Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SilverLocust (talk | contribs) |
SilverLocust (talk | contribs) →Review of Indian military history extended confirmed restriction: removing closed sock request without archiving |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 49:
*I find this request persuasive and am currently inclined to support it, retaining the interaction and topic ban. Keen to provide the opportunity to potentially hear from other interested members of the community over the coming few days, before proposing a motion. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
*Same as Dan. Inclined to support lifting the ban with the iban and tban in place, would like to hear from those who were party to the behavior that led to the ban. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Put me at support, with the tban and iban still in place and with the understanding that the committee can't prevent people from putting 2 and 2 together when it comes to other accounts and account restrictions. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*As long as the iban and topic ban remain in place, I'm not opposed to accepting this appeal. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 12:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
*I'd also like to hear from the parties in the case, but if we do accept, can we add a single account restriction to the mix? One of the issues was misuse of multiple accounts, so we should make it clear that's not even potentially ok. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:var(--color-base);">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Line 54 ⟶ 55:
*Based on some private discussions that have taken place, while I am okay with an unblock (keeping the existing other restrictions in place) I am uncomfortable doing so unless we limit WMRapids to using a single account. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*I was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision#WMrapids unblocked with a one-account restriction|the only one who thought that a site ban was unnecessary]], and I still believe that. Robert, please see my and Barkeep's comments there regarding use of multiple accounts (and at {{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics/Proposed decision#Use of multiple accounts|nopage=y}} too). [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 01:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
* Please consider me provisionally inactive on this thread unless I come back to cast a vote. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 18:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 ==
Line 85 ⟶ 87:
I do not believe it is the intent of the userspace exception to allow non–extended confirmed users to openly discuss the Arab–Israeli conflict on other users' talk pages in ways that are prohibited in other namespaces and restricted on article talk pages. I ask the Arbitration Committee to amend the clause to limit the exception to the editor's own userspace, which better reflects existing practice. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
: {{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} The problem is that, in the lead section of [[WP:CT/A-I]], the text {{xt|"with certain exceptions as [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#ARBPIA General Sanctions|provided below]]"}} contains a link to {{slink|WP:CT/A-I#ARBPIA General Sanctions}}, which does invoke the term {{xt|"area of conflict"}} in the bullet point {{xt|"'''Extended confirmed restriction''': The [[WP:AC/P#Extended confirmed restriction|extended confirmed restriction]] is imposed on the area of conflict."}} An editor who is unfamiliar with the case history cannot be expected to know that ECR applies to the entire topic area (and not just the defined {{xt|"area of conflict"}}) after reading the [[WP:CT/A-I]] page. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 14:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Patternbuffered ===
As I [[Special:Diff/1307594945|wrote on my talk page]] I was fine with the warning and just curious about an apparent loophole. I agree it should be addressed to mitigate future confusion or conflict; how that should be done I will leave in more experienced hands. [[User:Patternbuffered|Patternbuffered]] ([[User talk:Patternbuffered|talk]]) 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish ===▼
=== Statement by Long-live-ALOPUS ===
=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
Line 98 ⟶ 101:
*User:Example posts a follow-up question (e.g. perhaps still not understanding, perhaps disagreeing that the content is related to the dispute)
As long as Example is not sealioning or otherwise acting in bad faith, we don't want to prohibit this sort of interaction yet a simple reading of the proposed language would do that. My first thought is a much-wordsmithed "this does not include discussion of actions taken regarding a user's own edits that takes place on the talk page of the user taking that action." While "discussion with the editor taking that action" is simpler, it would prohibit follow-up to a reply given by a talk-page stalker which I don't think would be desirable. Other things to consider are that good-faith, genuinely new editors are not guaranteed to know about pinging users to their own talk page, won't know how to determine whether some other editor is or is not extended-confirmed and if the queried actions relate to more than one editor (e.g. User:Foo reverted user:Example and user:Example2) it is better for all concerned for all discussion about it to happen on a single page. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
At [[WP:ARBPIA4#Definition of the "area of conflict"]] it says {{tq|"For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "'''area of conflict'''" shall be defined as encompassing...edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace."}}. And the [[#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions|application]] of ARBECR to PIA is {{tq|"The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the '''area of conflict'''."}} (my bold). So, even if "topic area" at [[WP:ARBECR]] is more general than "area of conflict", the ARBPIA page explicitly exempts userspace from it.
To repeat myself, ARBPIA4 does not apply ARBECR to the PIA "topic area" but only to the "area of conflict", which is a defined ___domain.
If ArbCom wants to replace the motion, they should do so with a motion to repeal and replace it, as this is not the first time the issue has come up and it won't be the last unless it is put to rest.
Personally I think that there is nothing wrong with a general userspace exemption, but reducing it to own-userspace would not be a big problem. On the other hand, restricting non-ECs from making comments in their own userspace would seem to have no purpose whatever, as there are other mechanisms for handling disruption. What sense is there in allowing edit requests on article talk pages but disallowing the same on own talk? I think own-userspace should be a general exemption to ECR in all topics. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 12:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Line 105 ⟶ 117:
=== Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* The userspace exception was previously discussed at {{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_128#Amendment_request:_Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict"_Clause_4_(b)}} (July to September 2024), which was closed as having "currently no appetite on the committee to change the definition of the area of conflict". (See the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_128#Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict"_Clause_4_(b):_Clerk_notes|two abandoned motions]] and comments by arbitrators about the exception.) ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* The {{tq|area of conflict}} language isn't found in {{tq|Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below. All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.}} The most recent clarification and motion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1184641744#Motion:_Edit_requests_only says] {{tq|The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions}}. The "area of conflict" language is just an artifact on that page because of older decisions. ECR applies to '''all edits related to the topic area, broadly construed'''. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Thryduulf}}, I think that falls under [[WP:BANEXEMPT]]#2, and that's how I've always seen it handled and handled it myself. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Newslinger}}, yeah, that should probably be fixed. It looks like it's just a supplemental page so it doesn't need a full motion so if my views align with the rest of the committee it should be a simple matter to tidy up. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||