Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:30, 14 September 2015 editNE Ent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors20,713 edits NE Ent -> time to close← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:36, 4 January 2025 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,542 edits hatting as withdrawn (user:SimpleSubCubicGraph) 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>

= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
] ]
] ]


== Amendment request: GoodDay == == Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 ==
{{hat|Withdrawn. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
'''Initiated by''' ] (]) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|GoodDay}} :{{RFARlinks|Armenia-Azerbaijan_3}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|GoodDay}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Steven Crossin}}

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
*]

===Statement by GoodDay===
May I please have my diacritics ban lifted. I believe there's no longer a reason for it to exist, as it appears that the topic itself has been settled by the general community, in favour of dios usage. ] (]) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

''Response'' - I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. ] (]) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

''Response'' - ''If'' WP:HOCKEY has chosen to abolish the diacritics compromise & thus have chosen to include diacritics on North American hockey articles (including NHL team articles rosters), then I've no choice but to abide by it. ] (]) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

===Query from Resolute===
If you believe the community has settled in favour of using diacritics, when is your position on our old compromise within WP:HOCKEY? ]] 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by Steven Crossin===
:Since I was notified about this request, I'll make a brief comment. I largely side with the opinion of ArbCom here - the last request to lift the restriction was less than three months ago and I think not enough time or things would have changed since then to provide enough to support overturning their decision from less than 3 months ago. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ] <small>(was Steven Zhang)</small></span> 06:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by {other-editor}===
:

=== GoodDay: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*{{replyto|GoodDay}} What has changed since your ] was declined in July? ] (]) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
**'''Decline'''. I'm sorry I just don't believe that, given how tendentiously you clung to the idea of getting even smaller exemptions last time. That request was open from 29 May to 3 July (36 days), yet 70 days later you're back here again asking for exactly the same thing - to me that shows that actually you still haven't let go. When you have a couple of years or more of editing cleanly in other areas, with no pushing boundaries and no appeals or amendment requests related to the restriction, then we might be convinced you really have moved on. ] (]) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' --] &#124; ] 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

== Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Kww and The Rambling Man}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Nyttend}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Kww}}

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*]


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
=== Statement by Nyttend ===
#
As noted at ], the second remedy is rather confusing. Did you mean to say that Kww may not get the editfilter right unless he re-passes RFA, or did you not mean to address such a situation? I'm not marked Kww as a party because this isn't related to his post-case behavior: it's just a confusing element of the decision, and an authoritative interpretation would be helpful. ] (]) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:Just a note after reading Salvio's comment — my only concern is that we get an unambiguous statement from Arbcom, because everyone loses when there's an ambiguous decision. I don't really know either editor and don't have an opinion on what Arbcom should decide here (so no point in asking my opinion); I just hope you'll decide something in place of the current wording, so that we all know what you were intending in the first place. ] (]) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


=== Statement by Dragons flight ===
Due to his apparent lack of due care and competence in previously implementing edit filters, I am opposed to any process that would allow Kww to regain the EFM right without a community review. See my previous comments: . My understanding of remedy #2 while it was being drafted is that a desysopped Kww would be required to pass RFA before getting EFM restored, and I don't see any reason to weaken that. If this case hadn't been coming to RFAr already, I would have opened a separate community discussion about revoking Kww's EFM right. In practical terms, I assume it will be years (if ever) before Kww passes an RFA, but I don't think there ought to be a path that allows Kww to regain EFM any sooner than that (and I'm not sure he should be an EFM even if he passes RFA). Keep in mind that EFM capabilities are in some ways more powerful than the normal admin toolkit. ] (]) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
:{{replyto|Kww}} It has never been clear to me that you really understood my criticisms / concerns, which is part of the problem. However, I don't want to have an argument with you about this. Should you actually want additional feedback on this issue (either now or some time in the future), I would suggest that you ask for other people at ] to give you their opinions of your previous filters. ] (]) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|SimpleSubCubicGraph}} (initiator)


=== Statement by Kww ===
I already understood the restriction to be much as Salvio phrased it. I deeply resent Dragon flight's portraying our different opinions as to the weight that should be placed on false positives as a competence issue: I could just as reasonably claim that his insistence on consuming resources looking for rare corner cases was a competence issue. Neither one is: it's a difference in opinion as to where a reasonable balance between execution efficiency and false triggers lies.&mdash;](]) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


; Information about amendment request
===Comment by Salvidrim===
*
Since we're really getting down-and-dirty with the specifics of wording, I don't feel too bad about chiming in: in Salvio's proposed wording underneath <small>(visibly inspired by an earlier post of mine)</small>, the removal of EFM is described first as a "restriction" that would automatically expire, and later as a "remedy" than can be appealed. The wording should probably brought in line with either term (restriction or remedy) for consistency? I really feel pedant pointing this out though. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big>&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:*I request a modification to the probation period, and want the probation to end immediately and for all pages involving Armenia-Azerbaijan, except the ] wars to be downgraded to Autoconfirmed Protection.


=== Statement by Francis Schonken ===
This may be understood in the current comment by Arbs (although I see no reference to it) but a non-admin desiring "edit filter manager user right" has to go through some procedure as described at ], second and third paragraph (starting with "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should ''only'' be requested by and given to highly trusted users, and only when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it...")


=== Statement by SimpleSubCubicGraph ===
My point is this: if and when (within a year or whatever) a non-admin Kww would request a lifting of remedy 2 of the ArbCom case, I don't see how this could automatically result in Kww getting the edit filter manager user right back. Or would the ArbCom plan on overriding the regular procedure by ArbCom decision? Any future decision to lift that sanction should imho be formulated thus that ''after'' lifting of the sanction (if and when this is granted, in a scenario where Kww would not be an admin at that time) the regular procedure for a non-admin to be granted the right should be followed.
A recent statement was made by Armenia offering condolences to Azerbaijan which has almost never happened, I believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages blanket protection of Extended Confirmed should be lowered to Autoconfirmed protection, with the exception of the wars between the two sovereign nations. Additionally, relations are getting better between the two countries. For nearly 30 years, relations were rock bottom, diplomats were not found in Azerbaijan nor Armenia and tensions were at an all time high. However ever since the 2020 war the two nations have started to make amends. This first started with the peace deal ending the war between the two nations. Turkey whom is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan has started to resume direct flights from ], the capital of Armenia and ], the largest city in the Republic of Turkiye. In 2023, Armenia and Azerbaijan entered into extensive bilateral negotiations as well as a prisoner exchange between the two countries, and Armenia supported Azerbaijan for being the host of the UN climate change forum. Finally, last year the two countries solved many border issues and created a transport route between the two countries which is a symbol of peace. The two nations are much better off now than they were just 4 years ago and can be seen as having a cooperative/reconciling attitude. That is why I propose an amendment that will immediately downgrade all protections (from ] to ]) for all Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages.
:@] then how would I appeal or ask the community to lift sanctions over Armenia-Azerbaijan ] (]) 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) <small>{{clerk note}} Moved to own section <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)</small>


:@] going off what voorts said, can this suggestion be repealed/deleted? ] (]) 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Seeing the analysis here: ] I can imagine some reluctance by those allowed to grant the right to non-admins.


=== Statement by voorts ===
All this is a bit far ahead, and needs to be dealt with when it would occur in the future (if and when etc.), and by that time procedures might be completely different (especially when the community would take up on remedy 3 of the case), but I think it best this caveat is taken into the equasion now. --] (]) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|SimpleSubCubicGraph}} ECP-only edits were imposed by the community as a ], not by ArbCom. ArbCom does not have jurisdiction here. That said, whether or not Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are warming, the community has imposed sanctions here (and ArbCom has designated this area as a contentious topic) because of disruption in the topic area by editors. I highly doubt that you'd get the community to agree to change this rule, given that editors are still routinely sanctioned under this GS. See ]. ] (]/]) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
: {{ping|SimpleSubCubicGraph}} There is. You can read ] for more information. However, as I said, there is almost zero chance that you will get this sanction to be removed. You should be patient and wait to get 500 edits and EC. ] (]/]) 00:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by NE Ent ===
I'm opining ya'll should probably vote to close this, 'cause it looks like you're done. <small>]</small> 10:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
=== Statement by {other-editor} === === 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. 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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Kww and The Rambling Man: Clerk notes === === Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*
*I have added Kww as a party, because they are named in the above mentioned remedy (]). ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
**{{re|Nyttend}} Oh, I hadn't seen your note. In any event, they are still required to be notified, as the clarification request could directly impact a remedy against Kww and what they can and cannot do. ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


=== Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion === === Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*
*Nyttend, you are quite right that the remedy, as currently worded, leaves a bit to be desired and gives the impression that, short of another successful RFA, Kww may not receive the edit filter manager bit back; as far as I'm concerned, that's not satisfctory and, for that, I propose we reword the relevant remedy to {{xt|Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. If he regains the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire; in addition, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*Given that Kww has been desysopped, the only thing of relevance is how Kww may regain his EFM permission. The remedy is not brilliantly worded I agree, but the restriction it imposes is not ambiguous: He may not regain the bit while the restriction is in effect. The restriction automatically expires if he regains adminship at RfA, at which point he may regain the bit according to policy at that time (if there is no change between now and then he could assign it to himself if he desired). There is no restriction on when he can stand for adminship. I agree with Salvio that the restriction should be appealable at WP:ARCA 12 months after it's imposition (i.e. no sooner than August 2016). ] (]) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
*I also agree that the EFM restriction should be appealable after some reasonable period of time has passed, 12 months would be fine for that. I don't think we need an amendment for that, though, as any arbitration remedy can be appealed at ARCA after a reasonable period, and the Committee can at that time choose to accept the appeal and lift the restriction. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
*I'd be in favour of changing the wording of the decision, per Salvio giuliano's text above. At the time it was written (when it was unclear whether the desysop would pass or not) the current wording was arguably preferable; now that Kww has been desysopped it's overly convoluted and would benefit from being simplified. ]&nbsp;]] 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
*Out of the loop guy here. I would much rather us not have our hands in restoring permissions and have a fresh RfA be the only route of removal of the restriction. --] &#124; ] 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
**In a hypothetical appeal to ARCA I would not be supporting any granting of the permission directly. I would consider giving permission to ask the community, taking into account the change in attitude and behaviour over the year and the level of scrutiny likely to be imparted at the relevant venue. ] (]) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
***But that is disingenuous. There isn't a good ] like place to have that discussion that is in view of the community. By giving the OK for a discussion to happen at a little watched part of project space we are basically flipping the switch ourselves. I would much rather not have the committee in these matters. If anyone has a better idea for a community-centered way of signaling that the restriction is no longer needed, I am all ears. --] &#124; ] 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
****Currently that is indeed the case and I would not support it. However if the proposal to split the EFM permission that was raised during the case happens, or if something else changes between now and next August that makes requesting the EFM bit something other than a barely observed blip in a backwater then I might support (depending on Kww of course). Alternatively, we could just say that the restriction may be appealed at the later of (a) when such a community process exists and (b) 12 months have passed. Of course this is academic if Kww does not wish to regain the EFM bit in advance of a successful RFA. ] (]) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*I'd prefer the community to handle this, not us. ] (]) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*The remedy was convoluted, I'm sorry for that, but the part of it was to create provisions with or without the desysop, given that usual policy is that admins may self-assign the flag. This could easily be reworded now to be clearer that the remedy expires if/when RFA is passed, but I will not support any appeal other than via RFA given the absence of any process with scruitiny to grant the EFM flag, and a belief that Arbcom should not be (re)granting permissions that have clear community processes to grant. This flag is a bit unusual, but we've given a clear community appeal here. (Had he not been desysopped, there would have been no community process of any rigor/scrutiny to regrant the flag) ] (]) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
* Given that we revoked the permissions, but did not ban him from re-applying by the usual means for them, I think the remedy is probably clear enough as it is. Happy to support a remedy amendment to make the existing text even clearer, if somebody wishes to move one, but otherwise I am satisfied that this is all in order. ] ]] 23:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
*I've kept an eye on this but for absolute clarity I am of the same mind as AGK. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
* I also agree with AGK. ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 00:36, 4 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 none (orig. case) 4 January 2025
Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
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
127128129130131

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3

Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by SimpleSubCubicGraph at 18:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Olympian ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request


Information about amendment request
  • I request a modification to the probation period, and want the probation to end immediately and for all pages involving Armenia-Azerbaijan, except the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wars to be downgraded to Autoconfirmed Protection.


Statement by SimpleSubCubicGraph

A recent statement was made by Armenia offering condolences to Azerbaijan which has almost never happened, I believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages blanket protection of Extended Confirmed should be lowered to Autoconfirmed protection, with the exception of the wars between the two sovereign nations. Additionally, relations are getting better between the two countries. For nearly 30 years, relations were rock bottom, diplomats were not found in Azerbaijan nor Armenia and tensions were at an all time high. However ever since the 2020 war the two nations have started to make amends. This first started with the peace deal ending the war between the two nations. Turkey whom is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan has started to resume direct flights from Yerevan, the capital of Armenia and Istanbul, the largest city in the Republic of Turkiye. In 2023, Armenia and Azerbaijan entered into extensive bilateral negotiations as well as a prisoner exchange between the two countries, and Armenia supported Azerbaijan for being the host of the UN climate change forum. Finally, last year the two countries solved many border issues and created a transport route between the two countries which is a symbol of peace. The two nations are much better off now than they were just 4 years ago and can be seen as having a cooperative/reconciling attitude. That is why I propose an amendment that will immediately downgrade all protections (from ECP to ACP) for all Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages.

@Voorts then how would I appeal or ask the community to lift sanctions over Armenia-Azerbaijan SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)  Clerk note: Moved to own section HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Houseblaster going off what voorts said, can this suggestion be repealed/deleted? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by voorts

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: ECP-only edits were imposed by the community as a general sanction, not by ArbCom. ArbCom does not have jurisdiction here. That said, whether or not Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are warming, the community has imposed sanctions here (and ArbCom has designated this area as a contentious topic) because of disruption in the topic area by editors. I highly doubt that you'd get the community to agree to change this rule, given that editors are still routinely sanctioned under this GS. See WP:GS/AA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: There is. You can read WP:GS for more information. However, as I said, there is almost zero chance that you will get this sanction to be removed. You should be patient and wait to get 500 edits and EC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 4 January 2025 (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.

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Clerk notes

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Arbitrator views and discussion

Categories: