Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 23 August 2025 (→Amendment request: Rafe87 BER: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Tbanned by parties involved in the underlying dispute.   29 August 2025 0/5/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Transgender healthcare and people (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 11 Aug 2025 25 Aug 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Article titles and capitalisation 2 22 August 2025
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Indian military history none (orig. case) 22 July 2025
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics none (orig. case) 6 August 2025
Amendment request: Rafe87 BER none none 16 August 2025
Motion name Date posted
CTOP/AE page protection logging 21 August 2025
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a 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
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and 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.
  • 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:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133

Clarification request: Indian military history

Initiated by Toadspike at 11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Indian military history 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:

Statement by Toadspike

1. Does the Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction apply only to military history on the current (post-Partition) territory of the country of India, or does it include military history that took place entirely in another South Asian country?

2. If a conflict took place between a party in India and a party outside of India, does the extended-confirmed restriction apply? Does this depend on whether battles in the conflict took place within the current territory of India or not?

3. How do we treat AfC submissions that were written before the enactment of this remedy, but are only now being reviewed? If they are suitable for acceptance, can they still be accepted? If not, should they be deleted (from draftspace)?

These questions were prompted by the contributions of a specific editor. As this request for clarification is about the general principles, not that specific case, I have chosen not to name them here. If Arbs would like me to add them as a party, I will do so.

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you for your reply. Does "India" mean the current territory of India or the current state of India? What I'm really getting at is whether predecessors of India like British India also count as "India", since those entities included significant territory outside of the modern state of India.
The problem with wording like "if India was involved" is that nearly all of the conflict about "Indian military history" does not involve the modern state of India.

Statement by voorts

Since we're already here, does "Indian military history" encompass contemporary conflicts? If not, what's the cut off date or era? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

I was planning to initiate this request per my comments on the case discussion thread.[1] Just as voorts asked above, you can see the linked discussion there, which also has no answer regarding the scope.

Does the scope of "Indian military history and the history of castes in India" cover times before the establishment of British Raj or the times before the foundation of India? Koshuri (あ!) 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: Reading the evidence and proposed decision of the case itself, it appears that only the diffs involving the events before 1857 events were found to be actionable for being within the case' scope.
You have made a mention of the United States, however, the DS regime covering this country also concerns its politics specifically after 1992.[2]
That said, I think a period should be thoroughly clarified. It would be reasonable to agree on events before 1947 as history because the period since 1947 is regarded as "contemporary India", not that of historical India also in scholarly sources.[3][4][5] Koshuri (あ!) 06:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Donner60

  • Please note that the military history project has an Indian military history task force shown at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force. The page includes: "This task force covers the military history of India. This includes ancient India, medieval India, early modern India (including the period of British rule), and modern post-independence India." Many, perhaps even all, articles that gave rise to this proceeding are assessed B class or below. The task force page shows all of the articles within the scope of the project that are featured articles, former featured articles, featured lists, A-Class articles, good articles and did you know articles. This may provide some guidance as to the scope of Wikipedia articles considered as involving Indian military history. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin (IMH)

(pinged) To me, the logical scope of "Indian military history" would be

  1. The military history of any entity, or vassal/proxy of an entity, based in
    1. the present-day Republic of India and/or
    2. territory that was at the time considered India
    and/or
  2. Any military activities by any other entity that took place in that region.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Koshuri Sultan: I think this answers the time question as well. But to be clear, no, I don't impute any time-based limit to this. Maybe hypothetically it wouldn't cover conflicts prior to the Indus Valley Civilisation, but honestly even there I'm not sure.
I also stopped to think about whether this covers actions by Indian-originating forces far removed from the region. I knew a woman who was the lone survivor of a Free French unit slaughtered by what she described as renegade British imperial gurkhas, but according to a historian I talked to were more likely soldiers of the Nazi Indian Legion. Should those fall under Indian military history? But then I thought, yes, they should, and Talk:Subas Chandra Bose can speak for itself as to why. Ultimately, any aspect of Indian military history, whether it's from 10 years ago or a thousand years ago, whether it happened in Mumbai or Marseille, has the same tendency to be politicized by contemporary Indian political movements. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

also (pinged), I'd mostly agree with Tamzin's description, although I would add that when considering that it is "broadly construed", this would also include any topic that is centrally relevant to the wars historically fought in the Indian subcontinent, in particular definition of borders and ethnic/national/religious/caste claims to land in the Indian subcontinent. signed, Rosguill talk 16:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Tamzin's further comments on scope, including ancient history and operations by Indian military groups outside of India. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Sohom Datta

While I nominally agree with Tamzin's statement and definition of "Indian military conflict", as person who has infrequently worked on the topic area of the Indian freedom struggle (and other areas), I feel like this net is waay to wide for a extended-confirmed sanctions by default. If Subas Chandra Bose is included, would almost any article documenting any of the various parts of the Indian freedom struggle/conflict be considered part of this restriction? -- Sohom (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

I want to emphasize that it's vital for the scope to cover modern day (including current-events) Indian military history and the portions of related articles thereof. Since the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict there's been widespread nationalist edit-warring and propaganda pushing on articles relating to the military equipment involved in the conflict -- particularly the aircraft, missile, and air-defense systems involved (as these by convention usually have a section for "Operational History" documenting their usage). Additionally I want to reiterate that the scope needs to encompass military actions conducted in India even by non-South Asian actors. For instance, during the hunt for Bin Laden in the early 2000's, both the U.S. Delta Force and British Special Air Service conducted operations in Kashmir against a Pakistani militant group in which intelligence sharing was conducted with the Indian government while said Indian government issued public denials; references to this event should presumably be covered (both because of the intelligence sharing arrangement with the Indian military, and due to the geographic ___location being within the scope of coverage). As far as I can tell Tamzin's interpretation covers both these concerns but I wanted to raise my concerns if other interpretations prevail here.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:58, 16 August 2025 (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.

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

    1. Only India or related to India.
    2. Yes, if India was involved it doesn't matter where the conflict took place.
    3. They can be accepted.
  • This is obviously just my view, but it seems fairly clear-cut. #1 does get at one of my concerns about the grand unified CTOP, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Tamzin's description is pretty apt. Trying to narrow it down or draw explicit lines around it won't work with how broad the topic is. If someone is unsure if a particular subtopic, article, or piece of content is covered they can ask about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mixed feelings on what "Indian history" means for arbitration enforcement because we need to balance the need for the definition to be easily understandable against the historical reality of the term.
    In my opinion, we indicated in "Breadth of topic bans" that Indian history also includes history prior to the Partition. Just as how Chinese history spans the various dynasties prior to the PRC/ROC (even if it wasn't called China at that point) and how American history doesn't just begin in 1776, I think that Indian history covers the current republic as well as clear predecessor states like the British Raj and Mughal Empire, even if they go beyond the current republic's borders. The term "India" was used before the Partition as well: the Raj was commonly called "India" and the term was used for many years prior to the current republic's creation. Hopefully that also answers Koshuri Sultan's question as well and I otherwise agree with SFR regarding Toadspike's Q2 & Q3.
    Voorts: I don't think that there is a good place to cut off when history begins – aren't we all creating history now? – so would rather that we kept contemporary conflicts as well. If enforcing administrators wish to sanction people from (eg.) pre-Modi Indian military history instead of the entirety of Indian military history, they would have support in doing so. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Tamzin's definition could be used in a textbook. That's exactly what I would have said, in many more words. WormTT(talk) 08:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What ScottishFinnishRadish and Worm That Turned/Tamzin said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Venezuelan politics

Initiated by WMrapids at 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Venezuelan politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#WMrapids banned
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by WMrapids

 
     WMrapids's statement contains 301 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

After this time off, I want to return to my first passion on Wikipedia; providing images and information about local locations and places visited. This can be seen with my recent uploads on Commons (including my first quality images! [6][7]), which I wish to place on Wikipedia. I have no interest in Venezuelan topics or certain interactions, so please keep the two-way IBAN and topic ban in place to leave those problems in the past. Overall, I'm eager to collaborate with others on Wikipedia again and learn more along the way, like I have on Commons. Thank you for your consideration! --WMrapids (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, apologies! Due to word counts, I kept things brief for ArbCom. My other account created for privacy (which I still recognize/recognized was created improperly) was blocked and no other account has been created. I'm fairly certain ArbCom wouldn't consider an appeal if my IP showed up elsewhere during this time.--WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm committed to using only one account and have no desire to use another. Thanks to everyone involved for having empathy and respecting my privacy even though we like our answers and want to hold each other accountable. I wish I could provide more answers, but due to past incidents (including people at my door), I politely ask you to put yourself into my shoes. I'm human; an average person from Michigan who wants to help build a good encyclopedia. My behavior wasn't perfect, but my edits were genuine, my own and I hold no animosity towards anyone. I know asking for respect is a lot, but I'm more than just another user. I'm a person on the other side of the screen and I'd do anything within reason to protect others from experiencing some of the things I've faced just for my edits.--WMrapids (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

WMRapids was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and was banned by ArbCom to recognize the CheckUser block. This request does not address the abuse of multiple accounts, which is an issue of trustworthiness. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223 (Venezuela)

As WMRapids is willing to return with the topic ban and the iban in place and as they have accounted for the sock puppetry issue and have committed to not repeating that mistake I think we should support allowing them to return. Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Venezuelan politics: Clerk notes

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

Venezuelan politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • 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. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the iban and topic ban remain in place, I'm not opposed to accepting this appeal. - Aoidh (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. WormTT(talk) 08:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline for private reasons. A one-account restriction is a distant second choice to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Rafe87 BER

Appeal declined. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Rafe87 at 19:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
User talk:Rafe87 § Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. {{{clause1}}}
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
  • {{{clause1}}}
    • {{{clause1-request}}}

Statement by Rafe87

I didn't originally consider contesting the sanction, though I didn't think it very fair, because I thought it'd only last 30 days, and I meant to avoid further wear and tear on this space. But, if I understood correctly the clarification provided today by Tamzin, the restriction is actually indefinite and was imposed 30 days after I received their warning, on June 16th. Acting under the apparently false belief that the restriction would take effect immediately and last for 30 days, I threw myself into new projects to avoid breaking the rule. I translated two Spanish Wikipedia entries on modern singers and created a new article on a minor figure in Roman history. Translating the articles, which are fairly long, was quite tiring, and the Roman article, although short, required some research from me in academic sources. But at least I achieved what I thought was required of me: between June 16th-July 16th, my edits to Israeli-Palestinian entries, as I've just verified, totaled only 35, while my edits to the pages I created, as well as others outside the scope of the restriction, totaled 164. My contributions to restricted topics, less than a fifth during this period, were therefore well below the required share, demonstrating I did commit to not violating the restriction. But apparently, all this was for nothing, as I wasn't even restricted in that period. The restriction would only take effect on July 16th, not June 16th. Anyway, from the day the restriction came into effect (the same day I thought it would end!), I returned to editing in the restricted topics at a normal pace, and as such, 70% of my edits since ended up being in them, and Tamzin decided to upgrade the restriction to total for 28 days. My argument is: the rule was confusing and set me up for failure. Why warn an editor he's being problematic in a given debate and then not sanction him immediately, but rather begin 30 days after the act, regardless of how he performs in the mean time? The fault may not have been with Tamzin, who could be applying a traditional remedy rather than something of their own creation, but neither can I be blamed for not being confused about the the matter. Another thing: Even if Tamzin, in their most recent decision, is within their rights to temporarily increase the restriction, the original sanction is disproportionate to the issue imputed to me; one of tone, I believe. Plus, since they the new articles I created were completed, my contribution rate to Wikipedia has dropped; and I haven't had any friction with any editors in the last two months, either. I accept the new sanction imposed for the next 28 days, as it may not have been Tamzin's fault the imposed policy was so confusing to me, but I ask that at least the indefiniteness of the sanction be revoked.

Statement by Tamzin (Rafe87)

Breaking this into three admin decisions: to BER, to sanction for the violation, and specifically to temp TBAN.

  • For the reasons I've explained on Rafe's talkpage, I believe that the level of moderate PIA disruption leading up to the BER was sufficient under the BER's standard of a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area.
  • I'm willing to believe that Rafe misunderstood the sanction, but as also explained on their talk, the fact that the sanction was indefinite and began to apply after 30 days was explained clearly and unambiguously at least four different ways.
  • I initially considered just warning them for this, but it seemed wrong to leave them active in the topic area (still able to edit any non-filter-1339-qualifying PIA pages) while at 210% the BER threshold. This seemed unwise both in terms of the technical implementation of the BER and the norms for sanction enforcement. Instead, the equitable solution to me seemed to be TBANning until the BER percentage drops down to 0, i.e. 28 days from now. This isn't much stricter than if I had just warned, since while above 33% Rafe is effectively TBANned from 1339-qualifying pages; this just means that Rafe also can't edit PIA content on non-1339-qualifying pages, and has to wait till they fall to 0% instead of 33% before reëntering the topic area.

Happy to answer any further questions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek. Sure, I'll quote what I said to Rafe on their talk:

Daniel Case protected the article Alaa Al Najjar on 12 June and logged that at WP:AELOG/2025/PIA. I clicked on it to see the context of the protection, clicked onward to the article now titled Killing of al-Najjar children, saw an RM, clicked through to that mostly to see if any ECR enforcement would be needed, and saw that you were trying to disrupt the RM [by striking a comment and trying to prematurely close it [9] [10] [11]]. I reverted you and warned you. A few days later I checked back in (as I often do after warning a user), saw this standoffish comment (later withdrawn, but not at the time), and then looked further at your edits and saw a history of temperature-raising participation, most notably moving the article Rafah aid distribution incidents Rafah aid distribution incidents during an active RM. I saw you had a high percentage of PIA editing, and given ArbCom's guidance that a BER simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, I judged that to be an appropriate intervention.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Rafe87 BER: Clerk notes

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

Rafe87 BER: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Tamzin, can you give a bit more of a procedural background? Was this a result of an AE filing? What was the offending conduct? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline – the BER was absolutely valid, bordering on too light. Rafe's comments at RMs and other venues are fairly aggressive and tend to raise hostility in the topic area (per Tamzin's links), but that doesn't even cover the apparent POV-pushing, like repeatedly (1 2) advancing the argument of ~"well if reliable sources don't agree, my personal opinion that it's a massacre should take precedence", based on what is at best a misreading and at worst a cherry-pick of WP:NCENPOV. I'm sure I could find other examples if I kept looking, but since we're not discussing a topic ban, I'll stop at saying yes, the blunt behavior made the BER necessary, especially given the lower standard required for imposing one. As for the mistaken interpretation of the BER that led to the topic ban, I'll AGF, but it's probably best to let the counter reset rather than doing lots of date math to try and sneak in edits wherever possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline and support the action taken by Tamzin here. Daniel (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - AE restrictions are implemented with less process than other areas of Wikipedia, so it is important that our editors are made aware before they happen. I do hope Tamzin will reflect upon this request and modify their language a little for clarity when implementing solutions in the future. That said, Tamzin was absolutely right on the decision they made, BER is an excellent solution for the troubles in the area, and I don't see any issues with what has been imposed. I also don't believe that Tamzin's text was egregiously confusing and therefore I see no reason to modify or remove the BER. WormTT(talk) 08:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - Per Worm That Turned. - Aoidh (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1307332314"