Initiated by Nyttend at 01:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ymblanter
• Galobtter

This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope.

Airbnb is a US-based company that acts as a broker for people who have spare rooms in their homes and people who want to rent those rooms. Apparently there was some controversy related to Israel-Palestine and this company, so the article has a section on this issue. Ymblanter recently protected the article under ARBPIA following some disruptive editing to this section. I questioned this action, saying basically "did you accidentally protect the wrong article", and Ymblanter responded basically "I protected it intentionally, because the disruptive editing was related to Israel-Palestine". His response mentions some consultation with Galobtter regarding the duration.

So the question...are this decision's stipulations on page protection meant to apply to all articles that have bits related to Israel-Palestine, or is it only intended for pages to which Israel-Palestine is an integral component? This article is definitely the first — one can understand the company quite well without a tiny Israel-Palestine section sourced only to news reports and an advocacy organization. By the latter, I'm talking about Israeli politicians, places in the West Bank, events in the history of Gaza, etc. The situation here reminds me of the "weather" situation at WP:TBAN — if we had similar sanctions on the topic of weather, I suppose we'd not consider all articles with "climate" sections liable to ARBWEATHER protection.

If we assume either Ymblanter's perspective or mine, there's no room for dispute over whether this is an appropriate protection; if Arbcom meant to include all pages with Israel-Palestine sections, of course this is an appropriate protection, and if you didn't mean to include pages like this, obviously this should be treated like any other victim of disruptive editing rather than an Israel-Palestine issue. So once again, no hard feelings exist yet, and I don't envision them arising in the future; I just want the scope to be clear.

if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me says Ymblanter. I agree — if the committee intends ARBPIA to apply to articles in an Airbnb-type situation, that's fine with me. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, at User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb, Ymblanter said I am not sure I can now so easily remove or lower the protection. I do not think we have a mechanism of lowering ARBPIA protections. If an admin levies an ARBPIA sanction and then changes his mind, is there something preventing the admin from self-reverting? If this is indeed the case, and it's specific to ARBPIA (I don't know; I don't do WP:AE), it would be helpful if you implemented a mechanism for lowering ARBPIA protections or allowing other self-reverting. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consultation with Galobtter which Nyttend mentions is at my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb. Concerning the issue itself, I indeed interpret the decision such that if an article contains a significant part (in the case of Airbnb, this is a dedicated section) the discretionary sanctions apply. However, I do not hold strong opinions here, if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Without giving my opinion of the motion you mention, if someone compiles a list of articles where the notice must be placed I volunteer, after a reasonable check, place the notice to all these articles (which obviously is going to take time but it is still better than nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Yes, it is time to conduct review of all remedies. We are slowly moving towards professionalizing of AE in general and PI in particular, when one first needs to study for five years and then run an internship in order to be able to act there responsively. This is not really good.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though this problem is going to continue. It's been discussed for over a week at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Some issues relating to the IP area which I urge everyone to read (and User:Huldra has found a slew of articles that need templating and edit notices given the current sanctions). Towards the bottom of the thread I've tried to outline how I understand ARBPIA sanctions are meant to work. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also virtually the same issue as I raised a few weeks ago which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, isn't it? Doug Weller talk 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I'm pretty sure that my understanding as outlined at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Some issues relating to the IP area is in line with yours, if not please tell me where I have it wrong. What's needed now to clarify "reasonably"? I presume a motion, right? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I'd like to see a discussion of your suggestion to remove the "blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages." In the last two days I've had to disappoint an Admin (User:El C and an experienced editor(User:Nableezy) who thought IPs couldn't edit anything to do with the conflict. I also like rewording somne DS alerts to mention 1RR. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not related to the issue about parts/whole of the article being under ARBPIA, but it relates to the imbecile motion added March this year. Yes: imbecile!

After that motion, no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. Since there are thousands of articles, and only a few hundred of them have edit notice, the result is that clear cut violations of the rules goes unpunished; see this example.

So while "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted" are placed under "discretionary sanctions", the 1 RR rule has become unenforceable on most article.

This is a totally untenable situation, I hope that arb.com either:

• 1. Undo their March 2019 motion, or
• 2. Start templating the thousands of articles which need to be templated. (In addition to the ones I have already mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, we can add all the ‎Israel settlements on the West Bank and the Golan Heights, all the kibbutz, etc built on the 48 villages land (they will be found in the "current localities" in the infobox, see eg Suruh.....you would be amazed as to how often that information "disappears"...)

I would prefer that you chose option 1, that's because admins are not the best persons to see what is under ARBPIA, or not. Case in point: Solomon's Pools, where both, say, Icewhiz and I agree that it comes under ARBPIA, but "outside" admins have a difficulty in seeing that. (For those of you who don't know us: Icewhiz and I disagree about just about everything regarding the I/P area...) Huldra (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ymblanter: All articles mentioned in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (and the Israeli localities on their land), all Palestinian localities on the West Bank; listed under Template:Governorates of the Palestinian Authority. I would also say all localities listed in [[Category:Arab localities in Israel]], and all localities in the Golan Heights: Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the places mentioned in it and Template:Golan Regional Council. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That old expression: "Don't fix it if it isn't broken" should also be the guiding words for arb.com. This 14 March 2019 change basically changed a structure which was working..sort of..to one with lots of complications. I cannot recall any editor wanting to edit ARBPIA articles, achieving 30/500 status, and not knowing about ARBPIA sanctions. What normally happen, is that they wander into ARBPIA territory before they reach 30/500, they are promptly reverted, most with a note on their talk page. Then, if they are mature enough, they stay away until they have reached 30/500, and then they return.User:SilkTork: yes, the 14 March 2019 added "This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice." I just became aware of that, as I reported an obvious offence, but the editor walked scot free, thanks to this. See here.

User:AGK yes, it is a patchwork, and I would love to see one standard. Especially what "broadly constructed" and what is not. (I think User:BU Rob13 is the only one who understands it!) 1RR is one of the best things there are in the ARBPIA area, alas, the 14 March 2019 change was horrible: it made 1RR unenforceable on most ARBPIA articles. Why have rules if there is absolutely no punishment for breaking them? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, User:SilkTork, I hadn't seen the January 2018 note: [1].(I don't follow the "Discretionary sanctions" page), that makes me more understand the 14 March 2019 changes. We have two set of rules for ARBPIA, and I have given up hope of ever understanding those rules....

Also, according to these idiots, I have a IQ of about half a zillion, I don't know if I would trust them, but I tend to understand things that have a logic to them. And as a corollary to that: when I don't understand a thing, it is usually because there is no logic to it. I would love to see some logic to the rules in the IP area...Huldra (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor, and got pagemover rights. So now I see a "Page notice" on my editing screen, where I can put {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. I will advice everyone (who is not admins) to apply for this, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor SilkTork: I think you missed the point when you wrote "If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template." No they can't; only administrators and template editors can add the editnotice that arbcom decided is needed for enforcement. Zero^talk 10:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor BU Rob13: Before 500/30, IPs and new socks would cause disruption because they don't care about rules while the good editors trying to preserve article integrity were constrained by 1RR from reverting the disruption. The combination of 1RR and 500/30 has proved very beneficial to the area and I don't understand why you think removing 500/30 would be an improvement. Zero^talk 07:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that articles that are not broadly about the conflict should not be locked down under ECP, they can be locked down temporarily, they can be IP protected, etc and then when the vandalism passes, it's good to go. We should not have many articles under a patchwork of horrible ARBCOM rulings that are terribly confusing to enforce and understand. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is wise and pertinent that no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. If the 1RR edit-notice were to apply to all articles in the I/P area, and if ordinary editors could add such notices, who would prevent them from adding these notices to every town and city in Israel (Palestine), irregardless of whether or not the town had been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle? Editors would still find a way to include it, since both sides vie for the control of the same country. This would greatly impede progress and make the simple task of editing much more difficult, just as we found in the article Solomon's Pools, which to my dismay came to be associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although it has absolutely nothing to do with that conflict other than the fact that the pools lie within territory controlled by joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority officials. In my humble opinion, we should avoid making the task of editing bogged-down in red-tape and litigation, whenever possible, and only in those articles where by their nature they spark heated debate or POV views should these 1RR edit warnings be added.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have long argued that discretionary sanctions should be applied not only to articles within the topic area, broadly interpreted, but to edits clearly related to the topic area in question, regardless of whether the article topic itself is related. This is because the topic area to which discretionary sanctions apply can be referenced peripherally in almost any article (falafel, anyone?) If somebody is making edits somewhere, anywhere, that can be reasonably construed as pertaining to the topic area, then surely all the usual discretionary sanctions should be applied to those edits regardless of which article they were made in. It seems to me that if this approach were to be adopted, the regular tiresome debates about whether or not a given article belongs in the topic area could be avoided altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should add, with regard to extended-confirmed protection, which is a special case because it works to automatically block anyone who doesn't meet the editing criteria on a given page, that an alternative approach might be to manually enforce extended-confirmed on articles which only peripherally relate to the sanctioned topic area (such as Airbnb in this case), in order to avoid penalizing the vast majority of users who are not making edits that pertain to the sanctioned area. Or alternatively, to use the automated protection only for limited periods, until the related dispute cools down. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: In response to your question: yes, ArbCom rules in the I/P area are too complicated, to the point where I'm reluctant to help enforce them because of the likelihood that I'll do something wrong and/or need to spend too much time reading up on the rules. I agree that the relevant decisions should be reviewed. Off the cuff, it might be worth it to consider reverting to basic discretionary sanctions. That's because drive-by disrupters using new accounts can be easily dealt with without the need for complicated rules, and AE regulars who are playing long-term games with the I/P content are quite capable of gaming complicated rules to their advantage. I could be wrong, though, and maybe the rules are actually helpful. Hence the need for a review. Sandstein 09:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBURO. Yall have made this more complicated on each iteration. You have made it so what was intended to be a way of limiting edit-wars for the topic and limiting the sockpuppetry into one that on too many pages is unenforceable due to a technicality or not applicable because of this reasonably or broadly dispute. To me the answer here is obvious, divorce where extended-confirmed is applied (reasonably construed), but apply the rest of the prohibition to the larger set (broadly construed, with only the sections about the topic area covered). And remove the edit-notice requirement. What is important is that a person know that the edit is covered by the 1RR. Having the {{ARBPIA}} banner on the talk page and having been notified of the sanctions is enough of a notification, and requiring the edit-notice is allowing for some of the sillier games to be played without a hint of shame. Besides, I have yet to see an example where an editor was not asked to self-revert prior to being reported. By the time a report is made they are effectively notified and their refusal to self-revert should be enough to consider sanctions. This was supposed to be simple, and for years it was successful. The last several "clarifications" have undone a decent chunk of that success. nableezy - 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least make me a template-editor so I can add the edit-notices myself. nableezy - 09:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob's suggestion to make 500/30 conditional on ECP being applied to the page makes sense. I would suggest making this a "package deal" with 1RR (so if ECP is applied - 1RR is always applied as well). If these are handed out on an article level on a very liberal basis (e.g. mere relation of a page to the conflict - assuming requests at RfPP will be handled quickly and promptly - even without evidence of disruption for "reasonably construed" (for "broadly construed" - one should have evidence of disruption)) - then the amount of disruption should be fairly low (and if a new editor hops around many unprotected pages doing un-constructive editing - regular DS would still apply). For new articles, all one has to do is ask at RfPP (e.g. diff for a new current event conflict article).

The advantage to moving to a more normal (in relation to other topic areas) DS regime is that the current regime in ARBPIA is a rather severe roadblock for new editors, who can accrue sanctions at an alarming rate due to a mere misunderstanding of 500/30 and 1RR (which are even confusing to regulars (some long term editors diverge from AE norms in the parsing of "what is a revert") - let alone new comers). New Israeli or Palestinian editors invariably edit many pages that are "reasonably construed" (e.g. geographic locations, the country articles, all sorts of organizations) - even if their particular edits are not particularly conflict related (e.g. updating the head of the local council in a West Bank settlement after local elections) - the "survival rate" of such new editors on Wikipedia (without getting TBANNED from the topic area - and potential TBAN violations subsequently leading to blocks) is pretty low under the current sanctions regime - as they are able to edit non-ECP articles (running foul of 500/30 and often violating 1RR).Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rules should apply where they apply naturally or rather the use of common sense is necessary. Every article need not be given a templet or protected simply because it dips it's toes in areas that are under sanctions. However when editors import the conflict into these articles due consideration should be given on a case by case basis for the appropriate action. An editor topic banned from ARBPIA related topics should be able to edit AIRBNB but they shouldn't be allowed to edit the portions of the article related to ARBPIA. Uninvolved admins also need the ability to take some appropriate form of action when the general disruption associated with articles under sanction is exported to articles that merely get their toes wet on the subject. I'd have to endorse a rewrite of these sanctions or any others that simplify them but they do need to have teeth.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Sometimes we can bogged down with the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The intention of DS is to prevent disruption; if there is material on Wikipedia which is likely to lead to disruption, then it is appropriate for us to monitor that material. If the DS wording inhibits us from appropriately preventing disruption then we may look to change the wording rather than allow the disruption to take place due to unclear wording. The material in this case, Airbnb#Delisting_of_West_Bank_settlements, does fall under the Palestine-Israel tension. It is currently neutral and factual, and we would want to keep it that way, so applying DS to that material is appropriate. (For me the greater debate is should that information be in the article on Airbnb, or in the article on Israeli settlement. But that's an editorial decision, not an ArbCom one.)

I think I'm comfortable with the template wording as is so we don't need to be fiddling with "page/article/section/material". If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template. If another person doesn't agree, the matter can be taken to AE for discussion and consensus. While the template is in place, any inappropriate edit to any part of the page would be liable for sanction - that would be to prevent, for example in this case, anyone deliberately vandalising Airbnb to reflect badly on the company in retaliation for their actions on the West Bank.

In short, I think we're fine as we are, and nothing needs to be done. Disagreements about siting of templates can be taken to AE. SilkTork (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zero0000. My understanding is that a DS notice goes on the talkpage to let people know that the article comes under DS, and if someone edits that article, and it appears they are not aware that DS applies to the article, they need to be informed on their talkpage before sanctions can be applied against them. I understand that an editnotice can also be added, but does that mean a talkpage notice cannot be placed, and a user cannot be informed? Has there been a rule change which says that we are no longer using talkpage notices, and no longer informing users? I wouldn't have thought an talkpage notice editnotice is sufficient notice alone before sanctioning someone because, lets be honest, most people don't read talkpage notices editnotices. But they do read notices left on their talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra, I see what you are saying. Though the rule regarding editnotices has been in place since January 2018: [2]. I think the intention was to ensure that users get warned by having editnotices placed on appropriate articles. But it has created a limbo loop hasn't it? The rule to place editnotices should be separate from the general rule on warning. That is, an editor who meets the general criteria for being warned, should not be able to escape sanction by wiki-lawyering that there was no editnotice in place. It looks like Rob intended or hoped that a bot would be created that allowed editnotices to be created if there was an appropriate talkpage notice in place. I think AGK is right - it would be helpful to conduct a review of the remedies. SilkTork (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra - Hah, yes, I was a member of Mensa in the Seventies, yet my mind glazes over when faced with some ARBPIA stuff. But, truth be told, IQ tests only test how good someone is at solving IQ tests, they don't measure the ability to handle arcane Wikipedia bureaucracy created by an ever changing committee. SilkTork (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbitration remedies applying to the Arab–Israeli conflict seem to have grown confusing and patchworked. Is it time to conduct a review of all remedies? I'd like to hear from editors and enforcing administrators who are active in this topic area. Among other questions for a review, we should look at whether 1RR is effective – both in general and under the current rules of notification. AGK ■ 10:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Airbnb is rather obviously not "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area of an international conflict, though it is "broadly construed" to be. That would mean discretionary sanctions are in force, but 1RR and the general prohibition do not apply. As for calls to review the entire topic area's sanction regime, I consider that unhelpful. There are some editors, admins even, who seem like they just simply won't understand anything we throw their way in this topic area. Further tweaking is highly unlikely to change that, because we've tweaked these sanctions about a dozen times already to try to solve such issues, and the repeated changes have never helped. If anything, they've made things more confused because we aren't just settling on one set of sanctions and sticking with it.

  What we have now is discretionary sanctions on articles "broadly construed" - meaning any article that's even tangentially related to the topic area. Additionally, we have 500/30 and 1RR on articles "reasonably construed" - meaning any article where one could not talk about the article subject at the top level without delving into the topic area. That really isn't that complicated or confused.

  The one positive clarification we could make here is to set forth a formal definition of "reasonably construed". I would suggest what I wrote above. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thinking on this has changed rather sharply after the recent Huldra/Sir Joseph kerfuffle, especially the admin response at AE. It has become clear that the current sanction regime, in total, is not working. I think we need another ABRPIA case to review the entire situation. As a potential road map, I'd like to consider a removal of blanket 500/30 in favor of implementing 500/30 where disruption occurs as a discretionary sanction, with a remedy explicitly noting that the Committee would like it to be used liberally but not unreasonably. Blanket 500/30 is a relic of a bygone era when 500/30 could not be applied by technical means in case-by-case scenarios. Existing protections could be automatically converted to discretionary sanctions appealable at AE like any other sanction, so no "mass-unprotecting" during a switch. I also think we need to rethink the awareness requirements of 1RR and its applicability. In particular, we could change the DS notice to include mention of 1RR and then allow a consensus of administrators at AE to enforce 1RR in cases where a reasonable editor who had received the notice would be aware the article was covered in addition to being able to enforce it where edit notices exist. In other words, edit notices would only be truly needed to enforce the requirement on articles that are difficult to tell are reasonably construed to be within the topic area, but not on those articles that are obviously related. Plus I think a look at the long-term contributors in this area would be useful to determine where there are issues that have not been solvable by the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zero0000: Read carefully what I have written. I have not proposed removing 500/30. I have proposed removing blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages. I have proposed zero removals of existing protections, stating all existing protections should remain if we were to make such a switch. In fact, such a proposal may increase some protections by eliminating from our vernacular this "reasonably construed" language that is proving hard for admins to parse. The current rule is clearly causing some issues, given the protection of Airbnb, which I believe is rather plainly not intended by our sanctions, and I no longer think the benefits outweigh the harms of removing administrator discretion from the equation in this remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• PIA ARCAs make me want to hide under the blankets, and it seems I'm not the only one. Frankly I'd love to see this topic area get a rules overhaul, but I don't have the time to do it. A number of these repetitive requests on PIA issues have centered on this point about "what if it's just a small section in a larger and mostly-unrelated article" and I've generally held the view that such things should not be included in all the warning/templating/etc infrastructure. I don't see any reason this should be an exception to that general view. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what's more to be said here - but I've been lax at ARCA, so I thought I'd pitch in. In my opinion - the discretionary sanctions can be applied where the disruption occurs - hence the broadly construed nature of that. I would hope that the sanction would be as light as possible in areas that are more tangential to the case, be it through time limitation of the sanction or through a tailored sanction which hits as small an area as possible.
  I like the idea of re-doing ARBPIA, similar to OR, I'd want to hide under the blanket! Worm^TT(talk) 08:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Guantolaka at 09:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Guantolaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Philip_Cross

I'm posting here to request clarification on the Philip Cross topic ban.

It currently reads: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."

On 13 August 2018, Philip Cross was blocked from Wikipedia for one week for violating the topic ban.

There have been edits since then which I believe also violate the topic ban. I'm listing some of these below:

• 27 December 2018: Joan Rodker

"Joan M Rodker (1 May 1915, Kensington, London – 27 December 2010) was an English political activist and television producer."

• 31 December 2018: Geeta Guru-Murthy

Journalist "with regular work for BBC World, BBC News 24, and BBC Breakfast, and by 2005 presenting the news on BBC Radio 4."

• 16 April 2019: Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange

Links showing discussion in the House of Commons, comments from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary, and how a change of government in the UK could affect Assange's fate: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

• 25 April 2019: Political views of Christopher Hitchens

"Christopher Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was a British-American author, polemicist, debater and journalist who in his youth took part in demonstrations against the Vietnam War, joined organisations such as the International Socialists while at university and began to identify as a socialist."

Some of these have been posted on the Arbitration Enforcement Request page recently:

• 16 April 2019 - Request concerning Philip Cross

• 16 January 2019 - Request concerning Philip Cross

No action has been taken.

I would like to ask the arbitration committee for clarity here. Are the instances highlighted above outside the scope of "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed"?

Conflict of interest

Additionally, the arbitration decision also contained the following warning:

"Philip Cross is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest."

On 23 November 2018, Philip Cross posted a link to an Oliver Kamm article

The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson. They are not only involved in British politics, but Cross's hostile editing of their pages and derogatory comments about them on Twitter was what led to media interest and the ensuing arbitration case.

@Icewhiz, Doug Weller, Johnuniq: I'm not a Wikipedia editor, and the Philip Cross case was opened because of off-wiki concern about the editing he was doing. That off-wiki concern and attention led to an arbitration case and resulted in a unanimous decision by the arbitratration committe to impose a topic ban and a warning. I don't think that ban has been adhered to, so I'd like to understand why. Either the ban is not what I understand it to be, or it's not being enforced. I hope posting here will clear that up. Guantolaka (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz, I have deliberately not focused on the edits themselves because my understanding of the topic ban is those edits should not have occurred in the first place. Getting into a debate about the edits is what happened during the arbitration case, and resulted in the topic ban. What is the point of a topic ban if to make a successful enforcement request you have to prove that the edit in itself was problematic. Surely that goes for any editor on here whether sanctioned or not. So I have deliberately avoided doing that not because I think all the edits are fine (I don't), but because I want to see the topic ban adhered to. I have also not looked to find more examples of Philip Cross's editing that falls in this topic area, again, not because they don't exist, but because I don't think that should be necessary. I'm happy to post more examples if that would help convince you that these instances are not isolated breaches.

Regarding your point about Galloway. The problem was never solely about Galloway. The narrow focus on Galloway was how it was framed by an administrator at the very beginning. After the community-imposed ban on Galloway, the arbitration case was opened and a review of Philip Cross's editing led to an expansion of the ban to the wider topic area by the arbitration committee. (In my view, that was not wide enough, but I don't want to get a discussion about that now.) Guantolaka (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork, perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't believe the matter has been handled appropriately at AE. As someone who followed the arbitration case closely, it appears to me that the administrators are applying a much narrower reading of the topic ban than what was intended by the arbitration committee. So much so that I think the topic ban becomes nonsensical if the pages I linked above are considered acceptable topics to edit. Of course, it's also possible that this much narrower reading is in fact what was intended. But without comment from the committee, it's hard to know. I'd find it very strange if that is what was intended, considering the conduct and editing brought up during the arbitration case. But if the committee do not see the instances I highlighted as constituting a breach of the ban, it would be good to have that confirmed here. Guantolaka (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob, Assange's situation is very much related to British politics. This was debated in the last filing I linked above. Editor NSH001 quoted a BBC article:

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said backing Assange is not without political risk and will not find universal favour among Labour MPs - but Mr Corbyn's intervention "means the battle over Assange's future will now be as much political as it is legal".

Editor Pawnkingthree linked to a Guardian article pointing out the Home Secretary's involvement in Assange's fate.

Asked for comment on Twitter by a journalist, Wikipedia editor and co-founder Jimmy Wales agreed: "I agree with you that this is related to UK politics." Shown an edit where Cross had left incorrect information up for two days, he went on to advise Cross to "steer clear of this topic indefinitely".

So I have to say, the staunch refusal to see a connection between Assange and British politics here is pretty odd.

@Opabinia regalis: please save the moralising. I think I've submitted enough here to show a connection to UK politics, and you've also seen long-standing editors agree that it is too. I did want to see how the arbitration committee would reconcile all that with its "broadly construed" topic ban, and I think we've seen that now. If anyone is unsure whether Philip Cross should be held to his topic ban, I suggest they carry out a search and look at the editing that led to the arbitration case. Guantolaka (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross has been under quite a bit of scrutiny by people who do not normally edit Wikipedia - including AE by a sockpuppet and another by the filer here that were closed as not actionable. Cross has been productive as an editor over the past 8 months. To avoid further wasting of community time, ARCA should consider lifting the TBAN entirely or limit it to Galloway, as time served.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of an off-wiki campaign - it is quite evident from a simple search on twitter and to a lesser extent google. There are also a few pieces on RT (TV network) and other sites of a similar bent. (to avoid possibly running foul of WP:OUTING - I won't link here, however the extent of commenting on this is evident from a simple search). Cross's edits are under intense off-wiki scrutiny - if there were something more actionable than what was brought forward (and dismissed an non-actionable in Jan 2019 AE and April 2019 AE) - it would have been presented. Cross shouldn't have been editing (while being involved in a twitter exchange) Galloway's article (and possibly a few related articles). The current very wide sanction - has off-wiki observers scrutinizing Cross's every edit (13,553 edits (well over 90% of them to mainspace) since September 2018 through 29 April 2019) and coming forth with the very few examples that are possibly extremely broadly construed at the edges of the current fairly wide (for a UK editor) TBAN. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something's pretty fishy here. It's hard not to wonder if there is some off-wiki campaign against Cross. I haven't been following his editing but I do see it from time to time and have never seen anything problematic when we've crossed paths. Perhaps the Committee should at least consider Icewhiz's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of the case, would a passing admin please indef the filer as WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia has enough drama—we don't need off-wiki campaigners. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do share the doubt whether the filer is here to build an encyclopaedia. While I do not support banning new editors who haven't engaged in clear-cut vandalism or severe disruption, I do think that Guantolaka should be permanently banned from discussing anything Philip Cross related. They are welcome to contribute in other areas.

That said, I recall the Philip Cross issue very clearly and am well aware of the amount of work it took the community to undo their blatant disruptive editing carried on over years in quite a significant number of articles. It required hours and hours of community time. Judging from the examples of their recent editing listed here, it is highly likely that Philip Cross will resume the sort of disruptive editing that brought about their TBAN. My advice is thus to leave the ban as is. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Inactive on this request: AGK ■ 10:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing there is anything here for the Committee to do with the clarification request, other than to confirm that AE have handled the matter appropriately, and so have already answered the question regarding "Are the instances highlighted above outside the scope of "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed"?". If there is more support for reviewing Philip Cross's topic ban, we could look into that. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SilkTork is correct, there is nothing for the Committee to do here. I agree with Doug that there certainly seems to be an outside interest in having Philip Cross sanctioned, and I don't particularly appreciate it. If Philip Cross wants to appeal his topic ban (either to reduce the scope or have it lifted) he is well within his rights to do so himself, as the original six-month period has passed, but we should not be making that decision for him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As a matter of procedure, "no action" at AE can absolutely be appealed to ArbCom at ARCA, and we theoretically could disagree with AE and take action. Having said that, nothing linked here appears to be a topic ban violation. Rodker wasn't politically active post-1978. A journalist is not automatically involved with politics just because they occasionally cover it neutrally as part of the news. Assange isn't involved much at all in British politics. Hitchens is mostly a political figure in American politics, not British politics, though he probably comes closest to being placed in the topic area. It is within administrative discretion to consider none of these topic ban violations, and so I see no reason to overturn the result at AE. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, it doesn't seem like there's anything for us to do here. Also as above, people are welcome to join the community and participate as editors no matter how they first encountered us - even if it was a bad experience - but hanging around for the specific and sole purpose of trying to get another editor sanctioned is not OK. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing to add that hasn't already been said. This ARCA could most likely be closed at this point. Mkdw ^talk 16:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with other statements, and that this can be closed. Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Atsme at 19:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

• Motion - The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure was modified.

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Basic DS template respective to the particular sanction, be it AP2, Pseudoscience, BLP, etc.

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Basic DS template respective to the particular sanction, be it AP2, Pseudoscience, BLP, etc.

• See User talk:Atsme top of the page - custom DS Notice

Topics subject to DS require that we alert users of same.

An editor is considered aware if:

• They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
• They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
• In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
• In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
• In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
  

Proposal to add something along the lines of the following example:

• The editor maintains a DS Awareness Notice at the top of their user page stating they are aware of sanctions in the respective area(s) of conflict. Any editor who adds a DS Alert to a user's TP despite such notice of awareness for a specific area of conflict (custom or otherwise) will be in violation of DS and subject to AE per current Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts ^{21:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)}

Reasoning: some established editors have been the recipients of multiple DS alerts which may be viewed as harassment or abuse of the process. Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time. It typically occurs when a disagreement arises in a conflicted area and a DS notice suddenly appears on an editor's TP. Some editors, intentionally or otherwise, will add a DS template on the TP of an opponent without first checking to see if that editor is already aware, the latter of which is a difficult task in itself, but it can be easily remedied. While DS alerts are included on the conflicted article's TP, and typically in an edit view banner for the article itself, such notices apparently aren't enough.

• Adding current special rules:^{09:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)} My bold

WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Alerts: "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."

Template:Ds/alert: When you attempt to save the alert on a user talk page: "Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. Please now check that this editor has not already been alerted to this area of conflict in the last twelve months: [links to logs and stuff here]".

My proposal is an effort to help limit DS alert template overuse/abuse (perceived or otherwise) by allowing editors, who are already aware of DS in specific topic areas, to include a permanent notice (customized or standardized) at the top of their user TP stating they are aware of specific areas subject to DS. In order for it to work, ArbCom needs to modify the DS Awareness section to include some form of mandatory check for said TP DS notices before an editor adds the respective DS alert template. I have a customized DS Notice at the top of my user page which I customized for aesthetics, but until ArbCom formally includes/accepts such notices as an acceptable notice of awareness and makes checking for same a mandatory procedure, the harassment issue will probably continue. It is actually an easy and efficient way for editors to make sure they are not overusing the DS alert template, or inadvertently finding themselves in a dispute over it.

• Thryduulf - notice of sanctions for abusing the alert process are already in place - it's not something I added. The problem is knowing where to go to find the info - the notice at the top of one's TP is to help editors, not impede them. As indicated above, my wording is simply an example. I am not asking that a permanent TP notice be mandatory - it's simply an option. What I'm requesting is for ArbCom to recognize the optional TP notices as an editor's statement that they are aware of DS in the named topic areas. It's a convenience for others and saves them the trouble of having to search for prior alerts, or possibly be sanctioned for abusing the alert process. 10:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rob, perhaps I've misundertsood your response but it does not address what I've proposed. I'm simply asking for ArbCom to include in their list of AWARENESS the recognition of an optional (custom or standard) Alert Notice on the top of a user TP as satisfying the alert requirement - that's all - very simple. Go to a TP of an editor who gets a lot of traffic and tell me if you can easily find if that editor has received an alert in the past 12 mos. Notices are difficult to find, especially for TP that get a lot of traffic. ArbCom made the special rule that an editor can be sanctioned for abuse of the DS alert - particularly because adding it after an editor is already aware of sanctions could be considered harassment by one's opponent - and that is why I proposed the above - to avoid potential harassment and potential sanctioning as a result. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts leads with (my bold underline) No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if: . The latter tells us an editor can be made aware by various methods, but then we're advised these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently Ds/alert – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. Then we have: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Jiminy Cricket. In retrospect, I probably should have asked ArbCom to simply recognize a customized DS awareness alert at the top of one's user page as formal notification, which makes things less complicated, spares editors potential sanctioning who are not aware of the TP search capability you were kind enough to bring to my attention. Apparently, quite a few editors aren't aware of that feature because in 2017, I received 3 DS alerts (2 in the same month, 1 the next month) despite my being fully aware of the DS topic area(s) via other means listed in the green box. At the time, it sure felt like harrassment. In 2019, I received yet another alert despite the notice at the top of my page and my being fully aware of DS in the topic area. I believe there are quite a few others who can relate. I just hope ArbCom will consider simply recognizing as formal notification (1) a customized DS alert awareness notice at the top of a user's TP and will (2) modify the following statement if the standard template message – currently Ds/alert – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted to accommodate it. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused for not being more clear in my initial statement. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob I actually tried to avoid bringing Doug Weller into this discussion because as you can see from some of the responses here, people don't always AGF and for some reason, they become defensive over something as harmless as this request. I'm not the one who decided there has been abuse of the DS/Alert template - ArbCom made that decision, and that is probably where Bishonen can get answers - but for now, I'll just add that what triggered my request was this discussion wherein Doug very undeservedly was taken to task over the template, and I felt bad for him. I mentioned my idea to him, and that discussion is what brought me here, so all the wild guesses over why I've made this proposal can now be put to rest. I have seen admins taken to task by angry editors for no good reason, and I have seen editors harassed over the templates so I simply sought a remedy I thought might help eliminate or at least reduce the issues. I've seen it quite a few times but my purpose here is not to get anyone in trouble, including myself, because chances are, my detractors will somehow spin things around to make it all my fault, and that's what I consider a sad state of affairs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandruss, had I known you would have been offended by this, I would have approached it much differently. It was not my intention to purposely offend or hurt anyone's feelings - I was in defense mode - and I certainly hope you can understand why I was feeling piled-on after what I had just been through in January. Over time, such things tend to make an editor defensive, and that is what I'm trying to avoid happening to others by proposing something as simple as a custom DS alert notice that ArbCom will acknowledge. No harm - no foul. When other editors know the targeted editor is aware, why add that ugly template to their TP? Mandruss, you obviously have an advanced understanding of the technical intricacies of filters and how to find things some of us spend hours trying to find or never find. I'll be first to admit that I've had no professional/academic training in code much less CSS. Everything I know was self-taught and my introduction began back in the day when all we had was C> which later became C:\>. When Steven Jobs brought us the first Mac, I was elated!! Long story short - I hope some day you will stop seeing me as someone who is trying to complicate things when my goal is quite the opposite. My perspective branches out to newbies, to busy editors who simply aren't aware of all the perks and shortcuts, and/or to those of us who have trouble remembering all the acronyms, code and shortcuts. WP deals with all age groups and all levels of computer knowledge, and I believe it's worth the time to explore the full potential of our volunteers, and help them find a niche where they'll be happiest and can do the most good for the project. And Mandruss, you are welcome to comment on my TP anytime - I apologize for my lack of patience that day and for deleting your comment, and I hope you understand why I acted in that manner. I will try to do better. 🕊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss - I disagree with most of what you've said, including your comments to GRuban, me, and overall in your statement. <---constructive criticism. I see it more as squelching a much simpler process in support of a more complicated one. I don't see how my proposal makes things more complicated. Yes, it adds a tiny bit of work for ArbCom to make a few minor adjustments to their already complicated requirements - so sit on a whoopee cushion and we'll all have a good laugh. All one has to do is read and try to understand what ArbCom intended and why they chose the route they did - but first, install a fan, blow away all the smoke, and then tell me what you see. I'm of the mind that you'll find editors making excuses that they weren't aware the article was under DS in an attempt to get out of a t-ban or block which is what led to the "remedy" we have in place now - basically ignorance of the law - it has worked in some instances, and probably should have, so now what we have created is growing bureaucracy that requires alerts every year, leaving the ambiguity over what is or isn't harassment in place which further leaves opposing POVs vulnerable and subject to biases - and that is what you consider a simplified process? If so, I don't agree, which is why I made this request to simply things. If this discussion closes with nothing more than editors thinking about the things I've pointed out, I see it as progress; albeit at a slow crawl. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sir Joseph - thank you for making that connection about the bot/auto notices. I think it serves indirectly to support this request and allowing custom DS Alert awareness notices at the top of a user page. Maybe it will help lighten things up on the requirements necessary for establishing a user's awareness. Most new editors are simply not going to be aware of DS issues when they first show-up at an article - how could they be? Eventually, they learn but that's also when these other irritiating issues begin to rear their ugly little heads - including DS Alerts. It's easy for veteran editors to say how easy it is to look for prior notices using scripts, search options, etc. because they are familiar with the community and the processes - but we also have to take into consideration the thousands of editors, both old and new, who are not aware of all the options available, much less code or the many acronyms. So what is wrong with simplifying the process so that it doesn't require a wikilawyer, a great deal of effort or experience - just add a DS alert awareness notice at the top of your TP, and be done with it - you reduce all the guessing and leg work? KISS 💋 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SilkTork - please briefly explain what part of this proposal you find annoying? Are you referring to the simple addition of text to ArbCom's alert requirement and/or what is considered a formal notice? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^{SilkTork Clarifying the following response is with reference to the proposed custom/standard TP notice at the top of user TP. Atsme _Talk 📧 16:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)} No, that is not the purpose or intent. There is obviously a misunderstanding. The notice is simply acknowledgement that the user is AWARE of DS in a given topic area. Its purpose is to save editors the trouble of searching for the bureaucratic "formal DS alert" or worse, saves them from adding a 2nd or possibly 3rd DS alert on that user's TP. With the notice at the top of a user page, editors can quickly see if the user is aware and move on or go through the extra efforts required to post ArbCom's DS alert. It is ArbCom bureaucracy that forces the extra work and complicates things by insisting there is only one formal notice that is acceptable, so we have to jump through hoops in lieu of having a simple acknowledgement at the top of our TP. It actually eliminates the annoyance you believe it creates. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Objective3000 - it appears you may be conflating the current abuse of DS alerts as something I've proposed when it is already part of the DS alert process by ArbCom. I support its removal. The current process is confusing and highly bureaucratic. I support ArbCom removing the misuse sanction currently in place. The crux of my proposal is quite simply for ArbCom to formally recognize a declaration of awareness at the top of a UTP as meeting the requirements for editor awareness of DS sanctions for the following reasons:
  1. It's a simple DS alert notice at the top of one's UTP declaring awareness of DS in named topic areas - it remains as part of one's UTP and can be customized for aesthetics;
  2. When you go to a UTP, the first place you land is at the top of the page so it's hard to miss the alert;
  3. You don't have to hunt for anything as we do now because it lists all topic areas a user is aware;
  4. It saves editors time researching, and potential sanctioning for abuse of the DS alert process;
  5. It is optional, but will serve no purpose unless ArbCom formally recognizes it as a declaration of an editor's awareness.
• Some of the comments below support it as an option while some suggest either (a) maintaining status quo, or (b) removing the abuse sanction from ArbCom's current policy, or (c) automating the process using a bot. My proposal simply streamlines the entire process, so if more users will opt in, the easier and less complicated it will be. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Goldenshimmer, this proposal does not stop editors from getting a DS Alert unless they acknowledge at the top of their UTP that they are aware of DS in specific topic areas. If they don't use such a DS alert notice, then the normal procedure applies. Perhaps it would help if you re-read the proposal or maybe ask questions if you're not quite certain what is being proposed here. I will gladly oblige, preferrably on my TP so as not to break anything here. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Atsme is correct that tracking down whether an editor has received a DS notice can be difficult and a waste of time. It would really help the process, and be a help to editors who have received DS alerts and DS sanctions (as well as other editors), if DS alerts AND sanctions were logged so they could be seen in the same way and place as when one looks at an editor's block log. Please make this happen. Otherwise, I have no current opinion on Atsme's request, although I reserve the right to return. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this boils down to the need for everyone to grow thicker skin and just AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of an opt-in "I'm aware of discretionary sanctions in <topic-area-1>, <topic-area-2>" notice, and I'm fine with discouraging editors from adding another notice for any of the listed areas. However I think the proposal to make leaving another notice a sanctionable offence is going too far - e.g. alerting to major changes should be allowed (the recent merging of the Balkans sanctions into the Eastern European sanctions comes to mind as a major change that users professing awareness of one or the other should still be able to be formally made aware of). If someone is being disruptive or harassing another editor by use of the notices then that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without most editors being dragged to AE for mistakes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the arguments against this - the added complexity of needing to check the talk page and the filter history - could be avoided if placing a notice about your own awareness triggered the edit filter in the same way that someone else leaving a DS notice did. This would presumably require the notice to be in a standard format, but to be effective it would anyway. It would require updating each year, but one edit a year is not a burden and you can set yourself a reminder using whatever method you normally use to give yourself reminders about tasks that need doing. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the solution to getting a redundant DS notice to just remove it with the edit summary "Thanks, I already knew that"? The DS process is already complicated, why make it more complicated? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strongly oppose this, FWIW. It would be an added complication to something that is already unnecessarily complicated, without sufficient benefit to justify that added complication. I'd love to see some proposals to simplify.

BTW, editors who don't like receiving routine non-critical DS alerts can issue them to themselves, which creates the normal page history entries. I pointed this out to Atsme before she opened this item. It takes a minute or two per year, not an unreasonable burden in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme's argument appears to rest on the false premise that it's too difficult to check the UTP history. Notices are difficult to find, especially for TP that get a lot of traffic. That is simply not true, and it's clear that Atsme wasn't aware of the easy way to do this when she opened this item. If Atsme's experience with duplicate alerts was due to good-faith lack of editor awareness (1) she is just as capable of pointing editors to the instructions as anyone else, and (2) doesn't her proposal presume and require editor awareness? If it was harassment (certainly possible, although Atsme has shown a marked tendency to perceive harassment where it doesn't exist[8]), the solution is sanctions, not an added complication to the system that wouldn't prevent harassment anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages? And surely there is one, as explained in my first comment above. Are you really supporting this added complication to the rules to save a few editors that one or two minutes per year? Are you saying editors shouldn't be subjected to boilerplate notices from themselves? Is it just me, or does this approach the comical? Seriously, molehill→mountain. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban, you're certainly not the first to fail to weigh the upside of a proposal against its downside with equal clarity and focus on both. That complexity is an ongoing cost is a fact that is very widely supported by experts—virtually indisputable—and yet almost completely ignored in countless decisions like this one throughout Wikipedia's history. That's why we have an editing environment that is maddeningly complex, and unnecessarily so. I will continue to fight that from time to time, as my time and motivation level permit. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I completely understand your reasoning, and in my view you're missing the following. You propose to make things easier on editors in one way, without showing how many editors need things made easier in that way. At the same time, your proposal would make things harder on editors in a different way, a way that would affect every editor without question (that is, every editor who uses DS alerts). Currently, editors must check the page history. If your proposal were implemented, editors would have to check the top of the UTP, and then check the page history if they don't see the message. That's clearly a little more difficult; worse in my view, it's incrementally more complicated, i.e. more difficult to understand and remember. It's just a small increase in complexity, but the monumental mess we call Wikipedia editing is the sum of thousands of small increases in complexity just like this one.

Thus your argument hinges on widespread use of your proposed message—the more widespread, the better—and you ask us to take that widespread use on faith. I wouldn't use it.

had I known you would have been offended by this, I would have approached it much differently. - Helpful hint for future reference: Editors will somewhat predictably be offended when you call their constructive criticism "harassment", which is a sanctionable offense. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO - This discussion is not about me or my comment on Atsme's UTP, and it's ridiculous to respond to a brief parenthetical aside with a 300-word off-topic essay. I seriously considered ignoring your comments entirely, but I assume most present will appreciate my not following you down that bottomless rabbit hole. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I really don't see the drawback of letting someone essentially opt in to knowing about DS. Let them spend one to two minutes per year showing that they know about DS, with no change required to the existing system. Or, let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman. Homo sapiens is the most adaptable species on the planet, and it's a fool's errand to continually complicate the system to save a few vocal editors from having to make a small adjustment for the greater good. That only invites more of the same—literally without end. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: - I really don't see it as a complication - It unquestionably adds a degree of complexity, slightly lengthening the learning curve for every editor introduced to DS alerts, for as long as DS alerts exist, as explained above. It will add to existing documentation and probably add one or more new software elements like templates. The return on that investment: (1) Some undetermined number of editors, only a handful that we actually know of, are saved the one or two minutes a year required to issue DS alerts to themselves, and (2) some undetermined fraction of editors who issue DS alerts—that fraction depending on how widely the new notice is used, a total unknown—are saved the small effort of checking the UTP history using the filter (note that there is no requirement for any single editor to issue DS alerts, and every editor is free to leave that to others if they find that checking too difficult). I'm sorry if folks can't see that that's a bad trade-off, and I guess I've outlived any usefulness I've had in this discussion. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork - We are here to serve the project, not have the project serve us. - Exactly. Thank you! Somebody please enlarge that, frame it, and hang it on the wall. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support basically per Thryduulf. We're allegedly not a bureaucracy, we don't have rules for the sake of having rules, Atsme maintains a prominent notice on her talk page that she is aware of these sanctions, and finds getting them annoying. Surely there should be some way to opt-out. Just saying "well she shouldn't find them annoying" as some here seem to be saying does not answer that. We're allowed to ask specific people not to come to our talk pages, surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages? --GRuban (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Atsme wants to be able to put up a straightforward "no soliciting" sign once, and leave it up, rather than have to post messages on her own talk page at regular intervals. Even if that weren't a rather non-obvious way to go about things (I have to notify myself? Repeatedly?) there is a difference between being able to opt out once, and many times. Though as Thryduulf writes, I admit asking for sanctions for well intentioned missing of the notice seem to be a bit far; if someone is intentionally using whatever for harassment, we don't need to itemize all the possible ways. --GRuban (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just 2.1 weeks back, ATSME complained about a DS warning on her page attacking two editors for actionable harassment, one correctly following procedure and one (me) defending the editor after the attack.[9]. There was no DS alert in the previous 12 months. Somehow the editor leaving the alert was supposed to know there was a recent appeal by ATSME. I then received an odd (but polite) notice on my TP that I was incorrect in defending the editor for following procedure. [10]

I leave a fair number of DS alerts. I search history (which can be very long) and the 602 log. Am I now supposed to also search the editor TP to see if they demand that I don’t leave a DS alert? (ATSME’s TP is now 35,377 bytes.) Further, if a DS alert isn't left annually, how is the next person to know not to leave another without an entry in the log?

A rare extra DS alert, which are now politely stated, is nothing compared to the SPAM I receive every day (hour). Just say thanks or remove it. The notice at the top of ATSME’s page telling editors not to post DS alerts is inappropriate. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It’s much easier to search the 602 log (one click from the warning when you post an alert) than the UTP, and the log should always work if a previous alert was properly issued. And if it wasn’t properly issued, another should probably be issued anywho. I’d suggest removing the requirement to search the UTP history before posting an alert. O3000 (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: Please AGF. Most of the alerts I post are for newcomers to the ugly areas when it looks as though they are likely to violate, as a prophylactic. The alerts exist for a reason; and that reason is not to set some sort of trap.[11] O3000 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with adding a DS aware notice on a UTP is instruction creep. There are users that don’t want other things posted on their UTPs, like humor, images, birthday notices. It’s fine to have options to control some bots. But, let’s not end up with a set of custom rules by UTP that an editor must read before posting. O3000 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I am not conflating anything. I’m OK with the current process. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what we are doing here. NO ONE needs more bureaucracy in this area. A DS template is just that--a notification. If someone wants to see that as a slap on the wrist, I suppose that's up to them, but we shouldn't discourage notifying editors who might get in trouble. If I have to search by way of filters or what not before I can drop a DS template (usually, in my case, I think they're BLP templates), that's just yet another little hoop. I am sorry if Atsme got hurt in January (?), or if a DS template is triggering, but all this is already complicated enough.

And wile we are on the topic, I am having a hard time figuring this out because I'm also hearing that someone got upset at an edit summary last week, and that people were elated when Bill Gates delivered a computer to their place of work, or something like that. Which reminds me that Atsme's topic ban (former topic ban?) was issued in part because of that kind of chatter on talk pages, was it not? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I don't know about the "fact" that admins have been taken to task for leaving a DS notice, since you're worried about that. It's only a fact that Atsme has stated that "Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time". Please supply diffs, Atsme. "Taken to task" sounds like something imposed from above, i. e. taken to task by arbcom. Really? Bishonen | talk 09:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think this has been mentioned yet (?), but using User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb—link—to place DS alerts searches for a previous alert within the first year automatically, so you don't have to do it yourself (the script is able to automate the procedure for checking that a user has previously been notified of sanctions. ——SerialNumber54129 12:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sir Joseph: Of course you can; to err, after all, is human. In other words, you are. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 19:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a solution in search of a problem. I, for one, check the EF hits (that can be easily accessed from the banner that automatically pops up, once you try to save the page for the first time with the template) to detect whether the user has been served with the same DS notice in the last year and accordingly proceed with issuing the notice. Also, in case of redundant issuings of notices, we need to assume good faith. ∯WBG^converse 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Serial Number 54129: IIRC, ARBCOM recently ruled that you can't use that anymore, but I can be mistaken.

2. I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. As it's written now, if you give yourself an alert every twelve months, you are covered by this: *In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or and when someone tries to give you a DS notice, the edit filter will catch it. All you have to do is just renew that every twelve months on your own talk page. I don't think we should add another rule or layer of bureaucracy. If you want to add something to the top of your talk page, then do so,and add a notify alert to yourself to renew the alert within twelve months so you can renew the alert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that having to deal with repeated notices can be a pain, but also just wanted to add that we have many bots that frequently drop user-talk messages and which recognize opt-out messages linked on the user's talk page. We treat those opt-outs that the user is well aware that any result from not recieving new notices is wholly their responsibility (eg image deletion).

If we were to have "DS message bot", in which DSes can only be placed by the bot by a request of an admin, that bot can check for such opt-outs. But how often does this situation come up? I'm just brainstomring here in case the community goes in that direction. --Masem (t) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many people who have issued DS "reminders" can honestly state that each and every time they have done this was just to provide a "friendly reminder". As part of AE enforcements one of the first steps to get a sanction placed against a editing foe is to make sure they first get a DS "friendly reminder".--MONGO (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss above alludes that his comment at Atsme talkpage was "constructive criticism" and I assume he meant this criticism (and almost immediately removed here) that I personally would label as harassment and bullying, particularly in the specific timeframe Mandruss posted it. I personally do not find the following passage to be "constructive criticism: "I forget whether I'm welcome here or not. After this comment, probably not, as there is a high correlation between support and welcome on this page. According to the page history, the previous AP2 DS alert expired in July 2018.[12] There is no requirement to be aware of, let alone observe, a notice at the top of the UTP. That notice is not a substitute for the page history entries that editors are instructed to check before issuing an alert. I issued my currently-active AP2 DS alert to myself, just to save others the trouble.[13] If you don't like receiving them from others, Atsme, you might consider doing the same in the future." I mean, if one isn't clear if they are even welcome at a talkpage, why badger that person at all? Yes, as Mandruss admits himself the last DS warning in that topic area was indeed less than a year ago and for petes sake, Atsme was sanctioned since then so I mean, it's obvious they are aware of the DS on that topic you think? The last sentence Mandruss offers makes a little sense, maybe, but why the hell are we going to place DS tags on our own pages just to avoid someone else doing it for us? For the record, my placement of a DS "friendly reminder" on my own talkpage was directly due to demonstrating the folly of such a notion.--MONGO (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole process of alerted editors to DS is overly bureaucratic for the sake of bureaucracy, especially because there's more ways than just the talk page notice to show editors are aware. Take this one, for example - "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." Now back in February 2019, both myself and Objective3000 commented in an AE case in the AmPol topic area. But you may notice on my talk page that O3000 gave me the annual refresher 2 months later in April 2019. I'm technically also permanently aware, as I've been sanctioned (but since successfully appealed) in that topic area before. Is it reasonable to expect editors to check AE comment histories or logs to confirm that editors are aware? I don't think so, but it did annoy me somewhat to be given another notice, especially since I'd have a very similar discussion (see here) still visible on my talk page. I'm not sure what to do about it, if Arbcom insists that all the awareness criteria should remain. These talk page notices should really only be given to new or inexperienced editors. Everyone else is surely aware that misbehavior (real or perceived) gets you in trouble. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for something that (I think) would be pretty straightforward to implement.

We currently have Special:AbuseFilter/602 that detects if somebody is trying to add {{DS/Alert}} to a page and gives them the following warning: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS

It shouldn't be too difficult to modify that edit filter to also detect a self-awareness template or category on the same user talk page.

Steps needed to make this happen

1. Somebody create {{DS/Aware}} that editors can put at the top of their talk page to indicate that they are aware of sanctions. The syntax should include a field for the topic area, and maybe an option to hide the template. Example: {{DS/Aware|topic=AP|hidden=yes}} The template could also place hidden categories on the talk page like Category:Aware of AP sanctions.
2. Modify Special:AbuseFilter/602 MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to detect if the awareness template appears on the page, and if it does display a message that the user is already aware of the sanctions. have the edit filter prevent the addition of {{DS/Alert}}. Also have the edit filter create log entries for when users add or remove {{DS/Aware}} from their talk pages.
3. Arbcom adds "* The editor has placed a {{DS/Aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page, or has removed the template within the last 12 months" to the list of items under "An editor is considered aware if:"
4. Forget the garbage proposal about punishing editors who leave DS Alerts for editors who are self-aware (moot anyway if the edit filter blocks the edit).

I imagine this would take a couple of hours for somebody with the technical know-how, and I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of people opt in. The current system of manual annual alerts for each topic area is annoying.

~Awilley (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Arbs who have already commented: @BU Rob13: @Opabinia regalis: @SilkTork: @Mkdw:

I suspect you haven't yet taken the time to have not yet read deep enough into the "Statements" to see my alternate proposal above. I don't blame you...you have a lot of reading to do, and I commented after some of you had already written your statements.

Reading what you have written I would summarize your current position as "Yeah, DS Alerts are mildly annoying, but the proposed solution makes things as annoying or more annoying by adding more hassle for people doing the perfectly acceptable work of placing alert templates. I'm open to other solutions that are less annoying and that don't create more work." I believe my proposal is just that. It's less annoying for the people who don't like getting templated every year (they no longer receive templates) and it's less annoying for the people placing the templates (they no longer have to search through the edit filter logs to try and determine whether the user is aware, since the automatic warning template would now explicitly say "This user is aware of the sanctions for the following topic areas: foo bar baz")

User:Galobtter has been kind enough to demonstrate that this will indeed work. You can check yourself: Navigate to User:Galobtter/sandbox3, edit the page, add the words "Testing of Ds/aware abusefilter", then hit "save".

In conclusion, the only thing you (Arbs) need to do is #3. Others (see also JFG below) are already willing to do the rest of the work required to implement this. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Re: "complicating the issuance of DS alerts in any way would be the step backwards." I agree. I think my proposal is a step in the direction of simplifying things. See the following table

Procedure for leaving an alert template on a user's talk page

	Current system	Proposed modification
Regular user protected by ACDS#aware.aware	1. Place the template on user talk page and hit Save 2. Use the link from the Warning template to sort through previous alerts and verify that the user hasn't been alerted about this particular topic area in the last 12 months 3. (optional) Perform a search of the archives at WP:AE to see if the user has participated in cases related to the topic area in the last 12 months 4. (rarely done) Make sure the user wasn't a participant in the original arbitration case 5. Try to recall if the user is under any active discretionary sanctions for the topic area 6. Hit "Save" again to actually place the template 7. Be prepared to respond to the user's questions about why you templated them	No change in complexity from current system
User who has opted out of ACDS#aware.aware by placing {{DS/Aware}} on their talkpage	—	1. Place the template on user talk page and hit Save 2. The Warning template pops up and says that the user is already aware 3. Go back to editing

In summary, it doesn't make things any more complicated for templating users who have not opted out, and it makes things much more simple for users who have. ~Awilley (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current system is just fine, instead of making a DS notice to be a big deal, we just need to destigmatize the notice. I oppose any proposal of pressing a button to inform an editor, it should be compulsory for an editor to do their due diligence. If it's absolutely necessary, we might as well shift the responsibility to bots, to inform editors whose edits meet a certain condition (bytes/number of edits) and log DS notices and get it off our hands entirely, instead of a half-hearted attempt to automate part of the process, then this finger-pointing with notices can finally stop. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a "regular" in the AP2 DS domain, I have had my fair share of giving and receiving DS alerts. In several instances when I received one, I got the uneasy feeling that "somebody wants to stir drama now". Sometimes I ask for clarification from the alert dispenser, to check whether any recent editing of mine prompted their action. I consider myself as having a pretty thick skin, and yet I sometimes feel attacked, so I understand that Atsme or other editors may feel threatened by such alerts, especially when it's obvious that they are editing regularly in a DS area, and they would be aware of the process. The feeling may be even stronger after an editor recently went through an AE case, irrespective of the outcome. I have unfortunately seen alerts being handed out as an intimidation tactic, despite the best efforts of alert drafters in making them less threatening now than they originally sounded. In the spirit of WP:DTR, I think that editors should be able to opt out of receiving such alerts, being understood that they cannot then defend themselves in an AE case by claiming ignorance.

As a practical step, I fully support Awilley's proposal of a standard {{DS/Aware}} message that could be placed on one's user talk page, and would be checked by relevant bots and edit filters. People trying to place an alert would be themselves notified that "this user already knows about DS in this area", thus saving both editors some time and mental effort. Should the Committee support this change, I would volunteer to help craft and test the appropriate technicalities.

Finally, I join other commenters in rejecting any automatic boomerang effect on editors who place DS notices despite an "I'm aware" message. Such behaviour, if deemed objectionable, would be assessed in the normal course of an AE proceeding. — JFG ^talk 06:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion by Fæ below. @Awilley and Galobtter: Would that work well? Contrary to Fæ, I'd still support making the {{DS/Aware}} template visible. Telling people "I'm already aware" is a simplifying step. — JFG ^talk 07:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping in to say... I've studiously avoided learning about the various topic-area editing restrictions so far. So, I would appreciate getting a notice on my talk telling me I need to start thinking about them so I can adjust my behavior accordingly, if anyone thinks I do (rather than getting whacked with a sanction without warning). (I mostly do smallish, infrequent edits, and I guess no one's felt they needed to give me a notice so far.) So, please don't replace it with "you're expected to read the talk page before any edit to see if there's a sanction notice" or similar pitfalls for the unwary. All that said, a way for people to opt out if they don't want the messages doesn't sound like a bad idea. Thanks! (I hope I commented here correctly, and am supposed to; feel free to move/delete this if you want.) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and harassment is totally unacceptable, of course, whatever medium is used for it, although hopefully this doesn't need mentioning... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 18:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the purpose of the above: My comment was mostly intended as something for future authors/implementers of alternate proposals to bear in mind, such as in the actioning of the suggestion to "open up a community call for ideas" (—Mkdw, WP:ARCA#DS_Awareness_and_alerts:_Arbitrator_views_and_discussion); as well as just to share my appreciation for the positive aspects of the current system, which didn't seem to have been voiced elsewhere. I was aware that this proposal as written would be dependent on a talk page header, and have no issue with it; I wasn't trying to argue against what was being proposed. Sorry this wasn't clearer! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 00:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion about this specific proposal, but I do about the bigger picture. ArbCom introduced discretionary sanctions in 2007 as a way of dealing with ongoing problems in our most contentious articles and topic-areas. Because the editing rules for pages covered by DS may be very different from the usual rules, and violations may be sanctioned more quickly or more severely, since the inception of DS there has been a requirement that editors be warned that the rules exist before they can be sanctioned under them. This is matter of basic fairness, to ensure that editors are not sanctioned for breaking a rule that they didn't know existed, and would have complied with had they known.

From this common-sense origin of the "warn before sanctioning" requirement, over the past 12 years there has developed an increasingly complicated and arcane set of procedural rules for DS warnings and notifications. This accompanies the increasing complexity of the actual discretionary sanctions themselves in the various topic-areas (including but not limited to the uniquely complicated rules for the Israel-Palestine and American politics areas). Each incremental step along this path has been well-intentioned, but the cumulative effect is that we may have created a morass of complexity that is increasingly difficult to understand. I myself don't understand all the rules at this point; and if I don't, given that I've spent more of my wikilife on the arbitration pages than any other editor, I'm not sure what chance anyone else has.

I don't have any specific changes to propose, and my intention is to finish stepping away from the arbitration pages (a process which this posting suggests I'm not all that good at), but in the interim I would urge caution before taking any step that might make matters even more complicated than they already are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a big visible notice that would itself be annoying for users who find DS alerts annoying, it would be entirely possible to use an invisible process to achieve the same result.

The current system relies on edit filter 602 picking up an attempted edit matching the alert template text. Technically there is nothing to stop extending that filter to pick up on matches to an otherwise invisible template being added to the users talk page by themselves. This can then create a log entry showing that the user has elected to log that they are aware of DS applying to any topic(s) they are interested in.

Under current procedures for DS alerts, this then avoids any further notices for the next 12 months for that topic.

--Fæ (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ and JFG: Users can already alert themselves with {{Ds/alert}}, and Mandruss has suggested doing that above. The presumable benefit to a change here is having a notice that works permanently, i.e without notifications every 12 months for multiple topic areas. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• One already can see if someone has received a recent DS alert by searching edits on the user talk page for the "discretionary sanctions alert" tag, so the technical recommendation to somehow add a log is not needed. (Tags would be the only way of doing this sort of thing, given the realities of the MediaWiki software.) I'm not super hot on this idea because I worry that it will only encourage the view that leaving a DS notice is a negative thing. It is not. If you've been contributing positively in a contentious area and I noticed you haven't gotten a DS notice, I would still leave one, since it would be helpful for positive editors to be aware of the sanctions so they can go to AE and seek sanctions against others if needed. The fact that admins have been "taken to task" for leaving a DS notice for an editor is the real problem here, in my opinion, not the leaving of the notices. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Atsme: "View history" --> "Filter revisions" --> type in "discretionary sanctions alert" to the tag filter. You get this. This is the same filter you're linked to by an edit-filter-generated warning when you try to place a discretionary sanction alert, so it isn't hard to find. I don't see any danger of editors not being able to find if someone has been made aware in the last year. Your proposal originally sounded like it was more targeted at getting rid of the awareness requirement for editors who don't want to receive DS notices every year on certain topics. That is why I responded basically saying I think that attitude – that DS notices should be avoided, and editors who give them out to good-faith contributors reprimanded – is the real problem. Is that not what you were saying? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bishonen: I don't have diffs or remember details, but I've personally seen this a couple times where people get upset about getting a DS notice and then the community makes comments about how the person who gave it did so in a POINTy fashion or should be trouted. Nothing serious, "taken to task" is maybe a bit strong, but I do get the gist of what Atsme is saying based on past experiences. I can't for the life of me remember the editors involved, so I have no way to really find diffs of it myself, unfortunately. Perhaps Atsme has a better memory or more recent example. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• What Floq said. Yes, the DS notices are mildly annoying. So are long coffee shop lines, red lights, late trains, weeds in the garden, cats who always choose to play with the only toy that makes any noise (gee, thanks, sis, what a nice gift that was...), meetings that could have been emails, slow internet connections, balky printers.... normal life just unavoidably involves some mildly annoying things. "Normal life" in an online community is going to involve a little bit of annoying social friction. Remove the notice, give the cat a quieter toy, and don't waste any more mental energy on it. I'm getting my sister's cat a toy that makes noise and has flashy lights. Note: this strategy not recommended for DS notices.. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of those things where I'm tempted to overgeneralize - it wouldn't annoy me, so why should it annoy someone else? On the other hand, I got Awilley's ping and the phrase "you haven't yet taken the time..." gave me an instinctive "harrumph!" reaction for no particular reason except maybe that someone annoying I used to know liked to say "please take the time to [do annoying thing]" - so fine, annoyance can be irrational and subjective :) I have no objection to a technical solution if someone wants to, ahem, take the time to do that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Awilley - I didn't mean you should have to edit! You were right, I hadn't read it :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If something is annoying, and there is a reasonably easy way to stop the annoyance then I'm in favour of stopping the annoyance. To take OR's point about the everyday annoyances - yes, give the cat a quieter toy, introduce fast growing ground cover to prevent weeds appearing, brew coffee at home and take it in a flask or insulated drinking cup - you'll save time and money (and have a much wider choice of coffee beans). As for this particular solution - well, it seems to involve someone else doing something that could be equally as or maybe even more annoying. So I take the point that being DS spammed is annoying, but the proposed solution appears to be equally annoying. If there is a workable solution, such as a bot that automatically removes DS notices from pages which have a no-DS notices template, then I would support that. SilkTork (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme - having to read the notices at the top of someone's talkpage to see if they object to having a DS notice could be annoying. SilkTork (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Awilley's proposal could be worked such that it required no further bureaucracy (ie, no changing of existing ArbCom wording or procedures) then I would have no objection to see it further discussed. My personal preference in this is that users in good standing who are clearly experienced and have made positive contributions to an article under DS, shouldn't get templated. But if that is the price to pay to keep contentious articles stable, then so be it. We are here to serve the project, not have the project serve us. SilkTork (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For the purposes of this ARCA, I am totally open to a less annoying solution. It does not seem like we have a consensus on what that might be, so perhaps the next best step would be to close this ARCA and open up a community call for ideas. Should one or a few idea emerge with a lot of support, then it could be brought back here for a review and implementation discussion. Any editor who uses DS notices to harass another editor could be sanctioned already under our harassment policies. I do not see us needing to codify that further into the DS policy. Mkdw ^talk 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As a community, we're prone to making changes that narrowly make sense but broadly are a step backwards. I get the thinking: why not let one opt out of the protections at WP:ACDS#aware.aware? Nevertheless, complicating the issuance of DS alerts in any way would be the step backwards. We should think of DS alerts like traffic signs: advertising a change in 'rules of the road' and putting everyone on an equal footing. I think we are asking for more wikilawyering and harm if we change DS alerts – issuing one and receiving one – into anything more. By introducing the possibility of talk page notices (that one is "perpetually in receipt of alerts"), we give everyone involved a further factor to weigh up. Their focus should really be "is Wikipedia is putting up a good article?" We ought to remember that DS is a system for rescuing disorderly articles from calamity. Anything that frustrates that objective should be avoided wherever possible; I think the language that already governs alerts strikes the right balance. Close without action. AGK ■ 21:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The logic of "DS alerts" is to ensure that people are aware they could be sanctioned for editing in certain areas, because it would be unfair to sanction someone who doesn't know that DS exists in the area they're editing in. Ok, that's a reasonable courtesy. But what started as a courtesy has evolved into a bureaucratic system requiring a yearly re-issuing of the alert, even for editors consistently active in those areas, just in case they get amnesia after knowing about the DS scheme for 365 days. They're no longer (if they were ever) seen as a courtesy, they're seen as a warning. Nobody likes getting them no matter how we re-word them, and they prompt frequent accusations of harassment or retaliatory alert-placing.
  Given all that, if we let people declare they're aware, I think it has the potential to save a lot of drama and bureaucracy. Once someone opts-in, nobody needs to place an alert at them, they no longer need to get alerts they're well aware of, and nobody needs to argue over alerts being placed. I really don't see the drawback of letting someone essentially opt in to knowing about DS. After all, declaring awareness means opting in to potentially being sanctioned; it's not like there's a strategic upside. I'm personally all for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandruss, I really don't see it as a complication. How is it extra complicated to let someone "opt in" or "declare awareness" or whatever you want to call it, as long as it prompts the same kind of edit notice or error message that trying to re-template someone does now? Saves the effort of making sure they're DS alerted and lets you move right on to taking them to AE, if that's what you're after (and let's be real here, I really don't think anyone is out here issuing DS alerts as a friendly reminder between pals, no matter how often we try to pretend otherwise). You say let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman, but it feels like we could ask the same of you here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 18:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Tban from ARBPIA Area [14]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. {{{clause1}}}

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

• Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff
• diff

Information about amendment request

• {{{clause1}}}

• {{{clause1-request}}}

The purpose of this ARCA is basically two simple queries. 1. Can an AE action be reopened once closed, and if so, 2. does a re "certified" TBAN then become effective as of the newer date.

• I was TBANNED by GoldenRing on May 10, 2019 for three months.
• On May 14th, he vacated the TBAN on my talk page and then rescinded the TBAN and reopened the AE action.
• El_C then re-issued the TBAN and reset the clock for another three months.

The problem I have with this is that it sets a bad precedent for several reasons. We can have 1, never ending TBANS if we allow AE actions to be reopened and then TBANS to be reset, but also not have some sort of policy that once an AE action is closed, it is closed. I understand it's not a court-room so there is no double jeopardy, but it doesn't seem fair to have a system where an admin can just days, weeks months or even a year go by and then undo an AE close. If we do allow it, we do need then to set up strict guidelines as to why, when and how a closed AE action can be reopened and how it can then be re-litigated.

• Note I am not specifically appealing my TBAN, I am filing an ARCA about policy and guidelines about reopening a closed AE, (and then extending a TBAN but that's minor.)

• @BU Rob13: User:BU_Rob13/AGF_applies_to_everyone Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently people aren't reading this request. As, they see the signature and that is all. That is a shame. As I wrote not a few lines above, I am not "specifically appealing my TBAN, I am filing an ARCA about policy and guidelines about reopening a closed AE." And ARBCOM is the place to request policy and guidelines. As to @El C:, I posted that link to AGF because BU_Rob13 is not AGF at all with this request. As I specifically mentioned in this request, I am not appealing my TBAN, I wish to see some sort of policy or guideline setup and I think it's something we need to discuss and this is the place to do it. It's not called wikilawyering to see a situation and want to setup policies. And for what it's worth, I was told specifically by ARBCOM to file this request. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13:Again, you can think that, but that is not true. One thought I keep having because you were the one who started the process of the TBAN on my AE action is that my AE action had many admins and yet just a few days later, you were nowhere to be found on a similar AE action. I am sure I'm not the only one to notice. In any event, ARBCOM is the place to ask for guidelines and policies and yes, once an AE is closed, we should have some sort of policies or procedures in place as to how an AE can be reopened or if it can be reopened. I am not sure why that is such a huge ask. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13:Whatever, this is why this place is so toxic. And you and GoldenRing brought up Wikilawyering, in one prior case, I was actually emailing Sandstein about a block appeal and he responded "go to AE." I then did, and he then blocked me (which I found a bit odd). You would assume a nice person would respond, "don't do that because that won't work" or "don't do that because I will block you" but this place here has gone down hill over the past few years. So how is that called wikilawyering when I'm directed to do something by an admin? How is this called wikilawyering when I was directed to do this by ARBCOM? This place just reeks of entrapment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @KrakatoaKatie:As I said before, this is not an appeal. If I wanted to appeal, I would. You said that this is a remote occurrence and four days is not that big of a deal and if it happened months later that would be something to talk about. But that is the point, it did happen, and we should plan on the off chance that it does happen in the future. We should maybe say if you think four days is not a big deal, then maybe five or six reaches the redline and set that as a policy. That is all I'm asking for. Policies are setup usually because something happens for the first time and then they write it up as a policy for the next time. Whether you agree with GR and EC's actions, after a certain time period, an AE action should be marked as closed/stale, whether it's 7 days 10 days, that time period should be discussed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mkdw:I would point you to the above as well. I'm not sure why everyone keeps missing this. I am not appealing, this is purely for policy and guidance for the future. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mkdw:Thanks for the clarification, you mentioned appeal in your first sentence so I assumed you were talking about my ARCA as an appeal. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned, GoldenRing said "pending another admin closing" — I therefore closed it accordingly, having already evaluated consensus among uninvolved admins to do so. I note that both users involved in the dispute were subjected to 3-month TBAN, in the end. Which, ultimately, reflects well on how AE is able to operate in dealing with protracted ARBPIA disputes, despite its various imperfections. So, I don't think we need any additional guidelines at this time. El_C 21:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to say to Rob, Sir Jospeh? Use your words. El_C 15:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katie, I specifically told Sir Jospeh that he may count the TBAN as having began on May 10. So this 4-day resetting (trivial anyway) mentioned by him is a non-issue. El_C 16:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed the sanction I had imposed because I had qualms about the outcome but considered that my judgement was so impaired by the concomitant kerfuffle at AN that another admin should deal with it instead of me. The committee should direct Sir Joseph to WP:NOTBURO, perhaps warn about a distinct tendency to wikilawyer, and otherwise dismiss this request. If the committee want to spend some time on light entertainment, Special:Permalink/897199190#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction is a pretty good specimen of wikilawyering. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies to Bishonen and wishes for a speedy recovery. For everyone else, you've now been warned. GoldenRing (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only thing that might be needed here is to say that in situations like this that the clock start time doesn't change unless there is explicit agreement otherwise among the uninvolved admins. I think the likelihood of an AE being reopened after a significant length of time and are pretty slim as all the reported behaviour would be stale. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This "appeal-without-appealing" should be considered an appeal by the Committee, whether Sir Joseph wants it to be one or not. The attempt to claim this is merely a request for clarification about whether a topic ban is valid without that being equivalent to an appeal, presumably to retain the ability to appeal at other venues at a later time, continues the long pattern of wikilawyering that has repeatedly gotten Sir Joseph sanctioned. By making clear that this is an appeal, whatever the result of that may be, the Committee can send a strong message about whether it is susceptible to wikilawyering. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And the fact that this question strikes at the heart of the validity of your ban is completely ancillary? This request is questioning the validity of your ban, full stop. You cite your own topic ban as the only example of this potential issue. In fact, you list it as the decision affected by this request. And yet you're not appealing it? That's pure semantics. I am not saying anything positive or negative on whether this appeal should be accepted, but it absolutely should count as an appeal for procedural purposes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The vague allegation of wrongdoing is nice, and the implied threat is noted. I did not comment on many AE requests during my tenure on the Committee, because I did not want to get into positions where I had to recuse on a large number of appeals. That is a common practice for arbitrators. I did regularly watch AE, though, probably reading a majority of requests there during my term. In your specific case, I felt the administrators commenting before me at AE were going down a very incorrect path by focusing on procedural hurdles to sanctioning for a 1RR violation while failing to consider taking action under normal discretionary sanctions. I felt the likely result if the discussion continued as it was going was incorrect enough to warrant me jumping in to comment, even if it meant later recusing at an appeal at ARCA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, @GoldenRing: Don't link to something like that "discussion" on Sir Joseph's page and call it "light entertainment", please. It has melted my brain. I would actually warn the arbs against reading it. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

• First, I consider this an appeal, because if we don't consider it one, we'll be back here next week with his "actual appeal" and we're not doing that. Second, let me get this straight. You didn't like GoldenRing's close. You raised a fuss (because, among other nitpicky things, somehow you were unaware that you'd been warned a whoooole bunch of times about DS under ARBPIA3, which defies belief), GR undid his close for another admin to handle and El C gave you the same result. (Don't go talking about the problems with DS and your warnings, because that's not what you're here for.) What exactly did you expect GR to do? He's there to gauge consensus when he's closing, and that was the consensus of the discussion. He's supposed to reopen the discussion and let another admin handle it if he feels it's necessary. I have no problem with GoldenRing's actions here, and I have no problem with El C's re-close except that the clock doesn't reset, so the TBAN is from May 10. If this had happened four months later instead of four days, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on, but trying to skirt around to get a second bite at the apple if/when this appeal/action/request/whatever doesn't go your way tries my patience. Katie^talk 16:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Thanks, I missed that. Sorry. Katie^talk 16:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I find the likelihood of this being a sizeable recurring problem to be so remote that ARCA could more than handle any appeal involving similar or greater circumstances. For this to occur again, you would need an AE closed, re-opened within days, and then basically the original decision endorsed. This occurs so infrequently that ARCA and a reasonable community could assess any claims about impropriety to tell the difference between an AE endorsement or an obvious and excessive extension. We are not tied by legal precedent and every situation is able to be assessed on a case by case basis. If three days makes such an impactful difference to the editor, then the only question it really raises for me was whether the duration was long enough. Mkdw ^talk 16:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: Nothing about my comment is about an appeal [by you right now]. I gave you my direct answer; I see no outstanding problems worth addressing and any claims of impropriety in similar situations in the future can be brought to ARCA on a case by case basis. Mkdw ^talk 16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is why I expressly stated "any" and not "your" when talking about whether future issues could simply be addressed by an appeal. Mkdw ^talk 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is most certainly an appeal, not a clarification. I agree with the thoughts of Katie and MKDW above, and do not feel any adjustments need to be made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm treating this as a clarification because the issue is interesting - GR appears to want to strength test all aspects of AE bureaucracy, and continues to offer us new and challenging situations to debate! :-) In all aspects of Wikipedia I tend to follow the intention rather than the rule. If the intention was to TB Sir Joseph, and Sir Joseph is TBanned, then there is really nothing more to discuss. I do like process, and if process appears to have not been followed to the detriment of the project, then that's worth looking into. But if a box didn't get ticked on the way to the appropriate result, well, then, let's go back and tick it and get on with our lives. Nobody is going to agree to reverse an appropriate decision because the box didn't get ticked. We are not lawyers who take money to endlessly argue points of law rather than doing the right thing. We are unpaid volunteers trying to do our best to keep this project going with the least amount of disruption. So, moving forward - if any unpaid volunteer feels they are unsure about any decision they made and wish to pass that decision on to another unpaid volunteer, then I am 100% fine with that. So on the questions raised here: 1) "Can an AE action be reopened once closed" - yes, under IAR, if the closing admin is uncertain about their close, they can vacate it and leave it to another to decide the matter; 2) "does a re "certified" TBAN then become effective as of the newer date" - that would be down to the admin closing the reopened discussion. In any event, the reclose, and/or the length of the TB can be brought here for appeal. In this particular case, to save everyone time and effort, if this came back as an appeal I would decline. SilkTork (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The rules are clear and simple: only impartial admins may impose sanctions, and unfair sanctions can be overturned on appeal. These rules and principles are not eroded in the situation described: if a sanction is wrongly imposed (or changed, or replaced, or whatever) then there are clear paths towards appealing. We have nothing to clarify or amend. AGK ■ 13:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggesting that we archive this request: AGK ■ 21:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with my colleagues above that no changes need to be made. Also agree that this can be archived. Worm^TT(talk) 08:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---