View source for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>

<includeonly>= [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment]] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration]]
[[Category:Wikipedia requests]]

== Clarification request: Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area ==
'''Initiated by''' [[User:Tashmetu|Tashmetu]] '''at''' 12:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area|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:''
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard [[WP:AC/CN]]-->
*{{userlinks|Tashmetu}} (initiator)

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->

=== Statement by Tashmetu ===
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? [[User:Tashmetu|Tashmetu]] ([[User talk:Tashmetu|talk]]) 12:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC) <small>{{clerk note}} moved to own section. <span style="display:inline-block;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contribs/HouseBlaster|'''Blaster''']] ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)</small>

: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?  [[User:Tashmetu|Tashmetu]] ([[User talk:Tashmetu|talk]]) 12:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
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. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk: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.<br>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.  [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

=== Statement by Chess ===
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.

=== Statement by {other editor} ===

=== Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area: Clerk notes ===
:''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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area|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. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

=== Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*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. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 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. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*Yes, PIA is under [[WP:ARBECR|ARBECR]] which applies to the topic area, not just articles that are currently under [[WP:ECP]], per [[WP:PIA]]. That said, the [[Special:Permalink/1281795726#Introduction to contentious topics|CTOP notice that Tashmetu received]] a few days after ECP was revoked, while it does link to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction|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. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk: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. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Topic banning someone for an action (gaming the system to become extended-confirmed) that is inherently <em>not</em> part of the topic area would seem weird to me personally. Revoking an illegitimately obtained permission is fine. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
*::::whynotboth.gif [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk: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? [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

== Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 (balanced editing restriction) ==
<span id="Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5"></span>
'''Initiated by''' [[User:Tamzin|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:''
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard [[WP:AC/CN]]-->
*{{admin|Tamzin}} (initiator)

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness]

=== Statement by Tamzin (BER) ===
I was asked by clerk [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] and arb [[User:theleekycauldron|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:
# How should the [[WP:BER|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?
# Depending on the answer to #1, how should this be tracked?
My view is that the <em>current</em> 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 [[Help:Link_color#Redirect|highlights redirects]], then check where those redirects go.}}This approach, in other words, is <em>almost</em> 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 [[Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard/Archive_15#Filter_1352_logging_every_edit|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 [[Special:Diff/1284159701|current limited availability]]). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 20:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:CaptainEek|Eek]]: I agree that most cases of a false <em>negative</em> would be gaming and sanctionable as such; even if not, [[Blackstone's ratio|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.) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 21:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*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. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 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. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
*While I agree with CaptainEek, I'm also fine with endorsing the proposed approach. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 15:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
* Agree with SFR. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 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. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)