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)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by CommunityNotesContributor at 23:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Case or decision affected Extended confirmed restriction to contentious topics List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: CommunityNotesContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request Statement by CommunityNotesContributor I 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: Update the edit warning from semi-protected to ECR for such topics, currently the note says: 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. ---> This should read that the page is restricted to extended confirmed users, not just semi-protected Update the talk pages of ECR topics to reference the topic as ECR, currently the note says: *Note: The article ***, along with other pages relating to the ***, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: * Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) * Following WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, editors on this page can only revert once in 24 hours ---> This should also include the extended confirmed restriction that applies to the topic 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. I assume Arbitration_Committee would be as good a place as any, given the topic. This is the talk page of where WP:ECR redirects to. I can repost there if that sounds sensible and the issue can be closed here. I now realise this is less to do with arbcom clarification, and more to do with technical implementations, but wasn't sure where to post initially. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the info, it's been redirected to the clerks noticeboard. (Case resolved) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] As per comments, I have posted to here regarding clarity for alert usage. I wasn't previously aware of the following: "This template must be used as a editnotice on pages that have active contentious topic restrictions." Refrence: Template:Contentious_topics/page_restriction_editnotice (TL:DR: I was suggesting a change that was already implemented) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. ECR edit warnings for non-XC users: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). ECR edit warnings for non-XC users: Arbitrator views and discussion @CommunityNotesContributor: I'm sorry, I've read your request a couple times and am not understanding exactly what change you're asking us to make. For the first bullet, how would you like us to change the editnotice? For the second, I'm really having trouble parsing Update the talk page of semi-protected to reference the topic as ECR. Separately, I note that the clerks can approve changes to the templates after consulting ArbCom (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Enforcement templates and procedural documents), so absent objection from arbitrators, I will move this discussion to the clerks' noticeboard unless a clear need for the full Committee's action surfaces. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] @ArbCom Clerks: Apologies, I haven't gotten around to closing this; would one of you mind closing and archiving? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Kevin, I believe this can be dealt with as a discussion about how best to implement notification of the ECR, which is a concern of the templates of interest and as such can be dealt with in conjunction with the clerks. (I am not really convinced there is a reasonable way to deal with this or any strong necessity to do so, but I'm happy to let others take the wheel. It would help if a specific article/talk page were cited as context for this discussion to take place.) Izno (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] @CommunityNotesContributor, the clerks have a noticeboard which is an appropriate place to sort out implementation. That is WT:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Izno (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] I'm just noting that this conversation has spread to a few places. They went ot the clerks noticeboard and have now also begun discussing their desired change here which, if we wanted to do it, would ultimately require us to pass a motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Ireland article names arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names (2009
2. 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

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names (2009

• Project page's talk page not project page its self.

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names 2 (2011)

• Same as above.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to retire WP:IECOLL. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

• 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)[reply]
• I can support Izno's idea as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  Thanks Thryduulf. SilkTork (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Izno (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cabayi (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. 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)[reply]
7. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

• Proposed. Izno (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]