Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: ECR edit warnings for non-XC users | none | none | 30 November 2023 |
| Amendment request: Ireland article names | Motion | (orig. case) | 28 November 2023 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
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!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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:
Clarification request: ECR edit warnings for non-XC users
| This is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks § Providing ECR edit warnings for non-XC users (permanent link) and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee § Clarifying contentious topic alert usage (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Initiated by CommunityNotesContributor at 23:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Statement by CommunityNotesContributorI am requesting that a warning on the edit page of WP:ECR contentious topics to be included for clarification to non-WP:XC users. Currently non-XC users are only warned that the page is semi-protected upon editing, and therefore liable to receive the contentious topics alert template by making such available edits to pages. Additionally, talk pages do not specify any extended confirmation restrictions either. My suggestion for clarification:
Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse.
*Note: The article ***, along with other pages relating to the ***, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: The ECR link to the contentious topic template has been recently updated for further clarity, but I believe preventative measures are also necessary. I believe this is specific to WP:CT/A-I that is ECR. The admin updates to the relevant pages hasn't been made yet.
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. ECR edit warnings for non-XC users: Clerk notes
ECR edit warnings for non-XC users: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Amendment request: Ireland article names
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names (2009
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names 2 (2011)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Project page's talk page not project page its self.
- Same as above.
Statement by Crouch, Swale
The likes of Template:IECOLL-talk and Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Ireland state that discussions relating to the Ireland articles must take place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but should it not instead link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as the project's talk page not the project its self is where discussions for issues/improving articles generally take place. The current linking to the project page rather than its talk page is confusing and has lead to things like this given it suggests the project page and not the project talk page is the required location for discussion. Changing to say the project's talk page would save this confusion.
- @Izno: Many other discussions like AFD, ANI, AIV and SPI take place on the project page its self. Yes I know there may not have been many problems with the motion but clarifying it would be helpful and reduce confusion. Indeed perhaps we should just remove it like Scientology last year was removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I was unable to find the original motion (though I did find the 2009 and 2011 ones) as well though I'm pretty sure when I was reading about this back around 2017 I found it. The question is where is the decision diff/archive today? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: This isn't a prelude involvement. I have participated in a few discussions but I don't have intention to start any Ireland/ROI RM discussions and in any case I could do with the current restriction. As to rescinding the restrictions I weakly support doing so since it would further reduce confusion, on the other hand the restriction has been in place for so long and most discussion at least more recent will be at IECOLL's talk page rather than the article's talk page and it serves as a useful place to keep such discussions together but yes repealing it probably seems best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Scolaire
I support Izno's proposal to return the discussions to the article talk pages. Fifteen years ago there was so much traffic at both Talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland from people demanding or opposing name changes that it was impossible to get anything else discussed. Nowadays, there are only a few requests a year (one so far in 2023), and the discussions are short. I think that the requirement to discuss article names at IECOLL should be ended, and the notice at the top of the talk pages removed. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
Perhaps it's time to retire WP:IECOLL. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
re: SilkTork. I've searched the post-2009 arbitration archives for "Wikpedia:WikiProject" and I've not found any other live remedies or amendments that direct comments to a WikiProject page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Ireland article names: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Ireland article names: Arbitrator views and discussion
- This seems like an overly literal interpretation of the motion, and users seem to have understood that the talk page is where it is most appropriate to comment about the issue. You cite a discussion from 7 years ago—which appears to be the only such case of mistaken use—which is not particularly convincing to me that this needs to change. I am further contemplating removal of the previous remedy; even though that talk page is being used for the purpose indicated in the remedy, I see nothing to suggest the discussions which took place there could not simply have taken place at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Izno (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I can support Izno's idea as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Discussions at WP:IECOLL have been spaced out and reasonably short, indicating the possibility that discussions at the article talkpage would be equally spaced out and short. The advantage of holding the discussions on the article talkpage is that there is an easily accessible record of the discussions and their outcomes. I would assume those who watchlist IECOLL would also watchlist Republic of Ireland. If we remove the remedy then Crouch, Swale's query becomes moot; however, I wonder if it's worth checking to see if there are other remedies which point to a project page rather than a talkpage. It is somewhat of a trivial matter, however it would be more helpful to direct people to the appropriate spot. But only if it's actually easy to check and update any links. SilkTork (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am also open to retiring this restriction. Given his past difficulties, I ask Crouch, Swale to think long and hard about the benefits and drawbacks of editing in such a tense topic area if this is a prelude to his involvement --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Motion: Ireland article names - Required location of move discussions rescinded
The two Ireland page name move discussion restrictions enacted in June 2009 are rescinded.
Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Support
- Izno (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting that these were never documented anywhere like Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions or on a case page anywhere. Anyway, support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion