Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness at 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan § Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan § Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned

• Removal of topic ban

It has now been over 1 year since the topic ban was implanted. I have read everything in the arbitration case and the Principles:[1] and I promise to follow the principles and rules. I am asking for the topic ban to me removed as it is not needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, its best to use modern academic sources as much as possible, and if older historical sources are used for some information, for example for a historical perspective, then that info should be presented as being from that specific historical source. Any edits in the topic area must be based on a reliable source, this also includes discussions at the talkpage. Furthermore I can tell you right now that I have 0% interest to participate in any kind of uncivil discussion with anyone at any talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BDD, in the case of the A-I conflict then there is an overwhelming large majority worldview that the occupied territories Israel captured in 1967 are not part of Israel, this includes the UN, EU and other large international organizations. I believe it is npov to follow this large majority worldview and not present the occupied territories as part of Israel. Sources for this can be easily obtained but I don't believe its appropriate to ad sources for this large worldview every time I edit within the A-I conflict for obvious reasons. If someone disputes this, then I can show them high quality sources at the talkpage.

In the case of "Kurds and Kurdistan", because of what happened last year with the arb case and the behavior of some people, then I should be extra careful to avoid any issue, so I plan to always use a high quality academic source when I make edits within the topic area, or as I said above for historical info properly attribute it to the historical source. I believe in some instances a reliable well known news agency could also be used for some info but its a case by case basis. If any other editor objects to any edit I make then obviously it would have to be discussed at the talkpage in a calm and civil way with good sources until the issue is settled. If someone is uncivil then that person can be brought to Enforcement and be blocked/banned, so I don't believe there will be a problem now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WormTT, I will be more careful in which sources I use in the topic area. DS is also in effect now so any disruption by anyone, and that person can be brought to enforcement and the problem will be settled there quickly. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Supreme Deliciousness, can you explain how your editing will change if we accept your appeal to address the issues found in the case about your prior conduct? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on their answer above, and my (albeit not thorough) look at their editing history since November I am tentatively prepared to accept this appeal, though perhaps with an explicit note that it may be reinstated. It could, under DS, be reinstated without such a note but would also make clear to admin that they are authorized to act should reinstatement in this topic area restart the kinds of behaviors that led to the TBAN in the first place. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Supreme Deliciousness, I see much of your recent editing has been in the topic area of the Palestine–Israel conflict, broadly construed. I take this as a good sign, that you're able to edit another area related to ethnic conflicts in Western Asia without any obvious trouble, like further blocks. Could you draw on this experience to explain how you would approach editing Kurds and Kurdistan again? How have you dealt with potential conflict with other editors? How have you identified high-quality sources? --BDD (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am waiting for a reply to BDD, but at the moment I am leaning towards accepting. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to hear a response to BDD's questions also, but in addition, I'd like to know a bit more about what Supreme Deliciousness feels has changed? At the case, I was considering a full site ban, as I was aware that he had been restricted in 2009 for similar behaviour, back when Arbcom gave time limited restrictions, as well as multiple blocks in the wider topic area. A simple "it's been a year and I promise" isn't quite what I'm looking for. Worm^TT(talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that I remain unconvinced, Supreme Deliciousness, do you have any comment as to we had to deal with similar issues 10 years ago and 1 year ago? Any comment on why it won't happen again? Worm^TT(talk) 08:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The positive editing in Israel/Palestine areas is most reassuring. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am open to lifting the topic ban, and DS remains authorized in this topic area in the event of any problems. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Given that the previous tban was many years ago and they've shown themselves able to edit a contentious topic area without sanction I support lifting this topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. BDD (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Productive editing in contentious topics is a good sign, and the answers to Barkeep's and BDD's questions are good. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. I would say that SD's answers here have been at best "ok", but broadly per Barkeep. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. I remain unconvinced that this is a good idea, but the combination of DS being available, the probationary period, and the recent good work moves me to Abstain rather than oppose Worm^TT(talk) 08:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator comments

Initiated by Shrike at 17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 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:

• Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&type=revision&diff=1077308493&oldid=1077292824

This regarding following from WP:PIA

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 in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc

Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE [2] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen[3] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/WP:ANI/WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE

@Worm That Turned: The rule was made to block socking, IPs and new users have nothing to do there, except if case is filed against them, so such users that want to comment there are probably returning users the shouldn't comment for example the IP first edits is some internal wiki proposal that is a low chance that not experienced user will come there [4],[5] anyhow, in the end, I want some consistency right now comment by non-ECP user was removed[6] while comment by IP was restored [7] --Shrike (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I totally agree with Wugapodes also I doesn't put any additional strain on AE admins as with articles the removing of such comments is usually done by regular users Shrike (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen But that what happens in article space almost every time non-ecp user make edit, user from other camp are removing it citing WP:ARBPIA. That the usual practice. Shrike (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 What about ANI/AN,for example at RSN in various RFCs the users are doing the clerking and removing non-ECP comments and I think personally its the best way per WP:NOTBURO if there are some dispute that can be always brought to uninvolved admin or at WP:AE Shrike (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [8]. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Adding: Arbcom "owns" AE but traditionally takes little interest in it. Not sure if anybody is interested in a trip down memory lane, but it was in fact me that agitated for disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from posting requests at AE, back in 2015, and me that added the wording about it to the pink template.[9] You can see me pushing for it and nearly giving up in the face of lack of Arbcom interest, here, but in the end, they allowed it. Before 2015, it had been quite a problem, with disruptive requests repeatedly opened by socks and dynamic IPs, which wasted some admin time and also — a much bigger problem — forced the unfortunate targets of these usually bad-faith reports to repeatedly defend themselves. That was my focus at the time, and it seemed easier to get Arbcom to allow the smaller restriction, only against opening reports, while still welcoming everybody to post. If the current committee (which seems more interested! good!) wants to enlarge the restriction, I've no objection. But for myself, I agree with Worm's and Zero's comments that AE admins should have discretion here, since they run AE anyway.

• As for Shrike's removal, it seems a bad idea to me that an editor who has already posted an opposite viewpoint,[10][11][12][13] and has skin in the game, should remove an IP post (twice, yet). Even if it's the right action, it's the wrong user. If this ends with IPs and noobs being generally disallowed, perhaps something about involved users leaving them alone should still be part of it. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• @Shrike: That's the usual practice in PIA? That's a bad thing. Bishonen | tålk 09:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in.

However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zero^talk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zero^talk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here.

Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [14] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [15] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry.

This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• I don't claim to be an expert on PIA remedies. However, my reading of the extended confirmed restriction which includes PIA says IPs cannot comment at AE. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. (emphasis added) AE is by my reading a noticeboard and regardless feels like an internal project discussion. So while IPs can normally participate at AE, I think ECP prevents that in the case of remedies, including PIA, which have ECR. But I look forward to seeing what other arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with barkeep49's interpretation. But if this causes problems for AE I'm open to some kind of change. The status quo is that AE is an internal project discussion for ECR proposes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Barkeep49 and L235. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• We've got a problem here though - because Bishonen is also right that the big template at the top of the AE page is pretty clear that ALL users can comment. It's even juxtaposed with a statement that IP editors cannot file. In other words, we've got two conflicting guidelines. It's tempting to accept ECR, because that was more recently put in place, but I fall on the other side, that we should focus on AE. I don't want to make the process even more onerous for the admins who take the time to actually work in that area - they already have enough rules to remember, but saying they should monitor the topic that IPs are commenting on for a minor note about whether they can comment seems over the top. Secondly AE is an enforcement board, and therefore one of the areas that we sometimes historically except restrictions, per WP:BANEX, I'd like to push that way as a general principle. Finally, there is the wiki philosophy of doing the right thing, thinking about the outcomes, thinking about levels of disruption, thinking about net benefit - I trust our admins to monitor the board and will back them up on what they do, I'd rather they weren't hampered by the rules, when trying to do the right thing. Worm^TT(talk) 09:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zero0000's workflow makes sense to me. @Shrike I understand the purpose behind it, but blanket bans and removal without consideration doesn't sit well with me. Worm^TT(talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree the wording at AE should be correct, no matter what we decide here. That said, extended confirmed areas, including this one, have often been plagued with new editors who are disruptive at AE, including filing retaliatory/battleground reports. ArbComs of days gone past did not land on the noticeboard wording by accident. I'm pretty reluctant to backtrack on that in topic areas admins have repeatedly told us are the hardest to patrol and which many will not work in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's what the AE admins want, I'm all for it. I'd like to defer to their discretion as a whole. Worm^TT(talk) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the comments on this topic. I believe I now sit at the same point as Wugapodes' final paragraph - that we should update the text as he suggests and that admins should have the discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. So, in a similar situation to this - Shrike could remove the comment, Bishonen could review and restore if she felt it was helpful. And we can all go back to getting on with other things. Worm^TT(talk) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to take a slightly tangential stance and say that AE should not be open to all users; AE should be limited to those with an account. In addition, I think the EC restrictions should apply to AE reports in that area. My thinking is that AE is an internal project discussion where we want a high signal-to-noise ratio and robust record keeping.
  IPs will fall into two camps: newbies and drifters. Newbies should not be commenting at AE for the same reason we don't let them comment in EC areas. Not only are they often socks, the policy knowledge required to participate helpfully is usually beyond them; they wind up being more noise than signal and can quickly cross the line into disruptive. The other type of IP that would comment at AE are what I'm going to call "drifters"; long term editors who, for whatever reason, do not want to create an account and periodically "drift" from IP to IP without an obvious meatball:SerialIdentity. There's nothing wrong with this, and many of these editors are helpful in various parts of the encyclopedia, but the benefit of inviting them to comment at AE is low. It opens us up to all the problems of newbies and socks (noise) for the occasional helpful comment (signal). The nature of IP-based editors is that they lack a robust meatball:AuditTrail, and that makes it hard to monitor who is using AE and for what ends. There is also the community aspect: drifters choose not to register an account and join our community, and while that's fine, community administration should be left to the community (see meatball:RewardReputation). So while there is some benefit to allowing IP drifters to comment, the highly administrative, procedural, and controversial nature of AE makes IP editing in general a net negative.
  Now, with all that said, I think it makes it easier to understand why I think EC restrictions should apply at AE: there are only newbies with none of the benefits of IP drifters. The reason we would not want newbie IPs commenting at AE is the same reason we don't want newbie accounts editing PIA articles or discussions. They lower the signal-to-noise ratio when genuinely new and are usually socks when they are policy-adept. For the few clean starts or IPs-turned-account, they will be able to participate when they have a sufficient reputation (i.e. 30/500) which I think is a feature not a bug.
  So, all together, I would suggest the following text: All registered users are welcome to comment on requests not covered by extended confirmation requirements. I'll also not that despite the above, I think admin should have discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. In the (presumably rare) instances where an IP is being reported, then obviously their response would be sought. If an IP drifter is party to a dispute then an admin could ask them for a comment. In general though, I think the bulk of AE commentary should be parties and sysops, and (non-party) IPs and non-EC editors to me seems to strike the right signal-to-noise balance. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Bish that Shrike was the wrong person to clerk this at AE. Uninvolved administrators are already authorized to clerk that noticeboard and assuming current consensus holds, would continue to be authorized to do so around IP moving forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shrike AE is not, by design, like any other noticeboard. The rules are different and so what it means to not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles (to quote actual NOTBURO language) is different also. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Newslinger at 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (procedure)

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

• Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1076731607/1077408581 – Sideswipe9th
• Special:Diff/1077177161/1077408614 – ProcrastinatingReader
• Special:Diff/1076722877/1077408643 – Czar

In the 2021 discretionary sanctions review and on Template talk:Ds, several suggestions have been proposed to improve how discretionary sanctions are communicated to editors. This clarification amendment request seeks to bring four of these suggestions to the Arbitration Committee for consideration and implementation.

1. In {{Ds/alert}}, inform the recipient that they may opt out of receiving future alerts with {{Ds/aware}}.

   Editors who receive discretionary sanctions alerts who do not wish to receive these alerts sometimes do not understand that they have the option to opt out of receiving them. Including this information in the alert template would communicate this option explicitly to the recipient as a courtesy, similar to unsubscribe links in emails.

   I previously proposed this change at WP:DS2021 § Comments by community members (Alerts), where it received positive feedback and no opposition. This change was also separately proposed by Sideswipe9th on the talk page of the relevant templates.

   To implement this change, a sentence would need to be added to Template:Ds/alert, either in a new paragraph with a smaller font size or at the end of the last paragraph. The sentence could be something such as:

   • You may opt out of receiving messages like this one by placing the {{Ds/aware}} template on your user talk page.

     A concise sentence

   • You may opt out of receiving messages like this one by placing the {{Ds/aware}} template on your user talk page and specifying in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about.

     Reminds the recipient that the topic_code parameter must be set in {{Ds/aware}} for the opt-out to take effect

2. Accommodate multiple topic areas in a single {{Ds/alert}} template.

   Editors who participate in multiple topic areas covered by discretionary sanctions often receive a series of {{Ds/alert}} messages, one for each topic area. The duplicate text among the multiple messages creates unnecessary reading for the recipients. Adding support for multiple topic areas in a single {{Ds/alert}} notice would keep the communication with alert recipients as concise as possible.

   I previously proposed this change at WP:DS2021 § Comments by community members (Alerts) and WP:DS2021 § Comments by community members (Other).

   To implement this change, Template:Ds/alert would need be altered to support multiple topic codes and display the corresponding topic areas as a bulleted list. The {{Ds/aware}} template could be used as a reference implementation. To further simplify the alert system, the Arbitration Committee could investigate whether the {{Ds/alert}} template should be combined with the {{Gs/alert}} template, so that multiple topic areas covered by a combination of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions Arbitration Committee sanctions and community sanctions could be specified in a single unified alert template.

3. Accommodate multiple topic areas in a single {{Ds/talk notice}} template.

   Articles that are covered by multiple discretionary sanctions topic areas tend to have a series of {{Ds/talk notice}} banners on their talk pages, one for each topic area. This causes banner blindness and creates unnecessary reading for talk page participants. As with the previous proposal, adding support for multiple topic areas in a single {{Ds/talk notice}} banner would eliminate this issue.

   ProcrastinatingReader previously proposed this change at WP:DS2021 § Comments by community members (Other), where it received positive feedback. At Template talk:Ds § Combine Ds/talk notice, Czar proposed the same suggestion, and ProcrastinatingReader said that they had proposed this to the Arbitration Committee in 2020 but did not receive a definitive answer.

   To implement this, Template:Ds/talk notice would need to be modified to support multiple topic codes and display the corresponding topic areas as a bulleted list. As with the previous proposal, {{Ds/aware}} could be used as a reference implementation, and the Arbitration Committee could investigate whether {{Ds/talk notice}} should be combined with {{Gs/talk notice}} to further simplify these banners.

4. Add a lead section to WP:AC/DS that summarizes the discretionary sanctions system.

   Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS) is perhaps the most challenging procedure page to read on Wikipedia because it resembles a legal document, adopting a formal tone and starting with a list of definitions. The {{nutshell}} template at the top of the page provides a brief definition, but readers are unable to obtain an overview of discretionary sanctions until they study the entire page. Adding a lead section that summarizes the system would help readers understand at a high level how the system works, how the system affects their editing, and the actions the system makes available to them.

   The 2021 discretionary sanctions review was closed with a summary indicating that a lead section for WP:AC/DS "may be among what is presented to the community for feedback in Phase 2". Since the addition of a lead section would immediately increase the community's understanding of the discretionary sanctions system without changing how the system works, I propose that the drafting of this lead section be expedited and implemented separately from the other changes suggested in the 2021 review, which may take longer to deliberate.

Thank you for your consideration. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after submitting this, I realized that this should have been an amendment request and not a clarification request. I apologize for the inconvenience and will resubmit this request if necessary. — Newslinger talk 04:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the section title to start with "Amendment request". — Newslinger talk 04:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Thank you for filing the amendment request that led to the creation of {{Ds/aware}} in the first place. Proposal #1 would add a sentence to every discretionary sanctions alert, informing the recipient that they can opt out of future alerts by using {{Ds/aware}}. Proposals #2–4 aren't related to {{Ds/aware}}. I think your suggestion to add a template-free opt-out feature is a good one, but I'm not sure if it's technically possible to implement that on Wikipedia at this time. — Newslinger talk 04:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I don't quite understand part of your comment ("I don't know that we should allow users to opt out of the alert system"), since every editor already has the ability to opt out from receiving {{Ds/alert}} messages by applying the {{Ds/aware}} template on their user talk page. The problem that proposal #1 attempts to address is that many editors are unaware that they can opt out, even after receiving an alert. Are you saying that {{Ds/aware}} should be changed in some way? — Newslinger talk 04:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader has informed me that {{alert}} already combines the functionality of {{Ds/alert}} and {{Gs/alert}}, so I've struck that part from proposal #2. Thank you, ProcrastinatingReader, for implementing this. — Newslinger talk 18:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, although Module:Sanctions/AlertHelper allows {{alert}} to display the correct template – {{Ds/alert}} or {{Gs/alert}} – for a single topic area, it does not yet allow {{alert}} to handle multiple topic areas under a combination of Arbitration Committee sanctions and community sanctions. For example, it would take two alerts to cover both the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area and the South Asian social groups topic area, even if {{Ds/alert}} and {{Gs/alert}} were enhanced to accommodate multiple topic areas. For this reason, I've unstruck the relevant part of proposal #2. — Newslinger talk 19:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though Newslinger and myself have only discussed points 1-3, via the discussion at Template talk:Ds, I do support all four raised here.

Specifically for point four, I know that when I first became involved in editing in a DS topic area, I found it difficult to understand what exactly the extra restrictions were. The guide at WP:ACDS opens with a set of definitions, and the information that would be applicable to most editors; the guidance for editors section, is not summarised in a lead or otherwise obviously signposted either on that page, or in the Ds/alert template.

@Izno: with respect to WP:BOLD and requiring an amendment/clarification, there's a content note/warning on the template page that reads This template is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, as one of its associated enforcement processes. Therefore, you must not make significant changes to the wording or functionality of this template without the committee's consent. Thank you! Given the presence of this, neither of us felt it was appropriate for us to make the changes unilaterally.

One question before I finish, if I need to reply here again, is there a word limit here similar to that of arbitration case requests? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I can understand hesitation over #4 as ensuring that is worded in both a neutral and accessible manner could take time. However I don't understand why #1 is also an issue, as this would be adding neutral information that this other template exists and what its already existing uses are. I'm curious and wonder if you could elaborate why? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this case is anything like the DS Aware Template discussion that took place on May 13, 2019 and passed. I received this notice advising me of same. I have a permanent template at the top of my UTP, and so do others (admins and editors alike), so if an editor shows up at your page to post a DS notice, it triggers a message saying the editor is already aware. Is there something different about this case that I'm not understanding? I'm not all that savvy if it involves programming or technical changes. If it's about having the ability to totally opt out without needing a notice on our UTP, then count me as a support as long as notice in edit view of DS articles and in the TP header. Atsme 💬 📧 02:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger - thx for your suggestions and explanation. Just wanted you to see this diff. When an editor attempts to post a DS alert on my TP, it triggers a filter that lists all DS of which I'm aware, if not all (or at least it's supposed to trigger it as the diff demonstrates). Atsme 💬 📧 05:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some links that may prove helpful:

1. ArbCom's DS Motion for UTP notice
2. The alert template which allows editors to add their own text: {{subst:alert|topic code here – select from list|2=If you have questions, please contact me.|sig=yes}}
3. Lua module

I simply state that I'm aware of all DS in my UTP DS/AWARE notice at the top of my TP. Atsme 💬 📧 05:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• @Newslinger: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I know it's been a while without updates on a semi-stalled DS process -- I in particular apologize for that.

  Speaking personally: All the changes you suggest sound good to me. I think Change #4 is definitely going to happen – the DS draft that was circulated internally last year has one, and my sense is the addition of a lead is pretty popular with the rest of the committee. Changes #1-3 are changes to the templates, which definitely could use some attention. Formally, the templates seem to require ArbCom majorities to change (even though in practice oftentimes arbs/others make BOLD edits). One of my top DS reform priorities is changing that to allow the clerks (in consultation with the committee or without objection from a committee member) to approve changes to the templates and information/documentation pages. I imagine that the clerks will then create a streamlined process to approve improvements that are consistent with the procedure.

  I suppose we could make that change to the procedures (here is draft language that would've been part of the overall DS motion) now instead of waiting for the next updates on the DS process, which would probably shave a few months off of that (which once again is mostly my fault). Whether to make this change (which should be fairly uncontroversial) now or wait until a broader package is up to my fellow arbs. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To arbs commenting: would you be open to enacting this motion here at this ARCA (rather than the DS reform process)? Doing so will resolve items #1-3 here and reduce the paperwork involved in doing so in the future. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Worm That Turned: How about putting it on WP:A/R/M and notifying the DS update list? Would that work for you? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know whether I'll bring the motion at A/R/M, but I think in any event this specific ARCA is resolved. If there is no objection, in a day or two I'll direct the clerks to close this ARCA (with the result being that changes #1-3 are approved subject to any discussion about implementation, and change #4 will be considered when the broader DS2021 reform package is brought forth). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Items 2 and 3 at least do look closer to WP:BOLD-ArbCom-action than to "total reform package", but for all four I don't think a request for amendment is quite the right vehicle, with the general expectation that any changes will be a possibly long discussion (maybe not previous RFC length). --Izno (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sideswipe9th: Yes, hence the qualified WP:BOLD. As in, I'm pretty sure ArbCom would accept/perform changes on 2/3 without too much consideration. 1/4, not so much. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sideswipe9th, I don't know that we should allow users to opt out of the alert system. If we should let users do so, that requires more change to the procedures than simply adding a template that says you are Always Aware. I am saying I'd like the personal time to read and review both what the community has said on the point and the work that has been done by ArbCom already, since I can personally think of at least one way it changes the dynamics of DS alerting. Izno (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DS reform remains an ongoing project behind the scenes. It is...a lot of work, but we're hoping to have the next phase out soon. I'll tackle things by number. 1) That sounds reasonable. 2) If someone can write the template for that, I'm sure it would be implemented. 3) Same as 2. 4) I love leads, and luckily one has been drafted on ArbWiki. But based on our other expected changes to DS, I'm not so sure we can expedite it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If #1-3 require our stamp of approval, consider mine stamped; I see little reason not to and will elaborate further if necessary. Primefac (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy to give my stamp of approval on those requests. I also believe I'd be happy to support Kevin's motion - but it's the sort of thing that could have unforeseen consequences, so I'd like that to have a bit more visibility (such as being added in a DS reform stage), especially to people who are good at thinking about these things. Worm^TT(talk) 08:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 1-3 sound good, @L235: I would support that motion, #4 is something being worked on, as others have said. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If this was brought up at ARM I would probably vote for it, but I have a weak preference per Worm to not implement Kevin's motion ahead of a larger DS package as I agree that we want real editor and thought on this before we make changes. If the drafters want to do DS changes in a couple of tranches, well that's reasonable also and I would defer to them. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]