Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| (10 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 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 86 ⟶ 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)
Line 100 ⟶ 103:
=== Statement by Zero0000 ===
At [[WP:ARBPIA4#
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.
Line 112 ⟶ 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)
==Review of Indian military history extended confirmed restriction==
{{hat|In a stunning, unexpected development the editor requesting a slackening of ECR was blocked as a sock of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11]]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)}}
;Case or decision affected
[[WP:ARBIMH]]
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
[[WP:ECR]]
=== Statement by Umar Halid ===
Indian military history topic was placed under an Extended Confirmed Restriction . While I fully respect ArbCom’s authority, I wish to raise a concern about the scope of enforcement.↵At present, the restriction appears to bar nonEC editors from all participation including talk pages and RFC's. This excludes good faith contributors. My concern is about ensuring that talk pages remain open to discussion.
Requested Amendment:↵I respectfully request ArbCom to consider allowing non EC editors to continue participating in TP discussions, so that good faith contributions by non EC editors can be evaluated. [[User:Umar Halid|Umar Halid]] ([[User talk:Umar Halid|talk]]) 14:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Jéské Couriano ===
:Barring editors from participating in talk pages (other than [[WP:EDITREQ|legitimate, simple, and sourced edit-requests]]) is part of the point. I don't think this is going to see any sort of change. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 15:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
=== Review of Indian military history extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
=== Review of Indian military history extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
{{hab}}
| |||