Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

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
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024
Motion name Date posted
Historical elections 21 July 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

[edit]

Use this section 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).

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
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:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

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
  • Requesting the removal of the bans described in 5.1 and 5.2

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.

  • The first issue was my "desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek" (FoF). I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas. Yes, I felt they deserved some support, in part as victims of harassment by the banned user. However, the behavior by VM was clearly problematic, and I do not want to condone anything he did. It was never my intention to enable bad behavior in the project, and I am sorry for exercising a poor judgement in this case. Moreover, these guys are more than capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if the one-sided interaction ban is lifted, I would still refrain from commenting about VM and Piotrus anywhere, just in case, although a legitimate collaboration with them could be beneficial, given the overlap of our editing interests.
  • The second issue was my participation in the arbitration case, "extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence" and "sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines" (FoF). Yes, I made wrong comments in this case, and I sincerely apologize for making them. I thought that including me as a party to the case was an invitation to comment, even though there was no an obligation to comment. Unfortunately, no one said that my comments were so unhelpful during the case, prior to posting the Proposed Decision (actually, I striked through one of these comments: [1]). This had happen in part because I simply had nothing new to say on this case, being only marginally involved in the editing of pages on Jewish history. That's why I did not submit any Evidence. Who cares what I think about the research article outside of my area of expertise, Wikipedia policies (arbitrators know them better) and participants whose editing I mostly knew in other subject areas? But it was not my intention to offend anyone or make your work more difficult. I am sorry if it looked that way. I just commented, exactly as I would with my colleagues or friends, and we frequently disagree on issues. Well, that was wrong. A contentious arbitration is not a proper place for such discussions. I fully understand this now. I do admit having a negative perception of the article by G&K. Not any more. I now believe their publication was a "red flag" indicating that an effort must be made to fix the issues and improve our reputation in the expert community. I would never make such comments again.
  • Contributing to the project was difficult for me with such editing restrictions because a lot of subjects I liked editing may be related to Poland during the war, broadly construed. In June 2023, I started editing page Slava Ukraini that existed in such version and did not mention Poland anywhere, hence I thought it was safe to edit. However, Marcelus inserted a WWII Poland-related content, and I made a topic ban violation by modifying his newly included content. Unfortunately, I realized this only much later, being busy in real life and forgetting about all unpleasant things here. As a result, the topic ban was expanded as "World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe" to make sure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would be respected [2]. I apologize for this blunder. As of note, we had only a minor content disagreement with Marcelus who said this on AE.
  • Once again, I apologize for making such comments during the arbitration and for the topic ban violation a year ago. But I did not have any problems with content editing or dispute resolution in contentious subject areas in recent years, including the area covered by the current topic ban (before the ban was issued). Hence, I am confident I can edit such subjects and interact productively with all users. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]

  • @The Four Deuces: is bringing up the truly ancient past. As someone who is on friendly terms with all three editors and frequently was in discussions about the Ukraine war where MVBW and VM were reasoning witH editors who thought the Russians could do no wrong, I can assure you that Piotrus was in entirely different topic areas at the time, and told me he lost contact with MVBW after the email list case. It is true that MVBW often agreed with VM on Ukraine, but then so did I. VM did his homework on Ukraine and every time I checked him, he was completely correct. I will also add that when I went back to the war on Ukraine article after the HiP case I found more than one source misrepresentation in the limited area of casualty numbers that I was trying to update, and vast resistance to edits to the "stable version". So I regret to say that in my informed opinion the sanctions were not only unnecessary but harmed the encyclopedia. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Four Deuces: this is someone else's appeal so I am going to give that rather specious argument the silence it deserves. I'll just note you are not disclosing your interactions with me either, for that matter. I am not saying you should have; sometimes ancient is just ancient, is all, and that is true in both cases. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 6 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]

I concur 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.

@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]
@Ivanvector: Thanks for shortcuts. For non-RMs, is it claimed WP:ARBECR's "make edit requests" excludes Wikipedia:Edit requests § Further information needed? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: I discovered WP:RMTR prohibiting discussion. Previous and current consensus opposes full RMs, so should RMTRs be declared allowed? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 02:48, 27 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]

@Sean.hoyland Regarding your response to my first point, I want to point out a disparity between your response and what I said. In the context of this situation, I accusing or implying editors are more likely to remove any contribution they individually disagree with, but are more likely to notice (and remove) any contribution which differs with the apparent current consensus, which makes it difficult to allow for consensus to ever change. I'm actually going to an extreme in assuming good faith and this assumption holds more water if we assume individual bias isn't a counfounding factor. Regarding your response to my second point, I again don't disagree in the big picture. What I've described can be abstracted as this is indeed generally how Wikipedia works, but specific to ECR, we cannot say that everyone is in the same boat in this situation. I stand by the idea that this situation places an additional onus on non-ECR users to have an influence on an article under what perhaps we might agree are more 'typical' Wikipedia conditions, but only after ECR users have had the benefit of a period of time to have an influence on an article under 'atypical' and arguably 'easier than typical' conditions. 122141510 (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier This is to the best of my recollection my first participation in an arbitration. I looked through a random selection of about 5 recent arbitration cases to get an idea of how these typically are handled and proceed, as well as the Arbitration guide to get an idea of things. I appreciate I've spoken above and beyond the question as addressed but the guide speaks to having as one of its objectives to take more of a long view than look only to resolve the immediate dispute. I felt I could explain my rationale for the comments in the conversation that @142.113.140.146 cited so as to get the ball rolling with their request and that I already had a longer view in mind when I made them. The brunt of the argument about whether an RM is an ER, as I understand it, is one to address with regards to the points 142.113.140.146 has made and whether there is or isn't an apparent contradiction or lack of clarity when reconciling some rules/policies. 122141510 (talk) 18:01, 26 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]
This request asserted that an RM is an ER and I do not think we need to stray far away from that question, which has effectively been answered.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 26 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 Sean.hoyland

[edit]

122141510, for interest, I don't find your 'introducing unintentional systemic bias' #1 argument very compelling. Enforcement of ECR is a stochastic process. It relies on other stochastic processes. There is a lot of randomness in there in terms of editors, their watchlists, their editing times, their alertness and personal biases etc. It doesn't seem like the kind of system that can easily produce systematic bias and I have not seen any evidence that it is doing that. The notion that ECR enforcement by an individual is partly a function of the individual's bias is speculation. It's an empirical question and I don't think there is currently an evidence-based reason to give it much credence. But if we assume it's true, then a solution is to increase the population size of the people actively enforcing ECR. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

122141510, as for argument #2, this argument doesn't appear to have a dependency on ECR. It seems more like a description of how Wikipedia works for everyone. Articles and content acquire a kind of inertial mass over time. A single extendedconfirmed editor may create a new article with a title that includes a biased or contentious word. There is no real barrier or cost for this. You see it a lot in the PIA topic area. The new article instantly acquires a kind of inertial mass as soon as the editor hits save. After that, it takes work to move it or change its state. Editors choose how much energy they are willing to expend on the effort. It isn't easier for some and harder for others to become extendedconfirmed or change an article. Everyone is in the same boat. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

[edit]

I don't see any problem with a non-EC adding an edit-request like "Fix the bad spelling in the title". However, an RM is a formal process to determine consensus on the result of a move proposal. The request and the resulting consensus are two different things. In addition, disruption in formal processes is more damaging than ordinary discussion. For these reasons, the ban on non-EC participation in RMs should remain. Zerotalk 09:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

[edit]

The exceptions to limited bans cover this clarification request ("addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself" [emphasis in original]; also "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban"). If we're going to start telling new users that they're not even allowed to ask if they're allowed to ask whether or not they're allowed to edit, then let's just archive WP:ANYONE now and acknowledge that it was good almost-quarter-century run of having principles.

As for the actual clarification request: I would like to suggest that it's not violating the restriction for a non-EC editor to request a move and explain their rationale, as it's not really functionally different from making an edit request with a rationale, at least up to the point that the requester publishes the request. However, once they have made the request then ARBECR dictates that they cannot participate in any subsequent discussion, and of course they cannot add comments to requested moves started by other editors. This is meant to be a comment on how the restriction is worded, not whether or not it's a sensible approach whatsoever to impose this labyrinth of contradictory restrictions on new editors just because they're new. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

[edit]

ECR should prohibit RMs because new editors are unlikely to start helpful RMs, and likely to start time-wasting ones. ECR exists at least in part because despite good intentions, new editors are unlikely to know enough about editing to edit in this topic area non-disruptively. Levivich (talk) 01:17, 27 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]

Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

[edit]

Initiated by Selfstudier at 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area of conflict"


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
  • Change userspace to talkspace


Statement by Selfstudier

[edit]

To match WP:ECR (Idk if it is worth changing both to link to namespace 1).

@Barkeep49: @Zero0000: The discussion here refers (at the bottom)

Statement by Barkeep49

[edit]

There is a small mismatch between the area of scope and ECR and perhaps arbcom wants to fix that. Perhaps it doesn't. I'm not sure why I am involved in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

[edit]

Can we have this request actually explained, please?

I don't see any contradiction between "userspace" in "area of conflict" and "talkspace" at ECR. They serve different purposes.

One place says that the "area of conflict" does not extend to userspace (which implies that it does extend to talkspace). ECR indicates that talkspace has some differences in restrictions compared to article space. Both these make sense and can be true at the same time. We definitely do not want the "area of conflict" to exclude talkspace, because then the ECR restrictions on talkspace would not apply to it.

Or maybe I missed the point entirely. Zerotalk 15:14, 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.

Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Clerk notes

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

Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1236892397"