Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Requests for clarification and amendment  



1.1  Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland  
72 comments  


1.1.1  Statement by My very best wishes  





1.1.2  Statement by Volunteer Marek  





1.1.3  Statement by Piotrus  





1.1.4  Statement by Aquillion  





1.1.5  Statement by Pppery  





1.1.6  Statement by Tamzin  





1.1.7  Statement by HouseBlaster  





1.1.8  Statement by The Four Deuces  





1.1.9  Statement by Elinruby  





1.1.10  Statement by Horse Eye's Back  





1.1.11  Statement by {other-editor}  





1.1.12  World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Clerk notes  





1.1.13  World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion  



1.1.13.1  Motion: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland  





1.1.13.2  Motion 2: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland  





1.1.13.3  Motion 3: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland  









1.2  Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction  
21 comments  


1.2.1  Statement by 142.113.140.146  





1.2.2  Statement by 122141510  





1.2.3  Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish  





1.2.4  Statement by M.Bitton  





1.2.5  Statement by Selfstudier  





1.2.6  Statement by Kashmiri  





1.2.7  Statement by The Kip  





1.2.8  Statement by Thryduulf  





1.2.9  Statement by {other-editor}  





1.2.10  Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes  





1.2.11  Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion  


















Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment







Add links
 









Project page
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ARA)

  • purge this page
  • viewordiscuss this template
  • Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

    [edit]

    Open cases

    Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

    [edit]

    Recently closed cases (Past cases)

    Case name Closed
    Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
    Request name Motions  Case Posted
    Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
    Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 July 2024
    Motion name Date posted
    Historical elections 21 July 2024

    Requests for clarification and amendment

    [edit]

    To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

    1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
    2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
    3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
    4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
    Clarification and Amendment archives
  • t
  • e
  • 123456789101112131415161718
    192021222324252627282930313233343536
    373839404142434445464748495051525354
    555657585960616263646566676869707172
    737475767778798081828384858687888990
    919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
    109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
    127128

    This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

    Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

    Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

    Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

  • WP:A/R/C&A
  • WP:A/R/CL
  • WP:A/R/A
  • WP:A/R/CA
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment
  • Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

    [edit]

    Initiated by My very best wishes at 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Case or decision affected
    World War II and the history of Jews in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
    Clauses to which an amendment is requested
    1. 5.1) My very best wishes is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    2. 5.2) Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
    Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
    Information about amendment request

    Statement by My very best wishes

    [edit]

    My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.

    Responses
    • @Barkeep49. Thank you very much! Unlike the topic ban, the interaction ban does not prevent me from doing anything I want in the project. I would rather avoid these users anyway. For me, removing the interaction ban is only a matter of feeling myself as an editor in good standing. This is very important for me, but I can function without it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link by @HouseBlaster. Yes, I agree. This is an unusual case when my positive relationships with two other contributors were deemed as disruptive. I agree they were arguably disruptive as something that had led to my unhelpful comments during the arbitration. But I do not see a reason to continue keeping this interaction ban right now. And to be honest, my positive relationships with these users are strongly overstated. Admittedly, I do not like Piotrus, and for a good reason. It is another matter that I can easily collaborate with him, especially given his immense experience. VM? I like his erudition, but he is not my "buddy". Sure thing, I am not going to support them anywhere. Why would I do it? To be a glutton for punishment? My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aquillion. A simple warning to me during the case would be sufficient. I was very much willing to listen what arbitrators have to say: [3] (Speaking on my comment in this diff, it appears in diff #5 of the FOF as a proof of my wrongdoing, but it was merely my honest answer to a ping by another user who asked me a legitimate question, and I happily striked through my comment after a clarification). I thought mere fact that some of them talked with me during the case was an indication that I am not doing anything seriously wrong. And it was a civil discussion, even though I admittedly assumed bad faith by the off-wiki party and good faith by VM. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pppery. Yes, indeed. Importantly, this wider topic ban on AE was imposed only to prevent any future violation of the original topic by Arbcom, nothing else [4],[5]. Therefore, if the original topic ban is lifted, there should be no reason for keeping this wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HouseBlaster. Actually, after having this experience, I would rather not support anyone in any administrative discussions, just to be safe. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comments that do not support anyone specific, such as [6], I believe would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aoidh. Yes, the iban is not hugely restrictive. I can even edit same pages as Piotrus and VM, just should not interact with them per WP:IBAN. Although I never had problems interacting with them on any article talk pages, and we rarely reverted each other's edits. The issue is my comments during administrative discussions that could be regarded as supporting these users. I fully understand this now and would never do it again, even if the iban was lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back. Once again, I did not say anything about EEML per this advice by Barkeep49. I believe my statement was true. Yes, I never met them physically/in person/in real life. Yes, I communicated with them through email, more than 10 years ago, before this old case. Yes, I interacted with them on many pages. Other than that, I do not have any personal connections with them. I did not interact with them in any social media like Facebook. I never talked with them in person, over the phone, Zoom, etc. I do not know where they work because I am not interested in any personal information. And frankly, I do not care about them. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sdrqaz. Thank you! Yes, I do not really see why this iBan would be needed. I do have an editing overlap with VM in Wikipedia:RUSUKR and some other areas. These subjects are debated at article talk pages, and VM participate there. As a practical matter, why can't I say on an article talk page that I disagree (or agree) with such and such argument by VM because [an explanation]? What harm that would be? My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell:. Thank you very much! Would you also consider supporting motion 3? That wider topic ban was introduced specifically to ensure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would not be violated. Hence, it is not logical keeping it if the original ban will be lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to remedy 5.2 (motion 2)... Admittedly, I do not understand it. What exactly this is going to prevent? If I come again asking to remove 5.2 next year, what should I do differently? My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Volunteer Marek

    [edit]

    Statement by Piotrus

    [edit]

    Statement by Aquillion

    [edit]

    The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Pppery

    [edit]

    Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Tamzin

    [edit]

    Acknowledging courtesy ping. To nitpick procedurally, the TBAN I enacted was an AE-consensus sanction, not an individual one. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319 § My very best wishes. Courtesy pings to @ScottishFinnishRadish, Courcelles, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Guerillero, who participated in the admin discussion there. I personally have no opinion on whether to lift the sanction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by HouseBlaster

    [edit]

    I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by The Four Deuces

    [edit]

    My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.

    My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.

    TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elinruby, I did not say that MVBW's involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) should affect the current application. I said that MVBW "has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek." He wrote above, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." No one asked him to bring up his previous relationship, but if he does, it should be the whole truth. TFD (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elinruby, there is no reason I should disclose my interactions with you since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

    MYBW wrote, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." Do you think that is a fair and accurate reflection of their previous interactions?

    My advice to you and to myself is to let the administrators decide what signficance if any it has.

    TFD (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Elinruby

    [edit]

    I want to say that MVBW is an invaluable contributor, particularly when it comes to Russia and Russians. I deeply regretted losing contact with him because of the topic ban, given that I was still trying to straighten out the pages about collaboration with Nazi Germany and was talking to Polish editors about that.

    I was a party to the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case. as best I can tell for much the same reasons as MVBW; we were editing in the topic area of the war in Ukraine at the same time as VM and Gitz6666. I protested the topic ban at the time. MVBW is interested in the war in Ukraine, and not Poland. However the history of the region is such that part of Ukraine was once part of Poland (to vastly oversimplify) and I completely understand both that it would be difficult to respect a topic ban and that it would be necessary to break ties with me because of it.

    If it is relevant to anyone's thinking I strongly support removing this topic ban. I do not think the interaction ban is necessary either; he seems pretty serious about addressing the Committee's concerns. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Horse Eye's Back

    [edit]

    EEML is relevent and "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." appears to be misleading at best and a lie by omission at worst. EEML is definitely relevent here, if MVBW doesn't want to speak about it thats fine but their refusal to address the relationship in a forthright and honest manner has to count agaisnt them. If they can't be honest about their connections I have no faith that those connections aren't going to continue influencing their behavior going forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the clarification MVBW, I find your clarification to be forthright and honest and to the best of my knowledge cover all of the ground that needs to be covered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by {other-editor}

    [edit]

    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 amendment request or provide additional information.

    World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Clerk notes

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

    World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

    [edit]

    Motion: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

    [edit]

    Remedy 5.1 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic ban on My very best wishes) is repealed. Remedy 5.2 (the 1-way interaction ban) remains in effect.

    For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.

    Support
    As explained above I thought our factual basis for the topic ban was weaker than for the i-ban. I ultimately didn't vote for or against it because I decided a firmer outcome to the case was better than a milder one but this particular case I wasn't sure it was ever necessary. I think a year on and given the assurances here by MVBW that we can revoke it, also knowing that should it ever be a problem again that an individual admin or AE could swiftly reimpose it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. This seems to be a reasonable request especially when it can be reimposed as necessary if it becomes an issue. Also support repealing the AE sanction, though if there is objection from editors on that point I'd be open to reconsidering that point. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I am not sure the iban needs to stay in place, but otherwise I am not finding great issue with this motion. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am making this my second choice to a motion (below) to repeal both bans. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Second choice. I'm not convinced that the interaction ban is necessary either, but this is better than nothing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4. I'm happy to extend MVBW some rope. Ultimately, the best result all round from a topic ban is that the topic-banned editor spends some time contributing constructively elsewhere and then comes back after the requisite period and is once again an asset. The second best is that the topic ban keeps an otherwise productive editor away from an area where they can't see their own bias but I don't think MVBW is that sort of editor. They have made positive contributions elsewhere instead of just sitting out the ban or testing its limits and their appeal shows a level of self-awareness that hopefully means they won't make the same mistakes if given a second chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Having carefully reviewed this request, and the case itself, I think a second chance is appropriate. ArbCom repealing a TBAN doesn't mean that AE can't impose a new TBAN should fresh issues arise. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
    1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain
    1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Given the history and leadup to the case, I am very very wary of repealing the majority of remedies from it; in particular given how past granted appeals/repeals of remedies contributed to escalations and further conflict. However, this was a very harsh sanction and MV's appeal is not bad. I still cannot support the appeal but I will not oppose. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitrator discussion

    Motion 2: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

    [edit]

    Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.

    For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

    Support
    1. First choice. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. First choice. I am not convinced that the interaction ban serves any preventative effect; I think that based on this appeal and the unusual nature of the interaction ban (effectively for serving as a "fan club"), its usefulness has worn out and My very best wishes understands what went wrong. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. First choice. Cabayi (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4. First choice; see comments above. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Essentially per Sdrqaz. Equal choice with just removing the topic bans. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
    1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. This would be a mistake. The Iban can be looked at in the future but I am skeptical of appealing it at this time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Given the history that led to its implementation, nothing in the request is compelling enough to warrant removal of the interaction ban, which does not appear to be unduly restrictive. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain
    1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitrator discussion

    Motion 3: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

    [edit]

    My very best wishes' topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under the Eastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.

    For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

    Support
    1. Given that a repeal of the narrower Polish topic ban is on the cards, it seems pointless to me to repeal that and have a broader topic ban (which covers the Polish topic ban) in place, sending My very best wishes back to square one. I am generally in favour of the Committee not interfering in Community affairs, but given that the topic ban was carried out as arbitration enforcement, it is well within our remit to repeal as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I had understood it to be an AE consensus rather than individual sanction I'd have incorporated it until my original motion (as an individual it could have just been "undone" as a normal undoing). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Per my comment in the first motion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. As per above. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4. As Maxim says above, this is still a contentious topic and if there are more issues it's relatively straightforward to re-impose the topic ban or other proportional remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
    1. If one would like a restriction lifted, one should ask --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain
    1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitrator discussion

    Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction

    [edit]

    Initiated by 142.113.140.146 at 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Case or decision affected
    Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction
    Clauses to which an amendment is requested
    1. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction
    2. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction
    List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
    Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
    Information about amendment request
    • 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. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. Edit requests include RMs
    • 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. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. Edit requests exclude RMs and AfDs

    Statement by 142.113.140.146

    [edit]

    Iconcur RMs are ERs. WP:Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves. This social concept is independent of technical details of which template is used. A RM requests to edit the title. An AfD requests an edit to blank the page or replace its contents with a redirect.

    A 2023 "clarifying" motion actually repealed some other clarifying language. This may "contain a loophole". A repeal of a RM prohibition clause is taken to be license to participate in such RMs.

    We need to settle this once and for all. Request 1 approves, while request 2 forbids (along with AfDs), edits to RMs.

    I just found the 2021 amendment request. Although I disagree with but will accept the interpretation, I agree that Very few people should have to read the ARCAs at all. I also shouldn't need to read to understand WP:Enforcement only empowers editors to enforce P&G not arbitration restrictions.

    @ScottishFinnishRadish: Not sure why there is overextension of ARBECR at ARCA, especially when my original concern was ARBECR overpolicing. There's no {{If IP|Please login|Click here to file a request}}. Previous IPs filed statements, but I seemingly set the precedent for opening. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: Despite another editor's ARBPIA diff, my ARCA request doesn't specify ARBPIA. I never had the audacity to edit ARBPIA. ARBECR applies "to specified topic areas." I am potentially interested in other areas like APL, RUSUKR, AA, or KURD, so not any "specific" area. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by 122141510

    [edit]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: I am not familiar with arbitration requests and have to find time to read through some previous arbitrations to get an idea of what decorum and normal cadence of conversation it. If this is closed solely on the basis of being submitted by an IP user I would look to open it again afterward. I am curious if a satisfactory answer for locking editors out of consensus conversations can be provided at this level – I do not think stating that WP:RM is different from WP:ER and/or claiming it's all self-evident is a compelling one. I would like at least 24-48 hours to submit a statement and would be annoyed if this request was already closed on a technicality by that time, as the onus would then be shifted onto to me to submit an otherwise redundant request. 122141510 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier: The Edit Request Wizard situationally prompts me to obtain consensus first. Consensus forming discussions can be a necessary component of edit requests and some level of consensus (between submitter and the processor of any successful request) is needed to process any edit request. 122141510 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For those limited by time I believe my statement is effectively expounding on what I already said.

    I don't buy the idea that a move request should not be considered as a type of edit request. Any change to an article is an edit. The idea there's a difference between between a WP:RM and a WP:ER is an argument based on bureaucratic pedantics than on shared reality. While there may be practical reasons for the bureaucratic decision to not consider an RM a type of ER, editors should always refuse to accept as immutable reality any status quo which begs credulity to a wider audience. User:ScottishFinnishRadish's "thems the breaks" rationale comments were effectively the opposite, which is why I expressed frustration in our exchange. (I want to make it clear that I have no animus towards ScottishFinnishRadish. I appreciate that no one seems to have been left with an impression of, or suggested, otherwise.)

    Regarding the fact I mentioned systemic bias, I'm accusing this interpretation of WP:ECR of introducing unintentional systemic bias, in at least two ways;

    1. This interpretation of ECR will have unintended lapses in enforcement such that systemic bias is reinforced.
    For example, in a recent RM for an article under extended protection , my contribution [8] was never reverted. However, ScottishFinnishRadish reverted my contribution in the RM related to this arbitration. Under this interpretation of ECR, editors/administrators are less likely to notice and revert the contributions of junior editors in RMs if the editors agree with the existing consensus of senior editors, and more likely to notice and revert the contributions of junior editors if they disagree with an existing consensus of senior editors. In effect and especially over a long time horizon, junior editors can either agree and probably be included, or disagree and probably be excluded.
    2. This interpretation of ECR will indirectly place difficult onuses on newer and less experienced editors to challenge consensus.
    Quoting from my conversation with ScottishFinnishRadish; The policies as you are interpreting them can be taken as a bureaucratic manoeuvre by which a minority of editors can determine the topic of any contentious article – sure, the protection will eventually end, but not without shifting the WP:ONUS onto those who prefer a different title to build consensus, under more difficult conditions as consensus must be achieved from a much wider pool of editors. I am not sure I can expand on this while remaining relatively succinct – this is about as concise as I can get here, as I think the implications of this are wide-ranging and existential for Wikipedia as a project.

    I'd like to note that at time of posting my reverted contribution is still the only non-comment contribution which has been made to the RM in question [9]. This can be taken any number of ways, of course, but I don't mean to suggest "this specific article doesn't merit ECR in the first place" so much as it's not obvious to me what the policy is intending to guard against here. I do not see any benefit to the interpretation of ECR as enforced by ScottishFinnishRadish, and have outlined in broad strokes what I believe are the drawbacks. 122141510 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

    [edit]

    Everyone is supercool with an uninvolved IP opening a request for clarification in violation of ARBECR? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Primefac, the IP is asking about this discussion about this diff which is directly related to United States complicity in Gaza genocide. This seems like an internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions that is directly related to ARBPIA. This is your court so your rules, but this looks related to ARBPIA to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    122141510, the diff you presented is for an article that is extended-confirmed protected, but the topic area isn't covered by ECR so you can still engage fully on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Statement by M.Bitton

    [edit]

    RMs are not edit requests as they usually require consensus, something that is especially true for contentious topics (WP:EDITXY is pretty clear on this and the fact that edit requests shouldn't be used to attract attention to a post, even in the name of finding consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ScottishFinnishRadish: the thought definitely crossed my mind, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't sure. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree and Primefac: is the IP allowed to open this request? M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Selfstudier

    [edit]

    It used to be that consensus forming discussions (AfD, RFC, RM etcetera) were specifically listed out and excluded but that was amended in favor of the current restriction to straightforward edit requests a la WP:EDITXY. Consensus forming discussions are self evidently not edit requests.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @122141510: Once an editor is made aware of the restriction, WP:ARBECR and WP:EDITXY do not allow for controversial edit requests and so no consensus forming discussions are needed or necessary. While there is some degree of (EC) editorial discretion involved, for example, requesting clarification of an unclear edit request, the matter will otherwise be dealt with by EC editors.Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Kashmiri

    [edit]

    I initially intended to warn the IP editor about ARBPIA, but then realised that the subject requires discussion anyway, and so their input is indeed constructive and should be appreciated. I wouldn't be comfortable with shutting the discussion now for formal reasons, as it's not really about PIA but about ECR, and it needs to be had.

    The purpose of ECR is to let experienced editors work on controversial articles in relative peace by minimising disruption caused by inexperienced editors, socks, SPAs, etc. The idea is only to let them make a simple suggestion ("Change X to Y" per sources) where the response would be positive (Yes, done) or negative (No, not done). It was not the idea to let them start lengthy discussions on whether they like article titles or not. I'm all for making it absolutely clear that move requests, deletion requests, merge requests, etc., are disallowed under ARBECR. — kashmīrī TALK 15:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by The Kip

    [edit]

    Wide-ranging discussions involving heated debates between users are, quite bluntly, entirely separate from a simple "please change this" edit request - I think it's fairly clear that RMs are not mere edit requests, and should be subject to the same ECR protection as virtually everything else in the area.

    There's already been enough off-wiki coordination/pressure/etc from various groups relating to the ARBPIA area. The last thing any of us want is a loophole allowing brand-new SPAs, POV-warriors, and/or sock farms from Twitter, Reddit, news comment sections, and so on to flood the topic area with even more WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct than it already has. The Kip (contribs) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Thryduulf

    [edit]

    While initiating RM discussions are not "please change X to Y (because Z)" edit requests, such discussions do not encompass all requests to change the title of a page. In other words, there should be no prohibition on a non-EC editor making a uncontroversial request to move a page. For example if the current title contains a typo or has become outdated or ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by {other-editor}

    [edit]

    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 amendment request or provide additional information.

    Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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

    Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

    [edit]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1236671733"

    Categories: 
    Wikipedia arbitration
    Wikipedia requests
    Hidden category: 
    Wikipedia move-protected project pages
     



    This page was last edited on 26 July 2024, at 00:01 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki