Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Statement by Patternbuffered: Added sig |
|||
Line 98:
*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)
=== Statement by Zero0000 ===
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.
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} ===
| |||