I found two arbitration related pages that had markup errors. I had submitted an edit request at RFPP and was told the Clerks team should handle it [1].

This edit request is just for fixing markup errors that does not change contents of the page. I will paste from my post in RFPP.

• Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Gamergate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

The talk page of full protected page Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement redirects to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Gamergate, which is also under full protection.

The pages have Lint errors as can be seen here and here.

Both pages have the exact same part with wrong markup that is causing the Lint errors. This is the part present in both pages that is causing errors - <center><font : size=5>The community general sanctions on this topic area were superseded by [[WP:ACDS|Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions]]. No further edits should be made to this page.<p> '''All enforcement requests should go to [[WP:AE|the arbitration enforcement noticeboard]]'''.</font></center>

Here the obsolete html <center> and <font> tags are used (see this for details) and the <p> tag is not closed. To get the same display without errors, please replace the above part with the following for both pages - <div style="text-align:center; font-size:x-large;">The community general sanctions on this topic area were superseded by [[WP:ACDS|Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions]]. No further edits should be made to this page.<p> '''All enforcement requests should go to [[WP:AE|the arbitration enforcement noticeboard]]'''</p>.</div>

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, done as requested (but used line break tag instead of the p tag as for accessibility readers is should be seen as one paragraph instead of two). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

While WP:AEDR states that CS' topic ban on place names remains suspended, Special:Diff/850648652#Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion states that it is only suspended for six months, implying that it will be re-instated near January 2019. My guess is that the topic ban is suspended further by another motion, but I see none on AEDR or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Can a clerk please tell me all the current sanctions against User:Crouch, Swale? NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

NotReallySoroka, according to Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, Crouch, Swale is currently subject to the following restrictions:

• one account restriction
• prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
• One new article per week in user or draft space (including redirects and disambiguation pages), submitted to AFC.

Per the motion you linked: if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. The TBAN was not reinstated during the six-month time frame, so it is no longer in force. My understanding is that "suspended" in this context was effectively a probation - the restrictions were temporarily lifted with the caveat that any problems would cause the restrictions to come back full force. Since C,S kept their nose clean for those six months, the restrictions went away automatically. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

What if I would like it amended so that they are bound to it again? Do I need repeated evidence and/or discussion to CS to establish grounds for such a request? If an amendment is successful will it have retroactive effect? NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

NotReallySoroka, then you would either need to file a new request for arbitration, or possibly an amendment request if it directly ties to the existing restrictions. You will, of course, need to present evidence of wrongdoing at the same time – which can't just be that you had a disagreement over the title of Soroka. – bradv🍁 01:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I intend to gather more opinions before I potentially made a move - but the question is, how may I ask for such? NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka: Indeed it was suspended for 6 months meaning it reinstated by any uninvolved administrator which didn't happen (and wasn't even considered) so I'm not subject to restrictions on geographical NC anymore than anyone else but in any case I've had almost no conflicts on WP since 2017 and most of those have ironically not been geographical NC related. 07:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouch, Swale (talk • contribs)

@Crouch, Swale:: While I respect your right to defend yourself, I am asking for how to discover evidences for a potential Arbitration case, not your opinion on such a case. Also, I will move to your talk page for further discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

NotReallySoroka, your options as I see them are as follows:

• Request a community-imposed topic ban at the administrators' noticeboard.
• File a request for arbitration.

I remind you that both will require you to provide clear evidence of an ongoing and repeated problem, and it is your responsibility to provide the evidence (generally in the form of diffs of recent problematic behavior). Speaking only for myself, I expect that an arbitration request at this stage would likely be declined due to lack of recent attempts at dispute resolution. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Following the same pattern as the arbitration case index for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2019, will an entry be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2021 for the suspended case this year? isaacl (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, I'll add Carlossuarez46 to the list now. Thanks for spotting this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed there is a discrepancy in the closing date on the index page versus the case page. I appreciate it doesn't really matter in grand scheme of things, so no worries about updating it. isaacl (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! isaacl (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

At my small request here. TIA, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that this is now resolved firefly ( t · c ) 12:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I just posted a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment . Something is apparently wrong, for it did not transclude. Could someone fix it. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, you have an incorrectly-formatted wikilink in your statement. The link [[:WP:DSTOPICS] needs another close bracket. – bradv^🍁 16:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

thanks, , I fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate this is a 'shocking' topic, I struggle to see the "Eostrix Blocked" thread having any further constructive discussion, and its now attracting some issues. Perhaps it could be gently closed, and specific issues discussed if desired? ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 12:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The gun, I may have jumped it ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 12:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think my hatting of the thread and your post here happened almost simultaneously :) firefly ( t · c ) 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I had to use a different method of listing this user in my case filing because they have special characters in their user ID. I will assume either that someone can take care of that or that it will be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: try {{userlinks|1=7&6=thirteen}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Evening.

After a rather extended wiki-break due to real life conflicting, I'd be interested in returning to clerking (if you'll have me). Amortias (T)(C) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amortias hi there. I've emailed the clerk-l list to ask for the thoughts of arbitrators and clerks. I'll keep you updated. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to change the name of my request to "Holocaust in Poland"? As we have gathered comments, the scope is becoming clearer. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jehochman: this is being discussed on the Clerk's mailing list but typically we don't rename requests until they've been accepted by the committee. We will keep you posted on what the final decision is. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. Can we try to make it clear to the arbitrators that this would be the scope of the case? Maybe they'd want to change the request title because the current title is pretty far off target. Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman if we decide to accept this as a case, I will definitely be bringing up the name when we figure out logistics. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Would like to be made a Arb clerk. I've already been doing clerking (though apparently I shouldn't have) without any mistakes. I already have the know how, just don't have the title. Not interested in giving out any personal info of my self, fwiw. Having said that, I will agree to training/mentoring, as I'm only interested in clerking the lighter stuff - removing un-necessary white-space or un-necessary end-lines. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Appointments for instructions on how to apply. Izno (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No emailing. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is essentially a requirement to be a clerk. Izno (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That's too bad :( GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, I can also confirm that having an email address is an important part of clerking for ArbCom. Although clerks can coordinate onwiki, pretty much all of this is done offwiki either on IRC or via email. This is to allow discussions to be held with regards to what actions to take, so that the clerks can work together and any clerk taking action then has the support of the arbs and other clerks. If offwiki discussion was non-existent or limited, I suspect the clerks would contradict each other unintentionally a lot. Although the clerks list doesn't usually have private or sensitive information discussed, there have been cases where clerks needed to discuss information which would not be allowed onwiki due to privacy concerns. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Type of clerking I would've been doing, wouldn't have required emailing. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A protected redirect, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks]]

<!-- This page is obsolete and kept for historical purposes, please use the page above for new comments. -->

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from merge}}
{{R related}}
{{R to talk page}}
{{R from subpage}}
{{R to subpage}}
}}<!-- 

This page is obsolete and kept for historical purposes, please use the page above for new comments. -->

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, why not --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Guerillero, and Happiest of New Years to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 07:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, could [2] be reverted as linkspam and modifying another editor's comments? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've reverted it. Izno (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jonathunder's_use_of_admin_tools_in_content_disputes is the first time I have filed a case request and I have a question about word counts. The gross word count of my request is 745 words but net of the timeline and diffs, the actual substantive portion is only 389 words. That no clerk or arbitrator has yet asked me to reduce the request suggests that the 389 figure is the more accurate way of counting. Since there have been points brought up by Committee members that I would like to comment on, is my remaining allowance, therefore, -245 words or 111? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Your true number is 757 by my count. But I'll give you an extension up to 1000 words. Our goal isn't to be draconian; I'm personally fairly lenient when extensions are requested. Ultimately the purpose of word limits is to prevent unproductive lengthiness; when you're using space reasonably well, we'll grant extensions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@L235:, thank you for that. I will not need all 1000 at the current time but the leniency is appreciated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe I am slightly over the 500 words in my statement + replies at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by TheresNoTime ~TNT (talk • she/her) 14:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: I'm granting you an extension to 1,000 words for this case request. (cc: @ArbCom Clerks: ) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Jax 0677 left a message at Wikipedia:Closure requests about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte, which was accepted and suspended for three months back in March—since more than three months have elapsed, it seems that the case can closed now. Just wanted to get the request to the right place. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Pinging @Dreamy Jazz:, @Firefly:, @GeneralNotability:, @Guerillero:. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Committee and clerks are aware. Thanks for the note. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There is an expression error in the "Support needed" and "TenPoundHammer warned" box. The exact text of the error is: "Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{"." Please fix this error. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping User:Guerillero. He was the clerk who accidentally introduced the error when closing the case. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks. firefly ( t · c ) 06:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2009, it appears that the Pseudoscience sanctions are mistakenly under Scientology. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin good catch. Fixed! firefly ( t · c ) 21:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

While I have you, Firefly, do you know why all of the DS logging for Scientology is still at that page rather than the AE log? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin huh. I do not. I imagine someone who does will be along to enlighten us before long :) firefly ( t · c ) 21:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It ought be moved when someone has a moment. Must've been an oversight! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that's been done by me now. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The tally on Implementation Notes is not the same as the tally at the main area. Please fix. Thanks Firestar464 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The implementation notes are not automatically generated and are updated manually. This means it may take some time to be updated, but these have just now been updated. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see this conversation. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I sometimes browse? arb pages and I have noticed {{ArbComOpenTasks}} can look less than ideal (large whitespace) on these pages with Vector 22 (And is somewhat broken on this page). This is mainly caused by the template accounting for the table of contents when it is moved on this skin. Anyway with everyone essentially being forced onto Vector 22 this month, I had an attempt of redesigning it as well as removing the collapsible elements (Since they just don't work on mobile and the collapse just doesn't add anything). See {{ArbComOpenTasks/sandbox}}. It should appear around the same size / possibly smaller (width) than the current template when on a PC monitor with legacy vector, but should also appear much larger for V22 users meaning less whitespace. Overall: Just a thing I spent a bit of time on, but i'm not looking to get into hot water over this so I will just mention it here rather than making any edits. Terasail^[✉️] 19:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on this. I like the styling better on this new version, and the pencil icon for editing looks much cleaner than the "[edit]" link.

I'm not fully convinced with the larger width, because when this template takes up the full width of the screen it leaves the red box with the information and button to file a request require scrolling to see. However, the full width is definitely good for mobile. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe just rearange the sections slightly so that the template can be above/below the info boxes rather than side by side. So that you get one block of information at a time (Seems like a better layout) or just set the templates max-width with a parameter. Terasail^[✉️] 22:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Such as with: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment Terasail^[✉️] 22:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose having it full width by default. I'll see what other clerks and the arbs have to say. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it could ever take up the full width (as in centered), at least with the current format of pages. Since legacy vector still needs to be taken into account, it would always have to be set with a float=right so that the contents doesn't end up below the table. Terasail^[✉️] 22:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we* should create a Phabricator ticket requesting a rename of the "discretionary sanctions alert" tag to "contentious topics alert".

*"We" means that I'd do this but lack any kind of authority to do so. A member or at least clerk of the committee should probably request this instead.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this! Please go for it if you'd like, or I can push the buttons later today. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess an arb's confirmation will do :) Tracked in phab:T327118. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Has been completed :) Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. Just thinking, and this may already exist somewhere already, that it might be useful to have an archived copy of the last approved version of the discretionary sanctions procedure somewhere? Possibly as a subpage of Wikipedia:Contentious topics or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index and marked as historical. That would potentially assist in the future with needing to check or refer to something without needing to search through the page history of Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Great idea. Created at WP:OLDDS. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask (I used the link "Contact the arbitration clerks with questions" from here). I read there: Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Duration of restrictions, become subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year. Does this mean that the indefinite topic bans imposed earlier remain indefinite, and it is still useless to appeal them? Of course, I keep my case in mind.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus:

• Does this mean that the indefinite topic bans imposed earlier remain indefinite - Any topic ban imposed under DS and CT can be indefinite, and it's length is not affected by this change. This statement here is saying that the second bullet point of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction does not apply to restrictions imposed under the former DS procedure.
  In your case: Your topic ban remains indefinite and the appeal method is the one at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments even after a year passes.
• it is still useless to appeal them? - Not necessarily. The standard for an appeal has changed to be easier to meet. For an appeal to be accepted, it no longer requires clear and substantial consensus and instead only clear consensus.
  In your case: It will be easier to appeal, but you need to make sure you have addressed the concerns in the last appeal(s).

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the clarification.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello all,

Seems as though when I go to add information or dispute anything my edits are reversed. For example recently I added referenced information that is reliable it was reversed without discussing first. Before that I removed a stat figure that was from a conflicting party on the subject and again it was removed. We should be using reliable third party references on topics like this with the historical disputes. I dont want to cause trouble so I am reaching out here on best ways to go about this. Is any third party members available to help with edits? Thank you for your time. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

While the Arbitration committee currently has an open case about the subject area (WP:AA3), I'm afraid that's not really a question the committee or clerks can answer. General advice about dispute resolution and places to go to in such cases can be found at WP:Dispute resolution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, please check my contributions National Council of Resistance of Iran and its talk page.

Although relatively new to this subject matter, I have contributed to these in good-faith and what I believe to be a competent manner, and I believe that the WP:Verified facts that I've contributed, are allowed by our content policy. Please confirm that they are not "synthetic " statements of WP:Original research, which I understand are forbidden and agree to not make. Or else instruct - Have I inadvertently done "Synth"? Or are there other problems with my contributions of which I should be aware? Thanks for your help.

Also please review my contributions to and proposed move of The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement, currently in AfD.

Another editor has alleged that I've made "Synthetic claims", relying on an overly broad mis-application (IMHO), of an earlier AfD on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement. I understand and accept the decision and rationale of the closing admin in that case, @Vanamonde93, but I think it does not apply in the context of these other articles in the way the adverse editor thinks that it does. I thought we had agreed to 'ana-lyze' - which is the opposite of synthesize - and then merge the now-deleted article's content, and the other editor appears to believe that none of it is now acceptable anywhere.

If you could educate us on the Content policy and how it applies in this case, it may help to avoid misunderstanding.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jaredscribe. I'm afraid this isn't the right place for your questions; the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content matters. Fear not, there are a variety of options available for dispute resolution, which can get other folks opinion on an issue. But be careful not to WP:CANVASS people to your discussion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe ah realize I didn't ping you, I'm still used to Enterprisey's reply tool. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @CaptainEek this is the first time I've gone to any of these places within the wiki bureaucracy, I think I will do the OR noticeboard since that is the policy in question. Sorry about that. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Jaredscribe, I suggest holding off of the noticeboard for the moment. The editor you are in dispute with hasn't edited since your post to the talk page yesterday. You need to give them time; opening multiple discussions isn't going to make them respond any sooner. If you remain in disagreement after a discussion on the talk page, going to WP:ORN might be more helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:) Enterprisey (talk!) 05:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed some discrepancies between the recorded vote totals at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision:

• Remedy 6 (Rp2006 warned): 10 to 0 on the main page, 11 to 0 on the PD page
• Remedy 11.1 (Roxy the dog warned): 9 to 0 on the main page, 10 to 0 on the PD page
• Remedy 12 (GSoW onwiki presence): 11 to 0 on the main page, 12 to 0 on the PD page

DanCherek (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@DanCherek, thanks for raising this. This is likely because the implementation notes in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision § Implementation notes were not updated when the case was closed. As such, the counts from the outdated notes (instead of the actual voting sections) could have been used when posting the final decision.

I will fix these now. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Would the committee be open to converting Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case to an actual talk page, instead of a redirect? This would allow clerks to more consistently enforce standards related to preliminary statements by moving off-topic comments or tangential discussions to the talk page. Right now such comments can only be deleted or moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests (which has a different focus) so more often than not they are simply left as part of the preliminary statements. – bradv 14:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Cannot hurt to try. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to try something like this. I haven't thought about it much, but perhaps a section of WT:AC/C might be better, since the more talk pages, the harder to track. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The implementation notes regarding the Scottywong arbitration case need to be updated for the following proposed decisions, mostly due to GeneralNotability's recent voting. For instance, we now have a sixth support vote for Remedy 1 which would see SW desysopped. Thanks. Silcox (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Silcox, we really don't need the backseat clerking. Clerks will go through and update every so often, or arbs can update the counts themselves. This is not such a pressing matter that the vote counts being six hours out of date will present a problem. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

... as "desyopped" in implementation notes. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Which was my fault. Izno (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute § Workshop phase extended, the closing date for the Workshop should be changed to 16 August at {{Casenav/data}}, and the proposed decision date should be 23 August. DanCherek (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to update those. Will do so shortly. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a problem or not, just thought I'd point this out. On Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Proposed_decision, on proposed remedy 7, BrownHairedGirl is misspelled as BrownHariedGirl. Again, not sure if this is a problem, thought I'd point it out. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The remedy didn't end up passing and the case is now closed so I'd let it be. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is really minor but at the current case request, there are two subsections titled "Support (Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account)". The second one should be "Abstain". DanCherek (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This has now been handled by Izno, thanks. DanCherek (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen says the restoration of administrative permissions passed 8 to 4, but on the Proposed decision page the vote is 9 to 4. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I believe the below WP:CT2022-related edits are problematic because they altered page intent:

• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions (only the parts related to community sanctions)
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19
• edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts
• edit - Template:Gs/logtopbox

Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1161930861 definitely isn't a problem as the sanctions that superseded it are authorised by arbcom and as such they definitely converted to WP:CTOP. Therefore, leaving as DS is incorrect.

The others I also don't think there is a problem (except maybe the one that edited the archived sanctions page) because the community DS linked and relied on WP:AC/DS with some modifications. That procedure is now marked as superseded at WP:OLDDS, and the WP:AC/DS shortcut now redirects to WP:CTOP. Therefore, I think that community authorised DS are now community authorised CTOP.

Simply reverting these IMO won't help as the links would go to WP:CTOP and confuse editors who are wanting to understand the procedures (as it is a different name on the procedure page). Linking to WP:OLDDS won't help either as that is marked as superseded and retained primarily for historical reference which will also confuse. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree about Special:Diff/1161930861.

I believe the others are problematic because those community sanctions are based on WP:AC/DS, not WP:CTOP. I agree that it is not as simple as reverting these edits, but there are more options to fix this than linking one of two pages. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I can therefore see a few options:

1. An RfC is started as to whether to formally convert all community authorised discretionary sanctions authorisations to be contentious topics designations.
2. A community-maintained copy of the discretionary sanctions procedure is created and linked to instead of either WP:AC/DS or WP:CTOP.

Personally I like number 1, but I wouldn't have the time to set that up and probably needs to come from a editor who isn't an arbitrator or arbitration clerk. However, if there has already been such an RfC or in the interim, it may make sense to do number 2.

Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been working on a draft of option 1 which also includes some future-proofing. I'd appreciate your feedback if you have time to take a look. (Are you ever on Discord?)

In the meantime, option 2 would work, but it might be sufficient to update those edits and modify the {{superseded}} banner comment on WP:OLDDS to something like:

It is also referenced by some '''[[Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions|community sanctions]]'''. For more information on the transition of Arbitration Committee sanctions to the contentious topics procedure, see [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions|the Committee's transition guide]]. This page reflects the text of the discretionary sanctions procedure immediately prior to the [[WP:CT2022|adoption]] of the contentious topics procedure.

Thanks for looking into this. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've undone the edits other than Special:Diff/1161930861 and Special:Diff/1161930909. In those pages where there is a link to WP:AC/DS, I've replaced it with a link to WP:OLDDS. I've added your suggested wording to the banner on WP:OLDDS. Thanks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Note User:Awesome Aasim has been looking into the work required to convert community-authorized discretionary sanctions into community designiations of contentious topics. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Rewording WP:General sanctions' mentions on discretionary sanctions into contentious topics and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Unifying Community and Arbitration-Designated Contentious Topics for discussion. isaacl (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

DJ, I think this edit is just about strictly incorrect. I didn't spend time looking at the others but if this is the character of the other changes, then these changes were a miss.

The community before our change of nomenclature had its own discretionary sanctions authorized by the community under GS. That these were linked to our version of things (as in, [[]]) is frankly a failure to maintain these pages appropriately rather than intent to indicate anything about how our procedures were related to these pages.

I don't think a link is necessary at all in fact. Izno (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

At the time I made these edits I had incorrectly assumed that community-authorised DS was converted to community authorised CTOP by the very nature of CTOP superseding DS. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Makeandtoss, HJ Mitchell

Template:uw-aepblock's wording currently seems to imply that appealing a partial AE block at WP:AE or WP:AN is prohibited and has to be done through a copy request on the user's talk page, even if the user can edit the noticeboard themselves. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What’s a copy request? The template stated on my talk page said the appeal could be copied to AE or AN.. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You can edit WP:AE and WP:AN without restriction, so you could have appealed the block on either of these noticeboards simply by starting a new section there. Instead, Template:uw-aepblock asked you to appeal on your user talk page, which you shouldn't have been required to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes, seemed messy to me at first. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"500/30 protection" and "500/30 rule" are referenced on WP:CT/A-I. Should those each be "extended confirmed restriction" now? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan, I've updated the 500/30 protection usage but the 500/30 rule change would need a WP:ARCA request as it would need to also modify Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § ARBPIA General Sanctions which needs an arbitrator motion.

As such, it probably makes sense to file an WP:ARCA. If you want to do that feel free otherwise I can probably file it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the motion that amended item B, which replaced the term "500/30 Rule" with "Extended confirmed restriction", perhaps the change can be implemented a bit more expeditiously than filing a formal request? isaacl (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Isaacl that the motion he linked to is likely sufficient to make the change. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In which case I will make that change now. Thanks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing about Template:Contentious topics/alert and Template:Contentious topics/alert/first. Also, should the relevant note be boldfaced or underlined or something? For many users it's the most relevant requirement, and it's kind of buried beneath a lot of boilerplate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking this too. On the template, feel free to propose a change and we can get it approved fairly quickly. It's on my list but it's pretty low on the list. With the DS2022 changes, the templates are more malleable than they were last year. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Template has since been updated, as lacked any direct reference to WP:ECR, but it won't discourage non-WP:XC users from initially making edits to such topics, as there is no note on the edit page or talk about extended confirmed restrictions. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I posted a proposal on the talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion&diff=prev&oldid=1181257084 and it was reverted under "contentious topics" rule even though that only seems to apply to the articles, not the talk page. I have not edited the article (not enough edits to qualify)

Can someone explain whether this is an intended use of this policy? "contentious topics restrictions prohibit this post" was the revert reason. Ashvio (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ashvio (courtesy ping @Andrevan). Sorry about the confusion. On pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (under WP:A/I/PIA), the extended-confirmed restriction applies. The extended-confirmed restriction provides that Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. At first glance, your talk page edit wasn't prohibited by the restriction. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I believe I have the full right to engage in discussions and proposals in the topic page even if I can't edit the article. Ashvio (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the proposal again. I would say it was disruptive as a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL and it attacked editors in ways prohibited by the contentious topics restriction. I was also under the impression that editors could make edit requests that are not disruptive, but an out of process pseudo-RFC is disruptive. If I am mistaken, then I apologize for the confusion. Andre🚐 00:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I reposted without any implication of assigning bad intentions to editors, that was not my intention. My point was that we all see the world through a western lens and media perspective which is something we have to be aware of and account for, not that people are intentionally being biased. Ashvio (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Andre🚐 02:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"I would appreciate Support/Oppose comments" does start an internal discussion in my eyes, as formally as it is possible without using the term "RfC". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed that from my updated post. My mistake for not formalizing myself with RFC processes better before making one like that. Ashvio (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

L235, are discussions to determine consensus that aren't tagged as RFCs no longer internal project discussions? ...but are not limited to... stands out pretty strongly there. Is it the type of discussion or the RFC tag that makes it an internal project discussion? If a section isn't an RFC, but is being used to assess consensus should editors that are not extended confirmed have their opinions and input discarded? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you better define what an 'internal project discussion' is for future cases like this? My interpretation of the rules was that informal discussions are allowed, but formal project discussions with a set desired outcome are not. Along with as L235's earlier comment, it wasn't unreasonable for me to repost the discussion as I did. Ashvio (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A meta discussion is, essentially by definition, an internal project discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you have defined meta discussion for me, but I would like to have a concrete definition of "internal project discussion" included in the rules so it is clear that such discussions aren't allowed. To be clear, I'm not contesting your decision, just asking for more specificity in the rules so it's less likely to happen to others in the future. Ashvio (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That's going to have to go to WP:ARCA. I was thinking I might have to throw together a request there soon. Here's the kicker, I don't know that a non-ec editor can request clarification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well if you could toss one in there for me I'd appreciate it :P

Thanks! Ashvio (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like I can edit it, though I havent tried submitting anything I have the edit page accessible. Ashvio (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not ec protected, but it would be an internal project discussion related to the Palestine Israel conflict, so non-ec editors technically can't take part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Could it be an internal project discussion related to the general concept of internal project discussions? Otherwise if you can put it in for me I'd appreciate it. Ashvio (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a clarification request about WP:ARBECR in general is less related to the Arab-Israeli conflict than this discussion here, but that's just a quick personal assessment. WP:BANEXEMPT mentions "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" as an exception to bans, but this isn't ArbCom-specific. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(Initially from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment)

(Please see comment below which more directly addresses the issue, after further understanding of the issue)

I'm proposing that a warning on the edit page of WP:ECR contentious topics to be included, for clarification to non-WP:XC users.

Currently non-XC users are only warned that the page is semi-protected upon editing, and therefore liable to receive the contentious topics alert template by making such available edits to pages. Additionally, talk pages do not specify any extended confirmation restrictions either.

My suggestion for clarification:

• Update the edit warning from semi-protected to ECR for such topics, currently the note says:

^{Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse.}
---> This should read that the page is restricted to extended confirmed users, not just semi-protected

• Update the talk pages of ECR topics to reference the topic as ECR, currently the note says:

<sup>*Note: The article ***, along with other pages relating to the ***, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
* Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
* Following WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, editors on this page can only revert once in 24 hours</sup>
---> This should also include the extended confirmed restriction that applies to the topic

The ECR link to the contentious topic template has been recently updated for further clarity, but I believe preventative measures are also necessary. I believe this is specific to WP:CT/A-I that is ECR. The admin updates to the relevant pages hasn't been made yet. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I'll need an example of a page affected by the issue. Trying to edit the article about Israel, for example, leads to:

• A big red box reminding the extended-confirmed editor that they're editing a protected page, and a big red stop icon next to an explanation of the restrictions, or
• A big blue lock icon, a button for submitting an edit request, explanations about protections, and a big red stop icon next to an explanation of the restrictions.

There may be semi- or non-protected pages that contain affected content without being primarily about the contentious topic; these should ideally have an editnotice saying that "parts of this page relate" to it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes precisely, that edit notice. Maram Susli is an example of this, and I presume any other semi or non-protected pages. This clearly doesn't affect XC pages then. Ideally the notice would have reference to WP:ECR, so users understand what these rules are, but that's another issue.

As per docs, was this page simply missing the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} template? This would explain a lot here!

If so, the edit notice shouldn't be optional, if it leads to alert notices. It's pretty demoralising receiving a warning on your talk page when it's impossible to be aware. AGF here, but it's completely backwards to alert users post-edit, instead of first providing notice pre-edit.

Ideally the wording of: Awareness of contentious topics When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the Contentious topics/alert/first template, would include something like as long as the appropriate edit notice parameter has been used. This would resolve the issue it seems, and is more directly the issue. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

After further reading regarding WP:ECR pages, these edit notice templates in fact must be used as per CT docs (it's not just an ideal). So I am officially wasting my time proposing something that has already been implemented, so I apologise. It simply needs calrifying it seems.

Is it worth referencing this in Template:Contentious_topics lede for example? Users sending these alerts are still unaware. Also there is no mention that these edit notices "must be used" in Arab-Israeli editnotice/doc either for example, which it would ideally mention as well.

Alternatively, an alert for users incorrectly sending alerts would be useful :) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

CommunityNotesContributor, this mixes up a few things. The following restrictions exist:

• Page-specific restrictions, which must come with an edit notice (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices) and are unenforceable without one (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions).
• Topic-specific restrictions, which require awareness (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics) but do not require an edit notice to have been present.

Requiring edit notices to have been present before informing a user about the contentious topics procedures would be counter-productive: We want as many users to be aware (and formally aware) as possible, and we can't place an edit notice on every page that is tangentially possibly related to a contentious topic. For example, an article about a living person is always part of the WP:BLPCT topic area, but an unregistered user might choose to add WP:A/I/PIA-related content to it. If this content is unverifiable and absurd, it would be similarly absurd to place an Arab-Israeli editnotice to the page; still, the editor can be informed about the restriction and sanctioned if they continue. This seems fine to me.

{{alert/first}} is not meant to be a warning limited to bad behavior, although it is often used in this way. As we can't look into the minds of people, the "completely backwards" approach of alerting users after editing lacks alternatives. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that Template:@ArbCom is currently slightly outdated. Just thought I should bring it to the clerks’ attention as I didn’t want to risk accidentally doing anything wrong myself on an ArbCom template :)

Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@A smart kitten - thanks, this has been fixed. firefly ( t · c ) 12:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Saw this section while posting the comment below and figured I'd note that this template now needs to be updated for 2024. 129.170.195.78 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that when a request at ARCA is closed and collapsed, but not yet archived (e.g., the Horn of Africa amendment request currently), the date posted listed on {{ArbComOpenTasks}} changes to instead be the date the request was closed and collapsed, because Module:ArbComOpenTasks just matches the first date it finds in a section, so it's grabbing the date in the closing arbitrator's signature. Apologies if this is just a known issue without an easy fix, but wanted to mention in case it isn't. 129.170.195.78 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Can somebody clarify this for me? Despite editing many years in this area, honestly I still do not understand the rules. I asked Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question_about_ARBPIA_sanctions as part of a discussion that is going on there, and was advised to place my question here.

The ARBPIA policy this page states:

The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions"... Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.

and:

The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles.

and:

If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content.

and:

Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools.

What is the policy basis for enforcing EC sanctions on pages lacking a template? As in in the case of the discussion that I linked above? Many newbie editors recently had their EC rights revoked for editing pages that did not have the template. Marokwitz (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, pinging the clerks and arbitrators again, your advice would be highly appreciated . Marokwitz (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Marokwitz, I'm neither a clerk nor an arb, but I believe I can answer your question. WP:ARBECR applies to this topic area, so any editor who does not have 30 days and 500 edits tenure cannot edit these pages, regardless of whether a template is in place. Per WP:XC and WP:PGAME, permissions can be removed if they are gained by gaming the system. So they shouldn't be having their EC rights revoked for editing these pages, but for gaming the system (even if the only reason people noticed is because of these pages). Hope that makes sense. – bradv 07:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer @Bradv. So you are saying that editors that edited unprotected articles prior to receiving EC, should not have their EC rights revoked unless they gamed the system? Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Mostly yes, sometimes no. Depends on the situation -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Guerillero, "mostly yes, sometimes no" – this answer appears to be somewhat ambiguous. What policy guides administrators in making such decisions? According to the policy, "The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles."

I am asking because I feel that decisions are being made arbitrarily. Recently there is considerable resentment in this area, and it seems to me that there is no consensus between different administrators. Marokwitz (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally yes. They certainly can't have their EC right revoked as an AE action, but there may be reason to do so within normal admin discretion. Do you have an example? – bradv 17:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv Yes, for example, see WP:AN#Extended-confirmed gained largely through ECR violations. Note that there were no accusations of gaming, battleground behavior, or anything else against this user, and the they sound pretty frustrated. "The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles" - I think this is an unjust sanction. Marokwitz (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That was done as an individual admin action, not as an AE action, so the ARBPIA procedures don't apply. Technically any administrator can reverse this (although that's unlikely to happen without consensus at AN). You also have to realize that the entire topic area is under a lot of strain right now, partly due to off-wiki canvassing, and there are a lot of accounts newly created solely for the purpose of editing in, or even disrupting, this topic area. The intention behind the ARBECR restrictions is two-fold: 1) to ensure the the only participants in these discussions are experienced Wikipedians, familiar with our policies and conventions; and 2) to discourage the use of sockpuppets and proxy editing by increasing the effort required to create and onboard such accounts. If people are attempting to circumvent these procedures they are likely to bring all their actions under scrutiny, and administrators may use any tool at their disposal to limit disruption. The use of arbitration enforcement (that is, applying certain sanctions that cannot easily be reversed by another administrator) is limited to the rules articulated by ArbCom, which as I said have not been applied in this case. – bradv 19:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging the editor @Chavmen: this discussion is of relevance to your case.

@Bradv, thank you so much for clarifying that the action taken was not due to ARBPIA procedures, rather an individual call by an admin. I'm not an administrator, just a simple Wikipedian, but in my view, it's important to remember that behind the aliases we're dealing with real people in these situations, and perceptions of unequal treatment can significantly contribute to the strain in this topic area. I understand the importance of reducing disruption, but we also need to balance this with transparency, equal treatment, and protecting and welcoming newbies who came here for positive reasons. In light of this, do you believe the affected user should appeal? If so, what would be the appropriate avenue for them to pursue this? Marokwitz (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I also thought thet you didn’t think that without a template an editor without ECP could edit the article with impunity, apologies if I’ve got this wrong. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to point out inconsistency in my thought over time? I acknowledge this openly. At first, I thought it was totally permissible - I had disagreements with non-EC editors many times in these pages, and tried to handle this through normal discussions, only asking for the page to be edit-protected as last resort. Recently, observing discussions at ANI led me to believe it was considered gaming the system. However, a detailed review of the policy led me to understand that while it's not permitted, such behaviour isn't subject to sanctions if the article lacks the template. That's why I came here seeking clarification. Marokwitz (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

They can appeal through the normal process, namely first to the admin who took action, and secondly to WP:AN. However, for the reasons I stated above, it is unlikely to be successful. They can still edit the millions of articles that aren't related to this topic area, and it wouldn't hurt to have the extra experience before delving back in. – bradv 20:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, and thanks @Marokwitz for starting the thread.

I can understand the decision more thoroughly now with the clarifications from @Bradv. The topic area is very hot at the moment and if I need to step back, edit other areas, and show that I am here to be a constructive editor I can do so.

However, I was frustrated because I saw an editor accused of gaming in this very area; they received a sanction, had their EC rights revoked, appealed, and the appeal was successful and they now continue to edit as EC in the very area they gamed.

Hence, why I felt it was a double standard. Chavmen (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Should the most recently removed case request be archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests? I don't want to add it myself as it's an ArbCom page, and there might be a reason why it hasn't been added; but (in my opinion) it would make sense for it to be added to that page. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@A smart kitten you are quite correct - fixed. firefly ( t · c ) 13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Before the recent change, non-ECP editors could use talk pages normally, but the rule now is: "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below." I think we have two problems 1. I don't see on either the first or later alerts this information for non-ecp editors 2. Anyone getting an earlier alert is likely to think they can use talk pages normally. This is in relation to an issue brought up on my talk page yesterday. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate Doug raising this point and would appreciate some clarity on this. I raised the issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Coretheapple fyi Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

[3] Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see a specific question or a request for a specific change; I guess noone has replied because there's no obvious step to take. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Precisely what kind of participation is allowed by non-ECP editors on EC talk pages? It is commonly believed, and Barkeep49 reiterated in his comment in the link proceeding linked above, that Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk namespace to post "constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". That is what the current boilerplate notice to new editors says. That is also was WP:ECP said until last November.

However if you go to WP:ECR, you see that it was amended in November to exclude "post constructive comments."

The above became an issue in this discussion. I expect this will come up again. I believe that is what Doug Weller was also raising. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There is now an avoidable amount of confusion caused by quotes lacking a source. When you refer to "the current boilerplate notice", which template exactly are you referring to? Also, I wonder which page Barkeep49 has cited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We have {{subst:alert/first|a-i}} which doesn't mention ECP as a word but says 500 edits and 30 days, which is required. We also have WP:ECR which says "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. " The alert doesn't mention talk pages. That seems confusing. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

alert/first|a-i links to WP:ECR under "500 edits and 30 days." Notwithstanding that the old language was quoted on the ARCA page, I don't get what is confusing about ECR's language? Levivich (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to know to what extent, if at all, we still tolerate "constructive comments" that aren't specifically edit requests. These are high-visibility pages and we get a lot of people dropping in, one of whom was given an ECR notice prior to November. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok but you're aware that arbcom just removed those words from the rule, so doesn't that answer your question? Officially, the rule no longer permits them. However this is Wikipedia and IAR is a thing. So, to what extent do we IAR that rule? Nobody can answer that because the answer is: to whatever extent editors decide to IAR on a case by case basis. Levivich (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich How many new users will think to click on that? My guess is a lot. So is it enough? Doug Weller talk 16:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I'd agree that the template should be amended to say "the extended confirmed restriction is in effect" (with a link) (and I would have already made that change if I could) but after that I don't care who clicks on it and who doesn't, that's up to the user. Like, how many people read V before they make their first edit, you know what I mean? If they don't read ECR when they get the notice, they'll read it when they're reverted with "WP:ECR" in the edit summary. Levivich (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion I have caused. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• My takeaway from this discussion and [4] is that as long as a non-EC editor is commenting on the talk page in good faith and is requesting a specific change or edit, even if not using the Edit Request form, that such a discussion should be permitted and not hatted. Is that a fair summary? Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  From my POV, yes. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  From your POV, is it a requirement that the request change/edit be specific ("change X to Y" form, or at least nearly so) and either uncontroversial or supported by consensus? If not, the link in ARBECR to WP:EDITXY is hurting more than helping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be good to alter the alert templates (both Template:Alert and Template:Alert/first) in some way. Here are some options from least change to most change, and for the record, the current templates use the language "Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic."

1. Use the term "extended confirmed restriction" explicitly. Something like "Additionally, the extended confirmed restriction is in place, so editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and ..."
2. Using that tech wizardry that alters the message based on the user's EC status, display #1 for EC users and display the full ECR explanation for non-EC users, so they get info on where they can and can't participate.
3. Make the full ECR explanation part of the alert for all users, regardless of EC status.

Procedurally, I'm not sure what the rules are for substantive changes to these templates. ARCA needed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem IMO with the November WP:ECR change is that it simply dropped the "constructive comment" wording in Delphic fashion without a word of elaboration, so that editors have to put on their thinking caps and try to figure out,,,, hmmm... what did these sages mean? You could have simply said, "constructive comments are no longer allowed" or "not allowed unless blah blah blah" or otherwise eked out a sentence or two more. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And now I've found Talk:Ram Mandir#Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II which is a talk page of an ECP article and not an edi request. It's clearly good faith so I may leave it there. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Arb premature § Poor word "agreed" in first sentence. DMacks (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the phrasing on WP:CT/GG and related templates could be clearer and more consistent. The title says "sexuality", but the text doesn't mention "sexuality" and it's also absent from {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}} and probably the other templates too. Assuming "sexuality" is still part of the topic area, could the text be improved on the project page and related templates? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Or if sexuality isn't supposed to be part of the topic area, then it should be made clear that it's not part of the topic area despite the title. Ultimately, every one of these project pages and the associated templates should define the topic area. Editors shouldn't need to read motions from previous years to figure out the topic area. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, the first alert reads "Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic." I think this may confuse new editors by combining two parts of the ECP restriction. WP:ECR is I think much clearer. "only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions: The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, " "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." I think the first alert needs to be much more specific. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I added content to the article Last Week Tonight with John Oliver which was reverted on grounds that it's related to the contentious topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I am not allowed to make any edits about this conflict until I reach 500 edits & 30 days of seniority. I then re-inserted into the article content that has nothing to do with said contentious topic, but was told that I am not allowed to add it because the reference used discusses the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Is adding content that is unrelated to the contentious topic, but taken from a reference that discusses the contentious topic also prohibited until 500 edits & 30 days of seniority? There is no dispute that the content that I added is unrelated to the contentious topic. Up the Walls (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Up the Walls thank you for raising this question. I am interested in the answer as well. S0091 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

So your position is that information put in a section titled "Israel/Palestine conflict" and information from a source titled "Israeli satirists blast John Oliver’s segment on Israel-Gaza conflict" is "unrelated to the contentious topic"? You are wrong. That content is unambiguously within scope of the restrictions. That is why an editor removed it. I see that you think it is "going too far". That's fine, but it's not about you or what you think. There are rules. Editors implement the rules. Editors must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive). Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the question. The question was about adding this section, which is objectively nothing to do with the Israel Palestine Conflict. Up the Walls (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time. I agree with you that the content sampled from that source and added in that revision falls outside of the scope of the ARBPIA restrictions and is not subject to the EC restriction even though the source itself "Israeli satirists blast John Oliver’s segment on Israel-Gaza conflict" does contain content that is within scope of the restrictions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So I'll repeat the question: Is it permissible for non-extended confirmed users to add content that is objectively unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict but the source on which the content does discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict? Up the Walls (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure your John Oliver revision helps answer that particular question. That revision seems like a very straightforward case to me because the page clearly falls outside the topic area, so whether EC applies depends on the content itself, not what else the source says. That is my understanding anyway. But what about pages unambiguously inside the topic area? I'm guessing that the answer to the question depends not so much on the fact that a source discusses the Arab-Israeli conflict, but rather on whether a) there is agreement on what "objectively unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict" means and b) how much granularity in enforcing the restrictions is practical. Is the date of birth of a Hamas member objectively unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict? How about the high school a settler leader attended? Maybe, but there are page level restrictions in place in many, many cases where the deciding factor seems to be whether an editor has the privileges to edit there rather than the nature of the content or the source. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you agree that a non-extended confirmed users should be allowed to add content that is unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict (to an article that is also unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or else the article would be extended protected) even when the reference that is used to satisfy the verifiability requirement does discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Am I correctly interpreting your paragraph? Up the Walls (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Close. I agree that a non-extended confirmed users should be allowed to add content that is unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict to an article that is also unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict even when the reference that is used to satisfy the verifiability requirement does discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do not agree with the 'or else the article would be extended protected' part because, for a variety of reasons that I do not understand well, that is not the case in practice. Firstly, I don't know the answer to the seemingly simple question like 'How do I (programmatically) identify whether an article, template etc. is "inside" the topic area or "outside" the topic area? So that is an issue right there, the topic area does not have a mapped boundary, but it has mappable regions within it. Many, but not all, will have restriction related templates. Many, but not all, will be EC protected. For example, if you pick a category at random, Category:Fatah attacks, which is a set of things clearly inside the topic area, and just look at that category, not the subcategory contents, only 8 out of the 16 pages have restriction related templates and 9 out of the 16 are EC protected. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

May I write a "friend of the committee" section in the latest open case? I was wondering if a short section in Evidence would be alright. I didn't see a place in Workshop that seemed correct. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 05:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that if what you want to include has diffs, then place it the evidence section. If it discusses existing evidence, then placing it in the analysis section of the workshop is probably best. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the advice. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 19:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I made the "Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals" post. I was wondering if my word limit can be extended in order to reply to arbitrators and editors. I thought the 500 word limit was just to make the statement, I didn't know it included responses as well. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreasonable wait

Hi. I have not been provided an answer to my request I made more than 2 days ago. This is an unreasonable wait. But I will assume good faith and maybe there is something that prevented an answer? Sincerely, --Thinker78 (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78, you're supposed to request a word limit extension in your statement and/or email the clerk list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)