Requests for arbitration

For months, even years, Muhammad sees frequent disputes and edit wars, often leading to ANIs, AN3s, and locks on the article. Admin EdJohnston approached me about the constant mess [1] and I suggested imposing 1RR on all users and limiting the article to users here for at least 30 days. I took the idea to the talk page of dispute, pinged all active users and suggested this idea of 1RR and 30 days [2], and almost all users agreed [3]. EdJohnston next advised me to discuss this with a user with an opposite viewpoint and together bring the suggestion here. I discussed it with Eperoton [4], a great user here for all the right reasons. I pick Eperoton to make sure the proposal is not biased towards one side; every time there has been an RfC on the talk page, Eperoton and I have had opposite views. In almost every discussion on the article, our opinions have differed. If there are "two sets" of users, as EdJohnston asked me about, I think it's fair to say that Eperoton and I represent different sets. At the same time, I have the deepest respect for Eperoton, who is polite, well-read, well-behaved, makes convincing arguments and finds good sources. As I told EdJohnston when asked, even if there are two sets, it's not a matter of one set being right or wrong, or one being better behaved. There are great users and less good ones in both sets. Still, the article has often spired out of control. Sometimes due to socking but more often due to established users ignoring WP:BRD and/or ignoring consensuses. I believe a general 1RR would work wonders, and to avoid socking to get past 1RR, imposing a rule that new editors must have 30 days seniority to edit. Having received the support of Eperoton [5] for this proposal, and the strong support for it on the talk page, I act upon EdJohnston's proposal to come here to request that Muhammad, along the lines of ARBPIA, be placed under a strict 1RR and that no accounts younger than 30 days can edit. I genuinely think this would work wonders, it would decrease tensions (particularly if combined with an enforced WP:NPA on the talk page) and, hopefully, spare admins a lot of wasted time on repeated ANI and AN3 disputes.
Last, I name Eperoton and EdJohnston as I have discussed this proposal with them both. Naming them doesn't imply any wrong doing on their behalf, quite the opposite. The aim of this proposal is not to target or punish any particular users, but to establish a framework of rules that will make editing easier, better and more enjoyable for all users involved, regardless of their views.

@Hammersoft: Thank you for your comment! As I said, I came here after being encouraged by several admins to propose this suggestion which has already been discussed at the article talk page and has almost complete support there. As for new editors, I couldn't agree more. Nobody wants to limit them from editing, which is why I explicitly did not ask for 500 edits, just 30 days. This, in turn, is only to prevent socking which, unfortunately, has been an issue at Muhammad. We should very much encourage new users, but I don't believe having a very few limited high profile articles for a mere 30 days discourages new users. Jeppiz (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@In actu: and @Gamaliel: I very much agree that it is a last ditch effort. But believe me, almost everything has already been tried. Repeated blocks, discretionary sanctions, the page repeatedly fully-protected and permanent semi-protection, more drawn out ANI discussions than I can remember, and so on. This has been going on for years. I agree that these are exceptional measures, but this really is one of the most disputed and heated articles in the entire project (see the FAQ on Talk:Muhammad). If someone said it's the most disputed article at Wikipedia, I would believe them. This has been going on ever since, and long before, I joined the project seven years ago. So you're right, this should be an exceptional measure, but this also is an exceptional article. As I said, this has the broad support of almost all users involved in editing the article, regardless of opinions on the content. Jeppiz (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To all involved Apparently I made a mistake. EdJohnston recommended I suggest this at AE, and I believed this was AE. Obviously I was mistaken, and I own that - but would anyone kindly inform me of the proper place for this? And perhaps guidelines could be a bit clearer if I came to the wrong place despite seven years here? . As this is obviously the wrong place, please consider the request withdrawn. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eperoton

I appreciate Jeppiz's vote of confidence and I can confirm that we have generally taken opposing sides in almost every dispute about this article that I can recall (while being able to agree on some details). This article has a wide readership and many editors have strongly held opinions about the subject matter. This has caused relatively frequent edit warring. I believe 1RR will help to improve the stability of the text during ongoing disputes. I also support a restriction on accounts newer than 30 days old. This will help dealing with socks, and I think it will also help newer editors make more constructive contributions. In my -- admittedly, somewhat limited -- experience, the edit warring in this article often happens around edits that have been extensively debated on the talk page before. It seems that this article is often among the first ones that a new editor decides to make changes on, without realizing that the passage has a long history of disputes and often without understanding the relevant policies. Placing new auto-confirmed accounts into the same category as IP users would make it easier to explain these issues to them and prevent needless edit wars. In reference to the additional comments below, I don't know whether this is the right venue for this proposal, but I disagree with pairing the 30-day and 500-edit requirements. I believe that there are many experienced editors who prefer observation and discussion to making changes and thus have fewer than 500 edits, while I'm skeptical that it's possible to gain an understanding of WP policies and recurrent disputes on any given page in less than a month. Eperoton (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

I believe this proposal is within the authority of admins due to the DS of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images, as authorized in 2012: "Discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Muhammad, broadly interpreted." It is a bit surprising to see Jeppiz bring the proposal to Arbcom itself. Unless the committee thinks this is outside AE's authority, I would still suggest that they pass this proposal over to AE. Though it's not a given that it would be approved there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

Per "Role of the Arbitration Committee" on a recent, not too dissimilar case, and per Scope and Responsibilities of the ArbCom, there's nothing for ArbCom to do in this case. You've already indicated there is no conduct issue between you and the other named parties. The community has the power to do as you want; seek consensus on the talk page of the article in question. It is probably best if you do this via an RfC on the matter. You may wish to see this remedy for guidance. Any restriction on new editors should, I think, be identical to this one. Otherwise, we'll end up with chaos of specialist rules applying to all manner of articles across the project.

On a more general note; I have argued against such limitations on editing articles before. I find such remedies to be anathema to what it is we supposedly are. Lots of people don't like new editors coming along and changing things, and new good faith editors can often do things that are highly irritating. Nevertheless, new editors are the life blood of this project. Preventing them from contributing is wrong. We are continuing down the slippery slope. If the 500/30 rule is good in one place, it must be good in others. Eventually, we might as well do the whole project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question by MarkBernstein

Is an ArbCom case necessary for imposing the remedies proposed here? The 500/30 rule originated, after all, as an AE action at [Gamergate_Controversy].

Also, I notice that the request calls for a requirement of 30 days’ experience but omits the 500-edit requirement. I suggest that the two remain paired, as each deters a different group of trolls, while neither imposes a very substantial burden on genuine volunteers. New bona fide volunteers are the lifeblood of this project, but Gamergate-style campaigns, especially deployed on a professional scale by skilled and resourceful organizations, will end the project entirely if we fail to take prompt and sufficient measures to stop them. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved party Keithbob

The Committee should note that this article/issue has also been submitted to MEDCOM and accepted by 6 parties. My suggestion is to decline the case, push it over to AE for conduct issues and then, if needed, content issues can be moderated in a MedCom case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved party Robert McClenon

I agree with User:Keithbob. The issue at MEDCOM is one of two issues that have recently come to dispute resolution. Since controversy is continuing to come up, AE should be asked whether to impose restrictions on who may edit, and any content issues can be mediated, with editors knowing that both the mediation policy concerning the authority of mediators and discretionary sanctions apply to failure to work with the mediator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gamaliel - There is no need for community general sanctions. ArbCom discretionary sanctions are already in effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Floq

@Doug Weller: "community imposed". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

Muhammad: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

DeclineAs the person who wrote WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 and voted against it, a 30/500 restriction is a last ditch effort to keep an area from spiraling out of control. It should never be used when other editing restrictions and prohibitions have not been tried. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Guerillero as it does not appear that all measures have been exhausted yet. One of those potential measures is that the community can impose general sanctions if it deems necessary, but I don't believe the Committee should impose sanctions without an intractable conflict before it. Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have realized, thank you Robert McClenon. So this is a misplaced request that belongs at WP:AE, as I see Jeppiz has already realized. I am sympathetic to their confusion, however. Maybe we can make this clearer. I decided to be bold and made some adjustments to the big red box up there. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline for reasons given above: I am not convinced that the community cannot solve this--as a matter of fact, that two editors who have opposite views are here together, hand in hand, means that the community is probably going to be able to solve this. But 30/500, who likes counting? One could consider starting with 1R or something like that--after all, I don't think 4chan etc. is as interested in the prophet as it was in Gamergate. Anyway, decline, and good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I'm not seeing anything here that wouldn't be done better and quicker at WP:AE. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline not yet a matter for us, although a community imposed 1RR for this article sounds like a good idea. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per all above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]