanctions have not been used here in quite some time, which indicates to me that if flareups are occurring, the community is resolving it (with or without the help of administrators). --Izno (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thought about the opposition for a few days, and while I sympathize, ultimately I think Opabina and Barkeep make the better case. The area is fraught but tension alone shouldn't justify extraordinary powers. For the exceedingly rare situations that the community cannot adequately handle, Opabina points out that our existing Fringe Science sanctions may still be useful. Taken together, I think any disruption can be adequately handled without these discretionary sanctions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I think we should keep this available a little longer. - Donald Albury 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I won't lose any sleep over this if it passes, but am not inclined to drop this one just yet. 6-12 months out without further disruption? Probably. Similar to my recent oppose to another full Holocaust in Poland case, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the underlying topic area is controversial enough that we can't entirely escape disruption here. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  1. This is an area that for which I have some articles on my watchlist, and while I haven't seen a recent bad flare-up, I am not ready to say that we can dispense with this DS. - Donald Albury 15:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Changed to oppose. - Donald Albury 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some comments responding to this idea, but I'm going to put it here so it doesn't get lost. There's a sense from several editors that this area remains fraught. I believe that. But just because a topic area experiences challenges doesn't mean DS is necessary. DS is an extraordinary grant of power to admins, in the literal out of the normal definition of extraordinary. We have decided that admins have certain power, but normally they don't have the power to just TBAN people. With DS, ArbCom is saying "Admin, we're going to delegate you a portion of our power in order to stop disruption." As such, I feel, ArbCom should be doing this with great intention and doing so in as limited of a way as possible per WP:ARBPOL.
    So when re-evaluating existing DS, I would ask myself "Based on evidence of disruption presented, if I were getting this request for the first time, would I support DS?" When considering DS I look for evidence like noticeboard discussions, socking, and sanctions given by admin to make a decision. At the moment there has been nowhere close to the evidence of these things necessary for me to say that a small dose of ArbCom powers is appropriate. If recent evidence of this type were to be presented I would reconsider. And absent that evidence I ask my fellow Arbs to vote to revoke this DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy Community discussion

  • I understand the urge to be tidy but issues like this never disappear. I issued an alert very recently. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple thoughts. 1) an alert does not mean there has been wrong doing. For me the lack of sanctions is more relevant than the presence, or not, of alerts. 2) Repealing DS is not to say that the topic area lacks any issue. Just that the extraordinary tools of Discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary. Instead normal tools and processes should be sufficient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure but that was one of the alerts that I fully expect will need a follow up (a topic ban) in due course. There is no reasonable way for normal processes to deal with people on a mission other than a very bold WP:NOTHERE indef. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We do, of course, have other ways of issuing topic bans besides DS, most notably we can do so as a community at ANI. Reasonable people can of course differ on this, but for me even a single topic ban in 8 years would not suggest DS is still necessary. It says to me that this topic area is no longer one of our "most contentious and strife-torn" to quote from WP:AC/DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: it may be that lack of sanctions is due to lack of knowledge about the area being under sanctions. For instance there's nothing at Talk:Afrocentricity about them. And despite them being on the top of Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy I somehow forgot about them. There is still active disruption and frequent enough on various pages that I see no benefit in getting rid of sanctions for this area. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I'd been aware of the sanctions I would definitely have brought several editors to AE since 2014. As I said, I don't think the active editors in this area have all been aware of the sanctions. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point, I've been an active editor in the Ancient Egypt topic space for years including involvement in a so-called 'race dispute', but this is the first I'm hearing about there being DS in the area. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller @Mr rnddude let me suggest that you are reaffirming why I think they should be revoked. DS is not the default. We don't do DS because it's nice for admin to have. It is an exceptional grant of power for exceptional circumstances. If we've been managing disruption in the area without DS then it's not needed in my view. What would change my mind is evidence of recent notice board discussions suggesting that the community can't, on its own, handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: I'd like to suggest a couple of other solutions. I've been in discussions with archaeologists for several months about the rise in belief in pseudoarcheology including this particular area. It's pretty clearly part of a general increase in belief in various other conspiracy theories in politics, and is sort of "don't believe anything mainstream" view, pushed on the Internet and in various tv programs. What I think might be the best thing is to subsume this as part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, stating this specifically. I actually think that pseudoarcheology is already covered by sanctions in those areas. If that isn't acceptable, how about a one year probation period, with a clause that if certain conditions aren't met then the sanctions lapse. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: any comments? Doug Weller talk 08:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to be a pain, but I want to make sure those who have voted to dismiss these sanctions have seen my suggestion, so pinging @L235, Beeblebrox, Opabinia regalis, Primefac, CaptainEek, and Izno:. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not, actually. If it really is as closely-tied as you say, then slapping a DS for pseudoscience wouldn't necessarily require us formally allowing it, but I do suppose amending the proposal to say "this is essentially taken over by the pseudoscience DS" can't do any harm. I'll have to think about the interconnections. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug, truth be told I focused most of my Arb attention this weekend on the current case request for which I am a drafter. As a former Arb I'm sure you understand the hope, at times, that another arb will do the deeper work for which you are unable to at a given time. But really wraping my head around what it would mean to subsume this in a different DS and coming up with possible conditions for it to expire, rather than examining the kind of evidence I speak about above, is just not something I've had the ability to do yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: Thanks for your response. I sympathize entirely. That was certainly my experience. I'm just hoping that the Committee will consider this. I'm not suggesting both subsuming and options to expire, I'm actually saying that the best option in my opinion is simply to subsume this to fringe science, failing that the options to expire. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did consider your suggestions before voting to remove DS here. Izno (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Doug, thanks for your note. Give me some time to consider this. The motion isn't at a majority yet so we have some time before it is enacted. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that it's difficult to deal with non-cooperative editors in any area. To date, in most areas they are dealt with by holding a community discussion to determine if any appropriate editing restrictions are warranted. In some areas, there are so many editors to deal with that it would be difficult to keep up with community discussions, and administrators have been authorized to levy sanctions based on their personal judgment. Are there still too many disruptive editors in this area such that community discussions can't handle them? Conversely, is community discussion unable to deal with disruptive editors in most or all areas? (I can see how one could make a case for this, considering the amount of time that has to be spent in discussion, but I am dubious if it is a consensus view, particularly since the alternatives means some form of hierarchy.) isaacl (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the "things" (we know what they are) that should remain on the statute book, as it were, ad infinitum, or almost at least: there's good reason for it to be there, and little for it to be removed, IMHO. SN54129 10:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend that sanctions be retained at Ancient Egyptian race controversy a bit longer. We do still get POV-pushers from time to time. Some accept a consensus against them, and some are more militant. I don't know if keeping sanctions here would cause any harm? Wdford (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in agreement with Serial Number 54129. Else, DW's alternative of a one year probation period subject to conditions.
  • Sanctions don't make controversial topic areas uncontroversial; rather, they prevent editors from achieving NPOV which is why those topic areas are controversial. Balanced articles are rarely controversial. Atsme 💬 📧 22:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any topic related to the ethnicity of historical people is controversial. The description of Frédéric Chopin is the first of many examples at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, and I have Ibn al-Haytham watchlisted to watch for disputes on Arab v. Persian starting again. I don't think Ancient Egyptian race is uniquely problematic in that context, but the re-thinking of Discretionary Sanctions may need to consider a broader restriction in this area. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at WP:DS2021, Talk:Cleopatra race controversy isn't even tagged for these sanctions (despite obviously being covered). This still feels incredibly safe to just get rid of.
    If we are going to go down the road of using Pseudoscience to cover pseudohistory/pseudoarcheology as Doug Weller suggested, then at that point we might as well add Shakespeare authorship question into that mix, too. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support both Barkeep49's and Opabinia's positions whole-heartedly. The fact that people weren't aware of the DS, and the few sanctions that have come up in the last half decade, means that the DS is not needed. We cope with disruptive editors on lots of pages, and the community issues quite a few TBANs "the old-fashioned way" all the time. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

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

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

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. 1 topic ban and 3 page protections since 2010. Current disruption seems like it could be handled using the standard enforcement actions - for instance there is no indication that the indefinite page protections would be changed if they were not "protected" by DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Amusing and reassuring that we have proven to outlast the disruption here CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  • Barkeep49 Double checking, the intent in the motion indicates to me that those indefinite page protections will remain as DS actions until someone appeals those successfully or we move to remove them. Is that a correct reading? --IznoPublic (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Not Barkeep but that's my understanding. The relevant administrators (Oshwah for Dianetics, El C for Nathan Rich) may also choose to modify the actions or abrogate the AE status of those protections. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno the intent is to do as Kevin suggests. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Community discussion

  • Abrogate — I learn a new word! Anyway, if the relevant notices reflect the rescinding, I think that suffices. Though, in the case of Nathan Rich, there's both a {{Ds/talk notice|topic=blp}} and a {{Ds/talk notice|topic=sci}}, neither of which added by me, btw. Also, for some reason, the sci DS is framed inside of the WikiProject Scientology notice (that's marked inactive), I just noticed. I don't know what's happening. El_C 20:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I am rather surprised no one has objected to this? I'm really reluctant to see Scientology get the axe (being the one time I think its disuse is a sign that it is working rather than the the opposite), but I guess I am alone in that thought since more people objected to Ancient Egyptian race controversy being removed than this one. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MJL: I was amazed when I saw the report that we had so few problems these days from it. While I share your nervousness on what might happen with its removal (and also your "this is not my normal position"), we probably should remove it on the basis that it no longer is "exceptional", just an appreciable risk. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark worldwide

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

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

Landmark worldwide Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. No sanctions since 2015. To the extent that this is still needed it may need to be more about new religious movements but that would likely need to be its own case/request. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BDD (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Landmark worldwide Community discussion

  • I recall mentioning the existence of these Discretionary Sanctions as a historical note in one AFD; however there was no disruption that could justify the use of DS there. The lack of any other interest is a sign this can be rescinded. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

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

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

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. The current scope of this area is much broader than some other equally fractious areas, including American Politics and Palestine-Israel. For instance American railroads are not covered by DS but under the current wording Indian railroads could be. This attempts to name the scope of the dispute in a way more consistent with other sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We would never think to authorize discretionary sanctions for "Europe and the United States, broadly construed". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I'm closely following community comments and am open to a broader scope or explicitly listing out additional examples of what would be in-scope. I'll wait for more comments before proposing a change to this motion or a new motion, though. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I'm still listed in the support column here, I don't intend for this motion as written now to be passed in light of community comments. Comments have been quite helpful here and I am inclined to propose something along the lines of V93's suggestions below. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per Vanamonde's comment in the consultation, I don't believe narrowing the scope is in the best interest of the encyclopedia; I prefer the broad scope. I share the intuition that narrower is neater, but that rule of thumb doesn't always hold. Community members have raised interesting questions about the scope of "politics" for example. Just on its own terms, that word can have very wide or narrow scope depending on who is doing the reading. That can make our enforcement unpredictable and unfair for editors. While edge cases may be covered by other DS or GS regimes, lack of overlap can actually make our responses worse. If someone is warned about this narrow scope, but then goes and causes problem on out-of-scope India-Pakistan BLPs we'd need to issue an entirely new alert before addressing the issue. We wind up playing whack-a-mole across DS areas rather than having a clear and unambiguous way for administrators to deal with what can be complex and unpredictable nationalistic disruption. I'm open to considering whatever new wordings people suggest, but for myself I simply can't imagine a good way of rewording this that winds up being a net positive. I'm glad it was brought up for discussion though, as we should reconsider past decisions and not let them sit just out of inertia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I appreciate the discussion, and especially the commentary on the two schools of thought about DS. If we are to limit the scope of this regime, I do not think the current motion fits the way it should be limited, and I am not sure I am yet persuaded that this scope needs limiting at all (though this is less a comment on retaining the status quo and more a comment on how I see how this regime is useful for administrators). --Izno (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Largely per TonyBallioni and Vanamonde's statements. Primefac (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  • While I do understand that this motion is attempting to narrow the scope of ARBIPA (so as mentioned, "an Indian railway" is no longer in scope), my main concern about specifically mentioning castes is that they are already explicitly covered under the WP:CASTE general sanctions; if we name castes, are we effectively taking over GS/CASTE? Primefac (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Primefac: I don't think this changes anything vis-a-vis GS/CASTE, as GS/CASTE is broader in territorial scope than IPA. (Indian/Pakistani castes were definitely already covered by ARBPIA, regardless of this motion and regardless of GS/CASTE.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Caste related issues have already been targeted under this discretionary sanction and from my vantage point, appropriately so. I agree with Kevin in terms of GS/CASTE having a broader scope so that general sanction may be appropriate in some situations where IPA is not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • see also: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#IPA and AA2 narrowing of scope: what is "political"?. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding off voting on this one for now; I agree about the systemic-bias issue in the scope but I think this needs some refinement first. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I see Kevin's point that "We would never think to authorize discretionary sanctions for "Europe and the United States, broadly construed"" this topic has a closer & clearer focus than that, the fallout of the end of the British Raj and how the constituent parts have defined themselves in opposition to the others. At one point in time the locus of dispute is religion, then it's Kashmir, or their race to become nuclear powers. I'm watching as the discussion unfolds but, at present, I'm inclined toward leaving the area loosely defined rather than restricting it to just those issues which are their current topics of dispute. The same considerations also give me pause in #Armenia/Azerbaijan (breakup of the Soviet Union). Cabayi (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly cleaner language: all pages related to politics, religion, history, and social groups in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes @Vanamonde93:, and thank you, Kautilya3, I'd endorse your interpretation as well. I was also considering "social and ethnic groups" or something along those lines. I'm aiming to be concise, but it's helpful to see where things may have slipped through the cracks. Also, this motion wouldn't get rid of the usual "broadly construed". --BDD (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Community discussion

  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including but not limited to castes. Grammatically, this is quite a sentence. It could easily be misread as (all pages related to political or religious topics) + (people closely related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan). Would there be any way to write this in a way that preserves the meaning but is less of a sprawl of conjunctions? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Spitballing: how's Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including but not limited to castes, and closely related people.? cc Barkeep49 KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also we probably should get rid of "all pages related to..." wording, as every DS topic covers pages and edits related to the topic. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No objections to either permutation of that wording @L235. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "history" specifically. That is, [...] related to political or religious or historical topics and closely related people [...]TrangaBellam (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please post this (proposed) update to WT:INB etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Historical topics related to politics or religion are already with-in scope; when ArbCom wants to limit the timeframe it has generally used specific years (as with American Politics). Do you have evidence of disruption to a historical topic that is not related to politics or religion? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything post-partition needs to be included at a minimum -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Will draft a response tomorrow (cc:User:Vanamonde93, User:Kautilya3, User:Fowler&fowler, User:Joshua Jonathan). Fwiw, will either of you deem Indo-Aryan migrations or Sikandar Shah Miri to fall under the updated regime? Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the main issues I had with the IPA sanctions was that they encompass everything by default, and that's not a treatment we give to other areas. On that note, I'm OK with broad sanctions so long as they're based on actual disruption. I can definitely see the argument for extending this to history, though we will definitely need a firm end date to do so. But the current state of affairs is giving admins carte blanche to do whatever they want in any article related to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, which is a privilege that we don't hand out for other countries that have very heated politics. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPA and AA2 narrowing of scope: what is "political"? El_C 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Izno, what about AA2? There isn't really a distinction between IPA and AA2 wrt the military and language examples I brought up. Thanks! El_C 20:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I only copied it once; I don't want to have two discussions if the proposed clarification applies to both. Izno (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fore sure, split discussions are a splitting headache. Anyway, I emphasized/refactored at the AA2 thread. El_C 20:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Fowler&fowler I think I have been pinged, though I did not check the reasons. The "broadly construed" is aptly formulated. Here are my thoughts born of 15 years of WP experience working in the area: It is not really India-Pakistan-Afghanistan anymore. It is mostly India and Pakistan, and of the two it is mostly India. There used to be Pakistan POV-pushers (never galore though), but they for the most part gave up circa 2015 or thereabouts. And, usually, when the Pak-POV-pushers broke the rules they did so with such abandon and so flagrantly as to constitute obvious vandalism for which ARBIPA was not needed. That leaves India. Well, I don't know what it is: the fact that nationalism came late to India, i.e. the sub-nationalism are still bickering violently; that the 2,500-year-old caste-system has cast a pall of hierarchy (Louis Dumont's Homo hierarchicus) as to lie on all discourse; that Hinduism has not come to terms with its civilization being creamed first by the Muslims and then the British; that the solution does not lie in denial or blaming the victors; ... take your pick, but it exists. It is not just history, or caste, or region, or language, or religion, or politics, ... it is the body politic. Sad to say, but there is no India-related topic area that is free of the low-intensity but relentless vandalism or POV promotion (i.e. well-enough organized and coldly-enough polite to fly just under the radar and not constitute blatant vandalism). It needs the ARBIPA sanctions in their full strength and generality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS Now that I recall, I was even part of the dispute that might have led to ARBIPA: in 2007 an admin, and blatant but obviously rule-abiding India- and Hinduism-POV-pusher (Rama's Arrow) was fighting three rule-breaking Pakistan POV defenders, flailing deer in the headlights. I had to fight on behalf of the deer, unsure myself how such fights were to be undertaken. Needless to say, the three deer were banned (for good reasons I'm sure, but I'm suggesting that had ARBIPA been in place the judgments might not have been so stark, so black and white.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that no other DS regime is as broadly worded, and thus revision might be in order as a matter of principle, though I believe there is next to no evidence that the breadth of this has been a negative to Wikipedia. I do wish the wording had been posted for review before the arbs began !voting on it. I have commented elsewhere about why any revision would need to be carefully worded, and I won't repeat those comments. With the present wording, I am seriously concerned about the following points. 1) Armed conflict isn't explicitly covered: describing the Kargil war as "politics" might be stretching a point, especially when the scope isn't "broadly construed". There's endless potential for wikilawyering here. 2) "Castes" is too narrow. I would strongly recommend "social groups". A considerable portion of the population of South Asia ostensibly has no caste identity, but is still involved in conflict similar to that which bedevils caste pages. 3) The biggest problem in my view is that history isn't covered. Indigenous Aryanism, for instance, has been the locus of extreme disruption for a considerable period; and it is ostensibly neither political nor religious (though please note, it is related to social groups; see point 2). 4) The omission of the phrase "broadly construed". Much disruption concerns whether a given topic is religious conflict or not. If the scope were broadly construed, all such pages and edits would be included; as it is, you're opening AE up to endless wikilawyering about scope. I'm unwell, and am limiting my Wikipedia time as a consequence; please ping me if you need my attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the arbitrators came across your comment in the previous meta-discussion yet went about doing precisely what was suggested against but without any in-depth justification. I, for one, will like some explanation. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Often "I demand an explanation" is a stand-in for "I disagree with this" which is of course is fine but often means an explanation is not helpful. I'm not sure how exciting the explanation is in this case but since it's simple I'll go ahead and give it. There were several comments. All were considered and thought about. Kevin and I as drafters then attempted to draft language considering the totality of feedback, including Vanamonde's. Then we posted in a place and in a way to encourage feedback such as what has been offered here. Now the committee as a whole is considering what to do; alternatives may get proposed. This may get voted down. The process is playing out in the way that is normal for ArbCom/Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You chose to float the rewrite and argue in favor of it, using the particular example of railroads, something that V93 had explicitly noted to be in the domain of ARBIPA - is this some attempt at humor? V93 had already made a case for why history shall be mentioned at all costs. In light of that, your reply to my very-similar query is not very confidence-inspiring?
    Overall, the two of you reiterated Chess' opening arguments. Nothing more and nothing less. I understand (and concede) if you are more convinced by Chess than V93—rational people can agree to disagree, and we have a plurality of arbitrators to facilitate a plurality of views—but you need to show how you arrived at that conclusion. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: I, for one, am not demanding explanations. I've worked with several of y'all in different areas, and I trust your intentions. As stated, I agree in principle with the need to narrow the scope here. I do think it would be helpful to discuss the reasons for and against explicitly including history, social groups besides caste, and violent conflict. I've explained my reasoning, here and in the linked comments; if you, or other arbs, disagree with it, it would enhance my trust in the process if you were willing to discuss your reasoning too. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93 indeed you haven't made that demand and I was not referring to you there. I've been thinking over the substance of your comments about castes but I guess I should have replied to your other points. As these are standard discretionary sanctions, they are, by definition, broadly construed so the language isn't needed. Given that we haven't specified a period of time, unlike the DS in several other areas such as AP2 and IRANPOL, I would say historical events around politics and religion (broadly construed) are definitely included just as they are now even though we don't say historical. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: Okay, thanks for clarifying. Also, I'm glad to hear my concern about the scope being broadly construed was misplaced. With respect to history, I don't think politics and religion alone will cut it. I pointed you to Indigenous Aryanism, a locus of much disruption. It is not really a political aspect of history, in that it has nothing to do with group decision making and systems of governance. That stream of thought is occasionally examined as part of a political movement, but the underlying history, of human migration to the Indian subcontinent, is not; and that history desperately needs DS (if you want me to provide evidence of that, let me know). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that we are now using the reworded version that is somewhat clearer, this is certainly an improvement with its reduction in scope. I'm not active in the field, but how major is the ongoing issues with regard to Afghanistan? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't seen any. I had edited a few pages when Taliban was in the front-page-news but never spotted any sort of egregious POV pushing etc.
    It is not warranted to have Afghanistan grouped with India and Pakistan at all. India, Pakistan (and Bangladesh) comprises what is called the Indian subcontinent by many scholars: they share a common history and culture going back to over a millennia and since the partition on religious lines, have evolved into mutual minefields, necessitating these sanctions. Unlike Afghanistan whose history became divorced from that of the subcontinent since late 900 and remained so.
    I will support removing Afghanistan from the remedy. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Bishonen, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Abecedare, Doug Weller, EdJohnston, Rosguill, Johnuniq, and Dennis Brown:, as admins that I know have engaged in enforcing ARBIPA DS in the relatively recent past. Apologies if I've missed anyone, I don't have the time to dig through many AE archives. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: - I am not sure that the previous ping went through. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen is a template all admins should compare themselves to. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixing the rest of Vanamonde's ping: @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Abecedare, Doug Weller, EdJohnston, Rosguill, Johnuniq, and Dennis Brown:. And thank you, GeneralNotability, you must be referring to this example of my highmindedness. Bishonen | tålk 07:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks, Bish, and apologies all for screwed up formatting. As I've said, I've been unwell... Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Johnuniq: Pinging all admins whom I have seen enforcing ARBIPA sanctions. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to see "historical" explicitly mentioned in the wording. Indian historiography is often driven by religious and social group biases that go unstated and can easily become the focus of wikilawyering. We have, for example, the various sock farms that focus on the history of the Meenas, Yadavs, Ahirs, etc., who, as they become more sophisticated, write about kingdoms of dubious historical certainty without explicit reference to social groups, even though that is the subtext of their content. I also agree that we should use the term "social groups" rather than castes because caste refers to something specific in Hinduism while social groups are a broader term (I have a hard time figuring out the distinction - is, for example, "Bishnoi", another sock focus, a social group or a caste?). --RegentsPark (comment) 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely support the inclusion of "historical" and "social groups" for the reasons given by User:RegentsPark. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, Already exists. Is this proposal to merge the two? Venkat TL (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the scopes remain fairly distinct (see above: I don't think this changes anything vis-a-vis GS/CASTE, as GS/CASTE is broader in territorial scope than IPA. (Indian/Pakistani castes were definitely already covered by ARBPIA, regardless of this motion and regardless of GS/CASTE.)). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235 thanks for clarifying. I think you meant ARBIPA and ARBPIA is a typo. After full reading I understand that this proposal reduces the scope of ARBIPA from "broadly construed" to "religious, political and caste". If I broadly understood it correctly, then I support the proposal. Vague sanctions are not good, so this is a step in the right direction. Venkat TL (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's correct, my bad on the typo. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I'm active in placing DS in this area, I'll comment. The old wording is certainly overly broad, but the new leaves me unsure whether nationalist editing by pro-Indian and pro-Pakistani editors is included, for instance concerning Kashmir. Edit warring over a map doesn't necessarily look political, but if it's a map with Kashmir on it, then it probably is. Fowler & fowler makes this point more fully above. Also, I agree with Tranga Bellam that historical topics may deserve a specific mention, because our nationalists and POV-pushers are extremely interested in them. I realize we can't have too much instruction creep, but perhaps something on the lines of "all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in India and Pakistan, including but not limited to conflicts between those nations, historical subjects, and social groups"? (Yes, Afganistan probably doesn't need DS any more, and yes, "castes" is too narrow.) Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: yeah, I completely see where you're coming from. Do you have any suggestions for good wording, or at least any questions we should ponder to find better wording? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [Bishzilla is extremely offended.] Little Shonen's wording fine as is! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 22:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    [Hastily] Shorter would be better, but it's hard to avoid a list effect if all the important stuff wants to crowd in. Perhaps a more empirical approach would be better? Vanamonde points out above that narrowing the scope is perhaps more a matter of principle and optics, while "there is next to no evidence that the breadth of this has been a negative to Wikipedia". I'm not aware of it ever being a negative to Wikipedia either, or indeed of the overworked and harassed admins in this area availing themselves of the "privilege" of broadly phrased sanctions to "do whatever they want", per Chess.[1] I think I've talked myself into agreeing with Wugapodes that the scope doesn't need narrowing. Bishonen | tålk 22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    I believe principle and optics are incredibly valuable. The optics of the situation is that a mostly white and Western cadre of admins has been given near unlimited power to block and ban people involved in India/Pakistan related topics due to ongoing controversy. Unlimited geographic sanctions are typically applied to non-Western countries while topic limited sanctions are given when a Western country is involved. Also consider that WP:PIA is a lot more controversial and has more disruption than WP:IPA, but WP:PIA sanctions are limited to just the conflict while WP:IPA sanctions apply to everything. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple explanation for the current sanctions regime is that while there is disruption in the PIA area, it almost always concerns taking a side in the political conflict—it rarely relates to WP:CIR. However, there is a never ending stream of misguided edits all over the IPA area. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because we don't have many experienced editors to contrast with and it's a very big region that is rapidly getting Internet access. Of course a billion and a half people in South Asia are going to result in more disruptive editing than 300 million in the US. There's 5x as many people. If we went back in time to when the internet was newish in the US we'd find a lot of vandalism and CIR issues as well. But admins dealt with it perfectly fine without a DS on the whole western world.
    The solution in my opinion is to ensure that we are seen as treating that region fairly. This means giving editors who edit in that region the same procedural treatment as we do for other countries. If editors have CIR issues we can have ANI threads where editors are judged by peers and not necessarily AE threads where editors are judged by the cabal. This will help attract editors who are legitimately willing to learn and be active participants in our community, since one of the preconditions for being an equal member is equal treatment. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose my point of view (and maybe Johnuniq's, though I don't want to speak for him) is that we can't treat a region fairly as it's not a person. We can only treat people fairly, and I prefer the traditional definition of justice as giving to everyone what he is owed in each situation. To me, the idea that we should subject the people who are editing this area to more disruption entirely for the sake of "optics" is the exact opposite of fairness to them. I'm not necessarily opposed to a more expansive scope than initially proposed as others here have suggested, but I suppose my view is that any of the suggested expansions in the list would effectively be the same thing as the just keeping the sanction as is, because these issues tend to bleed into unrelated areas. In cases like that, just keeping the existing version thats more expansive decreases conflict surrounding enforcement, and is significantly more fair to the actual people who edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "If editors have CIR issues we can have ANI threads where editors are judged by peers" is way off the mark. We have discretionary sanctions precisely because disruption in some areas is so bad that the community cannot handle it using traditional consensus-based systems. Furthermore, I refuse to believe that the average new and clueless user will have a better time being dragged to ANI than they will dealing with an admin who has the power to sanction them and is therefore dealing with them directly. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Chess I don't think CIR is used in conjunction with the sanctions, so that's really a separate issue. The sanctions issue is that the disruption in the India Pakistan area is driven by the rivalry between India and Pakistan, by the revival of nationalism in India, and by the increasing importance of social identity. The disruption in the India/Pakistan area is so acute, that we've had excellent contributors who have had to leave Wikipedia because of real life harassment. As TonyBallioni says, we need to focus not as much on the region as on the people, and that includes the regular, good faith, editors who have to edit through all this. Tony's last sentence In cases like that, just keeping the existing version thats more expansive decreases conflict surrounding enforcement, and is significantly more fair to the actual people who edit makes the case for the current sanctions very well. The purpose of sanctions is to allow the good faith editors to continue to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia and diluting the scope of the sanctions is not going to be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RegentsPark, great summary. Your reply made me realize the argument against limiting the scope could probably be summed up like this: we should be far more concerned about protecting productive and good faith editors who are being chased away, than we should be concerned about giving procedural protections to the disruptive editors doing the chasing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kevin, elsewhere I had proposed "history, religion, politics, ethnic strife, intergroup relations, and violent conflict". Reading it now "ethnic strife" is likely redundant, but what do you think of the rest of it? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me think about it. I'm definitely open to it. Thanks KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93 and L235:, I wonder what you think about my shorter description "political, religious, social and historical topics" (broadly construed)". It is less list-like and also avoids "conflict". A lot of POV-pushing also has to do with glorification of particular identities and conversely putting down rival identities. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I like "social topics"; that term can cover a lot or a little, depending on how you interpret it. To the unfamiliar editor, it may not be clear if riots, for instance, are covered. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A difficult example is at WP:AE permalink. On the one hand, we should patiently explain editing principles while encouraging better English. On the other hand, that's not scalable. I closed the AE request with a topic ban to stop the damage, and to help the very few editors who monitor related articles. If those editors burn out, the area will be wide open to abuse. With the wording in the proposed motion, topic bans like that will have to be replaced with WP:NOTHERE indefinite blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We also need to work on creating an editor pipeline to get more editors in this topic area. It's hard to believe the most populated region in the world really doesn't have more editors interested in it. Also on what you said, we might also wish to encourage potentially productive editors to edit in their native language Wikipedia if they're not proficient in English. There's room for a better system than the non English welcome templates we have considering how many languages there are in that region, so it's hard to assume. Maybe a generic "South Asian non-English welcome" that links to information on all the language Wikipedias for that region. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call me a former AE regular (I generally don't participate there anymore), so this is coming from someone who has dealt with it first-hand, but who at this point is probably distanced enough from the day-to-day to reflect on what is actually necessary and what is overkill.
    I think one of the difficult things about the South Asian topic area is how intertwined all the various very passionate arguments are, which is one thing that makes it different than say, the Arab-Israeli conflict. Generally speaking, Israeli films aren't going to be something that even a Palestinian nationalist editor is going to feel like causing disruption over. In the India-Pakistan space, there are so many different topics that could possibly come up in film that would cause a fight. That's one of the more extreme examples, but it also isn't really that outlandish. If something like that could feasibly crop up in film, what other unseen topic areas could conflict occur in that would be on the edge of the proposed sanctions?
    While you could argue that history, religion, or politics was the reason for that, in AE, you don't really want to give people room to wikilawyer, because the people who end up there tend to be skilled wikilawyers. There's no real evidence of abuse of discretion, even the principle one that Vanamonde93 raises as a potential reason to narrow the scope has its flaws. The central argument to this is that we're treating a developing region of the world more strictly than we are the rest of the world (that's either a spoken or unspoken underlying current in a lot of the arguments.) Arguably, treating every country uniformly without recognizing the differences is more problematic: India and Pakistan are not the United States and Israel. They have diverse and rich social histories and they are complicated by the fact that the partition was hastily done decades ago, and because of that many of these issues permeate society and culture in a way that is not the case in other countries. That make it significantly harder to limit scope.
    Editors from these regions and who are interested in these regions have a right to edit free from harassment and disruption in areas where there is potential risk of that. Because it is more difficult to determine what areas are at risk for disruption because of the unique histories of these nations, limiting the scope the way we would limit it for many Western nations would make it harder for good faith editors to edit in peace, not easier. Being culturally sensitive/aware of the way we treat people from non-Western regions doesn't mean treating the topics the same as we treat Western topics. It means ensuring that they have the same ability to edit free from disruption that we would extend to Westerners editing Western topics. Narrowing the scope here would likely hinder that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an editor that works in the IPA space and find the DS extremely valuable. Usually a DS-Alert itself is enough to curb disruption. The AE cases have reduced over the years, and India-Pakistan conflicts are now negligible (on Wikipedia, not in the real world). I would be in favour of narrowing the scope to "political, religious, social and historical topics" (broadly construed). These should cover the majority of topics that face disruption and WP:NOTHERE sanctions can cover the rest. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
  • As an editor/admin who has been active in this topic area, I'll +1 the comments and observations made by Vanamonde93 and Bishonen above. In short, my recommendations would be:
    1. It's worthwhile to narrow the scope of the ARBIPA DS-regime as a matter of principle even if the current language is not being abused.
      • Personally, I would even be fine with excluding Afghanistan altogether but perhaps editors/admins who work on Afghanistan-related articles are better positioned to comment on that.
      • And while our recommendations regarding the narrowing may not match, TonyBallioni observations regarding the intertwined conflicts and skilled wiki-lawyering in this topic area are spot on!
    2. Please do explicitly mention 'history' in any revised language, since that is a central cause and locus on conflict.
    3. Any (even contemporary) Indo-Pak conflict is founded on political, religious, and historical grounds and should remain within the scope of the sanctions. This can be achieved by either retaining the 'broadly construed' language of the original remedy or explicitly mentioning 'Indo-Pak relations' in the update. Else, with the narrower scope, in 2019 editors would have wikilawyered that events like 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes were neither political, religious nor historical and thus not covered by the sanctions.
    4. And please broaden 'caste' to 'social groups' since linguistic and ethnic divisions, and not caste per se, are a common cause for on-wiki disruption.
Let me know if you would like me to expand on any of the above points. Abecedare (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. These are insightful. I'll take them into account. Regarding "broadly construed", WP:AC/DS provides that all DS topics are broadly construed, so I'd like to not duplicate that. (Having it in some but not others implies that only those that have the wording are actually broadly construed, which is wrong.) However, if the community views it as a priority to include it (even if redundant), I will consider that too. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can safely drop Afghanistan from the sanctions. The two Afghanistan and India/Pakistan areas that tend to see disruption include articles related to the Anglo-Afghan wars and the Pashtuns. Both, and any other articles that overlap with India or Pakistan, will be adequately covered by "broadly construed". A blanket inclusion of Afghanistan is unwarranted. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a pretty common theme and I can definitely support it. Is there anyone or any project that should be notified in particular if we choose to propose removing Afghanistan? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiproject Afghanistan has been long defunct for all practical purposes and Danre98's comments over this thread are spot-on. Still, a notification ought not do any harm. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Afghanistan can probably be removed. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 19:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting since I got pinged: I actually didn't even think of IPA as being a topic I am particularly active in; it looks like my AE actions in this field have been relatively happenstance. In line with others' observations above, it does seem like the India part of the regime is much more pertinent than the Afghanistan or Pakistan parts. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, perhaps this is pie in the sky, but is there any possibility for us to rename the DS regimes so that the South Asia and Israel/Palestine codes are more distinct? signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To mention about Afghanistan, there has been enough disruption on pages like War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Panjshir conflict, Pashtuns, Reactions to the fall of Kabul (2021) and others. The disruption on these pages also resulted in blocks or topic bans on the editors in question. Other Afghanistan articles like Afghan Women's Network, Afghanistan, National Resistance Front of Afghanistan are ECP protected per Arbitration Enforcement action. About 4 editors got topic ban related to Afghanistan in 2021 alone. @RegentsPark and L235: you should take a note of this. There should be no reduction in the current scope DS concerning Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. Those saying that there has been less disruption in these areas in the recent years are certainly confirming that these sanctions are working. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments; they'll be considered. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Is it your view that territorial disputes and violent conflict between countries (e.g., the Siachen conflict) are covered under your proposal, or are you intentionally leaving them out? Not a rhetorical question, genuinely unsure. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not speaking for BDD, but I would definitely put territorial conflicts under "politics". Riots, that you mentioned last night, would also get covered under politics or religion or social groups most of the time. The only things that slipped through the cracks are ethnic groups. They are not a huge problem at the moment, but they can be at some point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia/Azerbaijan

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

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

Armenia/Azerbaijan Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. The current scope of this area is much broader than some other areas, including American Politics and Palestine-Israel. For instance American railroads are not covered by DS but under the current wording Armenian railroads could be. This attempts to name the scope of the dispute in a way more consistent with other sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We would never think to authorize discretionary sanctions for "Europe and the United States, broadly construed". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Like above with IPA, I do not think this motion is the motion needed. --Izno (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Izno. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  • Holding off for now, like IPA above; I think we could use some polishing on the political ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia/Azerbaijan Community discussion

  • my opinion is that the current scope is adequate, given that a large range of subject witness edit warring, tendentious editing, POV-pushing etc., besides the predictable targets of BLPs and settlements and geographic features and historic events articles other subjects that I remember having similar issues in food articles, musical instruments, Dairy products and, the most surprising to me, a flower species. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kevo327 in looking over those examples, I don't see any DS actually used. The closest is at Matzoon which noted nationalist issues in the protection log, but was not protected as an actual DS. This goes to a deeper belief that I've seen through the DS consult and my study of the area. I think a lot of time page protections can be justified under normal policy and would be uncontroversial in its application (so the first mover advantage of DS does not make a difference). If nationalist issues cause a problem on a page, under our "broadly construed" principle this DS would continue to be available for admins to use. The same is true of sanctions against editors who might disrupt such pages. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: Using "broadly construed" here is going to cause so much wikilawyering -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero the wise DS scholar L235 has pointed out to me in the past that broadly construed are a part of the standard procedure and so these sanctions are already broadly construed. So there would be no increase in wikilawyering with this amendment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my few years editing on Wikipedia, it has become painfully clear that the current AA2 restrictions(if any) do not work. Before a user can edit the AA2 area, they should have a minimum of 500 edits and 6 months editing. As Kevo has indicated, food and even plants are being targeted(seriously?). The sockpuppetry is still rampant, yet we have to jump through a set of hoops just to prove user:Z(who has just arrived having never editing anything) restarts an edit war/disruption that user:Y had just been indef blocked. A set minimum of edits and months editing would keep the disruption down, and possibly cut down on the number of SPIs that need to be filed, over and over again. Example:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClassicYoghurt. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We might as well tell all new Azeri/Armenian editors to fuck off then because they're not welcome. Many people like editing in areas related to their own country and this would prevent that. We don't do this for the Israel-Palestine area because even though there's endless disputes over food like falafel or hummus we recognize that putting entire countries on 500/30 is questionable. There has to be some restraint. If there's an issue with food articles being targeted as an extension of the conflict then admins can ECP as a discretionary sanctions action. We do the same for WP:PIA. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral on the scope change: thinking on the times I've intervened in AA2, the newly proposed regime would still have adequately enabled me to act, but it's a change that has more to do with standardizing our bureaucracy than actually addressing real problems of editing these related topics (after all, I have yet to hear anyone complain that we have too much admin oversight of AA2). I think that Kansas Bear's suggestion to adopt a P/I-style 500/30 regime for political topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan (or more narrowly, to topics related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ethnic rivalry between Armenia and Azerbaijan) seems appropriate and would help curb disruption. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are "new" IPs and "new" accounts every.single.day whose sole purpose is to shove irredentist/negationist/revisionist POVs into WP:AA2. Every single day. There are entire groups at Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube comments operated by youngsters trying to bring in more disruption (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Based on my long-time experience as editor within the topic area, I would also support a minimum edit count/time for any new user who wants to edit within WP:AA2. Not just political topics, but also definitely history-related articles. And indeed as mentioned earlier; it is far from being limited from actual articles within contemporary Armenia-Azerbaijan. WP:AA2 stretches well into Iran and Turkey as well. I have lost count the amount of times Iranian historic (and contemporary) figures get renamed as "Azerbaijani" without sources or whatsoever. Or Iranian cities suddenly getting an Azerbaijani name in the lede in the Latin script (which is only officially used in the Azerbaijan Republic). If anyone would ask me, I could probably post a hundred diffs from the past few weeks alone, in which various Iranian figures/cities/etc. have been targeted with such irredentism. The current WP:AA2 measures are outdated and extremely time consuming for editors who are here to build this encyclopaedia, and thus in turn destructive to the community. Wikipedia should adjust to the changing situation, and introduce a minimum edit count for WP:AA2 (political and history-related articles being a bare minimum, IMO). - LouisAragon (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPA and AA2 narrowing of scope: what is "political"? El_C 19:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the scope of DS in this area should not be narrowed. Literally any subject tangentially related to Armenia or Azerbaijan can any moment go to flames without any apparent reason. Just anything. And it actually does, and the behavior in this topic area is one of the worst in Wikipedia, with editors on both sides basically trying to promote whoever they think would support their cause and eliminate those who oppose. And I can be one day a brilliant administrator and next day a fucking asshole, and in a week a brilliant administrator again, and all three opinions would belong to the same editor. I am not performing administrative actions in the topic area in the last couple of years, but I am really fed up with this behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Literally any subject tangentially related to Armenia or Azerbaijan can any moment go to flames without any apparent reason ← that. El_C 20:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmh, Armenia-Azerbaijan. Yeah, the 500/30 proposals above seem reasonable. Clarifying the scope in the proposed way, however, would also be fine with me and wouldn't even conflict with a 500/30 restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armenian railways, mentioned by Barkeep49 above, are an illustrative example of the broadness of the dispute. The railways are entwined enough in the history of the area that the recent peace deal specifically includes provisions for the construction of a rail linkage. (I think relatedly of the southern Armenian highway which goes back and forth between the two countries.) There may be a cosmetic reason that the new wording is better, but if it is changed it should be with the knowledge that literally everything here is a political topic. CMD (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for those who would enjoy reading, here is the mentioned railway/transport kerfuffle article. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Politics can, indeed, touch on many areas of life. But that doesn't mean that all areas of life need DS, it means that when non-political (or religious) areas intersect with political areas that DS is appropriate. This is why DS are broadly construed. To give an American example, american sleep products are not inherently controversial and in need of DS, but MyPillow became political and now has a DS applied to it but Pillow Pets is not political and would not be eligible for DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, what about a dispute over 300 vs 600 tanks? It could have all the hallmarks of DS partisanship, but still be limited to an editing dispute, per se. (i.e. no MyTank discussed in RS as a political point of contention). El_C 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C I would look to von Caluseitz and say within the scope of DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, if I can broaden: are you basically saying that any dispute involving IPA/AA2 partisanship, even in peripheral areas, continue to remain within the scope? El_C 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that disputes involving topics that are broadly related to IPA/AA2 politics/religions (including but not limited to the specific topics identified in the motions) continue to remain in scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm still a bit confused, but maybe that can't be helped until it's put into practice. I'm just wondering if there's been over-reach that prompted going from broadly-broadly to narrowly-broadly? Just trying to be preventative so as to avoid a lot of time spent on misfires, clarifications and so on. El_C 02:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DS is an extraordinary grant of power and I philosophically believe DS should be as narrowly tailored as is reasonable to stop disruption. This is why, for instance, I supported amending AP to 1992 last year. And why I don't think we should have similar scope of DS for similar types of disputes. We don't say everything in Palestine and Israel is under DS for instance. And that is the way it should be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree with that philosophy, too. But for example, Hummus has been a source of bitter ARBPIA rivalry. Confusingly, I just noticed it displays {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}}, but is only semiprotected. Anyway, all I'm saying is that it might get tricky. But I'm along for the ride! El_C 03:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share most of the opinions above that 1) AA2 DS are much needed to control this topic full of disruptive nationalist editing 2) minimum number and duration of edits has to be in place, that’s the only way realistic way of repelling increasing numbers of battleground-minded new users arriving from those social media groups, plus A) anonymous IPs (who can be really disruptive) should not be allowed to edit AA2 topics and B) It’s not just Armenia and Azerbaijan but also Turkey - Azerbaijan and Turkey are entangled together to the point of “2 countries 1 nation” motto being iterated from 2020. Finally, there is a lot negative going on between users from Azerbaijan and Iran as well, but that can be a Azerbaijan-Iran DS perhaps? --Armatura (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of overlap for AA2, to be sure. Some of which, like Turkey, mostly not covered by [that] DS, while others like Armenia–Georgia relations more so, while yet others like WP:ARBIRP and WP:KURDS [A lot of Turkey there, though] are DS in their own right. El_C 00:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) — Edits: In short, it gets tricky navigating the overlaps. El_C 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this covers the full extent of the disruption. For example, I would like to see the history of the region covered explicitly; disputes in this area often arise over that even when it is not explicitly the history of a political matter. I also think the proposed 30/500 for the area should be given serious consideration. I cannot count the number of times I've seen AE requests in this area filed by a "new" account that almost certainly isn't operated by a new editor (and indeed, in many cases, is often later confirmed not to be). Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support keeping the present scope. The amount of disruption is still very high. Introducing an edit limit could be considered too. Maybe not for every AA article, but for the most contentious ones. Grandmaster 18:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least in Nagorno-Karabakh (and nearby regions), every topic (including football clubs and railways) should stay under Discretionary Sanctions. It might be possible to find something in these countries that doesn't need DS but I have not figured out what -- even National Art Museum of Azerbaijan and Zvartnots International Airport probably should stay under DS. There is talk of a 30/500 requirement for some topics, and that would need to be more narrowly scoped; I have no comment on the need for that. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an editor who actually deals with this topic dispute semi-infrequently, I really don't support this change. Editors already have a hard enough time understanding what is and is not covered under these DS, so I don't think this change would help much there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation revocation

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

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

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

Article probation revocation Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. Cleans up any lingering sanctions from the predecessors to formalized DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Article probation revocation Community discussion

Transcendental Meditation movement

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

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

Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm curious how this gap got created but the 10 minutes of research I was willing to put into it didn't reveal an answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've meditated on this and agree with the motion — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shoutout to Jéské for pointing this one out :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Transcendental Meditation movement Community discussion

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

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Senkaku islands 9 0 0 Passing ·
Waldorf education 10 0 0 Passing ·
Ancient Egyptian race controversy 8 2 0 Passing ·
Scientology 10 0 0 Passing ·
Landmark worldwide 10 0 0 Passing ·
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan 2 3 0 Currently not passing 6
Armenia/Azerbaijan 2 2 0 Currently not passing 6
Article probation revocation 10 0 0 Passing ·
Transcendental Meditation movement 10 0 0 Passing ·
Notes


Other discussion of Discretionary sanctions topic areas

  • Noting for the benefit of the community that these topic-specific changes were informed by WP:DS2021 but there is more to come on the broader DS2021 plan. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be scope for the committee to consider revoking the discretionary sanctions in re Electronic cigarette; the remedies from the more recent Medicine case have a large degree of overlap and those newer remedies have completely stopped the EC-related disruption. As far as I know, no enforcement action under the EC discretionary sanctions has ever taken place, and they are certainly without purpose now.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like enforcement action has happened under this DS. See Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020 § Electronic Cigarettes and Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019 § Electronic Cigarettes. Two DS actions have happened in the the space of 2 3 years. This still could be argued as too few to be worth the extra DS. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, S Marshall, I'm not seeing how the DS in the Medicine case would cover this topic area. The DS in Medicine are for pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. E-cigs don't seem to me to be pharmaceutical drugs, and even if they were it wouldn't cover anything but the prices of e-cigs. These two comments are without my official clerk hat on, so don't see my comments as a response from the arbs. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, you're correct. Two actions were logged after all. I apologize and retract. One of the remedies from the medicines case topic-banned one editor from all medical articles. Well, consensus exists that electronic cigarettes should fall within the scope of WikiProject Medicine because of the health claims made about them and their occasional use as therapeutic devices by quit-smoking specialists, and it turns out that topic-banning that one editor was sufficient to restore a tranquil and collaborative editing environment. There is no urgency about this decision and if the committee would prefer to retain the sanctions for the time being then I have no objection.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The intent with the revocations was to go after the lowest hanging fruit. There are probably 2 or 3 other DS that I'd support revoking but were not quite as clearcut as the ones above and so we decided not to propose them. If there's further support here, additional ones could be added or an editor could file an ARCA in the future asking for e-cigs or some other DS to be re-considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarizing my critique: Just noting for the record, that the IPA/AA2 motions are the real meat in this series (the rest seem like fairly uncontroversial clean up of inactive DSs). This key distinction is not made expressly clear in this series of motions, which concerns me a bit. I'd caution arbitrators against possibly placing an ideal type over and above WP:ENC, seemingly for no other reason than just to do it. No, the US (WP:AP2) is not a good example, as the stable editorial pool for IPA/AA2 countries (including language fluency, etc.) isn't even on the same galaxy. I'm not saying at this point that this is a solution in search of a problem, and maybe the wording could improve, but as Opabinia regalis notes, it needs better fleshing out.
Endless disputes, from Hummus-equivalents to naming conventions to whatever, might arise over this revised less-broadly-than-broadly IPA/AA2 scope, and these are likely to arise at the same time as enforcement is attempted (against disruptive IPA/AA2 partisanship, as before, through whatever form it takes). So I'd advise both a wider lens and taking it slow. And again, inadvertently lumping together mostly-inactive DSs with the highly-active, highly-corrosive IPA/AA2, that seems a bit problematic to me. Thanks everyone! El_C 16:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe also worth noting, especially since I was the one who recorded the action (AEL diff), that in October, the India–Pakistan conflict GS (WP:GS/IPAK) was dissolved and superseded by the broader WP:ARBIPA. 🌠 The less you know! 🌠 El_C 13:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all good to know. Thanks El_C. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be that person, but y'all forgot about Asmahan Remedies 6, 7, and 8.Also, Waterboarding which even I didn't notice last year.
    Either way, still pretty hyped about this! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Thanks for raising these. At a glance those also look worthy of rescinding. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: My reading of Asmahan is that all those remedies are expired by their own terms, right? Remedy 5 says that the probation only lasts for six months, and Remedy 7 only applies DS to those articles on probation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235 remedy 6 allows for articles to be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months as long as they are in the scope of the case, and unless I'm missing something it has not expired as that had no time limit. Remedy 7 could be used if remedy 6 was invoked by an admin, and thus this probably needs rescinding too. If 7 is rescinded then it probably it worthwhile to rescind 8. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 02:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. "5) The article Asmahan, all closely related articles and project pages, and all associated talk pages, are placed on article probation for six months." (Emphasis added) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jéské Couriano I don't think you've read it right. Remedy 6 is not dependent on Remedy 5. Remedy 6 says ArbCom allows admins to apply article probation to other articles regardless of what is already there as article probation (to make it clear (with emphasis added) then the article may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months). Remedy 5 applies article probation for 6 months to a specific set of articles, and remedy 6 grants admins to also place article probation. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 02:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dreamy, you're right. OK, I'll put something together. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, with respect to Waterboarding, I think its only enforceable remedy is, at this point, superseded by AP2 since the main dispute there was whether or not it was torture - a major talking point on bloviating outlets during the Bush Redux and early Obama eras. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't seem to be much happening in re Prem Rawat (case here): the most recent logged sanctions appear to have been in 2012, I could only find a handful of recent awareness notices, and many of the original problem editors haven't edited in years. (Even the WikiProject has been defunct since 2014.) Furthermore, most things related to Rawat would probably be subject to the BLP discretionary sanctions anyways, so perhaps rescission wouldn't do any harm? Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    New religious movements have been much quieter outside of FG -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really do not agree with adding Obama to "Article probation revocation", I think this should be its own section. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1069369576"