Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

message: Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing was declined. In that amendment request, I raised concerns about TenPoundHammer's blank-and-redirects (BLARs) and asked whether to request a BLAR topic ban in a separate amendment request. I did not receive an answer to that question.  (link),  (link), and  (link) mentioned concerns about the redirect in opposing the relaxing of the topic ban, while  (link) had "no major concerns" about the redirects. Did the Arbitration Committee consider the BLAR topic ban request and decide against it? I would like advice about whether to file a separate amendment request for the BLAR topic ban. I considered asking the community to review the redirect issue but have not because this is a conduct dispute that previously reached arbitration. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And if a topic ban would not fly, could a "this-many-per-day" restriction be a possibility? BOZ (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I never received a reply to my query about whether the redirects were causing further issues, which is why I made the statement you link to above. If you think that TPH should be restricted from BLAR, you should start a discussion in the usual places. Personally speaking, however, nothing in your statement indicated that the "disruptive" clauses of WP:ATD-R or WP:BLAR have been met, and in fact I find the response in the thread you referenced in your statement to be an indication that TPH isn't going to be disruptive if their redirects are reverted. You might not like that it is being done, but I am not seeing the same behavioural and conduct issues in their actions that led to the original topic bans. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The disruptive editing does not take place after the redirects are reverted. The disruptive editing takes place when TenPoundHammer continues to redirects articles on notable topics even after being asked to stop. This violates Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Does "you should start a discussion in the usual places" include Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? Or did the Arbitration Committee already decide against imposing a BLAR topic ban request in the recently closed amendment request? Cunard (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot speak for the Committee, but I personally do not see this as an issue requiring us to weigh in at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you do not view TenPoundHammer's BLARs as problematic, but I thank you for responding to my questions. I pinged several arbitrators who mentioned concerns about the BLARs when opposing the relaxing of the topic ban. I would like to hear their perspectives regarding whether filing a separate amendment request would be considered a duplicate of the recently declined amendment request. It would answer why arbitrators did not propose a BLAR topic ban there (were the BLARs not considered problematic enough, was a topic ban amendment request not the right venue for proposing expanding the sanctions, or were there other reasons). Cunard (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am waiting for a reply from three of the arbitrators I pinged above. I am also pinging , a drafting arbitrator for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing, who suggested that the motion should include a ban on proposed deletions before I presented the evidence about the redirects. Barkeep49, would filing a separate amendment request about the BLARs be considered a duplicate of this declined amendment request? Cunard (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it should be a separate amendment, or perhaps a discussion first at AN/I. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I am going to give you mixed feedback here. I had not looked deeply into the evidence you presented at the ARCA as I had not voted and was not planning to vote for the motion being considered. I had presumed that it might be the kinds of "deeply researched" sources you often present at AfD. I have now looked at the sources and they're definitely not that but are instead are easily findable quality reliable sources. So I am personally troubled and would consider further sanctions/restrictions if asked at ARCA. However, I can't help but wonder based on the feedback of  above that other arbs who were paying more close attention don't see it as much of a problem as I do. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reviewing the evidence. This gives me an indication that a topic ban amendment request would not be a duplicate. I've posted a new amendment request. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conduct in deletion-related editing amendment request 

message: Hoping to avoid a whole thing, and maybe this has been addressed already. WP:CTOP says there has to be a clear consensus  to overturn a CTOP sanction, but Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement says "clear and substantial". Is a bolded clear substantial? Has the threshold changed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the standard was deliberately changed from "clear and substantial" to "clear" when Discretionary Sanctions became Contentious Topics. If so, then that would mean the procedures page is simply out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suspect this is the case. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Might this apply more broadly than to contentious topics? Perhaps, in that case, the  requirement applies to non-CT enforcement? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So it would be clear and substantial to overturn a sanction based on an Arbcom placed iban, tban, or 1rr, but simply clear for a regular CTOP sanction? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my understanding. Of course, this may not be the intended meaning and in this case I think the arbs should weigh in on whether the language should be updated for non-CTOP based enforcement actions. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: I've just filed a request for clarification, using the built-in process at WP:ARCA. The  template tells you to remove certain lines if the request does not concern a specific case, but if you don't give a title paramater, it puts code in the section header, and if you create a title but remove the other two parameters, it auto-generates them anyway, meaning you have to remove them again after posting, as I just did. Seems like this could use some tweaking to make it more user-friendly. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARCA template 

message: When was it decided that the number of edits needed to edit the talk page should be the same as to edit the article? It doesn't make any sense. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit 181.98.62.149 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the log. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 500 edits to edit the talk page?