Initiated by Wugapodes at 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Wugapodes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Ymblanter
• diff of notification Volunteer Marek
• diff of notification GizzyCatBella

Statement by Wugapodes

The 30/500 remedy of the antisemitism in Poland case is unclear on whether it applies to namespaces beyond (Article). The decision states that non-EC editors are prohibited from editing articles and further states that non-EC editors may use the Talk: namespace to discuss improvements. However, this differs from the other 30/500 scheme imposed by ARBPIA. In that topic area, editors are prohibited from editing content and editing talk pages is listed as an explicit exception to the general prohibition in all namespaces. This inconsistency between the two has led to confusion among administrators and editors. The Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella reverted a non-EC editor who was editing antisemitism in Poland content in project space. The editors stated that those reverts were not edit warring as they enforced the 30/500 restriction which they believe applied to all namespaces. Ymblanter blocked them both on the basis of the remedy text, believing that the 30/500 remedy applied only to mainspace. Clarification on this point would help avoid future miscommunications and conflict. 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My personal position is that, if we are going to proliferate the use of 30/500 remedies, then it is best for everyone that they be standardized rather than bespoke. I don't particularly care what that standard is, but my opinion is that it is best to go with the most commonly used and recognized standard which is probably the Israel-Palestine 30/500 scheme. 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to go down the standardization route, I want to second CaptainEek's suggestion and suggest an "omnibus" of sorts. Create a subsection of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement for "30/500 restrictions" modeled after the DS section. This can include the definitions Kevin mentions, the talk page exception, and the specific restriction text Barkeep drafted. Then amend all three cases using 30/500 restrictions to reference "standard 30/500 restrictions" as detailed in the procedures document. 18:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: You define "Secondary" but I don't believe the motion uses it. You may want to change On pages with related content to something like On secondary pages with related content or change your defined term from "secondary" to "pages with related content". — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

I am under understanding that if the arbitration decision says "article" and not "page" it means "article" and not "page". Which makes perfect sense to me because for example talk pages should not be included in any case, and concerning Wikipedia namespace, the pages there do not obey the same policies as the articles, for example WP:V or WP:N do not apply to the same extent. It is of course up to ArbCom to modify the wording if they wish to do so.

To correct the original statement, GCB reverted a long-standing editor; VM first edit was a revert of a long-standing editor (although the edit they were reverting stood on the page for about two years); the other three reverts were indeed of a non-extended-confirmed editor.

What we also need is to clarify, similarly to PIA situation, is whether new accounts may edit articles which are not primarily related to antisemitism in Poland but contain some pieces or even sentences related to antisemitism in Poland. My proposal would be to state that new accounts are not allowed to make any edits to any articles if the edit is related to antisemitism in Poland, but I believe it is not currently stated clearly in the remedy.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that I discussed the above interpretation of the remedy with VM after I blocked them (it was then called wikilawyering), and also in the ANI thred where it was completely ignored.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: I did warn VM before blocking, and we had a discussion, it is just the discussion did not happen to be productive.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: This is ok, but let us not claim that the warning has not been issued. I am sure VM would have said it themselves if this were not the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, I provided all the diffs at ANI, my last edit is here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

In addition to the wording at ARBPIA, the WP:GS page which references the general 30/500 rule also says "content". Full text for completeness [1]:

Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. 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. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce these remedies on article creations.

I bolded the parts where there's some difference. This means that the restriction on non-confirmed users editing "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions" are EVEN MORE stringent than regular articles and article talk pages. One recurring problem since this amendment was put in place is of masses of sock puppet showing up to RfCs and brigading them. And making exceptions for RfCs does create a loophole - a friend of a banned user creates an RfC, then the banned user swarms the RfC with socks and it's really a lot of effort to file SPIs on all of them.

Of course, aligning the Poland-specific restriction with WP:GS and ARBPIA would also eliminate the sort of confusion that led to the recent drama. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@L235: and @SoWhy: - the problem is that there has indeed been disruption by sock puppets outside of article space, either on WP boards (RSN, BLP) or via RfCs. I can compile a more exhaustive list from the past few months (or longer) but that will take time. But even very recently we've had an Icewhiz sock puppet VikingDrummer intervene in SPI to defend other sock puppets start RfC which was then flooded with other brand new accounts, use article talk pages to make personal attacks, vote in RfC. Another sockpuppet/blocked account User:Potugin, tried to use ANI to get their way and to agitate for sanctions, vote in an RfC, and again jumped into an ANI discussion to agitate for sanctions. This is just tip of the iceberg, just from the most recent past. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If you keep this loophole (restricting the prohibition only to articles) then I can 100% guarantee you that this issue will come up again and again. You leave a loophole, unscrupulous banned editors will exploit it. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, what is "APL"? (and vandalism has always been a daily occurrence) Volunteer Marek 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, what GCB said. The number of sock puppets in this area is so high that it's simply unreasonable to ask editors to constantly be filling out SPI reports (last one I filed took me 3 hours, which at my usual billing rates would be... way too much. You include the compensation for stress and we talking serious financial losses). The original restriction did work though! The disruption of articles themselves has gone way down. The area has calmed down. But unfortunately there is a kind of a "squeeze the balloon in one place, it gets bigger in another" effect here, as some of the sock puppetry has moved from articles to policy pages, noticeboards and talk pages (via RfCs in particular), as well as some AfDs (though I don't pay that much attention to that last category). Since the restriction was successful at solving (albeit partially) the initial problem, extending it - in line with how the restriction is usually interpreted and how it's applied in other topic areas - makes a lot of sense. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also what Zero0000 said. We know this works from other topic areas. So do it. (seriously we do so many things which don't work or we don't know if they work and here we have one that does work ... yet we're hesitant? Are we afraid of actually solving our problems?) Volunteer Marek 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: two of the three ARCAs in this TA had to do with persistent sock puppetry, right? That is where the disruption in this topic area is originating and an ArbCom case won’t do anything at all to resolve that since you can’t have a case with sock puppets as parties. What would help matters is streamlining this restriction to match up with similar ones in other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I do feel it necessary to note that Francois Robere’s comments regarding “review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action” constitute a WP:IBAN violation since one of the editors Ymblanter blocked is User:GizzyCatBella whom FR has an interaction ban with. For a very good reason. In fact, FR just came off a 48 hour block for violating that IBAN [2]. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that FR is agitating here for someone to overrule the consensus at ANI which was highly critical of Ymblanter’s block of GCB and myself. This is also the proper context in which to understand FR’s “suggestions” for a new (unnecessary) arb case. Volunteer Marek 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I really want to encourage everyone to focus on the actual request for clarification - does the restriction cover non-article space, and if no, should it - rather than going off on tangents. In particular, there is little sense in arguing HERE about whether Ymblanter's blocks were legit or not. They weren't, but he's unblocked, however reluctantly, so as long as he doesn't keep trying to persue the matter, I'm happy to let this one go. Volunteer Marek 07:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella

AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, and noticeboard discussions

This is a great example since it just happens as we speak.[3]. Brand new account, reactivated after 2 years of inactivity, shows up in support of the banned user's entry. Please note that this is a daily occurrence in this topic area. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And of course, there is a correlation in other articles between the short-lived account and the banned user[4] but who has the energy to file an SPI report every day? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Here you are again, that's the same talk page one day later [5]. This is occurring continuously, every day, on multiple articles. I can present a comprehensive list of talk pages, RfC, etc. affected by newly created accounts/proxy generated IP’s. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Collapsed outdated below)

Updating (as of August 27th) - I can see that this is on hold, but I'm just letting you know that distress from the brand new accounts in the topic area continues[6],[7]. Nothing changed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC) See this also - [8] - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The current rules for ARBPIA are working pretty well, so replicating them here would be a safe and effective option. Zero^talk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

I'm reminded by looking at the last case that I have better things to do with my life than participate in this. Sorry, I withdraw my statements. Levivich 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

I agree with Levi that there's no need to "dice it up." If unexperienced editors and socks are a major problem on these articles, they aren't likely to be a net positive in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

On one hand I am hesitant to deny 'free speech' to anyone, on the other I can confirm that Icewhiz's associated LTAs have been active in some non-article spaces. This started already in 2019 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (an AFD of a rant written by Icewhiz; just look at it - almost all 'votes' are crossed out, socks everywhere). This pattern continues in AfDs, RfCs and like in this TA - above normal numbers of SPAs, IPs, and like are a norm. However, per my 'free speech' concerns, I'd suggest not removing them, but instead, votes by such accounts should be clearly labeled in some fashion. Maybe revise the cited remedy to note that votes and comments by such editors in this topic area should be considered as having less weight than those of normal editors, and encourage usage of templates such as {{Single-purpose account}}. {{csp}}, {{csm}}, {{Afdnewuser}} and like. Could also consider creating a new template to be used in this topic area instead of the new linked, linking to the revised remedy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Out of curiosity, where's that previous evidence you collected that you claim got ignored? I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence by you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think your streamlined proposal is good but thinking about WP:BITE and new content, perhaps an encouragement that when admins are exercising judgement about new articles (delete or not), there is option 3, draftifying, which is preferable to outright deletion, might be helpful? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Since the WP:GS page has been brought up a few times now at ANI and in SoWhy's comment: that text was only meant to be descriptive of what ArbCom's general remedies are. It was taken from the ARBPIA remedy, I believe. You can parse it for this context by taking "articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism" to be the "given area of conflict". Otherwise, that text has no enforcement basis at all. There are three 500/30s authorised here:

• In Israel-Palestine, with this definition
• In Antisemitism in Poland, with this definition
• For conflicts between India and Pakistan, with this definition

There exists no authorisation that uses the informational text at WP:GS. (I proposed removing it last year to avoid confusion but that didn't gain consensus.)

As for the scope of the remedy, I feel like it's little things like this that makes the general sanctions regimes appear complicated. This is the only one of three authorisations to limit to "mainspace". I think extending the scope for simplicity's sake is worth it alone, given that the covered content in other namespaces is almost certainly very low (both relatively and absolutely). The collateral damage will also be insignificant compared to the collateral damage already caused by having this restriction in mainspace.

I do believe VM thought in good faith it applied to the given page, given that all other remedies are across all namespaces, and a plausible explanation is that ArbCom made the common error of using "articles" and "pages" as synonyms. It's very much possible the distinction wasn't even noticed on a first read - I certainly didn't notice it on my first read, but then again I just skimmed over it as I presumed it was identical to the boilerplate text elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: PIA4 is short for Palestine-Israel articles 4 (the case: WP:ARBPIA4). APL is Antisemitism in PoLand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A couple concerns with the proposed motion. Firstly there's the issue of defined terms that L235 pointed out. Secondly, I think it's not really possible or ideal to get the exact text in sync with PIA4, since that case was uniquely curated for that topic area, and introduced (for example) the concept of primary and related content. That kind of restriction is complicated enough by itself and I think it would be better if it weren't proliferated too much. Alternatively, it could just be worded more simply here. If the goal is to keep text in sync, then it's better to move the definition of 500/30 to a separate page (like WP:ACDS) is, perhaps a page for 'standardised ArbCom general sanctions other than DS', and have the actual remedy in the case just be a one-sentence authorisation. These ideas are probably better to look into during your ongoing sanctions reforms, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A better way of wording it might be something like:

Topic-wide editing restriction: Editors who do not meet __(the 500/30 criteria)__ ("the criteria") are prohibited from editing material in any namespace related to ____ ("the topic area").

Enforcement: For articles (pages in mainspace) whose subject primarily falls in the topic area, this restriction may be enforced using WP:ECP page protection. On other pages, this restriction may be enforced using appropriate technical restrictions such as page protection and edit filters, taking care not to frustrate unrelated editing unless necessary. Edits made by editors who do not meet the criteria may be reverted, and editors may be blocked if they continue to violate this restriction after being made aware of it. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit-warring.

Exceptions: The sole exceptions to this restriction are:

1. Editors who do not meet the criteria may use the talk namespaces to post comments and make edit requests, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

Some comments: I asked El C about the deletion portion last year, apparently the admin corps does not enforce that portion in practice, which leads me to believe it isn't really required and summary deletion powers shouldn't be provided if not necessary. The general awareness addition comes down to the idea that users may well not know there is such a prohibition in place on a given page so a block may not be appropriate, but apparently this is similar to the seemingly innocuous suggestion NYB made years ago that led to the current body of awareness law, so take it with a pinch of salt (a better wording may be something like "as long as the blocking administrator believes the editor was aware of it"). In the ARCA about PIA4's RM prohibition, some arbs appeared confused by the "The sole exemptions to this prohibition are:" portion. I don't find that wording confusing personally, but if it confuses arbs it may well confuse others too, so that portion may need reformulating. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@L235: I still think you should split the enforcement portions from the actual restriction. The enforcement provisions are only relevant to admins (minus the "you can revert and it isn't edit warring), and splitting it makes it easier to parse and read. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 to jc37's concern about the thresholds of ECP. I raised something similar at WP:DS2021 (here). I'd support a change in thresholds too. I don't know if 500/30 has been good to Israel-Palestine; much of the topic area is just a handful of regulars now, whose names I could probably list off the top of my head. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RGloucester

• @SoWhy: Just a point of clarification, but you seem confused about the meaning of the terms 'general sanctions' and 'discretionary sanctions'. General sanctions are a broad class of remedies that can be imposed by either ArbCom or the community. The reason they are called 'general' is because they apply to a whole topic area, rather than specific editors. Discretionary sanctions are a specific type of general sanction (other types include revert restrictions and article probation). The 500/30 rule is most patently not a 'discretionary sanction', but a type of general sanction. Discretionary sanctions have very specific rules, as described at WP:AC/DS. In any case, I agree that the text at the information page is in no way binding on ArbCom, and should be clarified to reflect the possibility of specific implementation in specific cases. RGloucester — ☎ 12:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: It should be the job of ArbCom to demonstrate the correct usage, rather than reinforce common misconceptions (thus promoting further confusion on this matter), and your comments are therefore not befitting your status as a member of the committee. You might consider reading the history of sanctions on Wikipedia as written by myself, or perhaps consulting the creator of the term 'general sanctions' himself, former committee member Kirill Lokshin. In either case, I would advise that you refrain from making such mistakes in future. RGloucester — ☎ 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Your continued reference to the 500/30 rule as a 'DS' is indeed a mistake, and a grave one coming from a committee member. Committee-authorised DS are governed by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, a policy maintained by the committee itself. You might notice that none of the rules mentioned in the AC/DS policy page apply to the 500/30 rule as it is implemented anywhere. The most obvious example of this is that no alert is required to enforce a 500/30 rules, unlike for DS. It's simply a flat rule, like a page restriction. If you, as a committee member, are not even aware of how your own policies work, can you really be fit to adjudicate these matters? I wonder. This matter is relevant in this case, because the confusion that caused this unnecessary incident of stress for a number of veteran editors was directly caused by the failure on the part of ArbCom to establish consistent rules and use a consistent terminology than everyone can understand. Continuing to be obstinate, insisting that 500/30 is a 'DS', despite all evidence to the contrary, is really nothing more than appalling. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Given that other committee members here are repeating this 'DS' terminology, showing a complete disregard for their own policies and procedures, I would like to cite the example of the ARBPIA General Sanctions, which were only established in 2019, and clarified this very year. The ARBPIA General Sanctions, authorised by the committee, include both DS and a 500/30 rule. The decision makes a clear distinction between these two remedies, which are together (along with a revert restriction) referred to as the 'ARBPIA General Sanctions'. 500/30 rules and revert restrictions are not DS, and have never been DS, nor have they ever been governed by the WP:AC/DS policy. They are Committee-authorised general sanctions. Get your act together, please. Confusion like this will lead to people applying the WP:AC/DS policy in places in doesn't belong, leading to even more confusion over procedure. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: Please read my above comments. There are no 'ECP DS'. 500/30 is not a DS, it is a general sanction. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Great proposal. I do suggest replacing the '500/30 rule' terminology with 'ECP rule' per the other comments here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• @L235: In the interest of standardisation, you might consider taking over the community 500/30 rule for India/Pakistan articles (WP:GS/IPAK), replacing it with this new 'extended confirmed restriction', and incorporating it into the existing India-Pakistan sanctions regime. This will go a long way towards cutting red tape, and I doubt anyone in the community would be opposed. If anything, the elimination of all of these overlapping sanctions regimes would be greatly appreciated, I reckon. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by François Robere

If ArbCom wishes to maintain its relevancy and keep the Wikipedia community active and vibrant, it needs to stop dealing in minutae and start putting its foot down. APL is bleeding editors and admins, people complain about their blood pressure and mental health (!), vandalism is an almost daily occurrence, and you're arguing about namespaces? What are you, the IETF? There are so many things that you could do to fix this, and instead you're putting your finger in the dike. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I second what Ealdgyth said about "Icewhiz remnants". I got this exact impression earlier this week. It's like the TA is being purged. François Robere (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: In the very least you would want to review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action beyond what was focused on in the ANI discussion (option 1: limited block review). Were there "edit warring", "disruptive editing, tag-teaming [and] reverts" (Ymblanter's block comments)? The edits and Ymblanter's action weren't done in a vacuum. I would add to that a COI review, since the removed entry had direct and indirect relevance to the TA and some of its editors, respectively; and a review of the post-block discussions, to understand how they deteriorated from a simple policy question to a someone worrying for their lives. All of these questions have TA-wide repercussions - in other words, this case isn't unique - but it does give you a microcosm through which to view the TA at large.

If you wish to dig deeper and start a full case (option 2: complete TA audit), bear in mind you'd have to gain the community's trust. There's a deep mistrust among involved editors of ArbCom's ability to deal with the TA, owing to its history of inaction; I've heard and said as much before APL, and after APL those impressions grew stronger. If you're to start a full case, a whole bunch of editors need to be convinced that it'll be meaningful; you should be ready to answer any and all of the following questions: is the TA reflective of the overall state of the research, or is it biased in some direction? Are some editors more prone to POV-pushing and tendentious editing than others? To what extent do editors tag-team and coordinate their actions on- and off-wiki? Is the culture of discussion within the TA conducive to building an encyclopedia? Are some editors more likely to "poison the atmosphere" than others? You should be ready to long-term-ban multiple editors, if the findings justify it; no one would accept an "easy" solution like APL had.

I would also suggest several procedural changes to make the proceedings more convenient, effective, and likely to draw a range of editors who would otherwise not participate. If you wish, I can explain on your, or ArbCom's TP. François Robere (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (Updated 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC))

• @Barkeep49: I appreciate the disclosure. If a full case is what's needed to review this block, then I'd support it; it is, as I said, a microcosm of the TA, and I think it could be at effective enough, at least for a while. I still make a distinction between that and a complete TA audit, which is a much bigger undertaking. I've added a couple of annotations above to clarify what I mean by each.

I'll post on your TP tomorrow with some ideas. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: Apologies. :-) François Robere (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @El C: Speaking of acronyms - WPO? François Robere (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth

If by PIA4 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is meant, one reason I did not participate much was I was moving. Quite literally, we were physically moving during the time period. But a much bigger reason I didn't do much with it was the sheer ... tiredness that the entire topic area (of Polish/Jewish history both before and during the Holocaust and the reprecussions of that history in the modern era) elicits in me. It's a cesspit of battleground behavior and the previous attempts (including that case and all the "clarifications" since from arbcom) have failed miserably. About a year ago, it got so bad, I just totally removed ALL the articles in the topic area from my watchlist, except for the main Holocaust article. As I have many of the English sources that could be used in this area, the fact that I've been driven off from it by the behavior of most of the editors in the area should be quite telling. The reason why the arbcom case didn't work was that there was no way within the word limits to possibly present enough evidence to persuade any arbs, and it's not worth the bother quite honestly. Right now, what you have is basically a bunch of editors who blame all problems on Icewhiz while spending what seems like all their time battling the "hordes of sockpuppets" of Icewhiz as well as trying to eliminate all sign of letting any of his edits (or any edits that they think MIGHT be his or might be inspired by him or ... you get the picture) remain in the encyclopedia. Until folks wake up to the tag teaming and battleground behavior and grasp the nettle to eliminate the folks doing that behavior, it's never going to get better. The inability to recognize that there are a large number of sources that are so hopelessly biased that they shouldn't be used ... is just the icing on the cake. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

François Robere, POV is fine, APL is fine, even TP is fine, I suppose. But TA? Comeon! It took me minutes of hard drinking to figure out it meant topic area. Now, granted I'm much slower than your average reviewer of the ARCA (praise be), but for the love of Cow Man, please just write "topic area" plainly. Jeez, I'm trying to be stealth over here. El_C 01:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As a polemic aside, there's an irony that Icewhiz would probably get a medal from the Polish state for all the work he has done to tarnish his side of the dispute. Haaretz, if you read this, your paywall'ing can suck it (really, in the English version, too?). You can learn a thing or two (or three) from Davar. Israel's Paper of record, everybody. Too snobby for ads, that's just lovely. El_C 01:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, it's cool. Last night was reading Ephraim Kishon's sketch that roughly translates to "You Da Man!" (from the 1959 Sketches) and was thinking: 'hey, that's kinda my life.' El_C 12:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, comments at WPO don't exist in a vacuum. While I appreciate and commend you for the kindness you've shown Ymblanter there (whom as you say "may be reading this"), at the same breath, calling François Robere Icewhiz 2.0, that's out of line. Pouring more gasoline on the flames, I don't like that. And it ultimately helps no one, yourself included. El_C 04:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, you know, the place, with the thing. It's like UTRS, but with memes. And with Ming (who is awesome!). GizzyCatBella, thanks, appreciate the redaction. And the COD gunners rejoiced. El_C 11:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Capt. Pronin, legend has it that one day a chosen one will come who'd be able to explain the difference between General and Discretionary sanctions. And there will be much rejoicing. El_C 11:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by jc37

This is just about the 500/30 rule

I understand wanting a standard, but if arbcom is going to use numbers to describe trustworthiness, then the numbers in question shouldn't be higher than the trust needed to vote each of you into arbcom:

• has made at least 150 mainspace edits
• has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) in the last year

I mean really, 500 mainspace edits are what's required to be an arbitrator. Are we really wanting to set the bar that high?

As for 30, arbcom voters need roughly 60 days. I wouldn't mind if this were moved up to that. - jc37 19:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 - It's not like 500/30 is set in stone, which is basically what you are about to do. Though I agree that extended protection could do with an rfc concerning this and other usages. Or does arbcom reserve the right to set / keep those arbitrarily (npi) chosen numbers too? - jc37 20:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(the above has the intended tone of a question - I just re-read and the tone looks a bit snarkier than intended - my apologies). - jc37 20:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 - I have a suggestion then. If this ruling is supposed to mach the extended protection tool. then how about if it is written that way, and remove all text that states "500" or "30". That way the criteria is set to be whatever criteria the community sets it to be (also known as helping make it futureproof).

Let's call this something like: "The standard rule for restricting pages to extended confirmed editors". (maybe "a topic area", instead of "pages"?) Or "The editing in areas of conflict rule" maybe?

• "All editors are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict unless their account has been extended-confirmed. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, this rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the this rule are not considered edit warring....[etc.]"

There may be better ways to phrase this, but I hope you get the idea. - jc37 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:CaptainEek, how about using "ECR Rule" (or somesuch) instead of "500/30 Rule" ? - jc37 20:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ECR is available for use for this as well. - jc37 21:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

I reiterate RGloucester's original comment here too as it is relevant to the incident and clarification. The remedy was clear on its own, but I think the "...exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..." line cited by Volunteer Marek was not unreasonable to cite as an exception either. Volunteer Marek was clear about this interpretation at the outset and that misunderstanding should have been addressed first by the admin. An unequivocal warning was not issued (as I said at the ANI) or more ideally, a discussion that was more conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward. That is why the community would have reversed the block in any case. I have previously seen AE admin threaten to stop their work if an action isn't supported, but thankfully Ymblanter will not be one of them - in that they behave maturely, even in the face of serious health issues during admin actions, by swiftly taking steps to address the issues caused by the blocks. There is a separate matter raised by Piotrus which Ymblanter hasn't yet addressed at the ANI, but they propose to deal with that after this ARCA is completed.

That just leaves one separate issue here - the wisdom of this 'tailored' rule that came into effect last year. I actually share the reservations held for implementing the rule at all. In spite of this, if one concludes that a rule is required, @Worm That Turned and SoWhy: I don't understand how last year's rule is somehow helpful in alleviating the actual reservations. If the restrictions exist for the article space, why should the participation be allowed on project pages that are not in the talk space? AFAIK, new legitimate accounts will start out in the main space. Additionally, if we take care to remember why DS (a type of GS) was streamlined by AC in the first place, I think we can appreciate why a streamlined 500/30 rule (another type of GS) is more effective in resolving the underlying issues sought to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: That is at the heart of the "separate matter" I mentioned above. Piotrus asked you: "Please tell me - and the community - on which page or pages each of the two editors you blocked violated 3RR (or 1RR if applicable), and please link diffs to the warnings you claimed above to have given them" prior to the block. Your reply was "Let us to postpone this until after the Arbcom at least has decided whether they are going to have the full case or not." Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Lembit Staan

The amentment says: methods noted in paragraph b) - What is "paragraph b)"? Lembit Staan (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by selfstudier

Go with Arbpia and 500/30, it works, more or less (if I was going to change 500/30 it would be upwards).Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf

The motion needs proof-reading - it includes "Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b)" but there is no paragraph marked "b)" (indeed, paragraphs are not individually identified in any way). Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: the text of your omnibus motion has the same flaw as above - it references a non-existent "paragraph b)". Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

Regarding the EC omnibus motion, I suggest the following copy edits:

I did not include the prohibition on requests for comments, requested moves, or other "internal project discussions" occurring on an article talk page, as I'm not clear on the practicality of allowing "constructive comments" in a non-RfC discussion but disallowing them for an RfC, in a discussion on an article title versus a requested move, and so forth. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I also urge the arbitrators not to use a term such as "ECP DS". Authorization for individual administrators to devise sanctions of their own invention is distinct from a defined page editing restriction. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding WormThatTurned's suggestion to drop the terms "primary" and "secondary": I agree that when feasible, it's better to avoid having definitions to argue over. I do think, though, that it should be made clear that the editing restriction can apply to specific sections of an article and not only to entire articles. isaacl (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Regarding the "why 500/30" question above, the reality is that these topic areas see a lot more focused, determined WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT behavior than ArbCom elections. Yes, ArbCom elections are in theory more momentous, but topic areas that run along the fault line of real-world disputes are often what draws the sort of editors who engage in WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT behavior and which causes them to keep doing it. That means that topic areas like Antisemitism in Poland or ARBPIA are more likely to see disruptive attempts to evade any restriction, necessitating the longer period to make it harder to work around. And on a philosophical level, editors have less need to edit in a disputed topic area than they do to have a voice in selecting ArbCom - if a new editor desperately wants to edit ARBPIA articles, we can just ask them to edit elsewhere for a bit first; whereas when we cut an editor out of the process of electing ArbCom, we've disenfranchised them and that's that. Forbidding intermittent new editors who never reach 500/30 from voting for ArbCom would be more of a loss than banning them from ARBPIA. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

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

Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Could someone post a link to the page history in question? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  In reading through the ANI I found the link to the page history in question: Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I think SoWhy does an excellent job of laying out why the DS applies only to articles at the moment. I will think more on whether I would support a change. That said, as there has now been activity about the underlying issue not only at the project page but the article itself since this request has been underway I would strongly suggest all editors, but in particular Levivich, Piotrus, and Volunteer Marek continue their discussion on the Wikipedia hoax talk page rather than continuing to edit (war) about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  @François Robere: obviously this topic area continues to be a difficult one. You mention that there are many things we could do. I would be curious to know what options we should be considering. I have a couple thoughts - namely we could expand from articles to all pages or we could open up a full case - but each of those has some drawbacks. I'd be interested in hearing some ideas I had perhaps not thought about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  @François Robere: I don't think anyone here (Arb or participating editor) fails to understand the level of persistent disruption that goes on in this topic area. In terms of things that gave me pause about being on ArbCom, this topic area was in the top 3. It sounds like your solution is to do a full case as that's what would be necessary to examine the entire context around these blocks and to see if any long term contributors need to be topic banned. Given the relative level of non-participation at PIA4, I'm a bit reluctant to support that without some broad level of clamoring from current participants. This is the 3rd ARCA in the area in the past 14 months. Are repeated ARCAs better than a full case? I'm inclined to say yes at least at this rate. That said I would welcome your ideas about how ArbCom proceeding could be improved on my talk page - as you may or may not be aware we passed a motion that allows us a bit more flexibility with cases than before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Jc37: 500/30 is what it takes to be WP:ECP which ties into the fact that pages can be protected at that level to ensure compliance with the restriction if necessary. The fact that the ArbCom qualification for voting is 150 edits is a fun quirk of Wikipedia decision making, but it's not like 500/30 edits has no connection to broader community practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Jc37: there's no doubt that extended confirmed (and the associated protection) is a place where the community decided it liked what ArbCom had done and followed the committee's lead. At this point I think the community could change the numbers associated with ECP without us, though ArbCom would have to separately vote to change restrictions; I'd suggest getting 8 votes of Arbs is likely to be an easier consensus to reach than to get community consensus to change the numbers. Bringing us back to the matter at hand, as I noted below, consistency, for ease of understanding by editors and uninvolved admin alike, is an important matter to me so I would not be in favor of changing 500/30 just for this topic area and a broader examination isn't something I'd prefer the committee to spend time on at this moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: I can't, for good or ill, claim credit for the motion. It's porting over the motion for the 500/30 restriction from Palestine/Israel. Your point about draftication is a fair one but that kind of puts the article in limbo so leaving it to admin discretion - which could include draftication - strikes me as wiser from an arbcom perspective. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Unless there have been previous interpretations to the contrary, I would hold that the Antisemitism in Poland remedy as it stands now only applies to mainspace. ("articles" means mainspace unless the context demands a different interpretation.) However, I'm quite open to modifying the remedy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm of the same opinion as Kevin. The remedy is quite clear, it's referring to articles only - and I believe from the votes there was a bit of reluctance at the time to put in a 30/500 restriction at all, so it makes sense that the committee wished it to be as narrow as possible. I'd prefer not to extend it, for similar reasons, but if there are still issues happening regularly in the project space, I'd be open to modification. Worm^TT(talk) 08:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• When the restriction was passed, NYB (with whom I agreed) reluctantly supported the specific wording out of necessity. The wording was deliberately chosen to only apply to the mainspace. That other cases imposed other DS on other areas is of no relevance. Hence there is nothing to clarify beyond the clear wording of the motion. If a change is required, that can be requested but it needs to be a different request with proof that further restrictions are warranted. For the purposes of this request however, I would argue that Ymblanter acted within their rights to block VM and GCB since the claimed edit-warring exception did not apply to the page in question (VM even quoted the remedy's text verbatim when justifying their revert [9]). Pointing to the wording in WP:GS does not mitigate this fact since we are not talking about community imposed general sanctions but ArbCom imposed discretionary sanctions. Even if, a more restrictive remedy would imho always be override a more general policy page. Otherwise, there would be no way for ArbCom to tailor remedies to specific circumstances. Regards SoWhy 08:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  @RGloucester: I agree the terms are a bit confusing. GS is usually used to refer to community imposed sanctions while ArbCom imposed sanctions are usually only referred to as DS. The recent example of WP:GS/COVID-19 and the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 comes to mind, especially the point that "general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions" in the motion at WP:COVIDDS. As the discussion about that case request and the motions reveals, most people use "GS" to mean community sanctions, not all sanctions. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  @RGloucester: Usage of terms can change over time. That Kirill had a certain idea when he created the page 14 years ago(!) does not mean that the term still has the same meaning today nor that he has some kind of "power" to define what the term means today. As I pointed out, a significant number of people nowadays see general sanctions as a synonym for community-approved sanctions (which is why for example templates like {{subst:Gs/alert}} use the abbreviation "Gs" despite explicitly only applying for community-sanctions). I don't think any further discussion of "mistakes" in usage is helpful though. I see your point that this has led to some confusion in general, however, I don't see any of that applying in this specific case where the language of the DS in question was clear and the question whether DS are a part of GS or something separate is not of any relevance afaics. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Regardless of what is now in effect, I think that we should have a more standard 30/500 sanctions scheme so that we don't have parallel case law. I think applying the previous rules and decisions re Israel/Palestine to this area would make DS more streamlined. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  RGloucester That the terminology is so confusing is further reason why I hope to rename it altogether and streamline DS/GS. If even veteran admins and committee members are confused, it is a good sign that the system is broken. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Motion: 500/30 amendment

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. I think there are advantages to having our special enforcement actions be as consistent across topic areas as possible and there has been enough evidence presented here to suggest that something more than just articles is needed. This language replicates the current language in PIA. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

• Not sure where I stand on this but the motion will need a fair bit of editing – "primary articles" and "related content" are words defined in ARBPIA4 for that case specifically. Also, we've had a hard enough time with those words in ARBPIA4; let's consider using better terms. Bradv made the good point in the previous ARCA that "related content" as defined by ARBPIA4 includes non-content pages (including talk pages), so let's avoid doing that again. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I am completely open to the wording of this. I am strongly biased towards consistency between these two special enforcement actions wherever possible to reduce confusion. So if we don't like PIA's wording I would suggest we should fix it together rather than have the new and improved with this one and the old version in PIA. I think that regardless of whether we expand the scope (which I am also in favor of). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I firmly support that our ECP restrictions should be standardized. My suggestion though would be that we create a section or new page, whose wording applies to all areas with ECP DS. Therefore, a change need not be legislated in several venues at once, but instead at one central place. Perhaps as a section on WP:AC/DS, or a subpage of. For each individual case that needed ECP, we could then have a short and simple remedy along the lines of "The standard ECP DS are applied" CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

So basically when we want to limit ECP like it happened here, it would be "Standard ECP apply but only to articles"? Regards SoWhy 17:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

SoWhy, yeppers! That's the intended point of my motion below: we have a "Standard ECP", but could always tweak it case-by-case CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Motion: EC omnibus

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Wugapodes' omnibus solution comment was just what I was looking for. Note the substantive change here is I say extended confirmed, not strictly 500/30. This is part of hoping to future proof it, and also allow for editors who may have EC but less than 500/30. I've also tacked on a bit of a description. Once this passes, then it is trivial to pass another motion that replaces the current text at each case with something like "replace remedy X with Standard Extended confirmed restrictions are applied". I am also open on suggestions for the name. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

I have furthermore simply removed content from "editing content", as I believe that to be redundant. We already have a list of enumerated exceptions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I have furthermore defined primary and secondary, would love some feedback. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I do like this omnibus motion idea. A bit of feedback though - as ProcrastinatingReader pointed out above, the concept of "primary and related" content was brought in for PIA, and I'm not sure I want that to creep too far into our terminology. Indeed, the fact we have to define the terminology in the motion, even though it may not make sense to the topic area, makes me uncomfortable. Instead, could we drop the terminology, and simply say This prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), although circumstances may lead to enforcement by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Perhaps absolute clarity is a better solution, but we'll still end up back here, I'm sure! Worm^TT(talk) 14:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

EC omnibus (alternative)

Here's an alternative:

I'm still not a huge fan of this approach. We would be better off codifying how all of our topic-wide restrictions should be construed. This draft, however, doesn't introduce new terminology and I think is more clear than the current text. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

L235, I know this kinda got lost with all the other exciting things happening in ArbLand, but I support your version and think we could probably pass it. The only major change I would suggest is to change the name to "Extended confirmed rule", or something similar, since I don't think 500/30 really captures it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Above is a second draft of the motion. This may be an improvement on the status quo, but our procedures need to codify even more: (keep in mind I'm writing these kind of off the cuff)

1. We need to codify better notice procedures, or at least best practices, for things that are not DS. Right now, violating topic-wide restrictions (e.g. 1RR) is blockable even if there is no notice and even if there is no reasonable expectation that anyone knew about it. In fact, there is no standard notice. We should carefully consider how to codify requirements and administrative best practices for topic-wide restrictions.
2. We use terms really loosely and that can breed confusion and misunderstanding. For example, we use "content" to mean in different places "article content" and "page content", which can cause the same "page vs. article" confusion as we have before us here.
3. probably even more to do

I don't want these other things to hold up improvements, but we should be conscious that we're not making other things worse when we try housekeeping motions like this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I would also be curious to poll arbs on whether to include a point "E. Administrators may, in their discretion, grant extended confirmed status to editors who do not otherwise meet the requirements." or some other statement along those lines. This could help infuse carefully-selected productive editors into ECP'd areas at admin discretion – as others point out, 500 edits is a lot for many content-focused editors, and is not a great measure of experience. This may also need community approval, but ArbCom is a major stakeholder on this as we currently mandate 500 edits and 30 days in the remedy (not just EC status). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I've just been around too long, but 500/30 really doesn't seem like a very high bar to me. Have we heard such requests from admins? --BDD (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@BDD: It's a pretty high bar for a lot of editors who don't do RCP or things like that that generate a lot of edits. But I don't feel strongly about it. Formally proposing the motion without that line now. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and proposed this at WP:A/R/M in accordance with the procedural requirement. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Enacted - SQL^{Query Me!} 10:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Arbitrators views and discussion

Support

1. Proposed. Based on the long-running ARCA on the same topic, but proposing here to comply with the rule on changing the Committee's procedures. This motion incorporates the draft from the ARCA and also updates the two current remedies to use the standard language. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

   Also, if this motion passes, the clerks should close the present ARCA. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

2. Per all my work and reasoning at the ARCA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
5. BDD (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
6. As a thought on NYB's comment, if I am interpreting this motion correctly, this new restriction will be part of our toolkit for case remedies, much like Discretionary Sanctions, and standardises past uses in an effort to cut down on slightly-different rules being used for different cases. If anything I feel this reduces the complexity for future use, though I do feel that it should be limited to cases where it is necessary (i.e. still voted on by Remedy motion in a case). Primefac (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
7. I think this does a good job of clarifying the protection which we seem to be using (or at least considering) more often, without unnecessary bureaucracy. I take NYB's point below, but some Arbcom bureaucracy is a necessary evil of forcing a "final" step in dispute resolution. Worm^TT(talk) 16:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
8. This is a much-needed clarification on the previous wording. However, I take NYB's comments below seriously and hope we can, over time, reduce our dependence on complicated procedures like this. – bradv^🍁 14:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. The motion is a thoughtful product of the weeks-long ARCA discussion and I expect that we can live with it. However, seven years ago I was impressed by this article, by a highly respected author, as I wrote at the time. The project has done nothing to solve the massive instruction-creep problem that the article describes, and upon realizing that fact, I cannot bring myself to endorse yet another complicated set of rules and procedures. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

• Thanks TonyBallioni. Just added the sentence to the remedy 7: Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. @CaptainEek and Casliber: Hope this is fine! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I recall a recent discussion somewhere about whether page moves are considered edits. Would it be worth clarifying that in this motion? – bradv^🍁 03:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think you're referring to this discussion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it was that one – it was a hypothetical question about whether a non-EC editor was permitted to move a page within the topic area, as this restriction forbids "edits" but not "actions". It's probably a minor point, as such activity is likely going to be reverted with or without this restriction, and most pages subject to this restriction would have move-protection enabled anyway. I believe I have now answered my own question. – bradv^🍁 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion

• User:L235, minor quibble on the wording here, but for the Antisemitism in Poland case, it is likely worth keeping the bullet point that reinforces ARBEE DS are in place. While the various "sides" of that dispute have been generally speaking pro-EC protection, there's stuff that's borderline and giving admins the discretion to apply EC via DS without having to worry about wikilawyering is probably useful. They'd still have the authority anyway, but I don't see any harm in keeping the bullet point clarifying it in the actual remedy, and I could see some theoretical benefit to it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Kevin. Looks good to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Extended-confirmed protection currently technically can not be implemented at any talk pages. I was not able to find after five minutes in which namespaces it can be implemented now (I guess one just needs to try all of them), but I suspect there is only limited set of namespaces where it works (main, template, file, wikipedia?). If this is the case, it would be good to reflect in the motion for example listing these namepaces in B.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: where are you getting this information? Special:Redirect/logid/121439129 suggests otherwise. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  As does this list which I should have just gone to first. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  I see. I probably confused it with pending changes, but it is irrelevant. This makes my point void.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just to make it clear: In the way D is currently formulated, any user can revert any non-ecp user from a talk page they decide is broasdly related to one of these special areas claiming they enforce ecp? is this the intention of the committee?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  No, in my view, the motion is pretty explicit that this is not the case. Non-ECP users "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". If the non-ECP user is disruptive, "administrators may take enforcement actions" (not "any user"). If a user reverts a non-ECP user who is just editing on the talk page, that revert would not be "made solely to enforce this restriction" and therefore clause D would have no relevance. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  For reference, this language is already part of the existing remedies. Remedy 7 of Antisemitism in Poland says: Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring. Remedy 5 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 says: Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring. This motion is just housekeeping. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  I just remember the whole episode started from a non-administrator reverting a non-ec user claiming they are enforcing the sanction. Well. let us hope this language could work out.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are occasional, exceptional, reasons we may grant the ECP flag to editors that do not automatically qualify. If doing so it comes with a warning not to edit pages under remedy for 500/30 restrictions. It is also possible that the community may change the 500/30 threshold for ECP autogrant in the future. Keeping this in mind, beware that this could have unintended impact on past remedies. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• This is just a non-substantive copyediting suggestion. In A2, the phrase "non-extended-confirmed" appears twice, and sounds a little bit "off". I suggest changing it to "non-extended-confirmed users" or "... editors". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, fixed the typo. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• In the interest of reducing red tape and overlapping sanctions regimes, would ArbCom consider taking over the existing WP:GS/IPAK community-imposed 500/300 rule and incorporating it as a 'standard extended confirmed restriction' into the WP:ARBIP case? I suggest this because, with standardisation occurring, it will be confusing if the IPAK restriction is left isolated with its own separate rules based on previous interpretations of how this type of sanctions regime should work. Future community-imposed extended-confirmed restrictions will most likely follow the new ArbCom regime, negating the problem, but in this case, there is already an ArbCom regime active in the topic area and standardisation is certainly desirable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  @RGloucester, that looks to me like a reasonable request. I would suggest bringing it up at ARCA once this amendment passes. – bradv^🍁 17:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Iskandar323

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[[31]]

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 20:31, 14 September 2021 restore of this revert [32]
2. 22:35, 14 September 2021 second revert of the same material
3. [33] Personal attack

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [34]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was given a chance to self-revert and he still can but he refuses to do so[35]. The user also violated WP:NPA when he was told that he broken the rules. For me it seems that this editor is uncapable to edit is such area and should take a break to learn our polices. --Shrike (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the banner was applied after offending edits but now that the user knows that his edits have direct connection to the conflict he can still self rv --Shrike (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To the very least the user should understand that his statement "1RR is a guideline, not a rule" is not correct and 1RR should be adhered --Shrike (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: The reason that it was not tagged it because there was no content regarding the conflict by adding the text about the conflict you have turned the page to be covered by sanctions. It would be a good practice to add such tag yourself and understand that any content regarding the conflict is covered by sanctions --Shrike (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: He can add talk page notice to the very least and abide the rules even without the edit notice and that most of the regulars do. I will probably take it to ARCA as apparently you can break the rules even if you perfectly aware of them --Shrike (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:,@HighInBC: The user still in his WP:battle mode calling me an "antagonist" [36] The user clearly here to WP:RGW --Shrike (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I don't think I said that the user is "partisan" If yes could you please show me. Maybe you confusing my statement with Iscander[37] --Shrike (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Iskandar323

I made one revert, and then, within the same 24-hour period, made a second, modified edit following on from a discussion in the talk section of the page, where the consensus was that the content I had added had been given undue weight. Duly noted, the modified edit reduced the weight of the content. This discussion was civil and did not involve the accusing editor in the slightest. The other editors involved in the discussion have not voiced their opposition or made further reverts, though one has made further edits that have not affected the modified content, suggesting that, for that user at least, the content produced as a result of discussion towards consensus was appropriate. I maintain that the accusing editor appears to have a shallow grasp of Wikipedia's good faith principles, and I mean this in no way as a form of personal attack, but as a call-to-action for the individual to learn and engage in more civil and less belligerent forms of dialogue on the platform.

It is also worth noting that the accusing editor applied WP:PIA arbitration status to this article only after the discussions and edits in question, making the rather specific nature of his complaint somewhat retroactive in nature, but I personally do not think my good faith actions run afoul of the rules either way. I hope you will agree.

(Moved by HighInBC)Hi Deepfriedokra, consider me notified that 1RR is a rule in this subject area. I admit to being unaware that the restoration of substantially altered content could still be considered a revert, which I had though applied more technically to full reversions using undo functions. I am still not absolutely clear about whether my actions qualify in this instance, but I can see the sense of staying on the safer side of this rule, if only to prevent the waste of future resources (in the form of the valuable time of administrators such as yourself) on enforcement requests. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

(Moved by HighInBC)Ok, @HighInBC Noted. I apologise for my tone. But on the other point, in my defence, I had no idea that stricter arbitration rules could apply to pages not even tagged as such. I have had no engagement with such mechanisms, so I really had no means of knowing that this was the case. I still had not thought my actions constituted a second revert, but at least in principle, I had thought the standing rules for the page were 3RR, not 1RR, given the absence of any formal notice to the contrary. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This is extremely disingenuous WikiLawyering by 11Fox11. I didn't say that the 1RR rule did not apply to me. I said that it was a guideline, as are all rules on Wikipedia. I also said that in my interpretation, based on my movement towards consensus, I did not violate 1RR in the first place, or at least not intentionally. Interpretations may differ. On the subject of the Zakaria Zubeidi article, you are neglecting to point out that the reverts I have made only pertain to technicalities about linking and sourcing, not to the core content, and in each instance I have provided substantial commentary to help guide the new user concerned (AVR2012) - advice for which, in at least one instance, they have thanked me publicly. A much more experienced editor PatGallacher, has actually removed the material in its entirety, which has then been reverted repeatedly by the new user AVR2012, but I have not engaged with this minor edit war - I have only made technical edits where inappropriate links or sourcing have been added. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

One of these two alleged personal attacks is a duplicate of the original. I would note that in both I do not make any direct accusations, just suppositions from my own perspective. I use the word 'seem', not 'is' or 'are'. Saying that something seems a certain way is not the same as asserting it is like that. Therein lies a very crucial difference between the expression of personal opinion and the type of defamation alleged. However, I will certainly take the advice of Deepfriedokra to refrain from even such perceived slights in future given the readily exploitable nature of such statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@11Fox11 I provided two sources, one a UN document and the other a Reuters story, clearly mentioning the bank's name - to suggest that it is in some way difficult to see this suggests either a huge degree of oversight or the wilful peddling of mistruth. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra From reading WP:BRD in a little more depth, I would suggest that the edit that is being suggested by some is a 'second revert' actually falls more obviously into the category of a 'Cycle', given that I conspicuously, and openly acknowledged in my edit comment that I had been overruled in the discussion with respect to the weighting of the new content and reacted accordingly. I would also note that it was the other editors in the page's discussion that deleted the content more or less without discussion - they just left a message and carried out the deletion without waiting for a reply. The only two, genuine reversions I made (over two separate days), were to restore the content that was deleted wholesale in this manner by editors who made little to no effort to improve or refine the content. I also pointed out that the wider article had only one, dead link supporting it, but, tellingly, most of the other editors seemed totally disinterested in adding content or improving the page, right up until Inf-in MD came along and added sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Yes, I understand that I need to adhere to 1RR in this subject area moving forward, and that discussing and reaching agreement before reverting again is the way to avoid the sort of disruption that AE tries to stop. I will be more careful. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Hi, I responded to GN on their talk page. I'm aware that my pattern of edits was unusual, but it was a one-off - I was just backfilling pertinent information that appeared to have been missed or omitted (possibly amid the heady rush of the early days of the global pandemic). Most good company pages should have criticism sections. If they don't, that in itself is at least cause for suspicion that the page is undeveloped. Few companies are perfect. Perhaps I gave undue weight to the new content: that is a perspective that has clearly been expressed on the talk page in question in this AE, and which I already acknowledged I understood in my edit notes prior to this AE being called. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Is it not a problem for this AE that @Shrike is so clearly partisan? He is accusing me of WP:RGW, but if speculative opinion is all we are going by, the same suppositions could just as equally be said of them. Is none of this pertinent? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Words are words, but is anything more WP:BATTLE mindset than gratuitously escalating minor edit disputes, dragging people before AEs and calling for discretionary sanctions over edits on articles without edit notices? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I hadn't even heard of canvassing before it was mentioned before, and I still need to read up on the rules on this, but I didn't intentionally canvas anyone: I accidentally looped in an editor while trying to reference another's earlier comment in the same discussion, as the context should make clear. I also corrected myself. Did you read the full exchange? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Isn't this AE supposed to be about my inadvertent breach of 1RR? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: What is the difference between accusing someone of WP:RGW and of being partisan? The very notion of WP:RGW is that someone is taking a partisan approach. It is bureaucratic to imply that one is a personal attack and the other is not simply because one is couched in technical language. I am not implying that you are intentionally being bureaucratic, but that the distinction is a bureaucratic one. WP:RGW is just a sub-category of WP:TEND, which defines partisanship. If an AE, outside of the context of normal talk pages and user talk pages, is not the suitable forum for raising the issues of the WP:TEND tendencies of certain users, where is?

@Johnuniq: But thank you for your clarification on the principle of concrete outcomes in criticism sections. Though I would ask if divestment (where actual sums are withdraw) is not, in of itself, a concrete outcome? You are also quite correct that I had not fully absorbed the implications of the alert notice posted on my talk page.

@Johnuniq: In answer to your specific questions about the Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot articles, I am not hugely vested in it and do not particularly care about the outcome, and I will not be trying to re-add a fully fledged 'criticism' section header or 'Involvement in Israeli settlements' section sub-header, because I now better understand the point about weighting relative to the article as a whole. I did not come up with these section headers spontaneously, but merely replicated the format from other similar sections on other articles, trusting that the editors who placed them there knew what they were doing, but where, in hindsight, the relative weighting may have been a little different. It still seems to me that a divestment by a large fund, as reported by Reuters, is a concrete outcome, and my tendency would still be to include a sentence on it, but I am not emotive about it. I merely made an addition that I thought was notable, based on sources that I thought were notable, in a format that I replicated from the work of other editors on other pages. All that I objected to was the wholesale deletion of material, by and large without discussion, by other editors.

@Johnuniq: If you haven't already, please do look at the edits involved in the twinkle episode yourself to decide whether I was undoing good faith edits or not. The title of that talk section is a highly leading one. I believe I was undoing disruptive edits that had re-instated information that was clearly incorrect by the standard definition of the infobox templates - a position another user quickly attested to. However, following the subsequent discussion, I undid the last revision all the same following the criticism and left it to others to edit out the demonstrably incorrect information if they so chose, which they did. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Yes, I now realise the distinction between what I thought a revert is, and what a revert is in the technical definition you have mentioned. I had though that a partial re-edit of some of the same material in a different format and location, arrived at as a result of efforts to move towards consensus as per a discussion, was not a simple 'reversion'. But I now realise that the definition is quite broad and that its interpretation can be quite ironclad, particularly on articles perceived to be IP-related, even if they don't contain an edit notice. I also don't think it was totally unreasonable for me not to have understood absolutely all of this prior to this arbitration referral.

@HighInBC: I'm getting the hang of the 'comment on the content not the editors' mantra as well. I had assumed that personal attacks meant actual insults, defamation or slander, but not the questioning of motives or truthfulness, but clearly, here too the Wikipedia definition is either very broad or very open to interpretation. I'll admit to getting a little emotive on the subject of my own persecution. But is it also not a problem for editors to demonstrably falsify formal statements in an arbitration forum?

NB: Let me once more state plainly that, while I was not aware of and certainly did not fully comprehend the 1RR rules with respect to this conflict area prior to this AE being called, I do now understand the 1RR rules quite clearly, as well as the general principle behind the 1RR and its general merit as a means of de-escalation in all circumstances, as well as the benefits of pursing a more thoughtful, civil and WP:BRD-informed editing approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by 11Fox11

The edit notice is a technicality, and Iskandar323's conduct is sanctionable without the 1RR. They are edit warring in the face of talk page consensus against them and engaging in personal attacks and commentary.

On Zakaria Zubeidi they reverted three times: [39][40][41] (and some reverts of IPs).

On Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot they also reverted multiple times: [42][43][44], when consensus was against them at Talk:Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot#Hugely undue addition.

To this one must add the personal attacks: [45] and [46] against Shrike when notified of 1RR. They also think the 1RR rule doesn't apply to them. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: the page was about an Israeli bank that is unrelated to the conflict. Then Iskandar323 came along with the seemingly innocuous edit summary "new section" and turned a third of the article into Arab-Israeli conflict material (reverted as undue by User:Number 57). Citing three sources ([47], [48], [49]) that do not even mention the Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank by name, which is WP:SYNTHESIS. It is disingenuous for Iskandar323 to complain about lacking edit notices on the conflict on the page when they turned the page into a conflict article all by their lonesome. Israeli banks are generally unrelated to the conflict, but if an editor hijacks an unrelated article into a conflict article, they shouldn't then complain that no one foresaw their own actions in advance. 11Fox11 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC, Deepfriedokra, and Johnuniq: now Iskandar323 is engaging in blatant canvassing, pinging Nishidani who never edited the article or its talk. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Never edited until after being pinged. Ping at 16:40, Nishidani edits at 17:29. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

Usually we give newer editors the benefit of the doubt, I think an informal warning is sufficient in this case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging one editor, apparently in error, is not "blatant canvassing". I believe that following the latest post, the editor now "gets it" re 1R and Arbpia. I am not overly fond of the semi automated crit thing but I doubt the editor would repeat that either.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

From 2014 until the recent editing of 2021, the user was mainly inactive and so I consider him "new" to the IP area in that sense as well as by edit count.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

To Shrike: According to WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, an editnotice is required for the General Sanctions to be enforced but Iskandar323 does not have the technical ability to add one. Zero^talk 13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC) @Shrike: Of course he should obey the rules, but nobody is obliged to add ARBPIA notices. I don't see what you want to take to ARCA as the rule about editnotices has been discussed by ArbCom before and they are unlikely to change it. Zero^talk 13:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GeneralNotability

I'm very tangentially involved here, but wanted to add an observation (not specifically related to the AE violation in question). On 12 September, Iskandar bulk-added a "criticism" section to 30ish company articles (see here, look for the edit summary "Added section"). The bulk of these were added within the span of about half an hour. They were later mass-reverted as "Undue weight" by Mike Rothman2, whom I temp-blocked for undiscussed mass reversion and obvious attempts at permissions gaming. My concern is this: mass addition of "criticism" sections in this manner smacks of WP:RGW/POV-pushing, and I am concerned about whether Iskandar can neutrally in the topic area. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I'm in a weird position as kind-of-involved-but-not-really, but since I'm commenting in the "other people" section and not the "uninvolved admin" section I think it's best if I'm not consulted on sanctions. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Inf-in MD

I'd like to draw your attention to recent comments by Iskandar323, where he describes this request against him as a "technicality", and despite the clear language used by Johnuniq below which says the criticism section is undue for the bank's article, that it is due and that there no "hard and fast rule" against it.[50][51]. Maybe a warning is not enough. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra I think a ban is taking it a bit too far. My comment above notwithstanding, I find Iskandar323 to be one of the more reasonable editors with whom I disagree on most things. A formally logged warning coupled with his acknowledgment that he understands what he did and will not do it again should suffice. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

Whether or not something is UNDUE is a matter for the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard, not AE. A user is free to engage wider input on a content dispute, what is needed here is the user acknowledging and agreeing to abide by our edit warring policies. This group of editors that all happen to be on one side of an editing dispute (mustnt call them partisans of course) agitating for a content ruling on a conduct board is a bit troubling, as is their insistence that said content dispute be used to remove an opposing editor. nableezy - 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Iskandar323

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Just noting that the page in question does not seem to have an editnotice describing the 1RR restriction, though it is described on the talk page. I know this is a requirement for discretionary sanctions. This seems to be an arbitration remedy rather than a DS. I am not sure if it follows the same requirements. No comment on the merits of the case at this point. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It was not my intention to suggest a technicality should excuse this instance. I feel it is important to know that not only is an arbcom 1RR restriction a rule(not a guideline), but it is one of the most strictly enforced rules we have. It has very objective criteria that seem to have been violated. Ignore all rules is a great policy, but I would not suggest you try it with an arbcom ruling. I recommend a logged warning about 1RR without further action.

Regarding the uncivil comments, I find it ironic that they are assuming bad faith about someone assuming bad faith, though I don't think it rises to the level of action. I do think they should be cautioned to keep discussion on the topic of the content and try not to comment on the editors. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I have created an edit notice for the page so that everyone will see when they edit: Template:Editnotices/Page/Zakaria Zubeidi. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Given their recent comment about the second revert being part of the BRD cycle and thus not a revert I really feel the warning should be a logged one. To be clear, A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. This includes engaging in the BRD cycle, this includes copyediting and minor changes, it includes anything that meets that definition. Please understand that an arbcom ruling overrides any essays or guidelines you may encounter and is enforced very strictly. A logged warning with clear wording will remove the excuse of such misunderstandings in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Regarding that comment, I will echo my earlier caution to keep discussion on the topic of the content and try not to comment on the editors. Perhaps my proposed logged warning can include something to that effect. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think that if Iskandar323 agrees to follow the (sometimes arcane) rules going forward, no sanction will be needed. I don't think that the "personal attack" rises to a sanctionable level. Iskandar323, please comment on content, not perceived belligerence. Now you know 1RR is a rule to be followed in this subject area. Am willing to be persuaded otherwise as to need for more than a reminder. Awaiting further opinions from those more AE experienced than I. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ah, 1Fox11's comment posted just before I posted. Iskandar323, you really need to discuss, without making personal remarks, content. This moves us closer to the need for sanctions. AGF is not an impenetrable shield for edits that are disruptive. Sometimes AGF protestations are a red herring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Dear Lord, I've gone cross-eyed. Must be excess iron. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I'm afraid you are mistaken. Some Wikipedia rules, like Wikipedia:Edit warring ,are policies. And as my colleague notes above, 1RR is an ArbCom ruling. No, I too would have been surprised at being hauled in to AE when a page did not indicate that 1RR applied. That is one reason I hope we can get by without sanctions. WP:BRD is a tool to use to avoid edit warring. What my colleague has already said I agree with. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

exploitable nature ? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: What I need to see is an understanding from you that you will adhere to 1RR in this subject area moving forward. Also, once, reverted, discussing and reaching agreement before reverting again is the way to avoid the sort of disruption that AE tries to stop. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Please address GN's concern about POV pushing and the undue weight of adding criticisms sections. I think it the type of edit to be avoided moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that the implication implied in "to suggest that it is in some way difficult to see this suggests either a huge degree of oversight or the wilful peddling of mistruth" above doesn't cross the line into NPA. Imprecations like that only lead to trouble. @HighInBC: you've been AEing longer than I so, am I of-base or spot-on? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, HighinBC, and GeneralNotability: The comments like calling other users "antagonists" and the exploitable nature comment give the impression of a battle ground mind set. Will cautions be enough? (This thread is stressful) FWIW, I don't like "criticism" sections. They tend to become tabloidesque. As Johnuniq writes, write about the impact, not the criticism @Shrike: I think your assertions of "partisan" and RGW without dif's are a problem. Please let us draw our own conclusions. If something new arises, feel free to draw it to our attention with dif's. Maybe paraphrase what is said in the dif w/o descriptors that might inflame emotions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, HighinBC, and GeneralNotability: THIS plus canvassing noted by 11Fox11 in addition to the other concerns raised here lead me to believe a TBAN in this area would be a good idea. Would appreciate your thoughts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks @Seraphimblade: and @Hut 8.5: A warning should suffice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq: I logged warning I should thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Iskandar323: It's time for a frank exchange of views. Given the opinions that have been expressed and which I am about to express, what is your current understanding with regard to Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot (will you be proposing including "Involvement in Israeli settlements" text?), and what will happen if there are objections to your edits in this topic in the future? Re the article, if the UN publishes something, that might warrant a mention on an article about the UN. Only if a concrete outcome occurred for the bank (e.g. stock value or equivalent plunged for a prolonged period) would it be WP:DUE to mention the bank's inclusion on a list. In general, don't add "criticism" sections to articles (see WP:CRIT)—if something significant occurred for the bank (a concrete outcome), consider writing a section on that. Further, it is totally unacceptable to baldly describe other editors as "clearly partisan" (diff). The OP mentions diff as a personal attack and technically "You seem belligerent" is a move in that direction and is very inappropriate, not to mention pointless—does Iskandar323 imagine that this rejoinder will help in any way?
  Iskandar323 was alerted about discretionary sanction two weeks ago and we could assume they haven't yet absorbed the implications. Depending on how things work out in the next 24 hours, I could conclude that an informal warning for Iskandar323 is sufficient, or perhaps it's not. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, this was a 1RR violation, and it's quite disruptive to keep reinstating challenged material while a talk page discussion isn't going your way. However Iskandar323 is fairly new and was understandably not familiar with the sanctions, the article was missing the required notices, and Iskandar323 has committed to abide by 1RR going forward, so I don't think a sanction is a good idea. A warning would be plenty. Hut 8.5 17:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Hut 8.5 that a warning is appropriate here. Of course if this should happen again, further action will be needed, but hopefully a warning and clarification of the expectations in this area will suffice to keep that from becoming necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• A warning seems like a decent path forward here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Are we talking about an informal "close with a note of warning" or a logged warning? I'll support either to get this closed but User talk:Iskandar323#Reverting good faith edits with twinkle makes me favor a logged warning. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• This was a disruptive breach of 1RR, however as Iskandar323 understandably didn't understand 1RR, I agree that a logged warning is appropriate in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Xoltron

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 08:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Xoltron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 16 September 2021 WP:1AM
2. 16 September 2021 WP:IDHT

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Xoltron

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Xoltron

I am not sure what the purpose of this on-going attack, mostly on my talk page, against me is. All I did was start a discussion on a talk page in the Indo-Aryan Languages article: A long mislabeled article for a language group known correctly in Linguistics studies around the globe as Indic, as also mentioned in the same article. The next thing I know, several Indian editors start attacking me on my talk page instead of continuing the discussion on the article's discussion page and then this Arbitration request, for what? I do make a point to respond to editors that make personal attacks and threats (like Deepfriedokra , and numerous others) meant to intimate. Is that what this is about or ?Xoltron (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TrangaBellam

Deepfriedokra, see this. As you said, their combative nature spills out of ARBIPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, they (Xoltron) self-reverted a duplication. HistoryOfIran would remove the message and warn them (Xoltron) to not write on his talk page again. August 20 was less than a month ago. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Xoltron

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Researching. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Reveiw of Xoltron Account attached 2018-10-04T14:52:13; 264 edits. User has been sporatic. Went active in September 2021. Prior warnings for conflict in August 2019. EdJohnson's explanation about DS alert. Feels bullied and here. wow!.

Preliminary assessment User is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are instead attempting to peddle some form of revisionism. User is not compatible with a collaborative project. Just too much lack of WP:AGF and too combative

Preliminary proposed remedy Not sure Talk:Indo-Aryan languages falls within IPA, except for user making it so. I'd go with some sort of topic ban, but there's a lot of spill over. And the previous problems back in 2019. I don't think it would work. It's either fashion a topic ban or a block. No prior blocks, though. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: To HistoryofIran they said this? The mind reels. More inclined than ever to indef as regular admin action. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, August 20 of this year and self reverted. Thanks, but that's old. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Indeed. They edit in spurts, and have not edited since this discussion began. On the one hand, I'd like to give them an opportunity to respond. On the other, I don't I want to read the response. I like the way they lecture other users on "the way we do things". Or is that just a form of intimidation? Be happy to block w/o a response. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Indefinite block as regular admin action.. User has been far from WP:CIVIL throughout their Wikicareer. They have made personal attacks and cast aspersions, and offered threats, while treating Wikipedia as a battleground. They attack other users who try to communicate with them, and see attempts to help them edit constructively as harassment and intimidation. I was waiting to give them a chance to address their behavior as my initial impression was unfavorable. Their responses in this AE thread, on my talk page, and on their talk page do not inspire me with the hope that their incivility will cease. A topic ban has been proposed, but their edits actually fall outside WP:ARBIPA. And nothing in their interactions suggest they would adhere to a topic ban. A time limited block has been suggested, but their editing is sporadic with inactivity periods up to six months long. When they return, they resume where they left off. They might not even notice a time limited block, and they could simply out wait it and resume their unacceptable behavior after it ends. Because we have a history of incivilty and battlegrounding going back for years, I believe an indefinite block is the best alternative. Indefinite is not infinite. They could be unblocked the day after they are blocked if they addressed their behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

When a user like Xoltron is so aggressive right out of the gate an indefinite block has to be an option to consider. I think they must be oblivious to the trouble they are causing. They appear to see long time contributors as a set of horrible POV-pushers that they need to combat. From what they said on Kautilya3's page: "I am sorry that you are apparently angry and upset, but engaging in outright fraudulent accusations is not how we do things on Wikipdia. Please Consider this a warning and refrain from engaging in further bullying activities" I don't see how this situation turns around without some kind of a block. A time-limited block would suggest we are optimistic for a change of heart in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• I am struck by how many times in a short editing history Xoltron has accused people they disagree with of harassment, bullying or similar behaviours [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. Some of their editing has also been rather tenacious, e.g. here they assert that academics "have always designated this class of languages and ethnicities as Indic, not Indo-Aryan", only to be shown a long list of sources of academics using "Indo-Aryan". I'm not sure how much of this relates to ARBIPA, as most of their editing history concerns Iran, but this kind of behaviour is likely to lead to an indef block sooner or later. Hut 8.5 11:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• I will echo what Hut says, this user very quickly jumps to accusing people of harassment. Just now in their statement they repeated this behavior towards Deepfriedokra in response to a simple question regarding their purpose on the project. I feel that while connected to the topic, this behavior goes beyond the topic. I am not sure a topic ban will resolve the issue. I am leaning towards something between a DS block for 1 month for combative behavior at the least, and a regular admin action WP:NOTHERE indef block at the most. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Given this rubbish I am going to lean heavily towards the indefinite block for battleground behavior and not being here to write an encyclopedia. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)