For this motion there are 8 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. All that work and we managed to not vacate the original 1RR remedy. Facepalm Thank you to L235 for noticing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Worm^TT(talk) 16:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Would have been happy editing the case by show of hands, rather than a fresh motion: AGK ■ 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain/Recuse

Arbitrator comments/discussion

Community discussion

For what it's worth AGK, if remedy 1 had said the existing remedies rather than the following existing remedies (emphasis added), I think that'd have been reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Nableezy at 06:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notification of El C

Statement by Nableezy

I'd like some clarification on the awareness requirements for the 1RR. My reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions is that the only thing that requires awareness are sanctions enacted under 5A (discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator), and that the 1RR is a general sanction that does not require formal awareness of the discretionary sanctions for the topic area and that users may be blocked for violating that sanction without any formal alert (obviously a request to self-revert being offered). Is that correct, or is formal notification of the discretionary sanctions required prior to any violation of the 1RR required?

Statement by El C

Statement by Zero0000

In the case of articles with an ARBPIA editnotice, that notice whacks you in the face as soon as you hit the "edit" button. So I wouldn't oppose a ruling that the existence of the notice implies awareness of the sanctions. Zero^talk 07:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni (ARBPIA)

I’ll ping Callanecc on this as he’s been helpful explaining this before, but traditionally the understanding was that the General Prohibition was not DS, but a direct sanction from ArbCom. As such, it did not require formal DS awareness. From a practicality perspective, yeah, this is helpful to not be DS. No one isn’t warned first, and most people in these areas know the rules and the formal notification doesn’t accomplish much. For 500/30 in particular, requiring the same requirements of DS could actively work against the sanction. We do have editors who intentionally search for pages not under ECP so they can edit them because they’re that passionate about the issue. Enforcing 500/30 with the page level requirements for DS would effectively make it protection-only, which would cause issues. Blocks for 500/30 aren’t that common, but we do need them as a tool, and the DS awareness criteria there would work against the intent of the sanction: to prevent new editors from causing disruption in this area, which is very difficult to define and preemptively protect. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

Feels strange commenting here! Exactly as Tony said, sanctions that ArbCom imposes directly (as in not by an admin under DS) operate with a separate system of rules. Unless the ArbCom decision requires that a warning be given before a sanction is imposed then a warning is ArbCom-mandated. However, a best practice approach would require that before being sanctions an editor knows what they're doing is wrong. If they're attempting to, for example, game the system as Tony suggests then they definitely know what they're doing is wrong and can be sanctioned without a formal warning having been given. Just regarding Zero0000's point above, it's important to consider that people editing using the mobile interface won't be shown the edit notice so that needs to be considered if using only that to determine whether the editor knows about the sanctions and so should be sanctioned or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Just a short note that I read the first three arbcom member comments here and I am... very positively surprised. In my professional view as a sociologist who studied, among other things, ArbCom, English Wikipedia is way too into punitative blocks, with prevention being sidelined. To hear three members of ArbCom say otherwise, and do it very clearly, is very refreshing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Neither the 500/30 restriction nor the 1RR restriction require a formal alert in order to be enforced. However, in my experience most editors who violate 1RR are warned and asked to revert before they receive a block, and that approach should continue to be encouraged. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and this policy extends even to arbitration enforcement blocks. – bradv🍁 14:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What Bradv says. A notice/warning is not required, but we don't have be jerks about it. Having the authorization and ability to block without warning doesn't mean that blocking without warning is necessarily a good idea. Katie^talk 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly agree with both of the above. As I've written before, we have become far too obsessed with procedural requirements and formalities. The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the others, and I think we ned to amend arb com policy to make it more explicit. The primary purpose of arbcom is to settle disputes, not punish editors. Sometimes a person is so disruptive that a dispute can only be dealt with by removing them from the field, but do do this by discretionary sanctions is usually a very poor idea, because it is much too sticky. For arb com to sanction, a majority vote of a committee to do it; for an ordinary block, another admin can unblock, and if challenged it goes to AN and the the block needs to be reviewed by consensus ; but for DS a single admin can do it, and it is almost impossible to revert--the ds process is biased towards keeping the block. In other words, a single editor can do what arb com itself considers beyond its acceptable practice.

The absolute minimum is to greatly simply the rules for notice, which have been getting progressively complicated beyond what anyone can decipher.

But the basic reform is that the DS should be removed unless there is an affirmative consensus of uninvolved admins to retain it. (This is the opposite of present policy at WP:AC/DS section 9.2-- an appeal should succeed unless there is a clear consensus of uninvolved admins to sustain it). A further improvement could be made by limiting the time length of such sanction against individuals to 1 week at the very most, unless affirmatively endorsed by the community. A second improvement would be is restricting the types of individual DS to bans, topicbans, interaction bans, or page bans, with no special or usual requirements beyond the standard. A third would be limiting the number of times a single admin can do DS action agains an individual. (Similar restrictions might well apply to community blocks and bans, but arb com probably cannot legislate that on its own, except by accepting a willingness to review all bans and blocks, which is permitted by policy, but limited by our current practice, and is probably beyond our capability ). As is obvious here, the necessary changes will be complicated.

There is fortunately an easier way: all DS should be turned into ordinary restrictions, and DS never again enacted as a remedy. This is fuly within the power of arb com; it is our own internally invented procedure. They were originally done because there were unblockable editors--situations where some editors could not be blocked because their admin friends would immediately unblock; this is no longer a problem, as few such irresponsible admins remain. At present, the cure is worse than the disease, DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As one of the drafters of ARBPIA4, if I recall correctly our intention was that the template and edit notice was enough warning for the 1RR and 500/30 restrictions. Of course admins should us their judgement and not block people for good-faith mistakes, but at the same time, ARBPIA is probably the project's most contentious and abuse-prone topic area so a quick block to stop edit warring followed by an explanation might also be appropriate. With the "General Sanctions" we wanted something relatively simple and flexible and the last thing we want to do is recreate the byzantine nightmare that is the DS notification regime (per DGG). – Joe (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Zero0000 at 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Zero0000

In accordance with the ARBPIA General Sanctions, non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages of ARBPIA articles under certain conditions. However, "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.". My question is: Is a formal move proposal, as made using the ((requested move)) template, an example of "other internal project discussions"?

My opinion is that a move proposal is very similar to an RfC and so should be treated the same.

Thanks for your time. Zero^talk 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Bradv: I think your interpretation of "content" is narrower than intended. The very fact that the rules for talk space editing, AfDs, etc, are called "exceptions" proves that "content" is intended to include them. I believe that "content" just means "all content" in the ordinary English sense and it isn't a specific reference to article space. Zero^talk 04:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is nothing to stop non-ECs from discussing the topic of an on-going RfC on the talk page; they are only prohibited from taking part in the RfC itself. I believe this is important because of the number of new accounts or IPs that come out of nowhere just to "vote" in RfCs. I expect that a large fraction are socks, people editing while logged out, or people responding to off-wiki canvassing. Zero^talk 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier

The question came up here, I thought RM is not allowed and at first @El C: thought it was OK and then decided it wasn't. Perhaps it should be made clear that it is not allowed (in practice, it is similar to an RFC).Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I see RMs as being very similar to RfCs in nature, so my feeling is that if RfCs are disallowed, RMs should be as well. The question of how to title an article is, after all, an "internal project discussion". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Can I Log In

I've been following this clarification request since the beginning, and it seems like bradv pointed out interesting information that the 500/30 restriction applies to editing content only. So as worded, non-500/30 users may participate in "other internal project discussions".

Now let's look at WP:ARBPIA3, finding of fact No. 3

3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. (Kingsindian's Evidence)

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that was from ~4.5 years ago, but when you consider this to be a long-term problem, it's likely that the problem persist.

So with this underlying fact and intention/principle, I think that the 500/30 restriction does apply to RM as well as other internal project or vote-like discussions in any ArbCom/community areas of conflict. Sockpuppetry is small, but when discovered, is huge. 01:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Narky Blert

There is a general legal principle that exceptions are to be construed narrowly. This is to provide legal certainty to people who might be affected. The topic in question is an exception to an exception, and the same principles apply.

I find the wording "such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." unclear. What are its boundaries? I suggest that "such as" be replaced by "including but not limited to".

In the case at hand, I consider that a WP:RM is of the same nature as the things already listed, and should be explicitly mentioned. Narky Blert (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• My understanding of that clause is that "other internal discussions" refers to discussions that take place in locations other than the talk page of an article. Requested move discussions, as with other talk page discussions, can be managed by the methods listed in paragraph b, but only when disruption occurs. – bradv🍁 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GorillaWarfare, my understanding is that non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages and other discussions, "provided they are not disruptive". They are only prohibited from editing the articles themselves. So they can contribute to RMs and RfCs, but if they are disruptive they can be banned from the talk page, but not from other internal discussions. – bradv🍁 16:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose there's another interpretation of the General Sanctions that says that non-edit-confirmed editors are prohibited from participating in "other internal discussions". Perhaps someone can clarify the intent of the word "exception" in paragraph B-1, as I might be confused. – bradv🍁 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Follow up, having read this more carefully:

  ARBPIA General Sanctions, as currently worded, only applies the 500/30 prohibition to "editing content". There is an exception (extension?) to apply that rule to talk pages in the case of disruption, but that clause does not apply to "internal project discussions".

  As worded, this restriction does not prohibit new editors from participating in RMs, RfC, AfDs, or any other internal discussions, as they are not "editing content". If that was not the intent of the motion, it should be reworded. – bradv🍁 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little split on this one, given that they are very similar to RfCs. As to Bradv's point about discussions happening away from the talk page, RfCs fairly often happen on the articles' talk pages and my understanding is that non-30/500 users are not allowed to participate then either (though please correct me if I'm wrong—my particular editing interests do not take me into the area of Palestine-Israel articles very often). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I agree with Bradv's interpretation of "editing content"—I don't think "content" is meant to refer to "article content", but rather is just a vague term to refer to any editing. I agree with my other colleagues that RMs would seem to be prohibited, as are RfCs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the prohibition applies here, they're similar both to RfCCs, and AfDs; a title move in this area can be very consequential, and tend to be disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC) .[reply]
• In the interests of a conservative reading to avoid disruption and the problems with the topic area, I'd agree that the prohibition would apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I see where bradv is coming from and I agree that interpreting that exception it seems to be limited to discussions that are about more than just a single page even with the "RfCs" wedged in there. Moves can be controversial, yes, but so can changes in content. It makes no sense to say "You are allowed to argue for the change of everything but the name is off limits". Consequently, I would argue that the "RfCs" reverse-exception currently does not cover RfCs that are limited to the page in question and are held on the talk page because those RfCs do not fit the "internal discussions" definition (unlike AFDs, WikiProjects etc.). To take another example: WP:DAILYMAILRFC was an "internal discussion" because it was about whether to qualify a newspaper as a reliable source. The RfC held at Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 5#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits was not an "internal discussion" because it was only about what to include in this specific article. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To me a Requested Move is short hand for Request for Comment on a Move. Seems fairly obvious that the rules should be the same Worm^TT(talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how an RM discussion isn't an "internal project discussion." If that's the only question here that would be my answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold prohibition/ restrictions in this case. Seems just as contentious as warring over content. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by El C at 19:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

WP:ARBPIA4, specifically pertaining to: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4_(June_2020)

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

• El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification to Shrike
• diff of notification to Wikieditor19920

Statement by El C

Following up on the query from Shrike (see conversation at: User talk:Shrike), I thought perhaps it would be prudent for the Committee to clarify whether logged warnings count as "sanctions being levied." I suspect what the answer to this is, but having it on the record is probably a good thing. As well, any elucidation Committee members can maybe provide on AWARE and topic area regulars, even if only in passing, would be welcome (sorry for the two-questions-in-one!). El_C 19:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an add-on, I'd like to note that I realize that AWARE says, in part, Warnings issued under earlier procedures are not sanctions, but, even if we were to take that excerpt out of whatever context, the distinction between logged and un-logged warnings isn't specified, anywhere that I've seen (possibly, I just missed it?). El_C 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More pointedly about topic area regulars and the 12-month alert updates: say a topic area regular gets sanctioned (sanction sanction), but the sanctioning admin fails to notice that the alert update has lapsed by something like a month (or even two) — is the expectation then for the sanctions to therefore be rescinded? El_C 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some of the things Kevin had said below align with what I thought and some less so, so now I don't really feel too bad for wasting the Committee's time with this. Regardless, there seems to be grey areas that could be tweaked so as to be better expressly defined. Whether this or that gets adjusted via Motion immediately, or is to be left for wider DS reform, that I obviously leave to the Committee's discretion and can offer no serious advise on. It's mostly all the same to me though, anyway. (Sorry, will try to tone down the usual indentyness — let's see if I can live up to that promise!) El_C 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, right, that seems intuitive, as a general principle. But, in this case, the DS alert update was short by 10 days — also tying that to what Newyorkbrad says (i.e. "self-parody"). El_C 05:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, no doubt — I'm often seen as WP:BURO-ing it up when it comes to being a stickler about the procedures of DS rules (though admittedly, with some lapses, here and there). I'll just note that, in this case, I did do the calculation in my head and was, like, it's about right, not gonna bother them with another DS alert quite yet — but I suppose I'll consult a calendar next time (because math = hard!). Anyway, definitely, sounds good. Looking forward to seeing what y'all come up with by way of DS reform (long overdue). El_C 15:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

• I want to thank to El_C for bringing this up. In my opinion the logged warning is set of tools given by administrators as part of discretionary sanctions. So a user can receive one only if he aware there are sanctions in the area.
• If we say that experienced editors may receive such warning/sanction without meeting WP:AWARE requirement so what the point of "In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or"? --Shrike (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @L235: I think it was not the question if the logged warning counts as awareness. As far as I understand the question can a logged warning be given without meeting WP:AWARE criteria? Shrike (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikieditor19920

Statement by Selfstudier

Not really au fait with the nitty gritty but I don't think anyone needs to see that notice more than once or even at all, especially when you have those in-your-face notices at the articles themselves. Regulars know the score and newcomers are given an easier treatment.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

We have IAR for a good reason and overturning a logged warning because someone was out of awareness by 10 days seems to be a good example of where the rules are completely disconnected from reality --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Let me first say this: we know the awareness procedures are broken. They exist to avoid wikilawyering, but now there's almost a body of awareness law. My perspective is that a logged warning should count as awareness (many more things should count as awareness), but they perhaps don't currently. This is because under the procedures, warnings are not considered sanctions. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Dismissing an enforcement request says: When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches. Warnings are therefore imposed when "the imposition of a sanction" is found to be "inappropriate" (or when "no actual violation occurred"). This suggests that warnings are not sanctions, and so currently do not count under the second point of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Awareness. I think it'd be reasonable to amend it to allow warnings to count as sanctions, but I'd prefer to do a broader DS reform first. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. I'd be pretty uncomfortable logging a warning at AE against a user who could not be sanctioned at AE, and I would discourage the practice of doing so. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count me as a vote for no: it is inappropriate to log at the arbitration enforcement log a warning against a user for edits that they made when they were not technically aware of discretionary sanctions. Nothing precludes an unlogged warning, of course, but nothing should go in the AELOG for an unaware user. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: I hear what you're saying and I agree with it insofar as it's an argument to change the way awareness works (which I want to do too). But it's not a good interpretation of awareness as it exists now. Arbitration enforcement and particularly DS constitutes a delegation of extraordinary powers by this committee to administrators, and IAR does not generally apply (or, if it does, it applies to mitigate the actions that might be taken – ambiguity in our delegation of powers should be resolved in favor of a narrower delegation of powers). It definitely doesn't allow "just 10 days off", or "just a warning", or even "it was just 10 days off and it was just a warning" as a justification to take action outside of the procedure's scope, as ridiculous as the outcome might be. The good news is that a logged warning is functionally identical to an unlogged warning. But absolutely, please save your comments here and bring them up in the DS reform consultations – it will certainly be useful. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty reluctant to weigh in on an AWARENESS issue given that will be a major focus of DS reform. Quite simply AWARENESS is broken. I know I keep talking about it but I do think it will happen. I should note that quite truthfully I have no intent of leading this particular effort. However, I know some of my colleagues, including the one who posted here, are quite motivated by this topic and so I expect something will happen this year (and hopefully start to happen, if only internally at first, soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DS reform is coming up soon on our docket. Fixing how awareness works will be a major part of it. Awareness was originally meant as a check and balance, so that unsuspecting editors didn't suddenly find themselves blocked under byzantine rules they didn't know. That was a noble goal, and we still need some kind of way to let new users know about the rules. But now awareness is used as a sort of cudgel, a get of jail free card, an excuse to wikilawyer.

This particular issue? Well, again, this will probably get reformed. But at the moment, I am of a mind that a warning is not a sanction. What does a warning really do? Not much. It has no actual effect on your editing. Its meant only as a "knock it off kid or you'll go see the principal". Now, I don't think we should just start handing out warnings in place of awareness. But for egregious cases, I think it can make sense to skip the awareness, especially if they're already aware of other DS or clearly know about the functioning of ArbCom. I think the rules here should be flexible, as the harder our rules, the stronger the Wikilawyers, and the bigger the bureacracy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• About twelve years ago, I made an innocent-seeming comment that we shouldn't sanction editors for violating newly imposed discretionary-sanctions rules if they didn't know that the rules existed. As Kevin observes, this common-sense suggestion has developed into a "body of awareness law" that verges on self-parody, and I oppose adding any further complexity to it. The basic precept remains what it has always been, which is that if an editor might not be aware of the rule they violated, give them the benefit of the doubt and explain the rule, and see if there's another violation before moving ahead with a sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]