Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

• Amend the section, replacing RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. with RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc.

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

In several ARBPIA RMs, most recently at

I think it would also help if Template:Requested move/dated was amended to include a reminder of the restriction on ARBPIA4 pages. (edit: I've cooked up something for this part at Template_talk:Requested_move#Automatic_notice_of_restrictions_on_ARBPIA_pages)

@Barkeep49: The editors would still have to read through the ARCA just to pick out the addition of two words. Very few people should have to read the ARCAs at all; in that ARCA it probably would've been better to have formally passed a motion to amend with the changes, similar to what is proposed here. That way the result is preserved for easy access, and the templates can also be updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the ARCA doesn't offer guidance. I'm saying it's an inconvenience to expect editors to read it. For convenience sake, for a change like that, it's IMO better to just amend the remedy text. That way the information is in one place and available on the templates too. Plus it's shorter: the full ARCA is ~1,400 words long; the actual change is 2, and the entire remedy is 300. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, re The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. My reading was that editing on talk pages is already caught within the provision, and then is exempted below. I'm not sure the alternate interpretation works; if editing on talk pages is already not part of the prohibition (are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict), then what would be the point of adding it to The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:? There'd be no need to exempt something that is already not prohibited. The wording of B(1) seems to support this interpretation, since it suggests the exemption doesn't apply to other namespaces (hence implying that the prohibition does already apply to non-article content). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: TBH I thought this would be an uncontroversial change of adding two words to the actual text and updating the templates to match, and that this would hopefully help with the issues. It's a simple question IMO: is it exempt or isn't it? If it is then I don't really understand how ArbCom could simultaneously agree that RMs are part of the exemptions, but be concerned about actually adding this into the list that already exists. And if the current ArbCom says isn't then that clarification would probably be appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier

This happens frequently, non ec's even open Afd's in the topic area (Diff]. The problem is mainly although not exclusively with new editors that wander into the topic area without a clear idea of what's involved and don't really pay attention to the notices. I think it might continue to occur even if the notices and whatnot were all clarified, which they anyway should be. Maybe new editors need a very clear heads up about AP, IP and the rest.Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, an RM isn't much different to an RFC (and can be just as fraught) so if a non-ec can't participate in an RFC (they can't) then they should not be able to participate in an RM either. They can discuss it (or an RFC) on the talk page, sure, why not, just not formally participate or "vote".Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess that I find this situation baffling. There is a procedure that experienced editors understand, or thought they did, with a theoretical hole in it, namely RMs and I guess AfDs as well, because it says "etc". Instead of filling in the hole and making things easier to explain (to inexperienced editors) we seem instead to want to make the hole(s) official, to make the explanations even more complicated and to allow once more the easy access of socks to formal discussions. An AfD is certainly not an edit request and I think it is better to think of an RM as an RFC about the title of an article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I would want to say if it were as easy as that is something like "Non ec's cannot participate in formal discussions in IP area" where "formal discussions" means anything with a "vote", wherever it is.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

What is the difference between RFC and RM. Though both process are not decided by majority but by strength of arguments still if there are many proponents of certain view ussally it will be decided accordingly. The provision meant to disallow socks to influence on such process so there is no logic to allow it in AFD but not in RFC which both happen on talk page --Shrike (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the opposers then please make a motion to allow AFD explicitly (though I still don' see any logic in allowing RFC but not AFD) Shrike (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

An RM is essentially just a type of RfC and there is no logic to having different rules about who can contribute to them. The previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority, and soon afterwards a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." If the Committee wishes to add RM after RfC in the body of the remedy, fine, otherwise I don't see the case for any changes.

On the matter of advising editors of the rules, things are suboptimal. No ordinary editor should ever have to search ARCA. The solution is to keep Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles always up to date with all and only the current rules on display and all other stuff relegated to wikilinks.

To those who want to reverse the previous decision about RMs, you should know that RMs are frequently the most hotly debated issues on ARBPIA talk pages. What will happen if the restriction is lifted is that RMs will return to the Wild West where a lot of IPs and new accounts show up and !vote as a block. I'm confident that that is often the result of off-wiki canvassing. Although closers can choose to ignore some of the chaff, why should they have to? Non-ec people who want to comment can do so outside the boundaries of the formal RM. Zero^talk 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 182.1.15.37

Sorry. as an non-autoconfirmed user, i must have objectional argument about the amendment request. I think the previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority about, and a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." I not involved in the motion but i recognized that it is more applicable. But for me, the decision is not enough. I also propose an amendment to the ARBIPA4 to includes a page move ban topic-wide for all contents related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, any users, even EC users, cannot move any ARBIPA page or contents unless there is strong and reasonable consensus about it because all page moves initiative by EC users is too bad so only administrators can move any contents related to the Arab-Israeli page, which in other words, page move right by non-administrator for the topic is revoked. (Please read the concern on archival talk page). 182.1.13.41 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

I absolutely don't see any reason for the current discretionary sanctions page putting a clarification in a note. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.Footnote: In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee

Addressing the problem of widespread misuse of sockpuppet accounts was a major driver behind ARBPIA4, a major element of that misuse being to stack consensus-establishing discussions. In theory, consesus is supposed to be established by the quality of arguments; in practice, it often comes down to a vote in all but name. Sockpuppet accounts were being used to weigh the scales. The 500/30 rule was introduced to make life more difficult for sockmasters (though part of its effectiveness depends on the assiduous identification and blocking of sock accounts). If I remember correctly, the allowing of commenting on affected talkpages by non-EC editors was a later concession. I think that the opening up of any process which depends on the establishment of consensus, including RMs, should be given very careful thought. In terms of explaining to non-EC editors why their comments have been struck from consensus-establishing discussions, I'm puzzled why just suppying a link to the ARBPIA General Sanction and pointing out the 500/30 restriction wouldn't, in most cases, be sufficient.     ←   ZScarpia   11:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<@Bradv:> With regard to what constitutes content, see the ARBPIA4 definition of the "area of conflict", which, at least to me, seems to imply that "content" includes more than what is contained in articles themselves:

b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

A discussion of the wording to adopt was carried out during the ARBPIA workshop stage here, with the wording proposed by @

    ←   ZScarpia   14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not opposed to what's being proposed by why not create a wiki-shortcut to make it easier to link to editors when needing to explain? More broadly I think this should be part of an effort to better memorialize ARCAs on case pages which I know is something that has had some arb/clerk discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PR: I disagree with the idea that, short of a formal motion, ArbCom cannot offer guidance. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we aren't required to offer guidance via motion, but I also believe it can be prudent to choose a motion over simple statements at ARCA, especially when an issue is likely to recur and may be confusing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What are the advantages of changing the motion as opposed to just linking people to the footnote? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: I'm glad that footnote exists. I completely forgot about it, which says something about how hard it is to find because I wrote that footnote when I was a clerk. Anyway, I still prefer the explicit clarification in the motion but am happy to decline the amendment request. See #Straw poll: Closing the amendment request without action below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In the interests of not having this sit for months, are people generally inclined to want to pass a motion, in which case it would make sense to put effort towards finding one that has support, or are people inclined to want to close this request in some other way (my preference)? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced it would actually have the desired affect, but I don't really see a downside either, so my feeling at this time is to support this change.
  talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per Beeblebrox. I share his skepticism—might it make sense to have a tweaked notice specifically for RMs and similar discussions? I can quite easily imagine a newer editor skimming the notice and assuming it only applies in article space. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have not seen anything so far to change my mind from the last discussion. Why should non-EC editors be allowed to discuss everything but the title of the article? That makes no sense. I can agree with clearly internal discussions as currently worded but move discussions are clearly content discussions and should imho be governed by the same rules as any other editing of the article. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like re-litigating the 2019 amendment is a different discussion than the one we're having.

  talk) 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The 2019 amendment explicitly has an exception that allows non-EC editors to "use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area". I just think that comments and edit requests related to articles includes the title of the article because the exception does not talk about "the body of the article" or anything like that. So it's not a question of re-litigating but of interpreting that amendment. My interpretation is that unless this has explicitly been excluded (which it hasn't), article names are part of the exception that non-EC editors have. The request here is to add requested move discussions to the remedy, which would imho constitute a change and not just a clarification. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand, why should non-EC editors be able to comment in RMs but not RfCs? Do we have any idea whether the arbs at the time considered RMs to be part of the "etc."? --BDD (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still leaning towards opposition, but I do have a question: why are we even debating this? The motion below reads as more of a clarification (which seems unnecessary and potentially convoluted) instead of any sort of "overturning" or "rewriting" of the existing language, but if the last time this was looked at RMs were considered "internal processes" and thus included in the exceptions (to the exceptions) we're just wasting our time.Primefac (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

Support

1. Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to oppose#1: The permission to edit talk pages is an exception to a general rule prohibiting editing anything related to PIA (content or non-content). That's why it's given as one of the "sole exceptions". As currently written, if you really read "content" as "mainspace content", then non-EC editors already have permission to edit talk pages, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc., even without the exception, because they're only prohibited from editing mainspace content. That's clearly not the intent, and that's why the first bullet point is a useful change and in line with how we already apply this remedy. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. I don't really understand the opposes. However we sort out the details, the remedy amounts to a general rule plus some enumerated exceptions. The only substantial change is clarifying that RMs are not among the exceptions—and arguably, that's not a substantial change, given the December 2019 ARCA. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   It seems unlikely to come up, but clerks, please consider this my second choice now. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. So changing it from "editing content" to "editing" is kind of misleading. As for the second change, I have already indicated that I do not think adding requested move discussions to be a clarification but a change of the nature of the remedy and I do oppose it. Closing editors might take into account that an account is not-EC when judging the outcome of a RM discussion but like all other discussions of an article's content, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing these editors to make constructive comments in such a discussion. The third change is okay but imho not necessary. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I generally agree with SoWhy, particularly on the first point. I'm not entirely convinced of the logic behind banning non-ECP users from the articles but not the talkpages, but that perhaps may be a discussion for another time. Maxim_(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I find myself in opposition to this motion mostly because it would set up a contradictory set of instructions. The first part of 5.b.1 is Editors who are not eligible ... 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. (emphasis added). Later it is clarified that This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..., which to me means anything not on the talk page (e.g. WP-space, primarily). An RM is a form of edit request (though one that requires consensus) that falls within the first part of 5.b.1 and not in the second. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Shifted to abstain. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. This is a silly technicality. "Internal project discussions" already means RMs. Wikipedia generally avoids the sort of enumerated lists because as we all know, lists are inherently incomplete. Thus we write a general principle. With regards to removing "content", it just feels like semantics to me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I'm not sure where I fall on this one any more, following more discussion and points. If the only clarification is to codify specifically that RMs are internal project matters, which was clearly already defined (but hidden in a ref, etc) then it should be a trivial matter to move "and move requests" out of the ref (i.e. the second bullet point being proposed) and really not even need a motion this complex. I'm also finding issue with points 1 and 3, but I cannot figure out exactly what it is at the moment that is bugging me so I will think on it a while and abstain in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I intend to propose the above motion if there are no concerns about the wording. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my previous comments on this topic, can we also change the word "content" in paragraph B to "pages"? – bradv🍁 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bradv: How about we make these changes? "All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict." and "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict." The term "related content" is defined in Remedy 4 as including "all namespaces with the exception of userspace", but "content" itself is not. (sigh) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made this change to the draft motion. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now proposed the motion for voting. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Primefac: especially, but also a general comment: I think the "contradictory set of instructions" ship has sailed. RfCs are explicitly not an exception—so is an RfC on the talk page a trap for non-EC editors? I'd much prefer straightforward guidelines. Maybe that means something like declaring all talk page discussions fair game. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If we were to clarify anything, I think it should be RfCs not on a specific Talk: page are verboten, because as stated my interpretation of "other internal project discussions" means pages not in that namespace. Whether intentional or not, we shouldn't have rules so complex that on a single page #X discussion okay but #Y is not. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The original motion is too confusing, and this amendment probably doesn't do enough to fix it. The undefined terms such as "content" are problematic, as is the nested exception in paragraph B. If we can agree on what it was trying to say in the first place, perhaps we can find a better way to phrase it. – bradv🍁 00:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A somewhat rambling clarification of my vote follows. We're really nitpicking here when I think we should examine the broader "why". The reason we don't allow non-ECP in internal project areas is because we tend to get new to moderately new accounts that are here to POV push and disrupt. We've all been in discussions where a handful of users can cause a great deal of disruption. Especially something like an RM is going to be controversial, and thus on the principle, RM's, as an internal project discussion, should be ECP only. I oppose the wording as written because I think it adds needless bureaucracy. I fear that the longer ArbCom exists, the more folks will want our rulings to read like laws, with increasingly long enumerations, jargon, legalese, and ultra-precise wording. I think that is not useful for the somewhat loosey-goosey style of Wikipedia, and saps energy and independence from our hardworking AE admins. So bottom line: RM's are internal project discussions, but we shouldn't need to have to say that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4 (2)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Trying a different tact here: I think we lack a consensus on whether RM's are in fact part of the 500/30 restrictions, so this is in the interest of seeing where we stand solely on RM's. Baby's first motion so go ahead and tweak it if necessary :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as status quo, as established in the July 2020 ARCA. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as first choice. This provides clarity without getting into side issues like the definition of "content". Thanks, Eek! --BDD (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. As I said last time - Requested Move is shorthand for "Request for Comment about a Move". This motion explicitly clarifies that, which I thought we'd already clarified. Worm^TT(talk) 08:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm That Turned makes a fair point. Maxim_(talk) 14:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose per above. I still think the name of an article falls under "content", not "internal project related stuff". Regards SoWhy 16:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Discussion

• Copyedited. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll: Closing the amendment request without action

This amendment request is closed without action.

Support

1. Proposing this in the interest of not letting this ARCA sit here for months. If the status quo (the July 2020 clarification not in the text of the remedy but listed in the index footnote) is acceptable, then let's close this. If not, and the current motion isn't good, I would recommend proposing a different motion. Clerks: this isn't a formal motion and shouldn't be formally "enacted" if it hits a majority; it's just here to signal if arbs support closing this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Maxim_(talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. SoWhy 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I appreciate the lighting of a fire under us here, but we really need to either codify the December 2019 ARCA or repeal (and possibly replace) it. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think the remedy needs to be rewritten. The poorly-defined terminology together with the nested exceptions make it confusing. On the substance of this ARCA, we still don't agree on whether non-extended confirmed editors can participate in requested move discussions according to the existing wording. – bradv🍁 23:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Unfortunately, we need to do something here. It keeps coming back. Worm^TT(talk) 08:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Pseudoscience 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Are the sanctions from

@BDD: The generic dispute is how fundamentalist believers want to state their own view of the Bible and of the history of Christianity in the voice of Wikipedia, i.e. against rendering the views of mainstream Bible scholars, which fundamentalists consider them to be heretical. But it also covers nationalist pseudohistory (e.g. Dacianism). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

• My initial response to the question as posed is yes, they can be, but no, they are not always necessarily. It would depend on the claims. Scanning most of the topics listed at Pseudohistory, nothing necessarily stands out to me as 100% pseudoscience, but many could veer into that territory. "Aliens built the pyramids", no, but specifically "ancient astronauts traveled through space, and their technology can cure cancer", yes. "White people are responsible for all great historical achievements", no, but "Genetics prove that white people are superior", yes. Of course, if this is a jumping-off point to a specific dispute, I'm reserving judgment. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the clarifying comment above, in this case, no.
  talk) 17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think BDD summed up what I wanted to say quite nicely. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience but it's not a part of it. That said, if the same problems appear there, we can consider expanding ARBPS to it, possibly by motion. Regards SoWhy 18:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]