Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion to open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Initiated by Tashmetu at 12:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area

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

• {{userlinks|Tashmetu}} (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I wanted some clarification regarding the judgment made in my case, the text was as follows:

"For gaming the extended confirmed restriction, the extended confirmed permission of Tashmetu is revoked. An administrator may, at their discretion, restore it following a request at PERM at which Tashmetu shows that they have made 500 substantive edits."

It does not state anywhere that I am banned from any edit on the subject, only that I don't have permission to edit protected articles. But now I have an edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025%20in%20Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=1281623103 here] that I'm told is breaking the rules placed upon me, so I need some clarification, am I forbidden to ever edit anything in anyway related to the topic(and if so,I would have appreciate it being made clear to me) or is it just EC protected articles that I can't edit until my permission is restored?

:I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense. There is such thing as a topic ban, so what is the difference between a topic ban and not having permission to edit EC protected articles specifically? Tashmetu (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC) {{clerk note}} moved to own section. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Ok Thanks everyone for the clarification. Is there a place where I can find what topics are EC protected or is it just Israel-Palestine I should steer away from?

:Also am I supposed to do anything regarding my past edits in the area or is it just something for me to pay attention to in future edits? Tashmetu (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Editors who are not extended-confirmed may not edit anything related to the Palestine-Israel topic area, and this applies regardless of whether the article is EC-protected or not. It is also worth noting that this also applies more granularly than just at the article level - a non EC-editor may not edit material related to the Palestine-Israel topic area even in articles that mostly about other topics (they may edit the non PI-related parts of such articles). If you are unsure whether something is related, then it is permissible to ask but in general it is best to just assume borderline cases are related. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Note that the judgement about which clarification is being sought is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area, not the main case judgement.

:{{ping|Tashmetu}} You can find a list of topics that are under an extended confirmed restriction at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Active sanctions, although this is not ideal. For starters it took me a couple of minutes to find that, and I knew where to start looking, secondly you have to read the detail of each topic area to find out whether ECR applies and thirdly it isn't clear to me whether "discretionary sanctions that mimic WP:ARBPIA" indicates ECR or not. If you keep away from all the topics listed as having sanctions though then you wont go wrong.
As for past edits in the topic areas covered, just leave them. Any edit you make would be a violation of the restriction, even if it is solely regarding one of your own edits. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tashmetu that the implications of the EC-restriction can be unclear. That's why I didn't report to Arbitration Enforcement, since it didn't appear as if Tashmetu was knowingly violating the rule.

Arbitration Enforcement might benefit from a warning template that explains that the revocation of extended confirmed applies to topic areas, and not only to articles that are under extended-confirmed protection.

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

• I've changed the "Case or decision affected" link from Palestine–Israel articles 5 to Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area, given that that is the actual decision being questioned (and for easier access). If a clerk or member objects, please revert me. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thryduulf is correct: non-ECP editors may not edit PIA topics, so it is a de facto topic ban, but one which may be lifted more easily than a true topic ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Also agree that Thryduulf is correct. I also agree with Chess that making this information more explicit would be helpful: I would advise AE admin revoking EC to post on the user's talk page that the user should not add any information to Wikipedia in topics with a EC restriction. (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase this that can be workshopped.) Now that Tashmetu knows this, I think they would benefit from staying far away from any article that might remotely be connected to Palestine-Israel. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, PIA is under ARBECR which applies to the topic area, not just articles that are currently under WP:ECP, per WP:PIA. That said, the CTOP notice that Tashmetu received a few days after ECP was revoked, while it does link to Extended confirmed restriction, only says {{tq|Additionally, you must ... have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days ...}} which may be confusing for someone who has 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, but is not currently extended confirmed because that user right was revoked. I think perhaps clarifying the wording of that template to specify that it is having the extended confirmed user right specifically that is required, not just having reached the 500/30 threshold, in addition to any verbiage an administrator gives when revoking ECP. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{u|Aoidh}}, I think that's a good idea, but we should clarify that distinction when it's important (i.e. when EC is revoked) instead of putting newbies through more term-of-art bureaucratic headache. That template works fine for most people, but admins should be clear about what EC revocation means when they do it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with leeky, even though it makes more work for the admin team in the short-term: it is unreasonable to expect new editors to understand all the implecations of an EC revocation, so making it clear to the editors will make it less likely that they will make the mistake, and thus less work in the long-run for admin. Adding a sentence in the message when EC is revoked will hopefully solve this. Z1720 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I've normally mentioned that when revoking EC, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1193008773][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1260465474]. Clarifying the template is still a good idea, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• I've been thinking that we should just be topic banning rather than pulling EC in these instances. It's cleaner, has clearer edges, and a well-defined appeals process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Topic banning someone for an action (gaming the system to become extended-confirmed) that is inherently not part of the topic area would seem weird to me personally. Revoking an illegitimately obtained permission is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Coordinating off-wiki to figure out how best to game the system to get access to edit in the topic area with their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_war&diff=prev&oldid=1246226768 502nd] edit being to the topic area in a discussion {{noping|Ïvana}} was involved in seems pretty related to the topic area to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm sympathetic to this argument (and the convenience one too), but if we topic-ban someone for Palestine–Israel EC gaming and not revoke their extended-confirmed, they would still be able to use their illegitimately-obtained EC in ECR areas like Russia–Ukraine or normal protected articles. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::whynotboth.gif ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• (Noting that I abstained on this vote, given that I felt that the evidence was weak). I agree with the others on the answers to Tashmetu's questions, but for {{tq|Also am I supposed to do anything regarding my past edits in the area or is it just something for me to pay attention to in future edits?}}, I would say that this is something for the future. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• If we're sticking with EC revocation, maybe we could update {{t|uw-ecgaming}} to include some explanation of the ECR restrictions that entails? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• :That template is for gaming of the system in general, so I am not sure that an ECR statement would necessarily make sense. That is probably a discussion for the template talk though. Primefac (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Tamzin at 20:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Palestine-Israel articles 5}}

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

• {{admin|Tamzin}} (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness]

I was asked by clerk SilverLocust and arb theleekycauldron to post this clarification request based on inconclusive discussion at {{slink|Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/archive_11#BER_edge_case}} and, I'm told, on the mailing list. There are two questions here:

1. How should the BER handle a case where a page is moved from a qualifying namespace (article/talk/draft/draft talk) into another, or vice versa, after a user edits it?
2. Depending on the answer to #1, how should this be tracked?

My view is that the current wording of the BER, at least, means we should only consider the time-of-edit namespace. Yes, this does leave some room for gaming by drafting in userspace and then mainspacing something, but 1) the BER is already a fairly gameable restriction and that is arguably by design, given that it's not that strict a sanction, and 2) there's still the edit made to mainspace when the page is moved, so really all this does is consolidates a bunch of edits by the same user to one edit, which isn't unreasonable.

If this is the Committee's interpretation as well, however, this creates an implementation problem, as it is prohibitively complicated to manually check for cross-namespace moves (XNMs) for every page, extant or deleted, a user has edited in the past 30 days, and—as much as I intend to keep toolforge:n-ninety-five working—the BER's implementation shouldn't be dependent on an external tool. The current instructions at {{slink|WP:UBER#Tracking}} for manually tracking without regard to XNMs are a bit tedious, but still something that any person could do in a few minutes. Fully tracking XNMs would increase that by at least an order of magnitude.

The current advice I've given at UBER, as an addendum to the manual checking instructions, is {{tq2| It is very rare for a draft or article to be moved to a namespace other than draft, article, or user, so checking a user's contributions and deleted contributions to userspace and usertalkspace (looking only at subpages) should suffice to avoid the too-high[-percentage] scenario. To avoid the too-low scenario, look through the user's edit filter hit log on-wiki ... while using a CSS rule that highlights redirects, then check where those redirects go.}}This approach, in other words, is almost complete, but much faster than an actual page-by-page check. I just tried it on an arbitrarily-selected ARBPIA regular, and it took about a minute for the too-high check and a few seconds for the too-low check—not much to an ask of an admin doing the last step of quality control before imposing a sanction. If ArbCom can endorse this approach (i.e., say that an admin who does this almost-complete check has done their due diligence), with extremely rare exceptions to be handled ad hoc, then I think we can resolve this. If not, then I return to my previous argument in favor of an edit filter that tracks every edit to qualifying namespaces by users under BERs. (If discussion goes in that direction, we should ping participants in this EFN thread, but I'll hold off for now since this may be resolvable without reöpening that can of worms.)

N95, meanwhile, could either do the same quick-and-dirty check as the humans (easier to code), or do an exhaustive search for XNMs (harder to code, so may have to wait a bit due to my current limited availability). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Eek: I agree that most cases of a false negative would be gaming and sanctionable as such; even if not, false negatives aren't nearly as much a concern as false positives. But I can easily see how an FP could occur: Suppose a BER'd user makes 20 ARBPIA edits in a month, while making 80 edits about some band or something, and not editing anything else in qualifying namespaces. The band's article goes to AfD, and the user requests userfication in lieu of deletion, which is granted. Their actual BER percentage is 20%, but N95 and the current manual checking instructions will say 100%. So I think at least some instruction to admins to check for this edge case is merited. I don't have a strong opinion on how comprehensive that instruction should be; I'd be fine with something as minimal as "take a quick glance at their userspace contribs". (And I mean technically I can just do that, since UBER is an essay and N95 is an unofficial tool, but I'd like for whatever they say to reflect ArbCom's opinion.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

• This had previously come up on the clerks list, where I said "Moving a page across spaces seems like an edge case that it isn't worth solving for. If it becomes an issue, we can use IAR and some common sense. Creating an entire edit filter just for an edge case is ineffecient overkill. Frankly, if someone is going over 30% because of moving one page, then they probably shouldn't be editing as much in that area anyway." If someone is moving things across namespaces to get around the restriction, that's WP:GAMING and they should get slapped down for it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• :My hope with this restriction was that it would use minimal bandwidth. In these edge cases, I would prefer the burden be on the person with the restriction to say "actually, my number is high because of XYZ." Like, if an admin has prima facie evidence that an editor has violated the BER because N95 shows their number is off, then the burden shifts to the editor to prove that the number is wrong. I'd prefer not to have to legislate that, lest we further instruction creep. Nothing prevents an admin from being like "hmmm wonder what's up with the N95 number, 100% seems wrong," and doing further research, but I don't want to order them to investigate and waste a bunch of time, when the editor themselves can just offer an explanation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• While I agree with CaptainEek, I'm also fine with endorsing the proposed approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• I wasn't involved in the drafting of this remedy, but I think if it's going to have any chance of being effective it has to be as lightweight as possible. If that means overlooking things drafted in userspace for filter purposes, that's fine. I'm sure it'll be brought to an admin's or AE's attention that there is gaming if all the only edits outside of their userspace are to ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• An article may have been userfied without their knowledge (e.g. an article deleted via AfD restored for another editor), so admins considering a sanction for violating the balanced editing restriction (especially while this is a new practice) should ideally keep this and other edge cases in mind and give the editor a reasonable chance to explain why it may be a different percentage than they may have thought. - Aoidh (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with SFR. Katie^talk 17:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• I was of the opinion that we should be counting copy-pasted drafts as multiple edits, but in the interest of keeping it lightweight, i've come around to the at-time-of-edit interpretation. However we implement that – bot, edit filter, honor system – works for me, although my preference would be something automated. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'm on the lightweight automation side (per SFR) - I want automation to take out the heavy lifting for admins, but admins still need to think - and if the edge cases come up, they should be capable of making those decisions. Let's not try to solve every plausible but unlikely scenario. Worm^TT(talk) 10:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Agree fully with SFR and Worm - lightweight is key here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Noleander at 14:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Noleander}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned

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

• {{userlinks|Noleander}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned

:*Terminate the topic ban

• Over the years, I've encountered several articles that needed some improvement, and I was ready & willing, but was not able to proceed due to the topic ban. It would be nice to be able to improve the encyclopedia in those situations.

• @CaptainEek That was a long time ago ... but I think the biggest change following the topic ban was that I began to get consensus in the Talk page of articles before making any edits. I do that as a matter of habit for all articles on contentious subjects, or articles that are monitored by passionate editors. A recent example is the mathematics article pi where I wanted to make some innocuous improvements, but I knew the article was heavily watched, so I announced my intentions in the talk page and asked for input before I began making the edits. On the other hand, if I'm contemplating a benign edit on an obscure article, I'll generally make the edit directly without first posting on the Talk page. To answer another question you all may have: No, there are no specific edits I'm intending to make within the topic ban subject area. The reason I am now asking for the topic ban to be terminated is because I recently rewrote the Margaret Sanger article and got it promoted to FA status. Shortly thereafter, I discovered that her first husband was Jewish. I panicked for a moment, but figured that it did not run afoul of the topic ban since he is barely mentioned in the article. But it would nice to not have to worry about that in the future. [PS: If my reply is supposed to be up in the "Statements" area, feel free to move it up there] Noleander (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Aoidh I agree with the decision that the Arbitration Committee made back then. I respect the encyclopedia and the processes that have been established over the years. From day one, I've respected WP policies (NPOV, UNDUE, VERIFIABILITY, etc). I've always - even back early 2000s - enjoyed working collaboratively on Talk pages to reach consensus, because every editor brings their own unique perspective to WP, and that is a good thing. I'm not a belligerent, edit-warring kind of editor. Regarding the Topic Ban, if I recall correctly, back then I'd visit some topics and notice: "This article was written by apologists and omits some important information" or "Hey, this article is overly positive" or "Why doesn't this article have a 'Criticism of' section?" My goal, when encountering such articles, was to achieve balance by, for example, adding material that shed light on negative aspects of the topic. My intention was never to flip the balance to be overly negative. Unfortunately, in spite of my respect for the NPOV and UNDUE polices, there were times that I went too far, and put in too much negative information. If I was on the ArbCom, I would have made the same decision that they did. Today, if I encountered{{snd}}what I perceived to be{{snd}}an unbalanced article, I would go to the Talk page first, and start a conversation on achieving balance. If a consensus could not be achieved, I'd suggest an RfC, and then go from there. Noleander (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Eluchil404 wrote "... they have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity." I'm not sure if they are trying to suggest that I've been sulking since the topic ban, and just recently resurfaced with nefarious purposes? The facts are: after the topic ban was imposed, I've made over 30,000 edits, promoted five (5) articles to FA; promoted seven (7) articles to GA; received about 20 barnstars; created about 40 new articles; and helped scores of editors by reviewing their articles. All of that work was after the topic ban was imposed. The vast majority of those achievements were in the 2010's, following the topic ban. I'm not sure how the ups and downs of my IRL obligations impact this request for lifting the topic ban. Noleander (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The topic ban being appealed is {{tpq|Noleander is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.}} which overlaps with the BLP, Arab-Israeli conflict and race and intelligence CTOP designations, and potentially overlaps with the Eastern Europe and American politics designations but is not fully covered by any of them. That said a scan of his user talk archives suggests that apart from one accidental breach of the topic ban 2012 he has fully complied with it, and I see no reason not to grant the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I briefly reviewed Noleander's activity and noted that they have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity. Thus there is considerably less than 14 years of consistent editing activity since the topic ban. I suggest that having an explicit probationary period is reasonable in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

• Fourteen years and the topic they were disruptive in allows CTOP enforcement? I'm willing to overlook the subpar appeal based on the time passed without, in my brief check, any other issues. If there's any concerns we could explicitly allow for any uninvolved admin to restore the topic ban for a one year probationary period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear a little more from Noleander about what they've learned from their topic ban and how they've improved their editing since. It may be a rather old sanction, but Noleanders brief statement still doesn't give me much to work with. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I am reasonably satisfied with their response to Eek. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Couldn't find any issues on a cursory scroll either, which is impressive for 14 years on a fairly wide topic ban; I'd be in favor of lifting the topic ban, neutral on the probationary period given how much of it overlaps with CTOPs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• I took a look through Noleander's recent contributions to see if there were any concerns. Noleander seems to have been recently editing articles related to the American civil rights movements of the 1950s, which contains a lot of delicate subjects of race. They have also edited in some mathematics articles, as they pointed out above with the Pi article. I did not see any major concerns in their article edits or talk page conversations, and am, at this time, leaning towards lifting the ban for a probationary period so that it can be reapplied more quickly should the need arise. I would like to give arbs and the community more time to comment before making my formal declaration. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• One of the issues is the Noleander's editing Finding of Fact, which noted that {{tq|Noleander's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on any Jewish subjects of the article.}} {{Reply to|Noleander}} Would you mind commenting on this aspect of the TBAN? - Aoidh (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)