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
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[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
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	Motion	(orig. case)	24 May 2021
Amendment request: Privatemusings	none	(orig. case)	14 June 2021
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	15 June 2021

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section 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).

To file a clarification or amendment 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).
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.

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. 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:

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

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 Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, many non-500/30 editors have commented in RMs, unaware that the restriction applies to those discussions. ArbCom seemed to clarify (by majority, although not without dissent) in this ARCA that RMs are included in that provision, but didn't amend the actual remedy with their clarification. It's not particularly convenient for editors to have to link to and explain Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019) (an ARCA archive) every time a comment is struck and a non-500/30 user is confused by, or objects to, the striking. Requesting that the section be amended, as it was in this amendment, so that it's clearer for users, and so that Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement can be amended with the new wording as well.

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy. needs to be changed. Either A) get rid of the {{refn}} and integrate it directly into the text: "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc." (which if it weren't an ArbCom page I'd suggest somebody boldly change it) or B) remove the footnote (if for some odd reason RMs are not "internal project discussions"). Of course I'm for option A) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

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)

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 @AGK: being adopted.

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

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)

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

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

• 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  I feel like re-litigating the 2019 amendment is a different discussion than the one we're having. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4

In order to codify previous clarifications and make technical improvements, Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions") is amended:

• In paragraph "B", by replacing "editing content within the area of conflict" with "editing within the area of conflict";
• In paragraph "B", by replacing "other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." with "other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, requested move discussions, etc."; and
• In paragraph "C", by replacing "edits made to content within the area of conflict" with "edits made within the area of conflict".

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

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

   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)

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)

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)
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)

   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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • @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)
    • I've made this change to the draft motion. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I have now proposed the motion for voting. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• @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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Maxim_(talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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)
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)

---

Amendment request: Privatemusings

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry:" The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." (emphasis added)

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

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry:" The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." (emphasis added)

• The last sentence (in bold) be struck from the decision.

Statement by Beeblebrox

This sentence of the decision is the entire basis for the policy at WP:PROJSOCK. I find it vague and unhelpful. The remainder of the socking policy already forbids the abusive use of multiple accounts. As ArbCom is specifically not empowered to dictate policy, I propose this sentence be stricken from the decision and links to it removed from the the socking policy, which would allow the community to freely modify the policy as it sees fit without seeming to be "going against an ArbCom decision." This will not actually change the socking policy itself.

@In actu: it's not an actual barrier to change, but it looks like one to some people, I just want to remove that perception and then propose changes to the actual policy. We don't do policy by fiat anymore, but it seems to have happened here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

My goal here is to take arbcom out of the equation entirely, not to have it take a side. As it stands now it seems to be on the side of the policy as written, that is literally all I am trying to change with this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Do we really need to change a 14 year old case? The principles are all obiter dicta at best anyways. They may be persuasive as to what policy looked like at a time, but they flow from policy, not vice versa. The community could turn the see on the policy page into a see also or a contra, if it wanted to. The fact that a portion of the community uses the principle as a reason for not changing the policy is not a good argument for going around the community and changing the principle. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: On the day that the case opened the policy looked like this and it included the following clauses that the principle probably flow from:

• "Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions such as Wikipedia:Deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages."
• "Alternate accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternate puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."
• "All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean," while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior."

While you might disagree with the drafters and it is more of a stretch than what modern arbcoms have done in the principles, I don't see them writing policy in whole cloth here. Getting arbcom to change a 14 year old principle because you anticipate some number of community members using it as a reason for opposing your preferred policy is getting arbcom to take a side on a policy debate. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a principle might act as a persuasive authority contra your preferred change in some future discussion isn't a good reason to change it. If the community, or a significant minority of the community, thinks that the policy shouldn't change because the policy and the case are lockstep, so be it. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

Principles in arbitration cases always reflect the state of policy at the time of the case. I don't think it is necessary for each change to a policy to trigger revisions to all affected principles for past cases. To make it easier for future reference, going forward it would be helpful if principles linked to specific versions of the appropriate policy pages. isaacl (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers

It seems that the community has already modified the Arbcom decision by adding the clause I have marked in bold. Internal discussions: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Discussions that directly affect a legitimate alternate account in project space are permitted.

So in my understanding, if an editor has an undisclosed alt account to edit articles on a topic they avoid with their main account, they can take part in AFD discussions with that account if one of the articles they edit with it has been nominated for deletion, and I think they can nominate that article for DYK, GA and FA, or file a request at RFPP or report a vandal at AIV. Providing of course they don't take part in any of those discussions with other unlinked accounts - but that is already covered in the policy. I think those exemptions are sensible and it would be useful if Arbcom was to confirm that it didn't intend to have the PrivateMusings decision taken sufficiently literally as to prevent an editor submitting an article for FA review etc.

That still leaves us with the hypothetical scenario where an editor submits an RFA after a snarky interaction with someone's alt account. Taking the current policy literally, the holder of the alt account would only be able to oppose with their main account, and not refer to the interaction with their alt account. If the editor stayed away from the RFA with their main account, but opposed with their sock using the rational "Oppose per [diff] this incident" that would be a blockable offense as they would be taking part in a project space discussion that only indirectly involved them. I don't see a good reason for such a bureaucratic restriction, and would be happy if Arbcom were to set aside that part of the Private Musings decision.

No one disputes that we need rules against undisclosed alt accounts being used for double voting. But I'm not seeing any advantage in the extra bureaucracy of stopping alt accounts from participating in project space, and there are some downsides, especially if the PrivateMusings decision were taken literally, rather than as now, radically reinterpreted.

Statement by Nosebagbear

I'm neutral on whether the arbs should enact the actual proposal, but should they choose not to, a clear-cut statement that they have no objection to the Community re-writing the policy and that this principle should not be viewed as preventing that would be an alternate means of settling the concern Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2021 (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.

Privatemusings: Clerk notes

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

Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Is there in fact a desire among the community to revoke/reword PROJSOCK? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• This has come up several times in the history of the Privatemusings case, and in every discussion someone explained that this principle represented ArbCom's understanding of the sockpuppetry policy at the time. It was never intended to establish policy, even though it is currently treated as such. (As an aside, if ArbCom were to establish policy, it would do so as a remedy, not as a principle. Principles are derived from the community.)
  For full disclosure, I supported removing this line from the sockpuppetry policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Undisclosed alternate accounts, and while that point was somewhat lost as part of a broader discussion, I still believe that this line no longer reflects the current consensus. The fact that the 2007 committee believed it to be an accurate summary of community policy is, in my view, irrelevant. – bradv🍁 21:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think we need to change the principle. ArbCom principles are not binding statements of policy. Their impact is generally limited to providing a framework to decide a particular case at hand. They are certainly not designed to constrain the community's ability to adopt or change policy, especially over a decade later. Unlike Brad, without my arb hat on, I think the statement ought to be policy, but if the community disagrees with me, this principle really should not stand in the way. Best, KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 23:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• I think we need to be very cautious about changing Principles and FoF from previous cases and do not see a compelling reason to do so here. That it resonated enough with the community to incorporate it into policy for years shows how ArbCom can exercise moral leadership. I'm glad we're amending PROJSOCK coming out of the VP discussion but don't think we need to amend our decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would support the removal of the PROJSOCK footnote but I don't think we can do that as an ArbCom as it's beyond our scope. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• If this were a remedy, I'd be immediately all-in. However, it's a Principle based on community consensus, and we all know that can change over time. If people are using a Principle from 14 years ago as the sole justification for something, then there needs to be a demonstrated consensus that it's still valid (which, based on the recent RFC, is not the case). However, I do tend to agree with my colleagues above that it was consensus at the time. I'm not sure if striking is the best way to indicate this, or if we should just do something like appending a clarifying note. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues above. Principles can always only reflect the policy and guidelines at the time. They are not meant to be the basis of policy or guidelines. I think the best way forward is to remove the footnote from WP:PROJSOCK which was added two years after the case with this edit and leave the question whether to remove the rest to the community to discuss. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with SoWhy's assessment and recommendation. I think this discussion gets the point across, such that editing an old case just isn't necessary. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

---

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

Initiated by Benevolent human at 16:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 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:

• Benevolent human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Statement by Benevolent human

Should ARBPIA apply to allegations of whether Ilhan Omar invoked anti-Semitic canards when discussing Jewish Americans? The controversy stems from Ilhan Omar allegedly saying that Jewish Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty to the US and Israel. My view was: Dual loyalty implies people are doing nice things for Israel since they're loyal to Israel, but the US has, in part due to AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies, done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, such as massive, massive economic aid, collaboration on Iran issues, favorable trade arrangements, technology development, etc. My sense for the other view is that the Israeli-Arab conflict tends to also be mentioned tangentially in some but not all articles that discuss this incident, but articles often provide digressions and context aside from discussing the primary manner of hand. Here is a representative article: [2]

Response to Nishidani: this came up in the context of discussing whether to add a new sentence to the lead, not in the context of the existing sections (which might not have the proper heading in any case).

Response to Muboshgu: Yes, Omar sometimes says things about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict too at other times and in other statements. But not everything related to Israel is about its conflicts with its neighbors.

Response to Selfstudier: this is the conversation where we decided to take it here User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Invalid_RfC_closure?. We've been disputing this issue for weeks (for example, several of the closed RfCs on Talk:Ilhan Omar.

Response to The Four Deuces: I have a great deal of respect for you, so I was sad to see how misleading your statement was. The reinsertion after the failed RfC for AOC took into account the points made in the RfC and incorporated it (see here). I subsequently immediately let the issue drop and took a break after the temperature of the conversation got too high. I've consistently followed all Wikipedia policies and ARBCOM rulings. There's this recurrent narrative that keeps being brought up that because I opened three RfCs, I'm ignoring previous RfCs. The reality the first two RfCs were not allowed to come to conclusion because of disputes over the scope of ARBPIA. After the first two RfCs were disrupted, I waited until I was extended confirmed before reopening the present one to circumvent the issue, but now other editors who are trying to participate are being harassed that they can't because of ARBPIA. Which is what brought us here today. (Also seems manipulative to encourage me to open this ARBCOM request on your talk page, and then once I do so ask for sanctions be put against me there, but oh well.)

Response to Nableezy: Here's a counterexample: User_talk:Polymath03. I did continue Recent Change Patrol activities after I reached 500 edits.

Response to NightHeron: [3]

Response to Barkeep49: We tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus: Talk:Ilhan_Omar#Above_RfC_and_ARBPIA. Then I tried to open an RfC, but other editors closed it and told me I had to come here: [4] Benevolent human (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite: Although I've had a minority opinion, that itself isn't a violation of policy. I believe that I've followed the letter and spirit of all relevant policies and ARBCOM rulings to the best of my ability and have respected consensus when it has been established through proper procedures. If a consensus can be binding before a formal procedure like an RfC is complete, then I'm misunderstanding something, which is possible. My understanding of how things worked was that editors who happened to be at a page discussed amongst themselves, and if they couldn't come to a compromise, they then invoked a process like this to get the wider community to weigh in.

Beyond my Ken: My understanding was that only _one_ RfC failed. The first two RfCs were cancelled for alleged procedural reasons before they're allowed to start. I'll admit that because the third RfC has now failed, this entire question might now be moot.

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Even narrowly construed, I believe ARBPIA4 applies. It's clear from Bh's comments that they want the lead to summarize at least two 2019 Omar controversies. In the first, Omar's "Benjamins" tweet, the context was possible sanction of Omar and Rashida Tlaib for their support of the BDS movement. The second, in which Omar was accused of using the dual-loyalty anti-semitic canard, began as a talk by Omar and Tlaib. Omar's comments were about the I-P conflict. Bh is right that it's possible to support or criticize Israel for things that have nothing to do with Arabs or Palestine, but all of the incidents motivating this RfC are inextricably tied to the conflict ARBPIA4 covers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Just in case it is not clear, this concerns a large section with three subdivisions at Ilhan Omar. As the main section title itself declares, these paragraphs all deal with the I/P conflict.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Muboshgu

Benevolent human references the dual loyalty canard, which is directly referencing Israel. The Israel-Palestine issue is to be "broadly construed", so arguing that dual loyalty references American Jews and not Israel is an absurd argument to make. With Omar's loud support of BDS, there is no separating out the I-P issue from Omar on issues that pertain more directly to American Jews. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

I commented at that talk page that, at a minimum, "broadly construed" covers the case and it may not even need that particular caveat for efficacy.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This came here too quickly, more discussion should have taken place at the talk page and I think consensus would have come about fairly quickly in the normal course.Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Humph, seems more going on here than I was aware of, the initial filing now does not appear as a standalone attempt to work something out but instead a continuation of something prior.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

Benevolent human, formerly User:Pretzel butterfly, has created three unsuccessful RfCs about inclusion of accusations of anti-Semitism against Ilhan Omar since June 1 2021: Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC on anti-Semitism accusations in lead [20:21, 1 June 2021][5], Talk:Ilhan Omar#New information [02:25, 12 June 2021][6] and Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC [21:22, 12 June 2021].[7] At last count the vote for the third RfC, which is still open, stands at 17-3 against.

Benevolent human previously tried to include accusations of anti-Semitism against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#AOC's disputes with Jewish groups [18:33, 18 December 2020] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#RfC about AOC's disputes with Jewish organizations [22:29, 6 January 2021] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#AOC and Israel. [14:32, 17 April 2021] After failing in the RfC, Pretzel Butterfly reinserted the disputed text. See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#Yet again [00:52, 11 January 2021]. Omar and AOC are close allies in the U.S. Congress.

This editor is clearly disruptive, arguing their views long after it was clear they had no support. I recommend a topic ban for U.S. politics. Under their previous account, I informed the editor of American politics AE [22:43, 10 January 2021].[8] (While I used the previous date of 1932 - it's now 1992 - I think the notice was valid.)

TFD (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution covers content disputes, but the issue here was whether the 500/30 Rule, prohibiting new editors from editing Palestine-Israel articles, applied, which is not a content issue. TFD (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jackattack1597

I really don't see how this is remotely ripe for Arbcom, even as a clarification request. If any action is considered here, it should be a topic ban for Benevolent human, and extended confirmed should be revoked for gaming by welcoming many editors who made a handful of edits, but neither of those require arbcom intervention.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

The only part of this that could conceivably use ArbCom weighing in on is what are the dispute resolution routes for this? Would this be like some other arbitration enforcement where a single admin can make a call but a consensus of admins would be needed to overrule it? I do find the opening editor's zealousness on this topic to be somewhere between mildly disruptive to blatantly tendentious, and the gaming of EC status is also something that ArbCom ruling about would be helpful as prior editors who I thought were gaming the system by repeatedly making tiny edits at such a rapid clip to get past the barrier and then shortly after reverting to normal editing (eg adding whitspace between an infobox and the lead and then removing whitespace between the infobox and the lead) or welcoming editors at a rate of about 4 per minute, despite never having welcomed an editor before needing to reach EC status to start another RFC within the topic area. Those things I think could use ArbCom speaking about. Whether or not this obviously related subject is related is not one of the things that really need your attention though. nableezy - 19:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NightHeron

It shouldn't be necessary for ArbCom to clarify what's already completely clear to everyone except for one user. Talk:Ilhan Omar prominently displays a detailed warning that certain parts of the article are subject to ARBPIA. This obviously means the parts dealing with controversies over Omar's statements on US support for Israel in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Several editors explained to Bh the applicability of ARBPIA, see [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], but Bh insists that all of us are wrong. The real issue seems to be Bh's WP:IDHT. NightHeron (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Having looked at this article from an admin point of view, I would be looking at the two editors who have persistently tried to insert negative content into this BLP, those two being User:Benevolent human and User:Toa_Nidhiki05. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC) This is probably a separate issue, so striking. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

This request is beyond ludicrous. Three RfCs haven't gone BH's way, so they come here to try and game the system and do an end-run around obvious community consensus. There should be no pussyfooting around this, BH needs to be topic banned from Omar and AOC, perhaps the entire subject of antisemitism. They are clearly disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

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 will point to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Disputes_about_scope_of_conflict_area and ask if any forms of dispute resolution have been tried before coming here? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Benevolent human: In your response to Barkeep49, you write that you tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus. However, it looks to me like everyone except for you thinks this is covered by the ARBPIA area of conflict; your disagreement alone isn't enough to say the community couldn't come to a consensus. That's not how consensus on Wikipedia works. I would decline this clarification request without action. @Nableezy: The way it works is that if an admin actually takes an arbitration enforcement action on the basis that the dispute is covered by ARBPIA, then that action is presumed to be correct unless it is reversed on appeal, per note 4 of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Modifications by administrators. However, there may not have been an explicit AE action here. KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

---