Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Senkaku islands

Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded.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

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

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

Senkaku islands Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

No sanctions since 2013 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 21:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
  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)
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)

Waldorf education

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

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

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

Waldorf education Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

No sanctions since 2014 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 21:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

No sanctions since 2014 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
After consideration, I'm reaffirming my vote here. In response to Doug Weller's note, which I seriously considered, I thought about proposing a version of the motion that had, at the end, "Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Pseudoscience case may continue to be used." But this is already the case, and I don't think it's worth asking my colleagues to re-vote on the proposal for what would be a minor change reaffirming what is already the case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
One alert does not a problematic area make. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Agree with OR. Maxim_(talk) 14:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

I think we should keep this available a little longer. - Donald Albury 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
I am willing to hold off on dropping this, but weakly. Editors have requested it remains available and are expecting to use it - that's sufficient for me. If it still hasn't been used in the next year, we can rescind it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@Barkeep49: any comments? Doug Weller talk 08:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)
@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)

Yes, I did consider your suggestions before voting to remove DS here. Izno (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
I am in agreement with Serial Number 54129. Else, DW's alternative of a one year probation period subject to conditions.

Or, if pseudohistory, pseudolingustics, and pseudoarcheology are subsumed into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, I do not foresee any issues with revoking this particular remedy, as proposed. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)
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)

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

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

Scientology Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

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)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 21:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Amusing and reassuring that we have proven to outlast the disruption here CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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? --Izno Public (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@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)

@Izno the intent is to do as Kevin suggests. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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)
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)
@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)

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

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Landmark worldwide Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

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)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 21:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Worm^TT(talk) 13:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

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)
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)
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)

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)

Oppose

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)
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)
Largely per TonyBallioni and Vanamonde's statements. Primefac (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing this is the right solution. I appreciate that there are lots of areas that are lumped in together at the moment, but reducing the scope in this manner will cause more harm than good. Worm^TT(talk) 13:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The suggestions to limit the scope of DS are built on an assumption that the trigger issues of the past will be the trigger issues of the future. This set of DS are not moribund, and I don't see a reduced scope being sufficiently comprehensive. Cabayi (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any problem with the current wording. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Maxim_(talk) 14:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Donald Albury 21:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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)
- @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)
  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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

No objections to either permutation of that wording @L235. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Please post this (proposed) update to WT:INB etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Everything post-partition needs to be included at a minimum -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
IPA and AA2 narrowing of scope: what is "political"? El_C 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Fore sure, split discussions are a splitting headache. Anyway, I emphasized/refactored at the AA2 thread. El_C 20:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

@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)
@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)
@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)

I was very surprised to see no mention of history. Some of the big issues that I've seen problems with on Wikipedia, particularly in India under the present government, concern the rewriting of history and also archaeology. Violent conflict is also something I see disputed. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@Bishonen: - I am not sure that the previous ping went through. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Bishonen is a template all admins should compare themselves to. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
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).
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)

@RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Johnuniq: Pinging all admins whom I have seen enforcing ARBIPA sanctions. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
Yep, that's correct, my bad on the typo. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
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).
@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)
[Bishzilla is extremely offended.] Little Shonen's wording fine as is! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 22:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC).

[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).
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)
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)
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)
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)

"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)
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)
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)

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)
Let me think about it. I'm definitely open to it. Thanks KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

Yeah, Afghanistan can probably be removed. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 19:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for your comments; they'll be considered. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@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)

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)

I think such a change will only make it more difficult to implement and easier to game the system. The present scope is unambiguous and necessary. I don't support any change to it. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thinking about it a bit more, I find TonyBallioni's argument more persuasive than parts of my own. If the DS scope were to be redefined to (say) 'religion, politics, history and social groups' as I had supported, that would only spark arguments over how/whether Rasgulla, Rape in India, OpIndia, Satinder Sartaaj, Indian Air Force, Adam's Bridge, Arjun (tank), etc are covered by that definition. Yes, one can (IMO convincingly) argue that all those pages would indeed fall within the redefined scope but only at the cost of time/effort wasted in such meta-discussions, and increased room for disruption and wikilawyering. And that is not conducive to retaining and valuing good-faith editors working in this topic-area. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Armenia/Azerbaijan Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

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)
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)

Oppose

Like above with IPA, I do not think this motion is the motion needed. --Izno (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Per Izno. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't support this change, per comments below. I would encourage any editors who would like a general editing restriction for AA2 to make their case at WP:ARCA. Worm^TT(talk) 13:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Alas, some DS areas need a broader scope. Cabayi (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It's true we wouldn't put "Europe and the United States, broadly construed" under DS, however it is also true that those are not specific ethnic groups but rather broad multi-ethnic cultures. I've seen very recent examples of these ethnic feuds going to unexpected places. There is zero doubt that Cincinnati chili was invented in Ohio, but it has recently been tagged as being in the scope of WP:ARBEE due to feuding about where the inventor immigrated from. Apparently that's a critically important distinction. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The community seems opposed to this idea, and thus so am I. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Maxim_(talk) 14:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Donald Albury 21:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
@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)
@Barkeep49: Using "broadly construed" here is going to cause so much wikilawyering -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

IPA and AA2 narrowing of scope: what is "political"? El_C 19:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Since moved to #India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Community discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  - Just emphasizing/refactoring that, from my perspective, there isn't really a distinction between IPA and AA2 wrt the military and language examples I brought up. El_C 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
  - Why not allow any Admin to place the 500/30 on any AA2 topic that is suffering disruption. Granted there may be articles that require the restrictions immediately, as for others make it on an as needed basis. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
- ToBeFree, what's Mmh? El_C 21:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Oh sorry, that must have looked like an abbreviation or something. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mm-hmm ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Now I want ham! El_C 21:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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)

for those who would enjoy reading, here is the mentioned railway/transport kerfuffle article. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@El C I would look to von Caluseitz and say within the scope of DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I support the 500/30 proposal, as the current measures are not practical compared to the constant disruption these kind of articles suffer from. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Per HistoryofIran and others, I support the 500/30 propsal as well. Too many "new" week-old accounts who are somehow aware about everything related to wikipedia , and constant disruption in pages one wouldn't even expect. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Article probation revocation

Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
Remedy 14.3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
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.

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC) For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Article probation revocation Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

Cleans up any lingering sanctions from the predecessors to formalized DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 21:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Worm^TT(talk) 13:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've meditated on this and agree with the motion — Wug·a·po·des 21:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Shoutout to Jéské for pointing this one out :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Donald Albury 21:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Obsolete probation-like sanctions

Remedies 6, 7, and 8 of the Asmahan case (relating to article probation and discretionary sanctions) are rescinded.

Remedy 2 of the Waterboarding case ("General restriction") is rescinded. Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the American politics 2 case may continue to be used.

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

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete probation-like sanctions Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

Proposed, with thanks to MJL for their pointing this out. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Worm^TT(talk) 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Maxim_(talk) 14:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Donald Albury 21:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

@ArbCom:

Apologies for the ping – just want to get this on everyone's radar, since I know this motion was proposed later than most. In my opinion this should be fairly uncontroversial. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete probation-like sanctions Community discussion

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Support needed	Notes
Senkaku islands	9	0	·	Passed & enacted.
Waldorf education	10	0	·	Passed & enacted.
Ancient Egyptian race controversy	9	3	·	Passed & enacted.
Scientology	10	0	·	Passed & enacted.
Landmark worldwide	11	0	·	Passed & enacted.
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan	2	8	Cannot pass
Armenia/Azerbaijan	2	8	Cannot pass
Article probation revocation	11	0	·	Passed & enacted.
Transcendental Meditation movement	12	0	·	Passed & enacted.
Obsolete probation-like sanctions	12	0	·	Passed & enacted.

Notes

Motion: Timwi warned (February 2022)

Original Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

The Committee recognizes Timwi's long service, and encourages his continued editing. However, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. He should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. The Committee will consider any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening de-sysop proceedings.

Enacted – Amortias (T)(C) 22:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Timwi raises a valuable concern: our internal policy of notability often does not square with our readers conceptions of it. I however cannot condone the use of the admin toolset to further that long running inclusionist/deletionist dispute. Though a bit more defensive than we usually expect, I cannot fault Timwi for having a strong opinion on this divisive topic. ArbCom of course cannot and should not make a content ruling here. But we can condemn the misuse of the admin toolset. It is no longer the heyday of the vigilante admin. I think this warning provides an effective control on Timwi's admin actions, while giving him a chance to refresh himself on current policy. It also keeps him as a valuable contributor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This is about as strong an admonishment we can give while still giving Timwi the opportunity to demonstrate that they can use their tools appropriately, even if they ultimately do not agree with all of our policies. That is, after all, what being an administrator is all about. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems about fair to me, and per CaptainEek. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I can accept this outcome. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a recall process - the community rejected the RFC proposing one last year. On the facts under consideration Timwi accepts that he did wrong and has undertaken to use the tools in compliance with policy in future. This motion accepts that undertaking and provides some backup to that. Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Only choice. To desysop over a single incident would, to me, need a fairly egregious incident, and what has happened here does not rise to that level. A warning to heed community norms in the future is sufficient. Maxim_(talk) 15:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I echo Primefac's comments below in full. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
This works for me. Per Maxim, basically. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Per my comments above [2][3] and per Primefac. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This is about the minimum we can do in this scenario, and the maximum I would support without an actual case. This warning also puts the ball firmly back in Timwi's court to either get in line with community consensus, or resign the tools. – bradv^🍁 19:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

This is insufficient for the pattern of contributions and the displayed lack of knowledge of our current expectations of administrators. Izno (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't find Timwi's statement here compelling at all and believe this is just kicking the can down the road. It is also clear to me that there was significant outcry from the community, with a number of users asking Timwi to just turn in his tools, but, despite saying they would prefer the road of less drama, they have so far declined to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

Unhappy with this but as I wrote above I won't lose sleep over this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer more clarity on what "de-sysop proceedings" are and how we are to take notice of "tool misuse". Will we take notice, sua sponte, and propose a motion on our own accord? Will community members need to submit another case request (and will we decline a desysop motion without a case on procedural grounds again)? Will they be able to go to AE? It's sufficient as a warning, which like Kevin I guess I can live with, but there's no clarity on what would actually happen should a violation occur. — Wug·a·po·des 02:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

I currently plan to oppose this plan as insufficient. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I am going to put this here rather than in the main section because it is more relevant here (and more likely to be seen). Multiple editors in their statements have declared (in various flavours of ADMINCOND) that Timwi is unsuitable to be an administrator due to the recent events leading up to this case request. My thought on the matter is this: it is essentially their first offence with regard to (mis)use of the administrative tools and the conduct expected of an administrator. If said conduct was bad enough to merit a desysop, we would have already done so per LEVEL2 procedures. Their conduct was not what we expect of administrators, and I do not think any of us disagree on that point, but they have commented here (which is good) and indicated that the actions they took will not be repeated, even if they do not agree with written policy.
I will also note that we are clearly not letting them off the hook for this; if their comments here are just lip-service and they turn around and repeat their activities, we have left the option to take the steps that some feel are already necessary. This is not a Get Out of Jail Free card. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Beeblebrox's point concerning the desire expressed by many for Timwi to just turn in his tools. I don't believe Timwi would pass a recall RfA at the moment. But that is some way off from taking the tools from an admin who acknowledges their error and undertakes not to break policy again. An awareness of WP:CIVIL on Timwi's part wouldn't go amiss. Cabayi (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trademark and user Account's.

At what point does trade mark become legally applicable in a given feed of user activity 2600:1003:B03D:2047:E96F:ABCD:FEAE:2777 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Trademark has no real place in an encyclopedia. All content here must be under a free license, so one cannot post here while claiming some sort of trademark on what they post. Only half a coffee, and the slow-COVID parts of my brain might not be awake yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Procedurally,

do we still raise these types of concern at WP:AN and then turn to ArbCom if there has been no adequate response there? Were WP:XRV alive and well, would it be a step to take before the road to ArbCom? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Struck. posted during caffeine deficiency. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think outside of brightline violations like WHEEL it is best to see if there can be satisfaction at the community level. But I am not going to say that it has to be done for me to consider voting to accept a case. I don't think it makes sense to discuss a hypothetical XRV until it's a functioning board. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Request addition of statement to present A/R/C relating to Jonathunder

I request that someone post this statement to the present case request relating to Jonathunder

Statement from an IP

A couple of preliminaries:

Yes, I do have an account though I haven't used it in some while. I'm in a disgruntled-with-parts-of-Wikipedia phase. I know that posting as an IP means some will disregard anything I say, but that's not how it is supposed to be.
No, I don't recall ever having interacted with Jonathunder.
Yes, I did recently post regarding the motion to end the Waldorf Education DS, which gives everyone some idea of some recent contributions of mine.

I am posting not so much about the Jonathunder situation, which seems pretty obvious in its path forward, but to address some comments that have been made here, particularly by some Arbitrators.

KevinL In responding to GeneralNotability, you wrote that As many community members have noted, this is so far a pretty straightforward case. So if this case request is stressful or unpleasant, non-parties should please not feel an obligation to submit a statement. Personally, the trend of every case request seeing a dozen-plus uninvolved statements no matter how straightforward baffles me a bit. I don't know how you intended this to come across, but I can tell you that I have had several thoughts on it. Perhaps some editors make uninvolved statements because they are concerned that what seems straightforward to them has, in the past, proven to seem different from ArbCom's perspective. Perhaps they are concerned that ArbCom will make a poor decision that they feel occurs as a consequence of ArbCom being somewhat out of touch with the active editing community. In other words, perhaps your bafflement relates to the inevitable differences in perspectives that come from being an Arbitrator as against watching ArbCom make decisions that are sometimes baffling to outsiders. I know one response that I felt after reading your comment arose from the way it can be interpreted as an Arbitrator telling uninvolved editors that ArbCom doesn't need input from outsiders to make decisions – akin to the ruler telling the ruled that it's none of their business. I hope that wasn't your intention, but it is one impression that I suggest your comments can support.
@Opabinia regalis: You have commented that [s]omeone not editing is pretty much by definition not an emergency, and can't cause drama except through the actions of people who are editing, and you are not alone in having expressed an idea along these lines. I understand that Jonathunder is the focus of attention here, but am disappointed that comments from Arbitrators appear not to see any other topic worthy of comment or attention. ArbCom's job is to end disruption rather than to consider "justice", I know, but there is an editor here who had rights removed for no justified reason and who could not get the admin involved to respond when asked – and nor could an AN thread. It is true that the right has since been restored, but isn't the risk of discouraging this editor from continuing a potential disruption worthy of some comment? Isn't the potential for disillusioning editors who see admin actions go unaddressed for extended periods a disruption to the task of editing the encyclopaedia? Giving Jonathunder further time to respond given the matter has reached ArbCom is offering Jonathunder fairness, but how about some words to the editors who were treated unfairly that their situation is important? Or, words to editors who have experienced admins using their tools in content disputes and being protected by other admins who think ArbCom should see that as a disruption that deserves comment? Some delay as a courtesy to Jonathunder is understandable, but wouldn't ArbCom also be acting to minimise disruption by emphasising that the actions demonstrated in the request are not acceptable? If Motion 1 included a temporary desysop pending a case, to me that would signal that ArbCom won't allow a similar disruption before a resolution is reached, rather than conveying that removing sysop status was a more important topic than preventing a repeat of the disruption.
@Beeblebrox: You are to be commended for taking a step to undo an obviously invalid admin action, and for noting that it may be seen as grounds for recusal, though I agree with others that that is not needed here. However, your response to Robert McClenon, in my view, misses the point that a courtesy can be provided to Jonathunder, as it would be to any editor subject to an ArbCom case request, whilst still acknowledging that this may impact on other editors, both those directly involved in the request and those members of the community watching / hoping for ArbCom to act on an issue presented to it. I had the same thought after reading Worm That Turned's comments direct to Jonathunder: compassion and understanding for health issues is appropriate and desirable, and not holding a case immediately is the fair thing to do if Jonathunder is not up to dealing with a case... but that there were no words offered to the editor targeted in Jonathunder's tool misuse, nor to the community more generally, that recognised the hurt / harm to individuals, the disruption to the community, nor the damage to the encyclopaedia in being seen to see an admin's retaining of the tools as the only topic that warrants comment.
@Wugapodes: Well done on commenting that being deliberative is not synonymous with being slow. Beeblebrox's response that Jonathunder could have gone to BN and requested a desysop is true, and that allowing time for that to occur was worthwhile, but the addition that and then we'd be done here, just like that again reflects the view that Jonathunder's tools is the only aspect here that relates to ending disruption and ArbCom's role. Surely making a clear and loud declaration that tool misuse in content disputes is a serious matter and totally unacceptable is part of reducing disruption and making clear to the editing community that ArbCom does not view admins as any different from any non-sysop editor when it comes to content? And yet, we all know that the Super Mario problem makes this declaration problematic, and is likely also why uninvolved editors choose to comment on requests such as this. Wugapodes, I disagree strongly that proposing a motion with a temporary desysop wouldn't be useful, and not just because it would force some Arbitrators to take a position... it would signal to the community (editors and admins) that preventing misuse of tools proactively to prevent disruption is more important than a single admin retaining the tools while avoiding engaging in a case. It would emphasise that using tools in content disputes is never acceptable, and that such behaviour is a disruption to be prevented. Jonathunder may choose to avoid engaging with a case now, and legitimately so... but to do so while retaining the tools, effectively delaying an end to the disruption for Jonathunder's sake and denying a substantive resolution for the editor(s) harmed and the community in the meantime, that is not reasonable. Xaosflux is correct that, if a case is delayed, Jonathunder's tools should be removed in the interim to prevent disruption and in recognition that disruption has already occurred. It appears that Cabayi and Barkeep49, at least, support this.

I've probably said too much, in terms of word count, but I think it is worth reminding ArbCom that a case like this involves more than just a question over the tools of an admin who has misused them. It involves whether admins can use their tools in a content dispute, then delay a case being heard and retain those tools in the interim. It involves whether disruption to the WP community and the encyclopaedia is only about the admin's actions or whether its effects on the editor targeted and on uninvolved editors who witness the actions or comment are also important. It involves whether ArbCom, as almost the only body empowered to desysop for misuse of tools, sees more than just the admin in question and their tools, or also the community in which both the admin and ArbCom itself exist. It is about whether being procedurally fair and understanding to the person behind the user name brought before ArbCom is so important that the people behind other user names need not be granted similar consideration and understanding. It is about whether disruption occurs because of inaction as well as due to actions. Speaking personally, it is about whether ArbCom chooses to act in a way that reinforces my beliefs in what Wikipedia is supposed to be and what it seeks to achieve, or adds to my feelings of disappointment that encyclopaedic content is continuing to drift away from being the core activity of this project, with who has more power being able to override what policy requires in content disputes. 112.213.147.109 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for writing. WP:ILLEGIT (specifically WP:PROJSOCK) requires that any projectspace edits be made from your main account only (or a disclosed alternate account). Accordingly, we cannot move your statement to the case request page. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

KevinL, it is nearly six months since I last used my WP account. Your post effectively declaring that anything I say is invalid because I am not participating as a registered editor simply amplifies my disillusionment with WP. I note that your references to "WP:ILLEGIT (specifically WP:PROJSOCK)" misquotes that policy, misrepresents Eggishorn's closure of the RfC on alternative accounts, and (to me) demonstrates the exact attitude that I mentioned above ("I know that posting as an IP means some will disregard anything I say, but that's not how it is supposed to be") and about which you should feel ashamed. That you react to a heart-felt request to think of the community, to think about the message sent about whether admin's using their tools to win content disputes is a serious problem, with a technical reply that ignores every substantive issue that I raised strongly suggests that you do not see the issue here as anything more than a question over a sysop's retention of the tools. The purpose of Wikipedia is meant to be the construction of a high-quality encyclopaedia, with ArbCom's role being to resolve disputes that disrupt that goal. I posted in the hope that this remains true... sadly, I got a non-response reply that boils down to my belief in that purpose and feelings of disillusionment that it is being lost makes me so out of step as to not even permit my contribution to be included on the case page. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

112.213.147.109, it seems I should clarify my reasoning. I am of the opinion that the tools should be removed for the duration of the case, but not for fear that Jonathunder will wreak havoc on the project. It's because of the fear that Jonathunder could unwittingly perform an admin action and find himself with a new problem which mandates a permanent desysop. The failure of any system should cause the least amount of damage. Cabayi (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Cabayi, I am sad to read that what I thought was concern for the integrity of the project and preventing damage by a sysop who has already misused the tools was actually concern with protecting him from a mistaken action that would force ArbCom to take the obvious step. I have not suggested that he would "wreak havoc", but I have suggested that allowing a sysop to win content disputes with the tools causes ongoing disruption and harm to the community and to the project's goals. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

To all members of ArbCom, I am glad to see movement to a new motion that acts on Jonathunder's tools during a case suspension. I am saddened that not one of you has responded substantively to the points I have made, nor even made mention of my contributions on the case page – after all, even mentioning an unperson having commented on the talk page might mean that others read my post, and that would be massively damaging to the project, no doubt far more so than a sysop misusing tools to win a content dispute and then ignoring questions and community feedback... but then, I am not part of the community, am I? My disillusionment grows. :( 172.195.96.244 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP. I meant to respond to you yesterday, but got distracted with other Arbcom business. I'm still running behind on that, but this has been bubbling up to the top of my replies list. I, personally, have no issue with responding to you here, or on my talk page, so please do feel free to carry on the conversation as such - though the conflation of your status and the points you are making is a shame, and I do believe we should separate out those two discussions - I'll move on to the area I have more say on, the case request.

When it comes to admin misbehaviour on the project, Arbcom is the only place to deal with it. That's the community's choice, despite many attempts to change that status quo. The committee has a duty to individuals, as well as to the wider community. I believe that the way we are handling things is balancing those different duties. We are trying to stop the disruption, which is what the community needs - but equally it's not an "emergency", per OR, and therefor doesn't need to be handled as such. That doesn't mean we're ignoring it, it just means that we can take our time and do things right, by hearing the different sides and coming to a conclusion.

From an individuals point of view, there is the individual who had their status removed - that has been returned, so the direct harm has been undone. I fully agree that there is indirect harm too, and I hope that the fact the committee is taking this seriously, that the case has been accepted unanimously at this point and with just working out how to manage it should go some way to helping with your concerns, how Righanred may feel regarding it, and towards the wider community. I won't predetermine the outcome of a case by stating unequivocally that Jonathunder was wrong to do what he did, because I have not heard his reasoning and I believe that it is fair to allow that. It certainly looks concerning - hence my statements and "Changing the user rights of someone you are in a dispute with is a massive red flag for me" and "I'm far more concerned about the removal of the user right, out of process, against a user he is in dispute with, and with no explanation".

If you're looking for me to wax lyrical about the harm that the rogue actions of administrators can do, then sure. I fully agree that the actions of a few administrators cause significant harm to the community, creating an "us vs them" attitude, spreading discord - and if indeed there is no reasonable explanation forthcoming from Jonathunder, then they should be desysopped. I have a long history of fighting this fight and you will see my name in the discussions of many (if not most) of administrators removed for cause or recalled over the past decade. That said - I also believe in fairness, and that there are situations where the admin has taken a tough decision, but can explain it - so both sides of these disagreements need to be heard.

And this is where I come back to your "disillusionment" - which may feed into your comments significantly. I felt similarly around 2015-16, and was very negative about much of what I read on Wikipedia. If there is anything you'd like to discuss regarding that, or indeed if you'd simply like to rant about what happened - feel free to contact me, either through Wikipedia email or directly at worm.that.turned

gmail.com Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, thank you for replying. I admit that I am more than a little hurt and offended by KevinL's dismissal of anything I might say, which struck me as disdainful of, or clueless about, how it was likely to affect me. That no Arbitrator even disagreed was further disappointing, because it speaks to the same attitude that lay behind the "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians" furore that I hoped was confined to WP's / ArbCom's past.

On the topic of the case request, I applaud your recognition of Jonathunder's humanity and that delaying a case might be best, and similarly your avoiding a conclusion without hearing his perspective. I looked at your contributions to see if there was anything around the same time that spoke to the community and those watching, to recognise and empathise to the harm done by misuse of tools and the importance of ArbCom being seen to take that seriously... I didn't find anything, which is sad, because the case request page had a laser-like focus on tools, to the exclusion of all other topics, so that disruption of content development and of the editing community (which ArbCom is meant to end) faded from view.

What baffles me in several Arbitrator's comments is the blindness to the fact that leaving his tools intact in the interim sends a strong signal (whether intentionally or not) that tool misuse in content disputes is not viewed as serious by ArbCom. Cabayi, above, clarified that his motivation for removing the tools was to protect Jonathunder from accidentally using them, and that the idea that leaving them in place sent a signal about the seriousness of misuse was not a consideration. The fairness argument might favour returning the tools if an active case commenced, so that the decision for ArbCom is desysop or not, as it would be in a case held immediately, but that is a poor argument for simply leaving them for him to hold (with the authority that implies) during a case suspension.

Further, the amount of discussion about the tools, with essentially no consideration of the disruption from his retaining them and the message that sends to the community, leaves me wondering how many Arbitrators have even considered how doing nothing looks from the lowly perspective of those wasting time in the deluded belief that encyclopaedic content is actually important here. I've wasted time on that today myself, so apparently I still have some buy-in to that delusion, although it is fading.

I am aware of your past record and comments, I've even voted for you in ArbCom elections, so I know we hold views that are similar in some areas (at least). I started here in the hope that I might provoke some reflection. I didn't anticipate being callously excluded. There was some subsequent positive movement in the motions, though there is no evidence that my comments had any impact, and sadly it appears that that many (most?) Arbitrators concur in KevinL's view that I am not part of the community. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Kevin's "dismissal" - I don't believe he was trying to hurt or be malicious, but we need to have some protection of the system. Wikipedia is an open discussion area, meaning that even those who are unwelcome on the encyclopedia are able to participate with minor technical abilities. Refusing to use your account has moved you to an area where you are potentially amongst that group - and since Arbcom is the final area of dispute resolution, it is important that we set some limits on how we work to minimise disruption of the process. This means that there is some disenfranchisment, through IP editors not being able to participate, through word limits and sectioned editing, through clerks having to remove individuals who are disrupting the process. It's unfortunate, but necessary - a line has to be drawn somewhere. You mention you voted for me, that was something you couldn't do as an IP address, for example. I try to engage outside Arbcom processes, to minimise the disruption to those editors who should have a voice, and have offered my email, my talk page, and am responding here.

I appreciate your concern that committee members should be speaking to the community about the harm that incorrect actions can do - but I disagree that this was the right time and place to do so. Thee are many times where committee members should be point out that harm, not least of which would be in our binding decisions. However, when a decision has not yet been made, we should not be stating "look how much damage has been done here", because that would be prejudging the situation. The case request page is about whether a case should be opened, not about final answers. All your further points are based on the preconception of the outcome of the case, that it was wrong.

As for the question on whether the tools should be removed when suspending a case - I'm one that believes they should not. We have strict rules around when we can remove the tools, after many years of discussion and controversy in the tools area. As I mentioned earlier - the community has said, time and again, that the only two individuals who should chose whether tools are removed should be the admin themselves, and Arbcom (excepting procedural removal for inactivity). So, if we accept that we are going to postpone a case, because the admin deserves a fair hearing, then we should be leaving matters as the status quo. To summarise in bullet form:

At this point, no final decision has been made about the appropriateness of the tool usage. We are working on the basis that
- The adminsitrator is not available to answer questions
- The level of disruption does not rise to Level I or Level II procedure. In other words, it is not an emergency, there is no on-going disruption and we are willing to wait for an explanation
As no final decision has been made, the administrator is still potentially retains the trust of the community. Assume Good Faith, remember?
Temporary desysop is a logged action and will remain on their records. Threat of temporary desysop is an incentive to respond now. However, it also acts as a significant disincentive to respond later, as the status quo has changed.

It boils down to a simple question - how far do we trust this individual, this editor who has dedicate a signficant amount of time and energy to the project? Do we genuinely believe that they are not available at present? If we believe they are likely to come back and answer questions, we should trust that they will not use their tools until they do.

This format of trust has been around for many years - I think since SchuminWeb in 2012. The community has, to be fair, moved further away from the "trust" (and by extension AGF) model, as can be seen in the desysop for inactivity. In doing so, we do actually move towards a "no big deal" form of adminship, which is a good thing. This is why you'll find me equally supporting suspension with and without enforced desysop and expressing a preference for the trust model. I won't stand in the way of this change, I understand the reason for it - simply state my personal preference. Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I first saw this post more than 24 hours ago, after my name was mentioned in a way that pinged me. I have tried to read the IP's wall of text twice, and I still am not entirely sure what the IP is trying to say. IP, if you won't be concise, and you won't use a registered account, some editors will not devote the lengthy effort to extracting meaning from your post. I think that you are agreeing with me and with Wugapodes that slowness is not necessarily the same as deliberation. I was actually trying to make a somewhat different point that I may write an essay to explain. I am not really sure what most of the IP's post is about and probably will not attempt a third deconstruction. I am satisfied that at least one arbitrator seems to have understood. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi. I have a serious issue with the pages sayyid dynasty and khizar khan. I think the mention of Afghan in the origins section is very important. I have provided both primary and secondary sources in many forms, (old and new books etc) in talk page, but i have been refused. I tried solving the issue with him, involving the third party, and building consensus, but i failed in all of it.You can read my edits in talk page of sayyid dynasty for further information. All i want is to mention afghan thoery just like punjabi (that have only one source which is Eaton) that's it. And that is very inline with wikipedias guidelines.Thank you. Hope i get justice this time. 84.211.45.132 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions

Can I begin this post by thanking all arbitrators (or should that be "arbiter"?) for the time they put into the committee's work. Your work is much appreciated. I have a couple of suggestions of how case requests could be handled a bit better, which I trust will be taken constructively.

Firstly, I note that the sheer volume of commentary from arbiters has increased significantly in recent years. If you look back just 5 years you will notice a big difference. The norm back then was a simple accept or decline with perhaps a sentence to justify the decision. Now several arbiters are writing whole paragraphs and some are writing pages of text. I feel this is mostly inappropriate. Your detailed commentary is very welcome at the evidence and workshop phases, but here it is premature and often lends to the suggestion that the case is being deliberated before it has even been opened. Sometimes less is more! For example, any discussion or speculation over possible likely sanctions on a case request is improper. Perhaps cases should be routinely accepted unless they are clearly frivolous. If you find yourself writing multiple paragraphs, then it probably means the case should be accepted so it can be deliberated properly.

Secondly, could I gently suggest that arbiters refrain from comparing a current case request to another case recently handled? For example a comment like "I think this behaviour looks worse than in the XYZ case we opened last week ..." makes me cringe. Discussing patterns in cases might be a useful exercise on a project talk page, but actions taken in other cases should have no impact on a new case request which should be decided on its own merits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

An interesting set of observations, which I will keep in mind going forward. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The latter (referring to other cases), I fully agree with you, and try to keep to already (feel free to nudge me personally if you spot me doing it!)

Regarding the verbosity arbitrators at a case request - I do understand where you're coming from. There are, however, a number of factors in play. For one, the case requests this year are not as clear cut - we've had 3 admin accountability cases where the admin was not participating as much as we'd like and a more clear dispute which the community cannot handle - There, the committee mostly used one line, per the past. So, I believe we're looking at a certain type of case request.

Now, admin accountability cases - arbitrators have opinions on before they come to the committee. We're asked about it in elections and it's something that we come in with some stronger opinions on. It's not surprising that committee members want to make those feelings known. In addition, when case requests stay open for a long time, committee members are likely to make follow up statements, in case of new information or new thoughts from the community. We have proposed motions, and those require discussion. I don't either are a problem and we are aiming for transparency - but when looked at overall, it can appear as too much. This is true of Wikipedia in many areas due to the way that discussion is structured.

We have some arbs that are likely to pontificate, I know, I'm terrible for it. However, those who are likely to talk about things a bit more happen to be the same ones who poll highly at the elections (I won't name names, but you can see the parallels). That might down to transparency, it might be down to the fact that if you express an opinion you can be challenged on it directly - but overall, I think it's a good thing.

There is the risk of prejudging or apparent prejudging, that all arbitrators should be aware of and careful not to, but I don't think that restricting ourselves from commentary at the case request page is the right solution. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Part of what I ran on was being as transparent as possible. That includes explaining my reasoning when it isn't obvious. That being said I noticed myself that I went on a little longer than I normally would've in this last request. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I hid who I was when I ran - there's a reason I took advantage of the option to have a platform after all. And I've decided that the idea that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the merits of things based on evidence presented, that is I need to wait until some magical time after the workshop closes before expressing how I see things, to be counterproductive. Of course I am absolutely willing to change my mind and do so, but evidence is evidence and my being transparent over what my current thoughts are can help produce a fairer outcome. It can mean more evidence is presented, which then will of course impact my thinking or it can be pointed out, well before a false idea can take root, that I've got something wrong (i.e. I misunderstood evidence). I have given less thought to the comparison piece and would like to understand better why that makes you cringe MSGJ. ARBPOL itself acknowledges that each case doesn't operate in a vacuum even as it (rightly imo) notes we're not bound by them While the Committee will typically take into account its earlier decisions when deciding new cases, previous decisions do not create binding precedent. (emphasis added). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Where to find suspended cases?

Is there someplace that lists cases which are currently suspended? Looking at the big {{ArbComOpenTasks}} box at WP:ARC, they're not listed under any of Case Requests, Open Cases, or Recently Closed Cases, nor are they listed at WP:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2022. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Good question! I saw some were on Template:ArbComOpenTasks/Cases until Firefly hid them just recently. Not sure about even older ones? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I commented 'em out per some discussions on the clerks mailing list that having them displaying for months would be confusing. Perhaps we need a location for them to "live"... firefly ( t · c ) 15:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say Roy is right that they should be listed at WP:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2022 which is what we did for our suspended case last year (which ended up on that twice). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. Done! :) firefly ( t · c ) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I see Geschichte and Jonathunder, but wasn't there another one? Timwi, I think? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith that case was resolved by motion in lieu of a full case. firefly ( t · c ) 16:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I guess my next question is, is there some index of cases that have been resolved by motion? Or even better, a general index of all things that have come before arbcom, regardless of how they were disposed of? So as not to be mysterious, this is in response to the question raised at Special:Diff/1079151218, but I can't find all the appropriate places to point them at. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, the combination of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases works. The former contains case requests which resulted in no case being created, even if a motion was passed in the case request. The second lists all closed cases. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022: Humanities Desk revert.

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

So I'm detesting my question being removed from the Humanities desk again. While I agree that I put a little of my opinion in it, that does not change the fact that I asked legitimate questions. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=1081117318&oldid=1081117237 67.165.185.178 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: Procedural close, not an edit request ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinishRadish, (Personal attack removed). Anyways, it's been 7 days since my revert was moved from Humanities Desk, which is how long questions last, so by default, my request has thus expired. (Even if an admin were to grant my request, the 7-day limit has since passed.). But ScottishFinnishRadish, what offended me is the way you replied to my request, it seemed you were replying in 3rd person rather than to me directly. You made statements defining what wasn't the case, without explaining what was the case. You seemingly indirectly acknowledged this may be the wrong place, but didn't acknowledge where the right place to go. So, if I was not making an edit request, what was I making? Was I not requesting my edit to be reverted? It's like I have to ask "why is my request not an edit request?" You see how frustrated you made me feel? So I didn't find your reply helpful, I felt like you gave me the disadvantage of the doubt. But 7 days has passed now, too late for any admins to side with me, no doubt I withdraw my "non-edit request." But this is the world I live in, people that are mostly unhelpful (with the exceptions of a few admins I like). 67.165.185.178 (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

Separated edit notice

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Al-Salihiyya should probably move to Template:Editnotices/Page/Al-Salihiyya, Palestine but, as a notice of arbitration remedy, I'm not sure it's clear-cut enough for me to take to WP:RMTR. (The editor who created the notice has vanished.) In general, do we have a process when an unprotected page is moved and the mover lacks privilege to move its edit notice or simply doesn't notice that it has one (I rarely check)? Certes (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty clear-cut (and I've done the move, for the record). There is a bot that should take care of moves like this, though it's possible the converting of the redirect into a dab might have thrown it off. Thanks for bringing it up.

As to your second question, moving an edit notice just needs a {{TPER}} on the talk page, or as you surmised an RM/TR request. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. As you imply, it's an ideal job for a bot, and I'm glad we just missed one case rather than a wider problem. Certes (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Motion that passed a week ago has not been closed

This motion here passed with a majority on April 20. Unless I'm missing something as to the reason(s) why it hasn't been closed yet, I thought motions (after they pass) are/were supposed to be enacted within 24-48 hours of passing. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The only reason is that no one has closed it. ArbCom motions only have a minimum time requirement for closing (24-48 hours depending on circumstance) but not a maximum. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Changes to case naming

Regarding this comment on the proposed consolidated case name: as the arbitrators may recall, using thematic case request names was discussed in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36 § Community feedback: Proposal on case naming, along with sequential numbering and other more fanciful suggestions. ({{ArbCase}} supports a year-number format for accepted cases, for cases specified in Module:ArbCaseAlias/data.) Perhaps the arbitration committee might re-consider how to name cases requests and accepted cases? isaacl (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That is an ongoing discussion, but one that has not reached a consensus of opinion. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Current behaviour at AfD discussion

Are non-admin editors allowed/encouraged to make statements? Are we allowed to share perceptions about recent activities at AfD, or is it strictly evidence that is sought? I have opinions I'd like to share, but they are perception based, and I'm not sure if that is helpful/encouraged/problematic etc. CT55555 (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Statements are not limited to admins. -- BDD (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And must statements simply be "evidence" or can I share my perceptions about trends? CT55555 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess they should preferably have some form of evidence, even if only in the form of links to some specific AfDs. Just a perception that "editor X, Y and Z make AfD toxic" or "topics like orchid collecting bring out the worst in editors at AfD" without any diff or link to accompany them are at best useless, and at worst personal attacks. Fram (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You can share your perceptions but the best statements are backed up by diffs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

But yes to Fram's point that if you're naming specific editors in your perceptions support of those perceptions is necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. Fram, I'm sensitive to the personalisation of this, hopefully you'll see I've tried to avoid making this about any subject, theme, AfD, or editor and tried to convey a need to take a wider view. If I started giving examples, I think it would be too granular and risk missing the bigger picture. I appreciate the fast advice on this. I was going to be a silent observer, but User:Joe_Roe's comment made me feel like I should comment. CT55555 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Question for ARBs - If opened, would the case cover this issue of editor conduct at AfD, namely the badgering of editors who !vote in opposition to their view, whether that view is for retention or deletion. At least one of the three named parties practices this. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
We are still working out the specifics of the case, but it will cover conduct of the named parties at a bare minimum. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

Moved to Talk:Susan_Collins#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_26_June_2022 (diff)

Primefac (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2022

Moved to Talk:Lawrence_Gipe#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_30_July_2022

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: banned user talkpage

moved from User talk:Jytdog

Since Jytdog is banned, please remove all content on his userpage and replace with the following (invisible unless viewed in edit source): {{banned user|by=the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]|link=[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog#Jytdog banned|arbitration decision]]}}

Another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALugnuts&type=revision&diff=1102002458&oldid=1101167456 Yleventa2 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: I've asked ArbCom to clarify this here: [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This page isn't the right place for this discussion but a specific user's talk page is absolutely a worse place. I would decline the request. This decision is made on a case-by-case basis and there is no policy mandating blanking. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures § Enacting bans and editing restrictions, which is a procedural guide, doesn't say to blank. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(pings: @Yleventa2 and Tryptofish: KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

comments made post-move:

@L235: I see, thanks. What determines whether pages of banned users get blanked or not? Yleventa2 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect Yleventa2, it's probably best you don't worry about that and find something more constructive to do

— TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I will do that TheresNoTime Yleventa2 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, L235! I'll note that the edit (not the request) was reverted by Praxidicae; thanks for that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

And I reverted this blanking, and will again, if required. Just leave these people alone, Yleventa2. Bishonen | tålk 20:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC).

I've gone ahead and restored Lugnut's userpage, since I see no need to blank here. A tag would be sufficient. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: You reverted the banned user template along with reverting the blanking. Perhaps you didn't intend that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tryptofish Huh, didn't even see it, but I've added it back. Is it supposed to be visible? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw it in the edit history, but the only thing visible on the user page is a hidden category. The thinking behind making the template non-displaying is discussed at the ACN talkpage section about the deletions case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Just as an fyi: Template:Banned user/doc § Syntax has details on how to use the template for users banned by the arbitration committee. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Help, anyone. Triangle (Israel) might need you

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hey, not even sure this is the correct address for such an issue, please if the site's spirit is important to you ignore the possibly wrong technical placement of my post (or migrate it to where it's best answered) and just follow simply: I have spent a good hour this afternoon here improving and carefully fixing Triangle (Israel) all following Wiki's guidelines (a senior editor here), only to see a few hours later that someone randomly and single-button-edly removed all my edits restoring the article to its thinner, less-accurate and less-Wikipdially-coherent version -- all with NO explanation. Just cause they could.

Please be sure to inspect my editing there carefully and make sure that the right decision is made, in terms of determining which of the two users has acted in line with how we act on here. Many thanks in advance.

Orrling 109.67.135.58 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC) 109.67.135.58 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Due to an arbitration decision relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict only editors with the "extended confirmed" right are allowed to edit about the conflict. To get this right you need to have had an account for 30 days and have made 500 edits. As an unregistered editor you do not have an account and therefore cannot edit about the conflict. This was enforced by reverting your edit. Although the edit summary could have been clearer (through the use of a wikilink) is does provide an explanation (ARBPIA4 is the shorthand for the decision that requires editors have the extended confirmed right). This information is displayed in a notice that is shown at the top of the edit window (this does not show on mobile), but I understand if you are frustrated that your edits were reverted. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Retitling the Athaenara case request

CASE REQUEST RETITLED

The case request has been retitled in accordance with Arbcom deliberations and subsequent clerk instructions. The concerns raised in this section have been appropriately mitigated mooting the need for further discussion. --John Cline (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I agree with Xeno that "Desysop of Athaenara" is a suboptimal title for the associated case request. Not only dose it confusingly resemble a request asking Arbcom to review and clarify a Desysoping that had already happened, in terms of a case request, it gives a wrong impression that desysoping is the only sanction that Arbcom is to consider should a case ensue. I'm not sure what the procedure is for considering the renaming of a case request so I ask Dreamy Jazz, as the Arbcom clerk for the request, for their guidance on how best to proceed and I ask EvergreenFir, as the initiator of the request for their thoughts as well. Of course any other constructive comments are also invited and appreciated in advance. To all who consider this thread, thank you. --John Cline (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we're aware and on it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections with a retitling of the case. The title was meant more as a request than a description of an issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly done so. Please revert if it's not in my remit to. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reply in own section

@Reaper Eternal: - "If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section". Please can you move your comments from @Tamzin:'s section, into your own? Giant Snowman 18:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Done for them. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Giant Snowman 12:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please move my comment

Could a clerk please move my comment in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Clovermoss to below my comment in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Athaenara: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/1>. - Donald Albury 15:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury - done! firefly ( t · c ) 15:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Word limit increase

Clerks/arbs, I'm right around the 500-word limit. May I please have an extension to the limit to opine on the merits of full case vs. motion? Shouldn't need more than 150 more. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. Maxim_(talk) 16:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Historical revisionism"

Robby.is.on, while the overall meaning of your statement is clear, you may want to strike or revise your avowed opposition to historical revisionism. As our article points out, historical revision is the bread and butter of historical research. What you're likely thinking of is historical negationism. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosguill. I've made the correction. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to file a request for arbitration for Minecraft-related articles, given the game's huge popularity and therefore huge amount of vandalism, bias, etc. 120.150.226.104 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done: I would encourage you to read through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Arbitration is the last option for dispute resolution, so only if the community is not able to handle it will we step in. Primefac (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Athaenara (October 2022)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This case request was brought to review the administrative status of Athaenara (talk · contribs), a then-administrator who was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks. Subsequently, the Arbitration Committee resolved to remove Athaenara’s administrative privileges through its Level II removal procedures. This case request is therefore resolved as follows:

Athaenara may request that a case be opened and proceed through normal arbitration processes for further consideration of her administrative status by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en

wikimedia.org within three months of the enactment of this motion. The Committee will then decide whether to open a case or resolve the matter by motion. If Athaenara does not make such a request within the three-month period, she will remain desysopped and may regain the administrative tools only through a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted – Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Donald Albury 00:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Worm^TT(talk) 09:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Maxim_(talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers (November 2022)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Hasley solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2022 Arbitration Committee election.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Support

Izno (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
As always, thank you Stewards for your service. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Maxim_(talk) 01:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Worm^TT(talk) 08:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to all three for stepping up. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Donald Albury 13:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

Arbitrator discussion

Community discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why same hidden message in Poland case, listed twice?

Why do we have two hidden messages of "Please copy this section for the next person". Isn't one copy enough? GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Then again, never mind. It appears folks want to keep making wide spaces around those messages. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have been already solved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about the word limit

Do signatures, timestamps, etc. count toward the 500-word limit? I'm aware that this might be a dumb question, but I'm right up against the limit and I just want to make sure I'm in the clear. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@SamX, we give a little leeway on 500 (not much). Signatures and timestamps don't count, but everything else between the section header and your signature does. Izno (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, has anyone asked Chapman if she has a consulting fee?

This is not the right place to ask these questions. When a case is opened a talk page there could be a correct place. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I commented on the initial AN thread and expressed an opinion that I felt it was deeply troubling that we were being asked to consider some sort of sanction against an academic scholar for publishing a paper in their field of study in a respected, peer reviewed journal and have been following this case since- though I don't feel invested enough in the case to make any sort of statement and if I did it would be of little to no value considering I missed the years of 2011-2021 in their entirety on here which seems important for the backstory, but I do have a question. I'm relieved we don't appear headed towards that but there seems to be some interest in adding her as a party for some reason, mostly seeming to be about things she has published on. Since she would be answering questions and giving guidance about a field that she does professionally, it's usually expected that she'd be paid for that. Has anyone approached her to see what her consulting fee is? --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No. That would not be appropriate. An involved party should not be hired as an expert. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the interested

Media coverage on the "Holocaust in Poland" case:Wikipedia’s ‘Supreme Court’ tackles alleged conspiracy to distort articles on Holocaust Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

When's it actually going to start? Buffs (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the signal was "not very soon." They need to think about scope etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we're close to having instructions ready for the clerks. Once that happens it'll likely take a couple of days to do the setup (as it's going to be a little non-standard as an experiment) and then we'll launch. So all told early next week? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Update:[5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Motion: Desysop Dbachmann (April 2023)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

For egregious misuse of an admin tool, for losing the trust or confidence of the community, and for failing to address the concerns of the community within a reasonable time period, while being aware of those concerns ~~and while editing on a sister project rather than address the concerns~~, contrary to the expectations of admin conduct and accountability, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is desysopped. Dbachmann may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

Three days is long enough for someone to respond after making a very bold and contentious admin action, and being made aware that the action was challenged. If an admin makes such an action, they have a responsibility to stay and explain their rationale or accept they have done wrong and apologise, committing not to make the same error again. Without such an explanation or apology, the admin not only loses the trust of the community, but also makes the community distrust the role of all admins. It is ArbCom's role to deal thoughtfully but decisively with such actions to ensure the community can retain trust in our procedures. SilkTork (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Given that Dbachmann has responded, and asked to rest his case, it appears there will be no further input from him. I don't see the value of having a case, since it appears the evidence is already squarely before us and the issue is straightforward. ANI appears to be solving the T-ban issue, which leaves nothing further for us to do beyond consider a desysop. Since Dbachmann has not asked for a case, I see no reason to hold a full case on such a narrow issue. Examining Dbachmann's performance, he falls far short as an admin.
This issue begins when Money blocks Andew. I've gone through Andew's contribs, and it looks like a fair block well within the range of an admin to take. I don't see it as removing an ideological opponent in any way. Andew was a problematic editor: the sort of low-level but long-term problem that we often struggle with, and I applaud admins who are willing to put the work into dealing with such editors. Money's block rationale was in-depth, reasonable, and well researched. Then Dbachmann unblocks Andew, without prior consultation to Money. Except in the case of exceedingly bad, or obviously erroneous blocks, an admin should first discuss with the blocking admin. Dbachmann replies once to Money, and then goes radio silent on EnWP, but goes on to edit on DeWP. Given that he did respond here to us after a few days, I find the breach of ADMINACCT to be relatively minor. A minor breach is not itself a desysop worthy event, but it could contribute to a desysop. So was the unblock desysop worthy?
I think yes. Dbachmann's approach shows that his views on adminship are very outdated, that he understood that, and yet was unwilling to put in the time to update his understanding. He plainly notes that he got his tools back in 2004, and he was doing it the way I remember things should be done. But his last block or unblock was taken in 2011, a dozen years ago. An admin is expected to familiarize themselves with current policy before taking actions after an extended break. Dbachmann could have asked for advice or guidance first, read up on policy, or opened an AN review of the block. But instead, he immediately went for the unblock.
I do not find any of Dbachmann's rationales for the unblock convincing, and neither did ANI. In fact, of his rationales, I am rather concerned by This type of self-censorship is exactly what we need to avoid cultivating at all cost on Wikipedia, lest the overbearing ideological "mainstream" graudally [sic] drive away any dissenting views, which indicates that if anyone was taking an ideological action, it was Dbachmann himself. It is also a very misinformed view. Wikipedia isn't some grand battle of good and evil that must be precisely balanced with ideological fighters from "both sides" of a debate. It is a scholarly encyclopedia, and if contributors cannot behave themselves, they will be shown the door, no matter their views.
Dbachmann stands by his decision, and says that if he is wrong, then I have completely lost touch with the rules and power dynamics in the project today. Well I'm afraid I must agree with Dbachmann's assessment. It is apparent that he has not kept up with community norms. Given that adminship is a position of community trust, that Dbachmann is deeply out of touch with that community and its norms, and that he has taken a clearly erroneous admin action, I have no choice but to conclude that Dbachmann is no longer suitable for adminship. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I expect one of the above motions will be the one to close this case, but I am supporting this one as well for two reasons: One is I support anything that will bring about the more-or-less inevatible desysop, the other is that Captain Eek has very clearly laid out what I find to be a compelling and well thought out rationale that a simple desysop is a sufficient response from this committee and there is no need to put any time frame on it, and I'd like to see this committee consider this more lightweight option in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I read the above comment from Dbachmann as effectively ceding the opportunity to a case provided him. While I retain my support above for the other motions, I'll move across the line for this one as well. Izno (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I have come to the same conclusion as Izno: this is Dbachmann telling us it is the only response we're going to get. As it is completely insufficient to what is required under policy, I find this the appropriate remedy. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Striking while we work out the wording. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Per Izno and Barkeep. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Per Beeblebrox. — Wug·a·po·des 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I have reservations about the motion, but I do support it now. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Eloquently & thoroughly analysed by Eek. The threshold for any permission is not that you know off the top of your head how to use the permission in 100% of circumstances, but that you refrain from using the permission when uncertain or are out-of-date by a decade. Cabayi (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Per Eek - egregiously bad unblock. Shoutout to the "desysop proposal" subsection, as well; good idea and provided a clear picture of community views. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

~~Per previous commentary on having cases in absentia. Izno (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)~~

I would rather we give them a chance to respond --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I accept an immediate desysop in lieu of a case, I think we've got sufficient to go over the Level 2 Procedures. However, there are points in this motion I do not agree with. My primary concern with the text that is there - and while editing on a sister project rather than address the concerns - it has been shown that the timeline doesn't quite fit that. Also the tool misuse was not egregious, in my opinion. Finally, I believe that Dbachmann should be offered the opportunity of a full (expedited) case, per LEVEL2.
That being said my only significant concern is the above greentext. If it were struck, it would be sufficient to move support. Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Richie started an AN discussion on the 27th to look into the incident. Deepfriedokra went to Dbachmann's German account on the 28th and provided a link to the AN discussion, saying in German, "We are waiting". Dbachmann continued editing for an hour and half, making 25 edits, after Deepfriedokra had provided that alert. [6]. I think there has been some conflation between the AN discussion and this case request in regards to some statements in this case request; however the wording in the motion intends to refer to community concerns as voiced in the AN thread which had started on the 27th, rather than this case request which started on the 28th. SilkTorkAway (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks SilkTork. I'd still like the text removed as "editing on a sister project rather than address[ing] the concerns" is not policy breach by any means, even if it does draw the ire of community members. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the last thing Dbachmann had said on en.wp was "If you find a third admin (ideally one without known prejudice or involvement) and they decide to overturn my action, I absolutely promise you will hear no further complaints from me." I understand that they did not feel they needed to comment further when the ANI thread was raised. Worm^TT(talk) 08:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. SilkTorkAway (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but the two week motion is passing and I think we should just let that happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox neither other motion is passing. Both have 6 of the necessary 7. Izno (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes @Primefac and @Guerillero are the two active arbs who have not voted yet on that. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Barkeep49. I have voted pushing #Motion: Open and suspend case (2) into passing territory -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Math was never my strong suit, but I've got WP:AC open in another tab, and it says we have 11 active arbs as of the 28th. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct. But General Notability is active on this case request so we start with 12, not the 11 noted at WP:AC, active arbs. This is why I added {{ACMajority}} to each motion to clarify things. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I was away this weekend, and am leaning towards support of this motion based mainly on the reply by Dbachmann and the support vote by CaptainEek above, but will do my due diligence and re-read the rest of the commentary before proceeding. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat. Lean support but need time to catch up on reading. — Wug·a·po·des 22:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So now that Worm has (rightly) forced me to really re-read this motion (I read it when SilkTork posted, didn't expect to support, and then neglected to give it a thorough re-read before supporting yesterday, which is definitely bad on me) I don't think For egregious misuse of an admin tool is true. Unblocking someone without discussion is not, for me, egregious misuse of an admin tool. I also don't think ArbCom should start to respond to whoever happens to show up to a particular ANI as for losing the trust or confidence of the community. I don't like the precedent either of those sets. If someone wants to give that as their reasoning, great but I can't support that preamble for desysopping even though I very much want to support doing so now. I would prefer something simple like For failing to meet the expectations of admin conduct and accountability or even more ideally For failing to meet the expectations required by the Administrator policy, Dbachmann is desysopped and may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Ping SilkTorkAway and Worm That Turned. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I've already stated my preference against "egregious", so I'm certainly on board with the simple or ideal alternative. Worm^TT(talk) 15:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As a side effect of this motion, I'm grateful that we have been spared from making two weeks the new ADMINACCT waiting period. Cabayi (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with Barkeep or anyone editing the motion. I'm away at the moment, and find it awkward to edit on my phone. SilkTorkAway (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Small typo

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan_3/Proposed_decision#Other_Parties neither Grandmaster not Golden the "not" should be "nor" I think? Leijurv (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Fixed in both locations. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Question About Discussion in Contentious Topic Areas

Now available at WP:ARCA.

I don't know if I should ask this question here, or go through a more formal request at ARCA, but this is about moderating discussions of contentious topics. If the topic is in a Contentious Topic area, such as Eastern Europe or India and Pakistan, and I tell the participants that the topic has been designated as a contentious topic, is that considered sufficient notice for a subsequent report, if the moderated discussion fails? I think that the editors should be considered to have knowledge of the restrictions at that point, but I am asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing we're talking about a DRN moderated discsusion? If I have that right this should probably go to ARCA because with the new rules it's not a clear cut answer and if the consensus right now is "no" I could see us adding it to the footnote. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking about DRN moderated discussions. Okay, I will ask at ARCA. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Idk Which is right forum. About the main question, when I see a user inappropriately dabbling in contentious area, I inform of contentious topic areas on talk page with 'Friendly advice' as section heading. Should that be considered a warning? I would say no, a friendly advice should go first and then if mistakes are repeated follow up with formal warning.

Now we have mentor system and providing guidance as friendly advice should be easier IMO. Bookku (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Does EE include Sino-Soviet border conflict

Hi, a clarification as to "broadly construed" in respect to WP:ARBEE and Russia/Soviet Union. Does this capture articles about the Soviet Union in a global context - specifically, the Sino-Soviet border conflict and like? Please ping in response. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Asking at WT:AE. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: For an informal answer, no. That's got nothing to do with the geographic region of interest (eastern Europe). Russia is included usually only for the parts of Russia that are of interest there. For a formal answer, you will need to ask at WP:ARCA. Izno (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2023

Can I delete my account? KantoPrimeape (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@KantoPrimeape, account deletion is not possible as your edits need to be assigned to a user for attribution purposes. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to Arbitrators

This is a request to Arbitrators that before the case is formally accepted, to perhaps refrain from revealing their predisposed bent about the decision in the case that they will prefer. I am unsure of how this can be done, especially when Arbs have to justify accepting or rejecting the case. But when an Arb says that they would prefer, for example, AlisonW handing over her bits voluntarily, while this statement is okay when given by editors, for an Arb, it may be more prudent to at least assess the evidence in the case and then reach a final conclusion (even if by motion)... Otherwise, it would seem a decision has already been made even before the initial comments have been given by editors or the case has been formally accepted. I don't want this to come off negatively; therefore, my apologise in advance if this goes against group think. Warmly, Lourdes 07:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think arbitrators should have a predisposed bent in the first place. There hasn't been a case yet and yet several arbitrators have already made up their minds. Seriously disappointed to read statements such as:

AlisonW, your years of service are appreciated, but I think the most honorable course of action here is to recognize that you are no longer up on community norms, voluntarily hand in the bit, take the time to familiarize yourself with those new norms, and then re-RfA in the future. [Implying the Workshop phase is useless since the proposed remedy has already been decided on]
I'm concerned that despite several people attempting to bring AlisonW up to speed, there is still not quite enough awareness of why we are here ... I would rather hold off accepting a case until we've looked at those or other options. [Seriously? This makes me wonder what evidence phase of cases is for, if cases are accepted only when the remedy fails]
I took a very brief look at AlisonW's use of the block tool, and I see three blocks issued in the last decade, and all three strike me as problematic, and I'm seeing some other admin actions that seem out of touch with current standards. I am therefore leaning towards accepting this case. [If this is the way Arbcom accepts cases, small wonder why every case results in sanctions.]

Banedon (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think arbitrators should have a predisposed bent in the first place. I agree. Any arbitrator with a predisposed bent before the case should recuse. But having an opinion after evidence has been presented at ARC, and especially after the party in question has given a response isn't predisposed, it's in response to actual facts in an actual situation. Instead the request posed here is saying that arbs shouldn't have an opinion until... sometime nebulous time during a case. Before I was on the committee, this criticism seemed reasonable to me. In the actual work of being an arb it doesn't end up working all that well in practice which is why the editors who are actually elected arbitrators keep acting in ways contrary to this request. What this request is actually saying is that arbs shouldn't have an opinion until all the facts of a case are known. I think that doesn't reflect human nature and it is not supported by either policy or practice. First, administrator accountability cases are fundamentally different than multiparty cases. The narrow question in those cases are whether or not someone should be an administrator and in most cases this is a threshold question so an answer can be reached more quickly than in cases that stem from a dispute the community has been unable to resolve. That is once X weight of evidence has accumulated (with X being different for each arb) the arb decides that the answer to that question is no that person should no longer be an admin. The weight of that evidence can be adjusted by explanations by the admin in question.

For example, if Admin Foo wheel wars (as an offense that can lead to immediate desysop) and says that they don't (or maybe didn't) think their actions meet that criteria, it's not like other evidence is going to be helpful. The arbs have the information needed to make a decision. Some may decide the act matters more, some may decide that the lack of intent matters more, but further facts and time isn't going to be productive. In fact according to procedure there are certain times that the committee doesn't even need to hear from the admin before deciding to desysop; we call them WP:LEVEL1 desysops.

Cases aren't some end in and of themselves. Cases are a method for ARBCOM to carry out its mandate to To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. ARBPOL also recognizes that not every proceeding needs a full case which is why Summary proceedings where the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion exists with-in policy. Different arbs are going to have differing standards for when that is true which is why some arbs will be comfortable deciding an ARC by motion while others want a full case. But for arbs for whom that standard has been reached, there is no reason for them to pretend it isn't true. In fact it would be counter productive because by saying it's true it signals to other arbs who might agree that proposing a motion would make sense. If the expectation is that arbs don't say that they think a summary proceeding is appropriate what will happen then is that arbs instead express that privately which strikes me as a much worse outcome giving the community less insight and ability to give feedback to the committee. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

But having an opinion after evidence has been presented at ARC - evidence shouldn't be presented at the case request. It should be presented in the evidence page. If one of the parties has given a response indicating they do not see a problem, then what results is that the dispute is not solvable by normal methods and Arbcom must get involved, which means accepting the case request. it's not like other evidence is going to be helpful - How would you know until people have been given the chance to present & refute each other's evidence? (Bear in mind as well that the word count limit in theory prevents people from giving all the evidence they might have at the RFAR.) As for how spending time in a full case might not be productive, it very well might not be, but are you suggesting due process can be ignored if an arbitrator considers spending time to be unproductive? If you say yes I am opposing you next ACE, assuming you run. Banedon (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have vocally disagreed with your vision of ArbCom before and during your run for the committee so I have always presumed you opposed my candidacy. That obviously doesn't stop me from engaging with you but since I'm not interested in threats, especially ones based on a misreading of what I'm saying, I'll bow out of this conversation now. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on what they've said here, I suspect Banedon would oppose anyone who admits to editing (or even reading) Wikipedia. This isn't a court of law, and we can't expect arbitrators to pretend to not be members of the community during their term. And as for process, as long as the community treats the case request as both the evidence and the workshop phase, it's perfectly reasonable for arbitrators to use their section as the proposed decision phase. Some cases just aren't that complicated. – bradv 04:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No comment. Banedon (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We are expected to explain why we feel a case is merited or not. And I see no problem with suggesting an admin turn in their tools either, it is a way of offering them a simple, drama-free alternative to possibly having the tools removed involuntarily after a month-long examination of their behavbior. Motions are also better, in my opinion, than full cases about a single user. I urged the committee at that time to resolve Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder by motion, and instead we got an absolute circus of a case, where Fred, fully aware he was going to lose his admin bits, presented no defense and used the workshop to attack others, in particualr me, and others submitted irelevant evidence submissions and told blatant lies, again about me. None of that needed to happen. I didn't need to go through that. Fred could have done the decent and obvious thing and just resigned, or the committee could have done a motion instead of a case, there was no chance that case was going to end any other way. Now, this case is not as obvious as that one, but the reality is that the vast majority of admin conduct cases end with the admin in question losing the tools. That is just a fact, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. That doesn't mean we have all prejudged the case, what it means is that if the committee accepts a case about the behavior of one individual, that almost certainly means there is aproblem with that individual's behavior. Part of what I ran on was holding admins accountable, as I believe it is one of the most important functions of the committee. I'd be doing those who voted for me a disservice if I didn't do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I see no problem with suggesting an admin turn in their tools either Yes but that ought to not be your purview as an arbitrator. If *you* make the suggestion then you should recuse, since it indicates you are not going to be impartial. If someone else makes the suggestion and the admin agrees to turn in their tools, then there's no case and the ArC can be declined. The Fred Bauder case might not have been pleasant, but see Trial of Anders Behring Breivik, unless you think the Norwegian government should've imprisoned Anders Behring Breivik without trial. Banedon (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Your suggestion relates to a fantasy world. In reality, arbitrators should express their views (as Beeblebrox explained) and are assumed to be sufficiently mature that they will review their opinions in the light of future evidence and discussion. In a case like this, it would be doing the subject a grave disservice to hide the conclusions that are obvious to every experienced onlooker. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I feel like you are missing the point. There is what is currently the case, and what is currently a "fantasy world". The important question is whether the fantasy world is better than what is currently the case. The other things you mention are tangential at best. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

List of Declined Cases in June 2023

It appears that the list of declined cases includes one of the two case requests that were submitted this month by Cossde, the second one, but not the first one. Both of them were declined quickly, and I didn't see them, but then I saw that the parties to them were notified twice, on 5 June and on 10 June, for two cases, but only one of them is listed. This is no "big thing", but accuracy and completeness are desirable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:

Done. Thank you for bringing attention to that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Heading hierarchy levels on workshop page

For cases going back at least to 2021 that had a workshop page and an "Analysis of evidence" or "General discussion" section, these sections have been subsections of the "Proposed final decision" section. I feel that logically they aren't part of proposals for final decision, and thus suggest they be moved one heading hierarchy level higher. With the collapsible table of contents feature of the Vector 2022 skin, this would also make the sections easier to find. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I posted this somewhere else, as well, but I agree that a bit of restructuring might be nice. Here's my suggested solution:

a.) move evidence analysis from the workshop page to the evidence page (or to the evidence talk page, if preferred).
b.) Combine what's left of workshop with proposed decision to be a decision workshop page. Have the clerks/arbs post the initial principles, FoF, etc., like normal, but allow the community (including the arbs) to subsequently contribute - not to subjectively "vote", but to help with wording, phrasing, and alternative proposals (but only related to/variants of proposals already on the page - anything "new" can always be proposed on the talk page).
c.) Once the time limit has expired on the decision workshop page, the page is then "locked" to further editing (except the arbs), and the arbs then vote upon each (and if negotiated wording needs to happen for voting reasons, then that happens too).
d.) Once the voting phase is done, the results are put to the main case page.

I like this because it reduces a bit of the bureaucracy, but while it also continues to include the community in the process. - jc37 15:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am pretty sure this is NOT the correct page for the request (as this concern fr.wikipedia.org), but I trust you to forward it to the proper people.

request : change fr.wikipedia.org usurs Enrevseluj and Erigaydon from status:admnistrators to status:whatever (preferably: banned for ever; restore page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camillo_Castiglioni

I cannot ask fr.wikipedia.org because it would be useless, as the people running it ARE the problem (well at least 2 of the 2 I had contact with, so...)

Things are actually pretty simple and my claims are easy to check.

Camillo Castiglioni is quite a guy; I think he deserves to be better known. Since he has no article on :fr and I can translate, I do and create https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camillo_Castiglioni. I wouldn't dare say it was perfect, far from it as it was just half done work in progress, but still, at least it existed (I think you can check my work was OK).

There comes a guy, who just deletes the article (see above). That is vandalism, and I am pissed off. What a jerk... but an administrator jerk: Enrevseluj

There is a request page on :fr for this sort of thing. So I ask that the vandal be kicked, and the article restored. Surprisingly (or not...) the vandal is not punished, I am (banned, by another admninistrator: Erigaydon https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Requ%C3%AAte_aux_administrateurs&action=history ); my request is just deleted and ignored as if it never happened; and the article is NOT restored (nor begun from scratch). It is almost as if those people just don't want others to know about "an Italian-Austrian Jewish financier and banker... active in aviation's pioneering days and invested in the arts ... credited as being instrumental to the founding of what would eventually become BMW AG" (why? the guess is yours, but it is hard to not suspect the J keyword played a part).

I don't care about being kicked, I have no need of :fr, that I find very poor. I think I understand better why it is so: the fact that an administrator just destroy a legit page, and that a guy pointing this out is the one kicked, speaks volume. Obviously :fr is run by a gang more interested in their power and being friendly to each other, than in making an encyclopedia. Vandalism? OK as long as done by a friend. Complaining about that? Begone, you unfriendly nobody! Still, I find it disturbing that a wikimedia branch (:fr) is acting so badly, and I would have rather this fixed.

Sorry I used this channel off-purpose, but I know of no other way.

Take care

2a01:e0a:3a2:f360:6c15:e26d:ce41:627 2A01:E0A:3A2:F360:6C15:E26D:CE41:627 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done: No-one on English Wikipedia can assist you with issues on French Wikipedia. You will need to request assistance there. Izno (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2023

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am trying to add a reference to a cited statement by the American Civil Liberties Union-Maryland that indicates nine Maryland Senators have violated the First Amendment by threatening to withhold funding to an immigrant services group. The reason I've been told I can't add it is because it is considered controversial (Arab-Israeli conflict) and I need to have 500 posts first. However, the sentence being inserted only mentions the ACLU's First Amendment statement (nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict). By not including that statement, it inserts bias (i.e., that the withholding of funds is legal). I could spend a day and post 500 inserts to be compliant, but that seems more like gaming the system then straightforward insertion.

The ACLU opinion on First Amendment is pretty credible and that particular sentence shouldn't be "controversial."

The sentence being inserted on the nine Maryland Senators' bio page is "The ACLU issued an opinion that the letter by Kramer and others "amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination". (with hyperlink citation).

Thanks. 108.56.169.222 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Izno (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

Senkaku islands

Senkaku islands Arbitrator views and discussion

Senkaku islands Community discussion

Waldorf education

Waldorf education Arbitrator views and discussion

Waldorf education Community discussion

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Ancient Egyptian race controversy Arbitrator views and discussion

Ancient Egyptian race controversy Community discussion

Scientology

Scientology Arbitrator views and discussion

Scientology Community discussion

Landmark worldwide

Landmark worldwide Arbitrator views and discussion

Landmark worldwide Community discussion

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Arbitrator views and discussion

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Community discussion

Armenia/Azerbaijan

Armenia/Azerbaijan Arbitrator views and discussion

Armenia/Azerbaijan Community discussion

Article probation revocation

Article probation revocation Arbitrator views and discussion

Article probation revocation Community discussion

Transcendental Meditation movement

Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitrator views and discussion

Transcendental Meditation movement Community discussion

Obsolete probation-like sanctions

Obsolete probation-like sanctions Arbitrator views and discussion

Obsolete probation-like sanctions Community discussion

Implementation notes

Other discussion of Discretionary sanctions topic areas

Motion: Timwi warned (February 2022)

Trademark and user Account's.

Procedurally,

Request addition of statement to present A/R/C relating to Jonathunder

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

Suggestions

Where to find suspended cases?

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022: Humanities Desk revert.

Separated edit notice

Motion that passed a week ago has not been closed

Changes to case naming

Current behaviour at AfD discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2022

Edit request: banned user talkpage

Help, anyone. Triangle (Israel) might need you

Retitling the Athaenara case request

Reply in own section

Please move my comment

Word limit increase

"Historical revisionism"

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

Motion: Athaenara (October 2022)

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers (November 2022)

Why same hidden message in Poland case, listed twice?

Question about the word limit

Out of curiosity, has anyone asked Chapman if she has a consulting fee?

For the interested

Motion: Desysop Dbachmann (April 2023)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Small typo

Question About Discussion in Contentious Topic Areas

Does EE include Sino-Soviet border conflict

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2023

Request to Arbitrators

List of Declined Cases in June 2023

Heading hierarchy levels on workshop page

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2023