Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	Motion	none	22 October 2023
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 October 2023
Clarification request: EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war	none	none	8 November 2023

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction

Initiated by Ashvio at 04:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ashvio

Hello, I am seeking general clarification to WP:ARBECR, specifically the section below:

• "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions."

This section gives some examples of what an internal project discussion might be, but it does not clearly define it. This led to some confusion and wasted time on my part in an EC-protected article, since both I and an arbitration committee clerk believed it would be an allowed topic at first.

I would like the rules to be amended to include a specific definition of what an internal project discussion not included in the given list actually refers to, since non-experienced editors would be unfamiliar with that process and it affects them the most.

Also, apologies in advance if I made some mistakes with this template, this is my first request here.

Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashvio (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit, 10/22/2023: I would also like to see additional clarification on whether internal project discussions around a topic are only prohibited on talk or other pages directly created for that article, or whether they are prohibited across the website. For example, if someone starts a consensus discussion in the NPOV Noticeboard that related to Israel/Palestine, can non-EC contribute to this? The answer seems very unclear to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashvio (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

The way I've always seen the goal of this clause is that if some new user spots some glaring issue or problem with an article, there should be a way for them to point that out without it being immediately dismissed under the restriction. But non-EC editors are not meant to influence consensus-making processes (especially because of socking issues in ARBECR topics). Maybe the restriction should be clarified to say something more like "internal and consensus-making discussions", although I suppose most talk-page discussions are consensus-making discussions of some sort. Galobtter (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with BilledMammal/Tamzin's proposal for limiting the edits to just making edit requests. Most good-faith new editors will be doing that, so we can still get those contributions, while preventing this litigation over talk-page editing. I feel like this comes up semi-often at AE, and it's not uncommon to have to ban an editor from talk pages until they are EC, so making the rules clearer (whether stricter or looser) would be beneficial, especially since the people who have to be explained the rules are new.

Though since I mostly see ECR topic areas through the lens of AE perhaps there's more useful contributions from non-EC editors than I would think. Galobtter (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I don't do a lot of editing in this topic area, and most of my familiarity with the issues comes from seeing some Arbcom cases and handling edit requests. I never personally experienced the issues that caused an entire topic area to be placed under extended-confirmed protection, including "internal project discussions." What I know is that the current status quo for the half-in/half-out talk page participation of non-EC editors is not working. From what I saw, the main reason to establish the 30/500 rule which extended to RFCs and project space discussions was due to sockpuppetry. Like Galobtter, I thought the point was to allow non-EC editors to make edit requests and point out glaring issues. If we're allowing non-EC editors to take part in consensus establishing discussions, that protection is thrown out the window. Currently, at pages like Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion around a quarter of recent talk page posts have been made by non-EC editors. This discussion on that talk page has four non-EC editors and two EC editors. This discussion has four of ten non-EC. This discussion has seven of twenty-one non-EC editors. This leads to several issues and questions.

• Should those closing discussions, or otherwise assessing consensus, discount the input of non-EC editors?
• Does that mean you have to look at the contribution count or permissions of everyone you don't recognize in a discussion to verify they can contribute to consensus?
• Do EC editors have to spend any time (editor time is the most valuable resource on Wikipedia) responding to or refuting non-EC editors?
• Should SPAs that made 500 edits to ARBPIA talk pages be extended-confirmed?
• Can non-EC editors contribute to consensus establishing discussions just because they don't have the RFC tag?
• What amount of contribution from non-EC editors is acceptable? Is it acceptable to partially block non-EC SPAs?

Without significantly more guidance the rules as they stand now are essentially worthless. No one knows where the lines are, or the exact purpose of the rules. The amount of non-EC editing also creates a huge burden on those trying to patrol these pages for disruptive or over-the-line non-EC edits. If the purpose of the draconian measures implemented because we were at our wit's end is to prevent possible socks from shaping the ARBPIA articles, it's not working. If the purpose is to save editor time and effort, it's not working. If the purpose is to make the topic easier for administrators to patrol and mop, it's not working. This needs significant clarification, both of intent and where exactly the lines are drawn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ashvio, noticeboard discussions are specifically called out as prohibited. This is included in the text you copied to your request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, if a quarter of the discussion shaping consensus is by non-ec editors then it's clear that the way the rule is explained and enforced isn't working, especially with no guidance for closers or editors assessing consensus. If the rule is supposed to allow for clear edit requests and comments on plainly obvious issues, but the non-EC editors are taking part in establishing consensus, then the rule isn't working as intended. Is that how the sanction is supposed to work? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, regarding what you said here, we'd be here anyway because I was preparing to open a request as soon as I found the time. No amount of discretion on Andrevan's part would have changed that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

And in the meantime the issues I brought up above continue to grow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to allow editors to get extended-confirmed primarily through editing ARBPIA talk pages? This is going to be coming up fairly soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This address most of my concerns. The only issue remaining is editors who reached extended-confirmed significantly through editing ARBPIA articles, but this will stem that tide.

The new template would also be quite a boon. I appreciate the work you've put into this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Andrevan

If I'm not supposed to comment here please revert this edit. I don't think loosening this restriction is a good idea. Many new redlink editors have been signing up. It's already chaos. I think if anything, we should make it clear that admins should be taking a stronger hand in reverting non-ECR contributions that fall afoul the guideline. Loosening it or eliminating it will undoubtedly open the floodgates to new editors to significantly influence the discussion without the requisite time to learn and understand policy and guideline, and how they are implemented. Andre🚐 00:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• I endorse Tamzin's proposal Andre🚐 06:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• I oppose Barkeep49/Levivich's proposal and agree with Guerillero. I agree with SFR. It's not bad faith to observe obvious rampant socking. It could be legitimate CLEANSTART or legitimate alternate account use, but there sure are a lot of red linked new editors who know their way around. Andre🚐 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• My 2c, I agree with Kevin that making a special place to serve as the dumping ground will just become another neglected backlog, so I oppose that, if my opinion is worth any hill of beans at this point. I like Tamzin's proposal as a first step, and if that fails, it can be enhanced further or undone and done differently. Decisions are sometimes a revolving door and sometimes a one-way street, but mostly on Wikipedia we can pivot and fail fast. Regarding the socking issue, it's a fine line. We have to AGF that a new user who knows too much is probably a CLEANSTART or a legitimate alternate account and not a sock, meatpuppet, ban evader, etc. Unfortunately, that's naive. This topic area is flooded with activist accounts and people who want to make a difference but don't understand our policies. Andre🚐 14:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal

If I can suggest a solution: Limit non-extended confirmed editors to making edit requests and the subsequent discussion of their edit requests. It will allow those editors to provide the input we want from them - identifying errors and omissions in the article, including "this source looks bad, we should remove it" - without letting them get too involved in discussions that could result in their comments being interpreted as contributing towards consensus. 01:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Should SPAs that made 500 edits to ARBPIA talk pages be extended-confirmed? I think this is part of the broader problem of "gaming" ECP restrictions. Personally, I think the best way to resolve that is to update what qualifies an editor for extended-confirmed; I would advocate that we change it to:

1. 500 significant edits overall
2. Including at least 250 in main space
3. Including at least 100 in talk space
4. Significant edits defined as "larger than 200 bytes" (the definition the community has been using at the various WP:LUGSTUBS requests)

This should prevent gaming, both in general and the way that you discuss - however, I'm not sure ARBCOM has the authority to implement such a change, so it may be better to raise it at the village pump? BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Izno: I don’t have time to look into the codebase at the moment, but I suspect we can sidestep any technical challenge there because extended-confirmed is a permission that can be granted or revoked by any admin.

Rather than relying on MediaWiki to automatically grant the permission we could create an adminbot to automatically grant the permission to any eligible user; I believe such a bot would relatively simple to create, and the only downside I can see is that it would probably take a couple of minutes longer than MediaWiki to grant the permission to eligible editors. BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin

I generally agree with SFR's analysis, and agree with Andrevan that the solution is stricter moderation on talkpages. What I would suggest is something like this:

−

<div><ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha"><li>The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: <div><ol><li>Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may ''not'' make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.</li><li>Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.</li></ol></div></li><li>If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through [[WP:ECP|extended confirmed protection]], though this is not required.</li><li>On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.</li><li>Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.</li></ol></div>

+

<div><ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha"><li>The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: <div><ol><li>Non-extended-confirmed editors may make [[WP:edit requests|edit requests]] related to content within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Editors may exercise discretion regarding other forms of non-disruptive comments on talk pages. Removal of such comments is permitted but not required.</li><li>Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.</li></ol></div></li><li>Protection: <div><ol><li>If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through [[WP:ECP|extended confirmed protection]], though this is not required.</li><li>"Talk:" pages should not be preemptively protected, but may be semi-protected or extended confirmed protected if editors repeatedly violate (A)(1).</li></ol></div></li><li>On any page where the restriction is not enforced as described in (B), this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.</li><li>Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.</li></ol></div>

This limits non-EC participation to constructive edit requests, rather than the more nebulous "constructive comments", and leaves room for common-sense leeway on less-trafficked pages. It gives more weight to the role of protecting talkpages, without requiring it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero: If you pursue my suggestion, now might also be a good time to use a more natural scope than just the Talk: namespace. That excludes, say, anything in Portal talk: or WP:EFFP. I would just make it "content page" and "discussion page", footnoting definitions if necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Cinderella157

My involvement with ECP restriction is mainly at Russian invasion of Ukraine per WP:GS/RUSUKR, where there have been multiple RfCs and RMs. Such discussions are clearly covered by the restriction. There is a current open RfC here. The process adopted is to place the following warning as part of the RfC. The discussion have generally been self-regulating, in that comments placed by non-ECP uses are removed by ECP editors as they appear. If a non-ECP edit receives a response before it is deleted, the original edit is struck or both edits, with consent of the ECP user (or an option for them to reinstate). Posts falling to WP:NOTAFORUM are usually quickly deleted or closed, citing the restriction. While perhaps not perfect, it has generally worked well (IMHO). I don't see any particular uncertainty wrt what constitutes an internal project discussion. It is not surprising that it is a non-ECP user that has raised this request. WP:CIR applies and with experience comes competence.

30/500 is easy to check. BilledMammal's suggestion has merit but it may not be as easy to check. To Tamzin's suggestion to restrict non-ECPs to edit requests only, I believe that non-ECPs can contribute constructively to TP discussions beyond this but the value may be outweighed in a particularly new and contentious topic such as the recent events in Gaza. In such cases, it may be appropriate to have an additional level of restriction with auto confirmed or ECP restrictions applying to all edits on the TPs affected. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war has 6,180 edits by 1024 editors in less than 2 weeks while Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine has 15,527 edits by 2,072 editors since the invasion began. The Gaza events are exceptional even when compared with other exceptionally contentious evolving events. The sheer volume of traffic on the TP is arguably unmanageable, especially when one factors in that most of it will come from users of little experience and of little value, that are generally more disruptive than constructive. While ECPR may be adequate in many/most situations, there will be times when it is inadequate.

Considering the discussion here, this suggest the need for a higher level of protection that might best be achieved by a new level rather than amending ECPR. For argument sake, call this new level experienced editor confirmed (EEC). This level would be along the lines suggested by BilledMammal and confirmation would/could be automated as it is for EC editors. The status of editors should be easy to check. It would be easier if their status was displayed at the top of their contributions page.

There will be times when it is appropriate to restrict access to article TPs per Tamzin because of the sheer volume of edits of which the largest proportion are disruptive or unconstructive (including edit requests that are often vague). I would suggest this be an option rather than an intrinsic part of ECPR (or EECR) - eg ECPRT (and EECPRT) would apply to article talk pages. The restrictions would still apply to noticeboards etc but I don't see a way to easily automate controls in these cases and they are not going to be a primary focus for disruption.

I don't think that the proposal by Levivich would solve much. It might become a repository for all the bad apples that nobody wants to deal with. My thoughts for what they are worth. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

I would simplify it. ECP all the pages, including talk pages, and then set up one noticeboard page for non-EC editors to post about whatever in the topic area (errors, edit requests, opinions, etc.). Other editors can watch that noticeboard if they want to and respond to or action posts made there. A standard template can direct non-EC editors to that noticeboard. Basically, make it work like a topic-wide WP:ERRORS. This will allow non-EC editors to make edit requests and whatnot, while not requiring other editors to have to police non-EC comments on talk pages.

For editors who think this is exclusionary, I challenge you to come up with 3 or 5 productive comments from non-EC editors in this topic area in the last two weeks or so--the kind of comment where if it wasn't for the non-EC editor's comment, we would have missed something. I don't think I've seen that many. I believe it's fundamentally too complex of a topic area (and our policies are too complex) for new editors to be helpful rather than distracting or obstructive, and if we do lose anything, it's tiny, like maybe a few good comments out of hundreds of wasteful ones. Levivich (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with limiting it to edit requests only is that we're just going to get a bunch of edit request saying "Wikipedia is biased" and the like. Requiring non-EC editors to use a specific template when they post will not solve any problems, regardless of whether it's an edit request template or some other template. Levivich (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ros has a good point that limiting to edit-reqs would help highlight/identify non-EC comments, so problematic ones can be more easily removed. Perhaps that's an interim step worth trying, short of full topic-wide ECP.

But IMO, that would only work if there was a technical limitation that limited non-EC editors to only posting edit-reqs, and only commenting in edit-req threads. Can an edit filter do that? Can a bot patrol talk pages and automatically remove non-EC comments that aren't in edit req threads? I don't know.

What I see as "the problem" is this: look at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 15 October 2023, which of the editors voting are non-EC? One has to go through them one by one to check (or maybe there's an adminhighlighter-type script?). A solution to that problem would be one that doesn't require any person to go through !votes one by one to see if the voter is EC or not. Levivich (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I'm not entirely opposed to Levivich's suggestion, but I do think that limiting non-EC editors to edit requests does in fact significantly address the disruption concerns. Sure, new editors will still be able to post bad-faith or malformed edit requests, but these "contributions" will be obviously out of order and easily shut down or removed by experienced editors and/or admins; there won't be any of the confusion that currently exists when a non-EC editor engages in an open ended discussion regarding article content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Pppery

I would suggest, if the currently-proposed motion passes, enforcing it with an edit filter. Lightly-tested edit filter code:

page_namespace = 1 & 
"{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}" in old_wikitext &
! ("extendedconfirmed" in user_rights) &
! ("edit request" in lcase(added_lines))

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

Agree with tightening the restrictions as commented by several. Idk if this is out of scope here but the could be/might be restriction on non ec editors creating new articles has caused a few issues recently, see this AN discussion. I think this should also be tightened up, any such articles to be immediately draftified and ec protected. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

I favor limiting non-EC editors in these articles to edit requests only, or something like Levivich's proposal - anything that would make it clear when an editor is non-EC. The fact is that even on very controversial articles, many disputes don't end up going to a full RFC due to the time and energy involved, and are instead settled by a quick nose-count on talk or by editors bowing out in the face of overwhelming opposition. In articles that have a long history of socking or meatpuppetry (which these restrictions are meant to address) that makes it easier for persistent puppets to give the false appearance of support for their position. Additionally, it allows them to try and filibuster articles, wearing down the time and energy of legitimate users. Edit requests would make it more obvious if a restricted article is being targeted by socks or meatpuppets, since they couldn't support each other in edit requests and repeated edit requests for the same thing would be obvious; and of course directing them to a noticeboard could be even better, since a flood of comments there would likely alert established users that the article may be getting targeted (while still providing a reasonable outlet if there's an actual problem that needs to be fixed.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2023 (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.

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I think this is a legitimate question (and qualifies for WP:BANEXEMPT), since I think there are a lot of ways in which reasonable people could disagree about interpretation. My tentative answer (and I will wait for more thoughts before making this final) is that there are two broad buckets of "internal project discussions", based on our precedent and the list of examples ("AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions"). The first is "meta/process": policy discussions and policy RfCs, dispute resolution, conduct enforcement, noticeboards, projectspace ("Wikipedia:" namespace) — anything related to that group is an internal project discussion. The second is "consensus-seeking" discussions: anything that seeks to establish consensus for a particular outcome or decision (such as an AfD, RM, RfC, etc.), whether labeled as such or not. In any event, we should definitely clarify and flesh out these categories, perhaps by amending the text of WP:ARBECR. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Some quick examples of talk page contributions that I see as fine are: (1) edit requests (but not ones that have previously had consensus against them); (2) questions or concerns about existing content, for example about the reliability of sources in the article; (3) responses to questions about the article or discussions about further expansion directions, etc. But you're right, SilkTork: every discussion is kind of a consensus-seeking discussion, so the line is a bit hard to draw. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  There are currently two plausible proposals on the table:

1. The "Tamzin proposal": limit the exception to nondisruptive edit requests and provide enforcement discretion for other nondisruptive talk page posts.
2. The "Levivich proposal": ECP all of the pages and make a WP:ERRORS-style central page where edit requests can go.

I think I prefer the Tamzin proposal because of the risk that the central ERRORS-like page will become a useless graveyard of edit requests that nobody looks at (like, literally 0). People tend to ERRORS because it's main page related, and even that isn't perfect. I can't imagine a page for edit requests for ECR'd topics from non-EC editors would work that well. That said, I take @Barkeep49's point seriously.
Maybe we can submit this to an advisory community discussion? Perhaps a 7-day advisory straw-poll-with-comments on VPR, nonbinding but useful to arbs and more organized than the freeform statements here? I don't think we need a formal motion for this if there's a rough consensus of arbs that this isn't a bad idea. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The discretion of the status quo is why we're here. Just need to point that out. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between enforcement discretion and ambiguity, although sometimes they show up in the same places. Currently, there's discretion with regard to new article creations: admins can choose whether or not to delete them (even though they are unambiguously violations — there's no ambiguity). There's ambiguity with regard to whether many kinds of contributions on talk pages count as "internal project discussions". The Tamzin proposal entirely removes the ambiguity, and replaces it in part (but not in whole) with enforcement discretion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect to Andrean, I think he could and should have used discretion with respect to Ashvios edit and if he had we wouldn't be here. So I think we are here because of enforcement discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I am open to that, Kevin -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've just read that clause, and I'm not clear on what the intention is. A new editor may start a section and make constructive comments on an article talkpage, but not join an existing discussion, such as a RfC or RM, on the same article talkpage to make the same constructive comment? SilkTork (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• I feel like committees have see sawed here depending on what spurred them to take action. When it's a good faith editor being hindered from innocuous contributions ecr is loosened in some way. When a rash of socks have derailed discussion it's tightened. I wish we could split the difference with sensible enforcement but that might not be realistic. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish I appreciate your analysis and think you provide reasonable evidence for most of it. But I can't track what evidence you are offering for If the purpose of the draconian measures implemented because we were at our wit's end is to prevent possible socks from shaping the ARBPIA articles, it's not working. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: I invented what we now know of as ECP to limit the influence of the rampant socking in the topic area. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I know that which is why I wanted evidence from SFR it wasn't achieving its purpose. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish be that as it may, I am very skeptical of adding a large degree of new discretion and question the wisdom of trading the ambiguity of one thing for the ambiguity of what pages is it ok to let non ECR participate. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think I prefer Levivichs solution to Tamzins as it promote a consistent place to direct people reverted. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I again want to note my agreement with Levivich. It's important for us to implement something that can cleanly and easily, ideally automatically, enforced. This is not only better in terms of editor time saved and conversations we don't want disrupted kept freer of disruption but it's a better experience for the non-ECR editor. We can more carefully tailor the experience they have in a way that is respectful for them and doesn't set a false expectation. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'll just say that I really don't like these preemptive ECP restrictions in general - too much of a "gotcha" for new editors who wouldn't know about these restrictions and are reverted for the sake of reverting them. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Looking at this, I'm actually surprised it has taken this long to get here. It does seem there is some vagueness here that leaves things a little too open to interpretation. Not sold on what the solution is yet, but we probably need to re-word a few things. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Changing how EC user group works is not feasible from the technical perspective, from the last time or three that was broached IIRC. Izno (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Per GN, our setup should make it easier to do The Right Thing than to accidentally transgress. Cabayi (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• When I invented the 500/30 rule, I never thought that I would cause every project getting a new protection level or this much consternation. Tamzin's change is in line with how I would split the hair. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• I would suggest an arb who favors the "Tamzin proposal" put forth language and see if we can pass something as that seems to have slightly more support than the language I prefer. It is not helpful to have this hanging in such an active area. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, if you prefer to put forward wording for Levivich's solution, I think I would be likely to get behind that as something easy to manage, and more flexible and potentially less disruptive for the new editor. That there is a place where they can safely make a suggestion or comment, and that place can be monitored, seems more straightforward than allowing a new editor to say one thing on a talk page, but if they say something else it may get removed. SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Motion: Edit requests only

The Extended Confirmed Restriction is amended as follows:

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

1. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
   1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
   2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
2. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
3. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
4. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Support (Edit requests only)

1. This answers the question asked of us and provides a clear and narrow exception for non-ECR participation that should hopefully eliminate the ambiguity around internal discussions. I would also be in favor of a motion empowering and directing the clerks to draft a template that we could place on the talk pages of users who are non-ECR explanining the restriction in a manner similar to {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} but rewritten for the ECR context. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

   Perhaps while we are here, edit requests should point to WP:EDITXY as an example of the basic expectations for an edit request. Izno (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

   Sure.  Done. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

   I've noticed that {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} already has some code if a topic is ECR. Here's my sandbox for what the /first alert could look like for ECR (basically adds some extra information and visibility for the ECR restriction). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Support. @ArbCom Clerks: If this passes, can we consider making an editnotice and/or banner that would inform users, especially non-EC users, that they are not to use the talk page except to make edit requests, as well as the template Barkeep suggests above? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

   (Of course, yes) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

3. But I have to say I hate the psudo diff using strike throughs. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
5. — Wug·a·po·des 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
6. As a first step toward clarifying the expectations in the area. Izno (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion (Edit requests only)

@Barkeep49 @Guerillero in Special:Diff/1183481416 I added "only" to this motion; please revert if you disagree. See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Proposed motion to modify the extended confirmed restriction provisions. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The central meaning says the same -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blocks should only be on the enforcement menu when the user has previously been given notice of the topic's CT designation and the new article's subject clearly falls within that designation. Cabayi (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Cabayi that's covered by the standard CT procedure and doesn't address the issue we've been asked for clarification on here. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

Amendment request withdrawn. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by Johnpacklambert at 18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Case or decision affected Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) Clauses to which an amendment is requested Johnpacklambert topic banned List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Information about amendment request Johnpacklambert topic banned I would like to see this restricted to not apply to actions that are part of Categories for discussion Statement by Johnpacklambert I understand that my actions in the past were disruptive, and that I was not cooperative enough with others, and not willing enough to try and discuss matters. This was initially appealable after a year, it has actually been over 14 months since the decision was imposed. There was one issue with compliance, in which I thanked someone for an edit, but that was also over 14 months ago. There have been no issues that were brought up at ANI or other such processes in the last 12 months. I am however going for a very narrow change attempt, since my last attempt 12 months ago to broadly change a restriction on me was responded to in a very negative way. I am here proposing that the restrictions on deletion of articles remain intake for the time being. I am only asking that the broad application of this sanction to include Categories for Discussion be limited to only article deletion, or at least not to extend to Categories and participation in Categories for Discussion. This is a forum where no articles are directly discussed, only the categories we use to group articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I would like to fully and completely withdraw this request at this time. I need more time to think over the best ways to speak about further issues that were brought up. I want to at this time just ask that this request be withdrawn and nothing be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor} 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. Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion I'll wait for community input here, but I have to say the first thing that jumped right out at me is the very large number of CFD notifications on your talk page from the last few months, many of which clearly closed with a result of deletion. This would tend to suggest you may not have a firm grip on what the community expects in categories. I'm wondering if you could address this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I'm very concerned at the lack of understanding being shown in category creation. Rather than agree to an increase in participation in the area of categories, I think I'd prefer a decrease. I question the value of the bulk of the categories being created. There appears to be something of a nuisance value here in creating so many inappropriate categories which then have to be discussed by other volunteers. We all have to learn, but when someone is clearly not learning because they are continuing to create categories along the same lines as those which have just been deleted, then that person should be requested to stop participation until they have learned more about the process. SilkTork (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I'm OK with allowing the withdrawal of this request. If no arb objects, I'll ask the clerks to archive this request in the next day or two. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Fine with me. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC) We can let this request fade into the archives. @Johnpacklambert: Based on your talk page, I think you are starting to become disruptive within this area. I suggest you disengage with creating categories until such a time your creations are in line with community consensus. Continued disruption will lead to being shown the door by the committee or the community. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request: EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war

There is a rough consensus among Arbitrators that the extended confirmed protection was appropriate and that non-extended confirmed editors may use an edit request if they need to for the article in question. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by Karnataka at 21:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Case or decision affected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1182616532#Result_of_the_appeal_by_AtypicalPhantom List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: Karnataka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) AtypicalPhantom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request AtypicalPhantom Galobtter Tamzin Ritchie333 HJ Mitchell ScottishFinnishRadish Statement by Karnataka The talk page for 2023 Israel-Hamas war is EC-protected. This prevents non-EC users from having any direct input on the page whatsoever. Edit requests serve this, and there is still no clear method on how edit requests are carried out, so this theoretically limits any editing or input of the page to extended-confirmed users. This is very clearly not in line with Wikipedia:5P3, and although this is not a policy it does mean that not everyone can edit the page or have input on such a controversial issue. Extended-confirmed protection should be a measure to limit bad content from a minority of non-EC users, not filter them out altogether. I'd like clarification on what grounds such a bad move took place in, and detailed clarification on the steps that must immediately be taken to ensure that non-EC users are not at a disadvantage for having an input on the page. Statement by Galobtter As I mentioned here, people who try to edit the page are directed to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit to make edit requests, so there is some mechanism of non-EC editors contributing. EC editors having a disadvantage is also an intended mechanism of the restrictions. Galobtter (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2023 (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. EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war: Arbitrator views and discussion @Karnataka: I have just proposed a motion above that would help answer this question: the discussed (but not yet made) Talk:2023 Israel-Hamas war/Edit requests would get made and non-exetnded confirmed editors could make edit requests there. While the current WP:ECR specifically excludes Talk pages from getting page protection, I think the AE admins acted appropriately, and within their discretion, in choosing to protect the talk page at this time. Contrary to your premise, multiple Arbitration Committees have decided that non-EC users must be at a disadvantage in order to stop rampant disruption that ocurs in the topic areas for which this is applied. This is intended to let other editors have a better chance to do the work required to produce content that adheres to Wikipedia policies and guidelines in topic areas that are contentious, even by the standards of contentious topics. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC) I'm pretty skeptical of WP:RFED as a durable solution as the average Israel-Hamas war editor is likely to not be watching it and I think it risks turning RFED into the edit request noticeboard proposed above that we've decided not to go with. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC) This protection is consistent with the provisions of WP:ECR, which allow administrators to protect talk pages in their discretion as needed. The protection falls well within administrator discretion, either as a CTOP restriction or as ECP enforcement. I would therefore decline the appeal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Agree largely with the above, in particularly given the existence of WP:RFED. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Agree with L235. Izno (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)