Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: SQL (Talk) & Cthomas3 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Joe Roe (Talk) & Premeditated Chaos (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk)

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by Buffs

WP:ECP is currently being improperly applied and needs ArbCom input

ECP was created at the behest of ArbCom with the desire to have a step between full protection and basic protection. This has been discussed in several fora, but no consensus has emerged, largely because ArbCom and WP:AN do not adequately police such inputs. Here are some examples:

• User request: [1] [2] [3]
• Vague "Up Protection": [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
• Reason outside authorized reasons/action as a first resort: [10] [11]
• "place is f***ed": [12]
• Protecting their own user pages without evidence of a need for any page protection: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
• "I'd rather new users use the talk page for now" but page is indef ECP: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
• No reason at all (out of all the pages with ECP, 3% have no rationale at all)::[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]

I'm not suggesting any particular Admin is doing anything improper, per se. We haven't policed this very diligently as a community and acquiescence became acceptance over time. However, ECP is being used in ways it wasn't approved, so I think we need to crack down on its improper usage and get back to "The encyclopedia ANYONE can edit" as much as possible unless proven otherwise. Likewise, when we do need to use ECP, we need to ensure we're clearly marking why so that issues can potentially be addressed. Buffs (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• While this problem exists with many other articles, a sizable percentage fall under WP:ARBPIA. I was advised by multiple people that this would be a good forum to bring it up under. Buffs (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Remedy suggestion moved to workshop. Buffs (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ymblanter

Details of ARBPIA remedies are difficult to find and they are often unclear and open to interpretations

The two main issues with the current system of sanctions are that (i) these sanctions are too extensive, and it is often difficult to find any information about them (what is currently active, what has been lifted, what superceded what), and (ii) that many of them are open for different interpretations, and there is either no consensus about their implementation, or consensus is not in line with arbitration decisions. This is generally the case for all arbitration sanctions - the system is so complex that is it extremely difficult for any user who has not been dealing with it for years and did not follow all cases, appeals and amendments, to get the full picture of the sanctions - but this is not a case about everything, and I will specifically concentrate on ARBPIA sanctions--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We had already WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA2, and WP:ARBPIA3, as well as amendments to them. In principle, the remedies are listed on these pages. However, there is no central page which lists all the remedies (WP:ARBPIAINTRO and WP:A/I/PIA are to my knowledge the best we have. It is often difficult to find a remedy even if one knows it exists. For example, I am 100% sure that in one of the amendments ArbCom introduced compulsory logging of EC protected pages which have been protected followed ARBPIA3. However, I now spent 10 minutes and I could not find this amendment (well, at some point I myself cited it at the talk of WP:RFPP, so that I can probably find it searching the tack archived, but a chance an administrator not dealing with this ARBPIA aspect could find it is almost zero). Because of this, many EC ARBPIA protected pages are not logged. In the past, I even noticed by some ArbCom members who did not log the protected articles. I can not find examples right now, because we do not have a tracking system for ARBPIA extended confirmed protection, and all three pages currently listed at WP:AN have been logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019, however, I am sure I have seen multiple examples of admins not logging such pages. I myself only started logging pages about a couple of years ago, when I accidentally learned about this obligation in a conversation on one of the village pumps.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Other remedies are not much better. During the preliminary discussion of the case, Huldra showed that, whereas the template {{ARBPIA}} has to be places on talk pages of the relevant articles, and editnotice {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} has to be added for every such article, there is no consensus in the community (which possibly is caused by ignorance, or possibly by an absence of the clarity in the decision - if a clarification exists somewhere, I was not able to find it) whether these templates might be added only by uninvolved administrators or by any user. There are different interpretations on whether the article is eligible for ARBPIA extended confirmed protection only if the whole article is reasonably construed to ARBPIA or of a part of it is reasonably construed (see an example with Airbnb, which I earlier this year protected because one section, on their activity in Palestine, was undergoing serious disruption (I since then lifted the protection). Another example is also about the extended confirmed protection. Whereas the wording of the arbitration decision is such that any article which is reasonably construed to ARBPIA can be any moment extended confirmed protected, in practice there is currently consensus among the WP:RFPP admins that articles should only be protected is there is ongoing disruption, and requests to protect ARBPIA articles pre-emptively are being declined. (Again, I do not have the diffs for that, but I was recently taken to WP:AN, then to the arbitration enforcement, and then to the ArbCom talk page because in 2016 I extended confirmed protected Ibn Saud, an article where there was no ongoing disruption).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by ZScarpia

Issue 1: Placement of ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice

See the statetent by Huldra in the Preliminary statements section of the current case's talkpage. Since March of 2019 there has been a requirement that for the 500/30 and 1RR editing restrictions to be in force on any page, the ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice must be placed on it. That meant that the protection against sockpuppet editing which the restrictions were supposed to implement was suddenly removed on hundreds of articles. The situation wasn't helped by restrictions on which editors can place the editnotice.

Issue 2: No special protection for ARBPIA material on pages whose topic cannot be reasonably construed as being in the ARBPIA area

See this request for clarification. Since the AirBnB case, there has been a lot of uncertainty on how the remedies apply to ARBPIA-related material on pages not directly related to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Doug Weller [13:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)] describes part of the problem:

"I think I've been wrong in my assumptions, wishful thinking perhaps as I think ECP needs to apply to all related content in this area. The problem (and the reason I've been wrong) is that 1RR and the general 500/30 rule are not actually discretionary sanctions. I think they should be part of DS as I see a lot of drive-by editors and IP addresses (and the cynical side of me says some of these are editors logged out) changing content that's only a minor part of an article - often the names Israel or Palestine or the location of sites or towns, and 1RR and 500/30 would be a big help here, as well as in cases such as the section of Omar's article that is specifically about the conflict."

Issue 3: General uncertainty on how and where the ARBPIA remedies apply

See the last ARBPIA request for clarification. There is much confusion about how and where the ARBPIA remedies apply and getting to grips with them must be getting more difficult for new editors. The following is my own understanding of how the remedies work. I would appreciate comment.

Two sets of sanctions affect the ARBPIA area, the editing restrictions (1RR and 500/30) and discretionary sanctions.

The editing restrictions appy on pages which could be 'reasonably construed' as relating to the conflict. For them to apply, the ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice must be placed on affected 'pages'.

Discretionary sanctions apply, more broadly, on pages which may be 'broadly construed' as relating to the conflict. The ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement notice may be placed on the talkpages of affected articles, but such a placement is not necessary. However, discretionary sanctions may not be applied unless editors are aware that discretionary sanctions are in place. "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process."

    ←   ZScarpia   00:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Zero0000

While I full intend to present a reasoned case here, the time provided is very short. The absence of others I expect to participate is also evidence of insufficient time. Can we please have an extension? Zero^talk 11:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Huldra

I agree with what Ymblanter and ZScarpia have said above. I the 14+ years I have edited in the ARBPIA area, the rules for editing have become more and more Byzantine. I don't know anyone who fully understands all the rules anymore, I certainly don't.

We need simpler rules

As ZScarpia Issue 3 says: There are two sets of rules for the ARBPIA area: discretionary sanctions and editing restrictions (1RR and 500/30).

Please, please, please "unify" the rules, into one set of rules. There have been endless discussions about what is to be considered 'reasonably construed' and what is to be considered 'broadly construed'. We should be able to use our time more constructively.

I would suggest just one set of rules, all for 'broadly construed' (but I am absolutely open for other suggestions),

WP:ECP

The 30/500 rules has generally been a success in the ARBPIA area, IMO.

BUT: I am reluctant in seeing it "physically" enforced: I see editors, (mostly IPs) who do good work on ARBPIA articles all the time, typically fixing typos, etc. Nobody revert such an editor, even if they are "technically" breaking the 30/500 rules. (The exceptions are known vandals who make death/rape threats, like the Telstra-socks: they should be made to feel extremely unwelcome.)

Theoretically, such IPs can ask for an edit to be made on the talk page....but the threshold for that is much, much higher that just making the edit yourself.

So I am fine with having it as today: technically non-30/500 editors are banned from ARBPIA articles, in reality their edits are allowed IF they are uncontroversial and constructive, Huldra (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller

No special protection for ARBPIA material on pages whose topic cannot be reasonably construed as being in the ARBPIA area

See my quote above. This is a problem both on articles where the issue is a minor but contentious aspect such as location[91] to articles where the conflict is an important part of the article but as a whole the article is only broadly construed to be part of the conflict. If we can't put ECP on these articles, and I can see where that would not be a good idea for most of them at least, is there anything that we can do about IPs and short-life accounts making such edits? And color me cynical, but I sometimes look at such edits and wonder if they're by an established editor avoiding scrutiny. We need some creative thinking here I realise. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)