Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	15 November 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	15 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	15 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Discretionary sanctions topic area changes	27 January 2022

Motions

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad. This discussion is intended to focus on those areas. Community feedback is invited and welcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Senkaku islands

Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Senkaku islands Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. No sanctions since 2013 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

Senkaku islands Community discussion

• In their respective countries, island ownership disputes end up being a flashpoint for nationalism and people get very passionate about it. I've seen this firsthand in real life. Dokdo is another example. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Waldorf education

The first sentence of the January 2013 motion in the Waldorf education case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Waldorf education Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. No sanctions since 2014 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Ancient Egyptian race controversy Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. No sanctions since 2014 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

Scientology

Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Scientology Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. 1 topic ban and 3 page protections since 2010. Current disruption seems like it could be handled using the standard enforcement actions - for instance there is no indication that the indefinite page protections would be changed if they were not "protected" by DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• Barkeep49 Double checking, the intent in the motion indicates to me that those indefinite page protections will remain as DS actions until someone appeals those successfully or we move to remove them. Is that a correct reading? --IznoPublic (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: Not Barkeep but that's my understanding. The relevant administrators (Oshwah for Dianetics, El C for Nathan Rich) may also choose to modify the actions or abrogate the AE status of those protections. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno the intent is to do as Kevin suggests. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Landmark worldwide

The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Landmark worldwide Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. No sanctions since 2015. To the extent that this is still needed it may need to be more about new religious movements but that would likely need to be its own case/request. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

Remedy 5 of the India-Pakistan case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is amended to read as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including but not limited to castes. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. The current scope of this area is much broader than some other equally fractious areas, including American Politics and Palestine-Israel. For instance American railroads are not covered by DS but under the current wording Indian railroads could be. This attempts to name the scope of the dispute in a way more consistent with other sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. We would never think to authorize discretionary sanctions for "Europe and the United States, broadly construed". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• While I do understand that this motion is attempting to narrow the scope of ARBIPA (so as mentioned, "an Indian railway" is no longer in scope), my main concern about specifically mentioning castes is that they are already explicitly covered under the WP:CASTE general sanctions; if we name castes, are we effectively taking over GS/CASTE? Primefac (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: I don't think this changes anything vis-a-vis GS/CASTE, as GS/CASTE is broader in territorial scope than IPA. (Indian/Pakistani castes were definitely already covered by ARBPIA, regardless of this motion and regardless of GS/CASTE.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

    Caste related issues have already been targeted under this discretionary sanction and from my vantage point, appropriately so. I agree with Kevin in terms of GS/CASTE having a broader scope so that general sanction may be appropriate in some situations where IPA is not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• see also: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#IPA and AA2 narrowing of scope: what is "political"?. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Community discussion

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including but not limited to castes. Grammatically, this is quite a sentence. It could easily be misread as (all pages related to political or religious topics) + (people closely related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan). Would there be any way to write this in a way that preserves the meaning but is less of a sprawl of conjunctions? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Spitballing: how's Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including but not limited to castes, and closely related people.? cc Barkeep49 KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also we probably should get rid of "all pages related to..." wording, as every DS topic covers pages and edits related to the topic. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  No objections to either permutation of that wording @L235. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Add "history" specifically. That is, [...] related to political or religious or historical topics and closely related people [...]TrangaBellam (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Please post this (proposed) update to WT:INB etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Historical topics related to politics or religion are already with-in scope; when ArbCom wants to limit the timeframe it has generally used specific years (as with American Politics). Do you have evidence of disruption to a historical topic that is not related to politics or religion? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• One of the main issues I had with the IPA sanctions was that they encompass everything by default, and that's not a treatment we give to other areas. On that note, I'm OK with broad sanctions so long as they're based on actual disruption. I can definitely see the argument for extending this to history, though we will definitely need a firm end date to do so. But the current state of affairs is giving admins carte blanche to do whatever they want in any article related to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, which is a privilege that we don't hand out for other countries that have very heated politics. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan

The remedies documented in the "Standard discretionary sanctions" section of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case are rescinded. The following remedy is added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case: 3) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in Armenia and Azerbaijan, including but not limited to the Armenian genocide. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Armenia/Azerbaijan Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. The current scope of this area is much broader than some other areas, including American Politics and Palestine-Israel. For instance American railroads are not covered by DS but under the current wording Armenian railroads could be. This attempts to name the scope of the dispute in a way more consistent with other sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. We would never think to authorize discretionary sanctions for "Europe and the United States, broadly construed". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

Armenia/Azerbaijan Community discussion

• my opinion is that the current scope is adequate, given that a large range of subject witness edit warring, tendentious editing, POV-pushing etc., besides the predictable targets of BLPs and settlements and geographic features and historic events articles other subjects that I remember having similar issues in food articles, musical instruments, Dairy products and, the most surprising to me, a flower species. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• In my few years editing on Wikipedia, it has become painfully clear that the current AA2 restrictions(if any) do not work. Before a user can edit the AA2 area, they should have a minimum of 500 edits and 6 months editing. As Kevo has indicated, food and even plants are being targeted(seriously?). The sockpuppetry is still rampant, yet we have to jump through a set of hoops just to prove user:Z(who has just arrived having never editing anything) restarts an edit war/disruption that user:Y had just been indef blocked. A set minimum of edits and months editing would keep the disruption down, and possibly cut down on the number of SPIs that need to be filed, over and over again. Example:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClassicYoghurt. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm neutral on the scope change: thinking on the times I've intervened in AA2, the newly proposed regime would still have adequately enabled me to act, but it's a change that has more to do with standardizing our bureaucracy than actually addressing real problems of editing these related topics (after all, I have yet to hear anyone complain that we have too much admin oversight of AA2). I think that Kansas Bear's suggestion to adopt a P/I-style 500/30 regime for political topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan (or more narrowly, to topics related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ethnic rivalry between Armenia and Azerbaijan) seems appropriate and would help curb disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article probation revocation

1. Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
2. Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
3. Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
4. Remedy 14.3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
5. The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the article probation referenced in Finding of Fact 3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles placed on probation") and subject to review in Remedy 1.1 of the Obama articles case ("Article probation review") is no longer in effect pursuant to a March 2015 community discussion, but related articles may be covered by remedies in the American politics 2 case.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

Article probation revocation Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. Cleans up any lingering sanctions from the predecessors to formalized DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

Other discussion of Discretionary sanctions topic areas

• Noting for the benefit of the community that these topic-specific changes were informed by WP:DS2021 but there is more to come on the broader DS2021 plan. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)