Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive 11#Geschichte

::thanks, , I fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

:The gun, I may have jumped it ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 12:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

::I think my hatting of the thread and your post here happened almost simultaneously :) firefly ( t · c ) 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

:{{re|Robert McClenon}} try {{userlinks|1=7&6=thirteen}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

After a rather extended wiki-break due to real life conflicting, I'd be interested in returning to clerking (if you'll have me). Amortias (T)(C) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

:@Amortias hi there. I've emailed the clerk-l list to ask for the thoughts of arbitrators and clerks. I'll keep you updated. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

:Hi {{re|Jehochman}} this is being discussed on the Clerk's mailing list but typically we don't rename requests until they've been accepted by the committee. We will keep you posted on what the final decision is. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

:: That's fine. Can we try to make it clear to the arbitrators that this would be the scope of the case? Maybe they'd want to change the request title because the current title is pretty far off target. Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

:::@Jehochman if we decide to accept this as a case, I will definitely be bringing up the name when we figure out logistics. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

:Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Appointments for instructions on how to apply. Izno (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

::No emailing. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

:::I'm sorry, but that is essentially a requirement to be a clerk. Izno (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

::::That's too bad :( GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::GoodDay, I can also confirm that having an email address is an important part of clerking for ArbCom. Although clerks can coordinate onwiki, pretty much all of this is done offwiki either on IRC or via email. This is to allow discussions to be held with regards to what actions to take, so that the clerks can work together and any clerk taking action then has the support of the arbs and other clerks. If offwiki discussion was non-existent or limited, I suspect the clerks would contradict each other unintentionally a lot. Although the clerks list doesn't usually have private or sensitive information discussed, there have been cases where clerks needed to discuss information which would not be allowed onwiki due to privacy concerns. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::Type of clerking I would've been doing, wouldn't have required emailing. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A protected redirect, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard{{-r|Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard|,}} needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

REDIRECT Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

• to this:

REDIRECT Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from merge}}
{{R related}}
{{R to talk page}}
{{R from subpage}}
{{R to subpage}}
}}

• {{color|darkred|WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.}}

The {{tl|Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{tl|pp-protected}} and/or {{tl|pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:Sure, why not --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

::Thank you very much, {{u|Guerillero}}, and Happiest of New Years to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 07:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting us know. I've reverted it. Izno (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

:Your true number is 757 by my count. But I'll give you an extension up to 1000 words. Our goal isn't to be draconian; I'm personally fairly lenient when extensions are requested. Ultimately the purpose of word limits is to prevent unproductive lengthiness; when you're using space reasonably well, we'll grant extensions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{reply to|L235}}, thank you for that. I will not need all 1000 at the current time but the leniency is appreciated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{re|TheresNoTime}} I'm granting you an extension to 1,000 words for this case request. (cc: {{@ArbComClerks}}) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Pinging {{yo|Dreamy Jazz}}, {{yo|Firefly}}, {{yo|GeneralNotability}}, {{yo|Guerillero}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• :Committee and clerks are aware. Thanks for the note. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

:Ping User:Guerillero. He was the clerk who accidentally introduced the error when closing the case. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

::Fixed - thanks. firefly ( t · c ) 06:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

:@Tamzin good catch. Fixed! firefly ( t · c ) 21:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

::While I have you, Firefly, do you know why all of the DS logging for Scientology is still at that page rather than the AE log? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

:::@Tamzin huh. I do not. I imagine someone who does will be along to enlighten us before long :) firefly ( t · c ) 21:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

::::It ought be moved when someone has a moment. Must've been an oversight! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

:::::I think that's been done by me now. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

:The implementation notes are not automatically generated and are updated manually. This means it may take some time to be updated, but these have just now been updated. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks for the work on this. I like the styling better on this new version, and the pencil icon for editing looks much cleaner than the "[edit]" link.

:I'm not fully convinced with the larger width, because when this template takes up the full width of the screen it leaves the red box with the information and button to file a request require scrolling to see. However, the full width is definitely good for mobile. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

::I was thinking maybe just rearange the sections slightly so that the template can be above/below the info boxes rather than side by side. So that you get one block of information at a time (Seems like a better layout) or just set the templates max-width with a parameter. Terasail^[✉️] 22:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

:::Such as with: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment Terasail^[✉️] 22:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't oppose having it full width by default. I'll see what other clerks and the arbs have to say. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure it could ever take up the full width (as in centered), at least with the current format of pages. Since legacy vector still needs to be taken into account, it would always have to be set with a float=right so that the contents doesn't end up below the table. Terasail^[✉️] 22:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we* should create a Phabricator ticket requesting a rename of the "discretionary sanctions alert" tag to "contentious topics alert".

*"We" means that I'd do this but lack any kind of authority to do so. A member or at least clerk of the committee should probably request this instead.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks for noticing this! Please go for it if you'd like, or I can push the buttons later today. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks, I guess an arb's confirmation will do :) Tracked in :phab:T327118. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

:::Has been completed :) Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

:Great idea. Created at WP:OLDDS. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

:@Nicoljaus:

:* {{tq|Does this mean that the indefinite topic bans imposed earlier remain indefinite}} - Any topic ban imposed under DS and CT can be indefinite, and it's length is not affected by this change. This statement here is saying that the second bullet point of {{section link|Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Changing_or_revoking_a_contentious_topic_restriction}} does not apply to restrictions imposed under the former DS procedure.{{pb}}In your case: Your topic ban remains indefinite and the appeal method is the one at {{section link|Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Appeals and amendments}} even after a year passes.

:* {{tq|it is still useless to appeal them?}} - Not necessarily. The standard for an appeal has changed to be easier to meet. For an appeal to be accepted, it no longer requires {{tq|clear and substantial consensus}} and instead only {{tq|clear consensus}}.{{pb}}In your case: It will be easier to appeal, but you need to make sure you have addressed the concerns in the last appeal(s).

:Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

::* Thank you very much for the clarification.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems as though when I go to add information or dispute anything my edits are reversed. For example recently I added referenced information that is reliable it was reversed without discussing first. Before that I removed a stat figure that was from a conflicting party on the subject and again it was removed. We should be using reliable third party references on topics like this with the historical disputes. I dont want to cause trouble so I am reaching out here on best ways to go about this. Is any third party members available to help with edits? Thank you for your time. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

:While the Arbitration committee currently has an open case about the subject area (WP:AA3), I'm afraid that's not really a question the committee or clerks can answer. General advice about dispute resolution and places to go to in such cases can be found at WP:Dispute resolution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Although relatively new to this subject matter, I have contributed to these in good-faith and what I believe to be a competent manner, and I believe that the WP:Verified facts that I've contributed, are allowed by our content policy. Please confirm that they are not "synthetic " statements of WP:Original research, which I understand are forbidden and agree to not make. Or else instruct - Have I inadvertently done "Synth"? Or are there other problems with my contributions of which I should be aware? Thanks for your help.

Also please review my contributions to and proposed move of

The_future_of_Iran%E2%80%99s_democracy_movement, currently in AfD.

Another editor has alleged that I've made "Synthetic claims", relying on an overly broad mis-application (IMHO), of an earlier AfD on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement. I understand and accept the decision and rationale of the closing admin in that case, @Vanamonde93, but I think it does not apply in the context of these other articles in the way the adverse editor thinks that it does. I thought we had agreed to 'ana-lyze' - which is the opposite of synthesize - and then merge the now-deleted article's content, and the other editor appears to believe that none of it is now acceptable anywhere.

If you could educate us on the Content policy and how it applies in this case, it may help to avoid misunderstanding.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:Hi Jaredscribe. I'm afraid this isn't the right place for your questions; the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content matters. Fear not, there are a variety of options available for dispute resolution, which can get other folks opinion on an issue. But be careful not to WP:CANVASS people to your discussion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:@Jaredscribe ah realize I didn't ping you, I'm still used to Enterprisey's reply tool. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you @CaptainEek this is the first time I've gone to any of these places within the wiki bureaucracy, I think I will do the OR noticeboard since that is the policy in question. Sorry about that. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:::{{U|Jaredscribe}}, I suggest holding off of the noticeboard for the moment. The editor you are in dispute with hasn't edited since your post to the talk page yesterday. You need to give them time; opening multiple discussions isn't going to make them respond any sooner. If you remain in disagreement after a discussion on the talk page, going to WP:ORN might be more helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:::) Enterprisey (talk!) 05:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Remedy 6 (Rp2006 warned): 10 to 0 on the main page, 11 to 0 on the PD page
• Remedy 11.1 (Roxy the dog warned): 9 to 0 on the main page, 10 to 0 on the PD page
• Remedy 12 (GSoW onwiki presence): 11 to 0 on the main page, 12 to 0 on the PD page

DanCherek (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

:@DanCherek, thanks for raising this. This is likely because the implementation notes in {{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Proposed_decision#Implementation_notes}} were not updated when the case was closed. As such, the counts from the outdated notes (instead of the actual voting sections) could have been used when posting the final decision.

:I will fix these now. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

:Cannot hurt to try. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

::Seems like a good idea to try something like this. I haven't thought about it much, but perhaps a section of WT:AC/C might be better, since the more talk pages, the harder to track. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|Silcox}}, we really don't need the backseat clerking. Clerks will go through and update every so often, or arbs can update the counts themselves. This is not such a pressing matter that the vote counts being six hours out of date will present a problem. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

:Which was my fault. Izno (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

:Apologies, I forgot to update those. Will do so shortly. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks. The remedy didn't end up passing and the case is now closed so I'd let it be. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

:This has now been handled by Izno, thanks. DanCherek (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• {{diff2|1133867156|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions}} (only the parts related to community sanctions)
• {{diff2|1161930115|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling}}
• {{diff2|1161930257|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups}}
• {{diff2|1161930376|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant}}
• {{diff2|1161930551|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom}}
• {{diff2|1161930729|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide}}
• {{diff2|1161930861|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation}}
• {{diff2|1161930909|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement}}
• {{diff2|1161931038|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19}}
• {{diff2|1161931412|edit - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts}}
• {{diff2|1161931588|edit - Template:Gs/logtopbox}}

Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

:Special:Diff/1161930861 definitely isn't a problem as the sanctions that superseded it are authorised by arbcom and as such they definitely converted to WP:CTOP. Therefore, leaving as DS is incorrect.

:The others I also don't think there is a problem (except maybe the one that edited the archived sanctions page) because the community DS linked and relied on WP:AC/DS with some modifications. That procedure is now marked as superseded at WP:OLDDS, and the WP:AC/DS shortcut now redirects to WP:CTOP. Therefore, I think that community authorised DS are now community authorised CTOP.

:Simply reverting these IMO won't help as the links would go to WP:CTOP and confuse editors who are wanting to understand the procedures (as it is a different name on the procedure page). Linking to WP:OLDDS won't help either as that is marked as {{tq|superseded}} and {{tq|retained primarily for historical reference}} which will also confuse. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

::I agree about Special:Diff/1161930861.

::I believe the others are problematic because those community sanctions are based on WP:AC/DS, not WP:CTOP. I agree that it is not as simple as reverting these edits, but there are more options to fix this than linking one of two pages. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

:::I can therefore see a few options:

:::# An RfC is started as to whether to formally convert all community authorised discretionary sanctions authorisations to be contentious topics designations.

:::# A community-maintained copy of the discretionary sanctions procedure is created and linked to instead of either WP:AC/DS or WP:CTOP.

:::Personally I like number 1, but I wouldn't have the time to set that up and probably needs to come from a editor who isn't an arbitrator or arbitration clerk. However, if there has already been such an RfC or in the interim, it may make sense to do number 2.

:::Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

::::I've been working on a draft of option 1 which also includes some future-proofing. I'd appreciate your feedback if you have time to take a look. (Are you ever on Discord?)

::::In the meantime, option 2 would work, but it might be sufficient to update those edits and modify the {{tnull|superseded}} banner comment on WP:OLDDS to something like: {{xtn2|It is also referenced by some community sanctions. For more information on the transition of Arbitration Committee sanctions to the contentious topics procedure, see the Committee's transition guide. This page reflects the text of the discretionary sanctions procedure immediately prior to the adoption of the contentious topics procedure.}} Thanks for looking into this. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::I've undone the edits other than Special:Diff/1161930861 and Special:Diff/1161930909. In those pages where there is a link to WP:AC/DS, I've replaced it with a link to WP:OLDDS. I've added your suggested wording to the banner on WP:OLDDS. Thanks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

::::Note User:Awesome Aasim has been looking into the work required to convert community-authorized discretionary sanctions into community designiations of contentious topics. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Rewording WP:General sanctions' mentions on discretionary sanctions into contentious topics and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Unifying Community and Arbitration-Designated Contentious Topics for discussion. isaacl (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

::DJ, I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1161930115 this edit] is just about strictly incorrect. I didn't spend time looking at the others but if this is the character of the other changes, then these changes were a miss.

::The community before our change of nomenclature had its own discretionary sanctions authorized by the community under GS. That these were linked to our version of things (as in, ) is frankly a failure to maintain these pages appropriately rather than intent to indicate anything about how our procedures were related to these pages.

::I don't think a link is necessary at all in fact. Izno (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

:::At the time I made these edits I had incorrectly assumed that community-authorised DS was converted to community authorised CTOP by the very nature of CTOP superseding DS. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:uw-aepblock's wording currently seems to imply that appealing a partial AE block at WP:AE or WP:AN is prohibited and has to be done through a copy request on the user's talk page, even if the user can edit the noticeboard themselves. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

:What’s a copy request? The template stated on my talk page said the appeal could be copied to AE or AN.. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

::You can edit WP:AE and WP:AN without restriction, so you could have appealed the block on either of these noticeboards simply by starting a new section there. Instead, Template:uw-aepblock asked you to appeal on your user talk page, which you shouldn't have been required to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Ah, yes, seemed messy to me at first. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

:@Daniel Quinlan, I've updated the {{tq|500/30 protection}} usage but the {{tq|500/30 rule}} change would need a WP:ARCA request as it would need to also modify {{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions}} which needs an arbitrator motion.

:As such, it probably makes sense to file an WP:ARCA. If you want to do that feel free otherwise I can probably file it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

::Given the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1045390397#Extended_confirmed_restriction_omnibus_motion motion that amended item B], which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FPalestine-Israel_articles_4&diff=1045426455&oldid=1045395009 replaced the term "500/30 Rule"] with "Extended confirmed restriction", perhaps the change can be implemented a bit more expeditiously than filing a formal request? isaacl (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

:::I agree with Isaacl that the motion he linked to is likely sufficient to make the change. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

::::In which case I will make that change now. Thanks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing about Template:Contentious topics/alert and Template:Contentious topics/alert/first. Also, should the relevant note be boldfaced or underlined or something? For many users it's the most relevant requirement, and it's kind of buried beneath a lot of boilerplate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

:I've been thinking this too. On the template, feel free to propose a change and we can get it approved fairly quickly. It's on my list but it's pretty low on the list. With the DS2022 changes, the templates are more malleable than they were last year. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

:Template has since been updated, as lacked any direct reference to WP:ECR, but it won't discourage non-WP:XC users from initially making edits to such topics, as there is no note on the edit page or talk about extended confirmed restrictions. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain whether this is an intended use of this policy? "contentious topics restrictions prohibit this post" was the revert reason. Ashvio (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Ashvio (courtesy ping @Andrevan). Sorry about the confusion. On pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (under WP:A/I/PIA), the extended-confirmed restriction applies. The extended-confirmed restriction provides that {{tqq|1=Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.}} At first glance, your talk page edit wasn't prohibited by the restriction. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you for the clarification. I believe I have the full right to engage in discussions and proposals in the topic page even if I can't edit the article. Ashvio (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Please read the proposal again. I would say it was disruptive as a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL and it attacked editors in ways prohibited by the contentious topics restriction. I was also under the impression that editors could make edit requests that are not disruptive, but an out of process pseudo-RFC is disruptive. If I am mistaken, then I apologize for the confusion. Andre🚐 00:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

::::I reposted without any implication of assigning bad intentions to editors, that was not my intention. My point was that we all see the world through a western lens and media perspective which is something we have to be aware of and account for, not that people are intentionally being biased. Ashvio (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::OK, thanks. Andre🚐 02:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

::"I would appreciate Support/Oppose comments" does start an internal discussion in my eyes, as formally as it is possible without using the term "RfC". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:::I removed that from my updated post. My mistake for not formalizing myself with RFC processes better before making one like that. Ashvio (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

::{{u|L235}}, are discussions to determine consensus that aren't tagged as RFCs no longer internal project discussions? {{tq|...but are not limited to...}} stands out pretty strongly there. Is it the type of discussion or the RFC tag that makes it an internal project discussion? If a section isn't an RFC, but is being used to assess consensus should editors that are not extended confirmed have their opinions and input discarded? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Can you better define what an 'internal project discussion' is for future cases like this? My interpretation of the rules was that informal discussions are allowed, but formal project discussions with a set desired outcome are not. Along with as L235's earlier comment, it wasn't unreasonable for me to repost the discussion as I did. Ashvio (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

::::A meta discussion is, essentially by definition, an internal project discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::Ok, you have defined meta discussion for me, but I would like to have a concrete definition of "internal project discussion" included in the rules so it is clear that such discussions aren't allowed. To be clear, I'm not contesting your decision, just asking for more specificity in the rules so it's less likely to happen to others in the future. Ashvio (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::That's going to have to go to WP:ARCA. I was thinking I might have to throw together a request there soon. Here's the kicker, I don't know that a non-ec editor can request clarification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Well if you could toss one in there for me I'd appreciate it :P

:::::::Thanks! Ashvio (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::::It looks like I can edit it, though I havent tried submitting anything I have the edit page accessible. Ashvio (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::It's not ec protected, but it would be an internal project discussion related to the Palestine Israel conflict, so non-ec editors technically can't take part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::Oh, I see. Could it be an internal project discussion related to the general concept of internal project discussions? Otherwise if you can put it in for me I'd appreciate it. Ashvio (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::Maybe a clarification request about WP:ARBECR in general is less related to the Arab-Israeli conflict than this discussion here, but that's just a quick personal assessment. WP:BANEXEMPT mentions "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" as an exception to bans, but this isn't ArbCom-specific. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(Please see comment below which more directly addresses the issue, after further understanding of the issue)

I'm proposing that a warning on the edit page of WP:ECR contentious topics to be included, for clarification to non-WP:XC users.

Currently non-XC users are only warned that the page is semi-protected upon editing, and therefore liable to receive the contentious topics alert template by making such available edits to pages. Additionally, talk pages do not specify any extended confirmation restrictions either.

My suggestion for clarification:

• Update the edit warning from semi-protected to ECR for such topics, currently the note says:

^{Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse.}

---> This should read that the page is restricted to extended confirmed users, not just semi-protected

• Update the talk pages of ECR topics to reference the topic as ECR, currently the note says:

^{*Note: The article ***, along with other pages relating to the ***, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:}

^{* Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)}

^{* Following WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, editors on this page can only revert once in 24 hours}

---> This should also include the extended confirmed restriction that applies to the topic

The ECR link to the contentious topic template has been recently updated for further clarity, but I believe preventative measures are also necessary. I believe this is specific to WP:CT/A-I that is ECR.

The admin updates to the relevant pages hasn't been made yet. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

:Hmm. I think I'll need an example of a page affected by the issue. Trying to edit the article about Israel, for example, leads to:

:* A big red box reminding the extended-confirmed editor that they're editing a protected page, and a big red stop icon next to an explanation of the restrictions, or

:* A big blue lock icon, a button for submitting an edit request, explanations about protections, and a big red stop icon next to an explanation of the restrictions.

:There may be semi- or non-protected pages that contain affected content without being primarily about the contentious topic; these should ideally have an editnotice saying that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Arabs&oldid=1180775424 "parts of this page relate"] to it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

::Yes precisely, that edit notice. Maram Susli is an example of this, and I presume any other semi or non-protected pages. This clearly doesn't affect XC pages then. Ideally the notice would have reference to WP:ECR, so users understand what these rules are, but that's another issue.

::As per docs, was this page simply missing the {{tlx|ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} template? This would explain a lot here!

::If so, the edit notice shouldn't be optional, if it leads to alert notices. It's pretty demoralising receiving a warning on your talk page when it's impossible to be aware. AGF here, but it's completely backwards to alert users post-edit, instead of first providing notice pre-edit.

::Ideally the wording of: Awareness of contentious topics {{tq|When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the Contentious topics/alert/first template,}} would include something like {{tq|as long as the appropriate edit notice parameter has been used.}} This would resolve the issue it seems, and is more directly the issue. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

::After further reading regarding WP:ECR pages, these edit notice templates in fact must be used as per CT docs (it's not just an ideal). So I am officially wasting my time proposing something that has already been implemented, so I apologise. It simply needs calrifying it seems.

::Is it worth referencing this in Template:Contentious_topics lede for example? Users sending these alerts are still unaware. Also there is no mention that these edit notices "must be used" in Arab-Israeli editnotice/doc either for example, which it would ideally mention as well.

::Alternatively, an alert for users incorrectly sending alerts would be useful :) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

:::{{u|CommunityNotesContributor}}, this mixes up a few things. The following restrictions exist:

:::* Page-specific restrictions, which must come with an edit notice ({{slink|Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Restriction_notices}}) and are unenforceable without one ({{slink|Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Enforcement_of_restrictions}}).

:::* Topic-specific restrictions, which require awareness ({{slink|Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Awareness_of_contentious_topics}}) but do not require an edit notice to have been present.

:::Requiring edit notices to have been present before informing a user about the contentious topics procedures would be counter-productive: We want as many users to be aware (and formally aware) as possible, and we can't place an edit notice on every page that is tangentially possibly related to a contentious topic. For example, an article about a living person is always part of the WP:BLPCT topic area, but an unregistered user might choose to add WP:A/I/PIA-related content to it. If this content is unverifiable and absurd, it would be similarly absurd to place an Arab-Israeli editnotice to the page; still, the editor can be informed about the restriction and sanctioned if they continue. This seems fine to me.

:::{{tl|alert/first}} is not meant to be a warning limited to bad behavior, although it is often used in this way. As we can't look into the minds of people, the "completely backwards" approach of alerting users after editing lacks alternatives. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:@A smart kitten - thanks, this has been fixed. firefly ( t · c ) 12:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Saw this section while posting the comment below and figured I'd note that this template now needs to be updated for 2024. 129.170.195.78 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

:Fixed. Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The ARBPIA policy this page states:

{{tqb| The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions"... Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.}}

and: {{tqb| The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles.}}

and: {{tqb| If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content.}}

and: {{tqb|Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools.}}

What is the policy basis for enforcing EC sanctions on pages lacking a template? As in in the case of the discussion that I linked above? Many newbie editors recently had their EC rights revoked for editing pages that did not have the template. Marokwitz (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

:Hello, pinging the clerks and arbitrators again, your advice would be highly appreciated . Marokwitz (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

::@Marokwitz, I'm neither a clerk nor an arb, but I believe I can answer your question. WP:ARBECR applies to this topic area, so any editor who does not have 30 days and 500 edits tenure cannot edit these pages, regardless of whether a template is in place. Per WP:XC and WP:PGAME, permissions can be removed if they are gained by gaming the system. So they shouldn't be having their EC rights revoked for editing these pages, but for gaming the system (even if the only reason people noticed is because of these pages). Hope that makes sense. – bradv 07:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the answer @Bradv. So you are saying that editors that edited unprotected articles prior to receiving EC, should not have their EC rights revoked unless they gamed the system? Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

::::Mostly yes, sometimes no. Depends on the situation -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::@Guerillero, "mostly yes, sometimes no" – this answer appears to be somewhat ambiguous. What policy guides administrators in making such decisions? According to the policy, "The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles."

:::::I am asking because I feel that decisions are being made arbitrarily. Recently there is considerable resentment in this area, and it seems to me that there is no consensus between different administrators. Marokwitz (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

::::Generally yes. They certainly can't have their EC right revoked as an AE action, but there may be reason to do so within normal admin discretion. Do you have an example? – bradv 17:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

::::: @Bradv Yes, for example, see WP:AN#Extended-confirmed gained largely through ECR violations. Note that there were no accusations of gaming, battleground behavior, or anything else against this user, and the they sound pretty frustrated. "The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles" - I think this is an unjust sanction. Marokwitz (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::That was done as an individual admin action, not as an AE action, so the ARBPIA procedures don't apply. Technically any administrator can reverse this (although that's unlikely to happen without consensus at AN). You also have to realize that the entire topic area is under a lot of strain right now, partly due to off-wiki canvassing, and there are a lot of accounts newly created solely for the purpose of editing in, or even disrupting, this topic area. The intention behind the ARBECR restrictions is two-fold: 1) to ensure the the only participants in these discussions are experienced Wikipedians, familiar with our policies and conventions; and 2) to discourage the use of sockpuppets and proxy editing by increasing the effort required to create and onboard such accounts. If people are attempting to circumvent these procedures they are likely to bring all their actions under scrutiny, and administrators may use any tool at their disposal to limit disruption. The use of arbitration enforcement (that is, applying certain sanctions that cannot easily be reversed by another administrator) is limited to the rules articulated by ArbCom, which as I said have not been applied in this case. – bradv 19:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I'm pinging the editor @Chavmen: this discussion is of relevance to your case.

:::::::@Bradv, thank you so much for clarifying that the action taken was not due to ARBPIA procedures, rather an individual call by an admin. I'm not an administrator, just a simple Wikipedian, but in my view, it's important to remember that behind the aliases we're dealing with real people in these situations, and perceptions of unequal treatment can significantly contribute to the strain in this topic area. I understand the importance of reducing disruption, but we also need to balance this with transparency, equal treatment, and protecting and welcoming newbies who came here for positive reasons. In light of this, do you believe the affected user should appeal? If so, what would be the appropriate avenue for them to pursue this? Marokwitz (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::::I also thought thet you didn’t think that without a template an editor without ECP could edit the article with impunity, apologies if I’ve got this wrong. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Are you trying to point out inconsistency in my thought over time? I acknowledge this openly. At first, I thought it was totally permissible - I had disagreements with non-EC editors many times in these pages, and tried to handle this through normal discussions, only asking for the page to be edit-protected as last resort. Recently, observing discussions at ANI led me to believe it was considered gaming the system. However, a detailed review of the policy led me to understand that while it's not permitted, such behaviour isn't subject to sanctions if the article lacks the template. That's why I came here seeking clarification. Marokwitz (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::::They can appeal through the normal process, namely first to the admin who took action, and secondly to WP:AN. However, for the reasons I stated above, it is unlikely to be successful. They can still edit the millions of articles that aren't related to this topic area, and it wouldn't hurt to have the extra experience before delving back in. – bradv 20:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Hi all, and thanks @Marokwitz for starting the thread.

:::::::::I can understand the decision more thoroughly now with the clarifications from @Bradv. The topic area is very hot at the moment and if I need to step back, edit other areas, and show that I am here to be a constructive editor I can do so.

:::::::::However, I was frustrated because I saw an editor accused of gaming in this very area; they received a sanction, had their EC rights revoked, appealed, and the appeal was successful and they now continue to edit as EC in the very area they gamed.

:::::::::Hence, why I felt it was a double standard. Chavmen (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

:@A smart kitten you are quite correct - fixed. firefly ( t · c ) 13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we have two problems

1. I don't see on either the first or later alerts this information for non-ecp editors

2. Anyone getting an earlier alert is likely to think they can use talk pages normally.

This is in relation to an issue brought up on my talk page yesterday. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate Doug raising this point and would appreciate some clarity on this. I raised the issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Coretheapple fyi Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGuLsqDz9o] Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

:I can't see a specific question or a request for a specific change; I guess noone has replied because there's no obvious step to take. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

::Precisely what kind of participation is allowed by non-ECP editors on EC talk pages? It is commonly believed, and Barkeep49 reiterated in his comment in the link proceeding linked above, that Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk namespace to post "constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". That is what the current boilerplate notice to new editors says. That is also was WP:ECP said until last November.

::However if you go to WP:ECR, you see that it was amended in November to exclude "post constructive comments."

::The above became an issue in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1199221445#The_terminology_used_regarding_the_October_7th_attacks this discussion]. I expect this will come up again. I believe that is what Doug Weller was also raising. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

:::There is now an avoidable amount of confusion caused by quotes lacking a source. When you refer to "the current boilerplate notice", which template exactly are you referring to? Also, I wonder which page {{u|Barkeep49}} has cited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

::::We have {{subst:alert/first|a-i}} which doesn't mention ECP as a word but says 500 edits and 30 days, which is required. We also have WP:ECR which says "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. " The alert doesn't mention talk pages. That seems confusing. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::alert/first|a-i links to WP:ECR under "500 edits and 30 days." Notwithstanding that the old language was quoted on the ARCA page, I don't get what is confusing about ECR's language? Levivich (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::I just wanted to know to what extent, if at all, we still tolerate "constructive comments" that aren't specifically edit requests. These are high-visibility pages and we get a lot of people dropping in, one of whom was given an ECR notice prior to November. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Ok but you're aware that arbcom just removed those words from the rule, so doesn't that answer your question? Officially, the rule no longer permits them. However this is Wikipedia and IAR is a thing. So, to what extent do we IAR that rule? Nobody can answer that because the answer is: to whatever extent editors decide to IAR on a case by case basis. Levivich (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::@Levivich How many new users will think to click on that? My guess is a lot. So is it enough? Doug Weller talk 16:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I mean, I'd agree that the template should be amended to say "the extended confirmed restriction is in effect" (with a link) (and I would have already made that change if I could) but after that I don't care who clicks on it and who doesn't, that's up to the user. Like, how many people read V before they make their first edit, you know what I mean? If they don't read ECR when they get the notice, they'll read it when they're reverted with "WP:ECR" in the edit summary. Levivich (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

::::Apologies for any confusion I have caused. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• My takeaway from this discussion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Coretheapple] is that as long as a non-EC editor is commenting on the talk page in good faith and is requesting a specific change or edit, even if not using the Edit Request form, that such a discussion should be permitted and not hatted. Is that a fair summary? Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• :From my POV, yes. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::From your POV, is it a requirement that the request change/edit be specific ("change X to Y" form, or at least nearly so) and either uncontroversial or supported by consensus? If not, the link in ARBECR to WP:EDITXY is hurting more than helping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

:It would be good to alter the alert templates (both Template:Alert and Template:Alert/first) in some way. Here are some options from least change to most change, and for the record, the current templates use the language {{tqd|"Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic."}}

:# Use the term "extended confirmed restriction" explicitly. Something like {{tqd|"Additionally, the extended confirmed restriction is in place, so editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and ..."}}

:# Using that tech wizardry that alters the message based on the user's EC status, display #1 for EC users and display the full ECR explanation for non-EC users, so they get info on where they can and can't participate.

:# Make the full ECR explanation part of the alert for all users, regardless of EC status.

:Procedurally, I'm not sure what the rules are for substantive changes to these templates. ARCA needed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem IMO with the November WP:ECR change is that it simply dropped the "constructive comment" wording in Delphic fashion without a word of elaboration, so that editors have to put on their thinking caps and try to figure out,,,, hmmm... what did these sages mean? You could have simply said, "constructive comments are no longer allowed" or "not allowed unless blah blah blah" or otherwise eked out a sentence or two more. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

:And now I've found Talk:Ram Mandir#Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II which is a talk page of an ECP article and not an edi request. It's clearly good faith so I may leave it there. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

:Or if sexuality isn't supposed to be part of the topic area, then it should be made clear that it's not part of the topic area despite the title. Ultimately, every one of these project pages and the associated templates should define the topic area. Editors shouldn't need to read motions from previous years to figure out the topic area. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this may confuse new editors by combining two parts of the ECP restriction.

WP:ECR is I think much clearer. "only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, " "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive."

I think the first alert needs to be much more specific. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Is adding content that is unrelated to the contentious topic, but taken from a reference that discusses the contentious topic also prohibited until 500 edits & 30 days of seniority? There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Up_the_Walls&diff=prev&oldid=1211503235 no dispute] that the content that I added is unrelated to the contentious topic. Up the Walls (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

:@Up the Walls thank you for raising this question. I am interested in the answer as well. S0091 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

:So your position is that information put in a section titled "Israel/Palestine conflict" and information from a source titled "Israeli satirists blast John Oliver’s segment on Israel-Gaza conflict" is "unrelated to the contentious topic"? You are wrong. That content is unambiguously within scope of the restrictions. That is why an editor removed it. I see that you think it is "going too far". That's fine, but it's not about you or what you think. There are rules. Editors implement the rules. Editors must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic {{highlight|on any page}} (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive). Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

::I think you misunderstood the question. The question was about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver&diff=prev&oldid=1211500848 adding this section], which is objectively nothing to do with the Israel Palestine Conflict. Up the Walls (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:::Wouldn't be the first time. I agree with you that the content sampled from that source and added in that revision falls outside of the scope of the ARBPIA restrictions and is not subject to the EC restriction even though the source itself "[https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/israeli-comedian-tom-aharon-blasts-john-olivers-segment-on-the-conflict-668731 Israeli satirists blast John Oliver’s segment on Israel-Gaza conflict]" does contain content that is within scope of the restrictions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

::::So I'll repeat the question: Is it permissible for non-extended confirmed users to add content that is objectively unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict but the source on which the content does discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict? Up the Walls (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure your John Oliver revision helps answer that particular question. That revision seems like a very straightforward case to me because the page clearly falls outside the topic area, so whether EC applies depends on the content itself, not what else the source says. That is my understanding anyway. But what about pages unambiguously inside the topic area? I'm guessing that the answer to the question depends not so much on the fact that a source discusses the Arab-Israeli conflict, but rather on whether a) there is agreement on what "objectively unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict" means and b) how much granularity in enforcing the restrictions is practical. Is the date of birth of a Hamas member objectively unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict? How about the high school a settler leader attended? Maybe, but there are page level restrictions in place in many, many cases where the deciding factor seems to be whether an editor has the privileges to edit there rather than the nature of the content or the source. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::Sounds like you agree that a non-extended confirmed users should be allowed to add content that is unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict (to an article that is also unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or else the article would be extended protected) even when the reference that is used to satisfy the verifiability requirement does discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Am I correctly interpreting your paragraph? Up the Walls (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Close. I agree that a non-extended confirmed users should be allowed to add content that is unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict to an article that is also unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict even when the reference that is used to satisfy the verifiability requirement does discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do not agree with the 'or else the article would be extended protected' part because, for a variety of reasons that I do not understand well, that is not the case in practice. Firstly, I don't know the answer to the seemingly simple question like 'How do I (programmatically) identify whether an article, template etc. is "inside" the topic area or "outside" the topic area? So that is an issue right there, the topic area does not have a mapped boundary, but it has mappable regions within it. Many, but not all, will have restriction related templates. Many, but not all, will be EC protected. For example, if you pick a category at random, Category:Fatah attacks, which is a set of things clearly inside the topic area, and just look at that category, not the subcategory contents, only 8 out of the 16 pages have restriction related templates and 9 out of the 16 are EC protected. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

:My suggestion is that if what you want to include has diffs, then place it the evidence section. If it discusses existing evidence, then placing it in the analysis section of the workshop is probably best. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

::Got it. Thanks for the advice. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 19:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

:Thinker78, you're supposed to request a word limit extension in your statement and/or email the clerk list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Doug Weller}}, you're using the right template. I added an anchor to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles to resolve the link problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

::@Firefangledfeathers Good to know. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

:I admit I haven't the foggiest why you can't add an edit summary, so I defer to those who know the technical reasons. But if it is a headache to allow a summary, is there any downside to just doing a dummy edit immediately after for the summary? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

::The preload includes &nosummary=yes which prevents an edit summary being added. It was added by {{u|Callanecc}} in 2015. If I had to guess, the point is to avoid editorialising in an edit summary. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

:::I feel like at a minimum we should be using a preloaded summary then, even if it is as simple as "Adding request." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

::::Thank you both for looking into this. I hope that there is an easy way to add the edit summary by changing the text "&nosummary=yes" to a preloaded summary. Regarding adding a dummy edit afterwards, that's a good idea. The instructions say to add a notification link afterwards, which I did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=1221481788&oldid=1221481715 here] so that has the same effect as a dummy edit. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

:I don't think you can add an edit summary when creating a new section. As per {{section link|Help:Edit summary|Section editing}}, the section title is used as the edit summary. Since the preloaded template adds the section title, when the "Subject" edit box is displayed (which occurs when the nosummary parameter is removed), I believe if the editor enters in a subject, two titles will get added. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Recently I was discussing points on a talk thread and the posts were reverted with the following comment "Reverted 1 edit by Galdrack (talk): Per WP:ARBECR". I think it's because the posts were deemed to be non-constructive but the implication is with the status of my account I can only make suggested edits and can't contribute to the discussion itself? The rational I was given was rather poor so I'm still confused as to the rules/reasoning. Galdrack (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

:Until you have made 500 edits, you are not allowed to edit in the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. The only exception to this is for you to be able to make constructive edit requests, but participating in other discussions is not allowed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

::"but participating in other discussions is not allowed" Ok this was the one I wasn't sure of mainly, so there had/have been several entries by <500 entry users on the post and remain. I'm not bothered by that but is my understanding the comments are allowed so long as they're (in the opinion of 500> entry users) contributing to the conversation? And in turn those 500> entry users can then delete the comments they deem less constructive? Galdrack (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

:::While the rule is to not allow these comments, removing them may be an issue if another editor has already replied as removing the comment then removes the context that surrounded it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

::::Ok that's fair, thanks! Galdrack (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you! That was fast. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Anachronist case request has been majority declined for several days now. It's not fair to the accused party (weren't we going to move away from that naming convention when possible?) to have their name listed as the title of a case request for days longer than appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

{{subst:Contentious topics/alert|kurd}}:

File:Commons-emblem-notice.svg You have recently made edits related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

I think we need a separate code to refer to WP:ARBKURDS, as "kurd" is taken by the community-imposed extended-confirmed restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:If the template itself is not ambiguous, how is that parameter ambiguous? We don't use Template:Contentious topics, or any of its sub-templates, for general sanctions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

::Sorry, but I didn't realize that Template:Alert could also be used for general sanctions. If we want to continue doing so, TBF is right that we need distinct parameters for the different regimes. We should probably also further distinguish the two versions of Armenia/Azerbaijan sanctions, as "a-a" and "aa" are likely to be mixed up. Maybe "gskurd" and "gsaa"/"gsa-a" for the general sanctions versions?

::We have another issue, which applies also to Template:Gs/alert: the community has not in fact "authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions" for the Kurds, Armenia/Azerbaijan, and Russia/Ukraine topic areas. It just imposed ECR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Would it be better to deprecate {{tlsx|Alert}} in favor of {{tlsx|Gs/alert}}, {{tlsx|Contentious topics/alert/first}}, and {{tlsx|Contentious topics/alert}}? I think the more specific templates are becoming more commonly used nowadays because they're the ones documented on WP:GS.

:::Another possible fix would be adding a required "type" parameter to distinguish between Arbitration Committee and community sanctions or prefixing every code like "gs/a-a" and "ct/a-a".

:::Regarding the {{tlsx|Alert}} language, it shouldn't say "contentious topics" for any community sanction. At this time, that term is only used for Arbitration Committee sanctions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 212#RfC: Converting all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure decided to say "contentious topics" for community sanctions as well. SilverLocust 💬 01:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::It looks like I missed that RfC. Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

::::We should neither deprecate the "alert" template for ArbCom's CTOP notifications nor suddenly require a parameter prefix. The current state is a convenient short code that can easily be (and is probably often) typed by hand; it has required a huge amount of work to be established. Its use is documented at Template:Contentious topics and its subpages; the direct use of the "Contentious topics" template is a trick I only had to apply because of the ambiguity of "kurds". People use, this, convenient, code, all, the, time. Trying to find a different usage in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=602 filter hit log of 602] is actually tough. Changing the way alerts are placed every few years is something we really shouldn't do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

:::It appears that Module:Sanctions would need to be changed to make that an option. If you don't include [ct] = 'true' in the data at Module:Sanctions/data, then {{tlsx|gs/alert|kurd}} and the others will give This topic area is not designated as a contentious topic. Alert is not required. SilverLocust 💬 01:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with {{u|Firefangledfeathers}} that a separate code isn't necessary because the templates are separate. However, it would help distinguish the alert if it mentioned the Arbitration Committee, and it seems like "broadly construed" should be set off by commas. Something like {{tpq|the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee}} perhaps? The last sentence is a little repetitive too. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unjustified_removal_of_my_edits_on_the_Stefan_Molyneux_page Hayden41 (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:You can make an edit request about Sweet Baby Inc. at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. – SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

:Hello MiBerG! You are permitted to use the talk page, but only to make edit requests. You are not permitted to join existing discussions or start new ones. As for your second question, the wording of the restriction is that you may only make edit requests. If you need to clarify what you meant, that is fine. But more substantive discussion is not keeping in the spirit of the restriction. Best and happy editing, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::Dear @HouseBlaster, thank you for the clarification.--MiBerG (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:The implementation notes hadn't been completely substituted on that first case, so once the casenav data for the number of active arbitrators was no longer available, it treated it as having 0 active arbitrators, and 1 support become enough to show as passing. I have fixed it on that page by adding |active= 11 to each proposal (and also subst'ed it for good measure). Thanks, SilverLocust 💬 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks, fixed. SilverLocust 💬 16:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

For motion 5 (ARBPIA5) it states that there are 10 active arbs and since 1 has abstained, 5 is a majority. However, L235 (an inactive arb) has voted on it, so the majority needs to be altered to 6.

I'm unsure if that affects the numbers for any of the other motions (or indeed any other cases) but it clearly does for this one. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:Marked as active on the one motion. L235, we'll assume you're not active on the other 6 motions unless you indicate otherwise or vote on them. SilverLocust 💬 20:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:Tamzin, it looks fine on my screen? It appears that {{para|acotalign}} was removed in 2012, so that parameter has been worthless for over a decade at this point. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

::@HouseBlaster: What skin are you using? I'm using Vector-22. Checking now, it does align left in Vector. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Tamzin, I am a Vector 2010 user; probably should've though to check the default skin! I don't see enough space to have it left-aligned while still keeping the other two sidebars. Thinking out loud in writing, do we need the dispute resolution sidebar there? It is not a current arbitration request. Thinking even more in print, I am wondering if WP:A/C can be BLAR'd to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, which has all of the information at WP:A/C and more. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I find A/C a very helpful page to access ArbCom recent changes without having to load a whole noticeboard. Seemingly [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-30&pages=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current many others do too]. Would there be some way to make ACOT's total width flexible? At the moment it looks like all the widths are hardcoded. Alternately, this works. It's a little ugly with the DR template down there, but putting three sidebars together is gonna look a little ugly no matter what. Or as a third option, you could force all three boxen into a table. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Well, it was an idea. Happy to keep it around if people find it useful :){{pb}}Forcing all three into a table looks even worse on my screen. It forces ACOT to be super narrow. I think your proposed edit (moving the least relevant item to drop below) is the least bad option which does not involve {{User:Tamzin/The diaeresis|re|i|nventing}} the wheel. If someone wants to work on making ACOT's width flexible, I think that would be awesome, but with current stuff I am reluctant to sign up for doing that myself. Happy to let you do the honors of reinstating your edit; also happy to do it myself. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::@HouseBlaster: Idea just popped into my head the other night: Why not just redirect it to Template:ArbComOpenTasks? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{done|Done}} BOLDly; if anyone has objections revert (and I waive the prohibition on reverting clerks in arbspace for this particular edit). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Parameters to set widths on pages, or arbitrary floats, inhibit display at mobile resolution. Setting width is a no-go from that perspective. Setting a different kind of float is possible in TemplateStyles and if that's pursued should be pursued there. Izno (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

On the Denali page, a change was made to the very first sentence that is controversially worded and, I think clearly, not as helpful as it could be for readers. Multiple people have made changes to the change but they have all been almost immediately reverted (without really any discussion).

I found a change to the original change that I think would be pretty good at avoiding controversy and at being helpful for readers and discussed it on the talk page. Nothing that came up in the discussion seemed to suggest otherwise, so I made it and encouraged anyone who did not find it as helpful to continue the discussion on the the talk page.

One user reverts my change, but unlike previous people, I undo the revert and encourage the user to continue the conversation on the talk page.

I understand that I can ask here if I am handling a contentious topic properly.

Besides what I am currently doing, a second option I can see is to revert the original change (this is all very recent, by the way) and insist on consensus for it before allowing that change to be made.

I think the first option would be better, because I think that wording is at least pretty good, until we get to whatever might come out of consensus, but no problem if the second option is what would be more appropriate.

I hope that is right that I can get some help on what I should do by posting here. Thank you.

HalfDome (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Despite what Beeblebrox suggests, this is a general question, and not one about any specific alleged edit-warring. A response would still be very helpful, but no worries if I misunderstood what was meant by "if you have any questions about contentious topics procedures". HalfDome (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:@HalfDome Contentious topics are those officially designated as such by the Arbitration Committee, not merely any topic which might be disputed. Now, I suspect the dispute in question could fall under WP:AMPOL. But getting ArbCom or our clerks involved is overkill. Your question is easily answered by WP:BRD. You made a bold change, someone else reverted it, now it's time for you to discuss the change. You don't get to revert their reversion, because you were the first mover here. If content is contested, the status quo reigns until there is consensus for a change. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::Denali has, unfortunately come under the AMPOL CTOP area due to an executive order regarding its name. What used to be a fairly quiet and stable article about a mountain has been a complete zoo for the last two weeks or so. However, as I've tried to explain already to this user, edit warring is wrong anywhere, CTOP or not. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:It was reasonable to understand this query as within {{tl|Contentious topics/alert/first}}'s invitation that "If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard", given that the contentious topics procedure applies to edits relating to that naming controversy. And we can respond to questions that don't have to be addressed to a clerk. The content dispute itself isn't something we're able to resolve, and any requests for actual contentious topic enforcement should be addressed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

:On the substance of your query, I agree with CaptainEek's advice not to reinstate reverted material without achieving consensus in that discussion. It doesn't appear that you thought consensus had been reached, but if there is disagreement on that, then that determination should be left to an uninvolved editor (see also the Wikipedia:Closing discussions information page and the Wikipedia:Closure requests noticeboard) rather than having involved editors making repeated reverts. SilverLocust 💬 22:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hi all. Many thanks for the responses. I haven't been (really) active with Wikipedia for about 15 years (aside from donating) (got busy with kids, etc). Yes, I was following that invitation, because I do want to understand how things work these days, and your responses are very helpful for me doing so.

::I don't think I was really the first mover; I think that was the person who made the initial controversial change. What I was then doing was the following:

::* Bold initial change → Bold fixes to try to correct any issues with the initial change → don't let the fixes be removed any more than the initial change is being removed.

::I can see why that process could be problematic and why the community has settled on what I think you are describing:

::* Bold initial change → revert the change if it has issues → discuss in talk

::So, yeah, I believe I should have reverted rather than try to fix, when I found a recent change that I found problematic.

::Thank you again. HalfDome (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Pin message|10:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740823575}}

Now that the balanced editing restriction exists, thought I'd get the ball rolling on my proposed implementation for it. Of course, entirely up to y'all how to do it, but at least the way I envisioned it, the to-dos are:

1. Create a parameter for {{tl|pp-extended}} like {{para|ctop}}, then add that to all ARBPIA pages in the AE log. @SilverLocust and I talked a while about if there's any way to avoid this, because it is the most time-consuming part of implementation, but we couldn't come up with any other approach that would avoid false positives. Still, maybe room for brainstorming here. But I also know @Elli had volunteered to do this all themself as penance for proposing the thing. :P
2. Add {{tlm|Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}} to all talk pages of said articles, where it isn't already present. This part should be a simple AWB/JWB run.
3. Create an edit filter for edits to pages with either of those templates on them. This bit's pretty easy.
4. Create necessary template-y stuff.
5. [Optional but good idea] Look for pages that may have been protected with ARBPIA in the summary but not logged. Correctly log them, then apply tasks 1&2 above. {{quarry|89895}} shows a lower bound for all pages protected that way (based on references to the case or Israel in summary), while {{quarry|89896}} shows an upper bound (based on any word starting with "Arb"). Even the latter is only 3,123 pages, so this actually shouldn't be too hard to sift through.
6. [Optional but good idea] Maintain a tool to track percentage of hits to that filter. And good news! I already did that for y'all. Working prototype at https://n-ninety-five.toolforge.org/. (Get it? Because it tracks filtering rate?) Would be more than happy to transfer primary maintainership to a clerk or arb on request.
7. [Optional but good idea] Have a bot maintain tasks 1&2 going forward, each time a new page is ARBPIA-ECP'd.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{Reply|Tamzin}} See filter 1339 and EF/R and my talk page. I can discuss it more in about an hour. SilverLocust 💬 03:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::The way I've done the edit filter allows #1 to be skipped: The article/draft just needs to be EC protected, have a protection template (via Module:Protection banner), and have a PIA notice on the talk page (that doesn't use {{para|section|yes}}) (via Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice base). Placing missing PIA talk notices certainly needs doing, and I intend to go about that soon. SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Hmm. I like that on a technical level. But in terms of the remedy as written, does that satisfy {{tqq|that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures}}? A page might be ECP'd as a regular admin action, and then have the CTOP banner added to talk unrelatedly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::In my view, if it isn't really subject to ECR, then {{para|section|yes}} should be added to clarify that. I also made the tracking category :Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to allow one to look for pages that don't seem to belong. SilverLocust 💬 06:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's a good point. I do think there would still be occasional exceptions—maybe a list or broad-concept article that touches on PIA at several points, but is mostly not about PIA, but gets ECP'd for other reasons. Maybe there should be a special parameter to disable this in edge cases? {{para|disable-BER-tracking|1}} or something. Also, there should probably be a filter tracking addition of the ARBPIA talknotice by non-admins, if there isn't already, as that's the other realm where I could see this approach leading to problems. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't understand {{para|section|yes}} to mean there's just one section that touch upon PIA, just that it isn't a page whose "topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted". (The older template, Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, instead has {{para|relatedcontent|yes}} as the parameter name, which is clearer about this.)

::::::As an alternative to a filter, you can add the tracking category to your watchlist and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist?hidebots=1&hidepageedits=1&hidenewpages=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&hidenewuserlog=1&limit=250&days=30&enhanced=1&urlversion=2 view category changes], especially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?hidebots=1&hidepageedits=1&hidenewpages=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&hidenewuserlog=1&watchlist=watched&target=Template%3AContentious+topics%2Fpage+restriction+talk+notice+base&showlinkedto=1&limit=250&days=7&title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&urlversion=2 using RelatedChanges]. SilverLocust 💬 07:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::Quick improvement proposal, would moving "This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." in new_html to the front allow for one less condition to be consumed on average? As it would filter the vast majority of cases first. (Replying here per your request at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Reply|Chaotic Enby}} new_html is a lot bigger of a variable than the other conditions. As noted in m:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format#Performance, "In general, when dealing with these variables, it's always much better to consume further conditions but avoid computing heavy stuff. In order to achieve this, always put heavy variables as last conditions." See also this comment on my talk page. SilverLocust 💬 18:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh true, that does absolutely make sense, thanks! I was too focused on the number of conditions and didn't realize how big the condition itself would be. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Could bot edits be excluded from the edit filter? The category moves by User:JJMC89 bot III tend to clutter Special:AbuseLog, making it harder to spot problematic edits, and I doubt we need to ensure that bots adhere to the balanced editing restriction. Jfire (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, sure. I had previously left out a bot check because bots aren't extended confirmed anyway, but there are some admin bots who do hit the filter. SilverLocust 💬 07:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I have a question: do we also need to log edits by administrators who edit pages that are under the ARBPIA topic area? Codename Noreste (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::An administrator could receive this sanction, yes. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There's an assumption here that {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i|section=yes}} is different from {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}} without the parameter, but actually section=yes is the default and they produce the same text which says that only parts of the article are included. To get text that says all of the article is included you have to use section=no (which does not currently exist on any pages even though almost all of them are clearly full coverage). Changing the default would fix this immediately. Zero^talk 04:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Also, on 2, "This part should be a simple AWB/JWB run", this is unfortunately very much not the case. The "topic area" is largely unmapped and has a wrinkled complex boundary. I'm currently trying to map subregions and apply templates. Some of this can be done in a semi-automated way but in many cases inspecting article content is necessary. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Currently there are [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/90428# 5,412 articles] with ARBPIA talk page templates. The great majority have the old template. It's hard to guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than 1,000 others that don't yet have templates. Pages which have been the subject of contention are more likely to have templates than those which haven't been, so it should be fine to just let the community add templates to extra pages as they come to notice. Zero^talk 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, based on wikiproject membership intersections there may be somewhere between 7000 and 8000 talk pages for things within the topic area in part or whole altogether, who knows. I've added almost a 1000 in the past couple of days, mostly for easy unambiguous cases. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:The version of the talk notice that defaulted to "parts of" is no longer live, so that difference in defaults is resolved. (Though I wasn't assuming that |section=yes would change the text of both templates, just that adding that parameter would be a way to negate the inference that an ECP'd page with a PIA talk notice is most likely a primary article.) SilverLocust 💬 08:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• No, this is the wrong place. You would want either the talk page or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. However, I suspect you are not going to have any luck disputing the characterisation of Intelligent Design, as it easily fits into the category of pseudoscience (i.e. non-scientific theories that claim to be scientific). Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I see. So all the senior editors on Wikipedia are overtly biased. Gotcha. BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::The great lesson of postmodernism (I am not a postmodernist myself) is that all people are biased. "Unbiased people" are people who live in a permanent intellectual state of chaos. See WP:GOODBIAS.
• ::E.g., a judge is not unbiased-NOS. A judge is biased for the law of the land. A judge is biased for the facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The first question is, which namespace should be used: a) the namespace at time of edit, b) or the namespace at the time of the potential BER violation, or c) the namespace at the time of checking? This could go to ARCA if necessary, but I think there's only one logical answer, which is (a). (c) would seem to contradict "as determined at the time the edit is made", while (b) would mean that edits could count toward the numerator but not the denominator (since 1,339 only checks the four listed NSes). Whereas (a) matches the plain meaning of "edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces": An edit made to a user draft that is later mainspaced is not an edit in the Article namespace.

So if we're on the same page about that, that leaves us with a technical issue. Basically, the only way N95 could track this with full certainty is to look at all of a user's edits to all namespaces in the past 30 days, then work through each edited page's history to figure out its time-of-edit namespace. For a hypothetical editor who's made 1,000 edits in the past month to 300 distinct pages, that's a minimum 8 API queries, and potentially dozens, if one of those pages is something like AIV, AN/I, or the Sandbox (since it's a new query for every 500 revisions to each page the user has edited... and yes I could special-case those three but there will always be others).

That said, I could do it! It'd be a hair-pulling use of my hobby time for several days, but I could implement the above in some way that avoids an API ban. Or... We could take advantage of a half-bug, half-feature in AbuseFilter, which is that it caches namespace at time-of-edit and never updates it. (For a random example, see Special:AbuseLog/40212148.) So what we could do instead is have a second filter that just logs all edits to any page by someone with a BER. There could be a note at the top of WP:AELOG/2025/A-I#User sanctions asking admins to add users to the filter if imposing a BER. Then this whole thing becomes massively simpler, actually simpler than the current code because this would also track deleted edits: N95 would just have to get a user's hits of those two filters, refine both by time-of-edit namespace, and divide the 1,339 hits by the other filter's hits. (This wouldn't work on anyone not under a BER, but I'd have a "check if user is subject to a BER" box or something.)

I guess I technically don't need anyone's permission to create a log-only filter for N95 to use, but the BER says that the clerk team has jurisidiction over its implementation, and I wouldn't want to go ahead with something like this if anyone here will object. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Since there's already one BER in effect, and an AE thread leaning toward closure that way, I'm gonna go ahead and create the filter so I can incorporate it into N95 sooner rather than later. If there's consensus against taking this approach, or someone has a better idea, we can always disable/delete the filter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Tamzin is the filter broken? It's tagging all edits, even editors without balanced editing restriction. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I've disabled the filter temporarily, because it was matching 80% of edits. I don't think the one editor is responsible for 80% of edits; please feel free to re-enable when the bug is squashed.{{pb}}Tamzin, I think this is a great idea (so long as the filter works ;D). I'll bring it up on clerks-l, but I would assume (which is not a guarantee!) that the Committee and clerk team would support this. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)