Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 05:20, 16 August 2018 (→‎Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Arbitrator views and discussion: not for us, bad idea). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 none (orig. case) 7 August 2018
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 none (orig. case) 13 August 2018
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Amendment request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] none ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|orig. case]]) 16 August 2018

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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).

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:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#General_Prohibition


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



Information about amendment request
  • First sentence to be changed to, "In order to edit any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict an editor must be registered and have more than 30 days tenure and have more than 500 edits"


Statement by Sir Joseph

This clause seems to continuously cause issues or concerns and it seems to me that rewriting this to specifically highlight in this manner makes it clearer as to who can and can't edit in this area.

Statement by Dweller

Worm That Turned, see my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#פֿינצטערניש, and those of my non-alter-ego, Doug Weller. I genuinely didn't understand the wording because the Oxford comma is confusing (actually, in my book, just darn wrong) and the wording is poorly drafted. Please bear in mind that we will often need to point this to newbies and people with passion on the topic. Both of those are reasons for crystal clarity. There's more discussion about this on my user talk. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc. Why is it that your wording below ("IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more.") is so much clearer than an official ArbCom ruling and yet you resist changing it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero

I can see this suggestion is not going anywhere. However, there is a different sentence in the ARBPIA rulings that does cause confusion and it would be good to have clarification of its meaning. I refer to the sentence "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." that appears in the General 1RR restriction. Consider this sequence: (1) A inserts some text, (2) B removes it. Some time later, (3) C reinserts the text, (4) D removes it, and (5) C reinserts it again less than 24 hours after edit (4). In the plain meaning of the sentence, C can argue that they didn't violate the rule because the "original author" of the text is A and not them. I've seen this from experienced editors at least three times at AE and on multiple occasions that didn't get to AE. A different problem is that the English language does not usually use "author" to refer to someone who makes a deletion, so a sequence deletion, revert, deletion is not clearly covered. Without thinking about it very much, I propose that the sentence be modified as follows: "If an editor makes an edit that is reverted, that editor may not redo the edit within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." Zerotalk 09:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Callanecc: I never said the rule was being gamed. I believe that all or most of the appearances I have seen of this interpretation were made in good faith. I'm not surprised, either, because the wording is objectively misleading. Zerotalk 11:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

I second Zero suggestion to make the original author clause more clear.-12:31, 11 August 2018 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm not sure I agree. It's plain to me what the sentence means, you need to have evidence of experience to edit the topic as a registered user. That's been set at 500 edits and 30 days tenure. No matter how it is written, there will be someone who thinks it can be written better and I'm reluctant to support a motion for a change that doesn't change the meaning. WormTT(talk) 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My frustration stems from the fact that this remedy has been wordsmithed twice already with very little change. WormTT(talk) 07:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clearly some uncertainty as Admins have expressed concern. User:Zero0000 has suggested "Registered accounts are only permitted if they have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." I can't see any downside to the wording, but I might have missed something. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm strongly opposed to further changes of this remedy. It's already quite clear. The remedy says that the following three types of editors are prohibited from editing in the topic area:
    • IP editors
    • Accounts with less than 30 days tenure
    • Accounts with less than 500 edits
  • If you fall into one or more of those categories, the prohibition applies to you. The current wording is grammatically and logically correct for that meaning. It means what we want it to mean. I'm very open to changing remedies if it will increase clarity (see above), but that is not the case here. At some point, we have to stop refactoring this and rely on reading comprehension. I would be surprised if an administrator could not demonstrate those skills when pressed and after the repeated clarifications at this board, but if so, I would suggest that they avoid enforcement in this area. ~ Rob13Talk 08:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it isn't so much clearer, Dweller. It is identical. Why are you not now concerned about IP editors being modified by those two criteria in the sentence? They are equally set off from IP editors as in the current writing. ~ Rob13Talk 16:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A plain reading of the sentence is already clear, as is WP:ECP which is based on the ArbCom decision. I've no problem clarifying decisions (as this is), but I don't see a need to amend it. To be clear, IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're getting to the point that we'd be changing it just to change it. It's been clarified and amended so many times already that the original purpose behind the remedy is becoming clouded. When the intention, to prevent new and/or inexperienced (or not so new/inexperienced) users from editing in this contentious topic area, is considered along with the words on the screen then the meaning is much clearer. Any way we write the remedy it can be interpreted in different ways, that's language for you. To gain an understanding of a message, one must do more than just read words on a page, the intention and context must also be accessed. In ArbCom's situation, the way people do this is to read principles, findings of fact, arbitrator's comments on votes and clarification requests. We could add a footnote with the criteria written a different way but I don't see that as necessarily helpful given that it could (and likely will) lead to another interpretation. As I said above, there are other pages which have been created to further explain and "flesh out" the decision, for example WP:ECP, {{ARBPIA}} and {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reads plain and clear to me as well. Oppose any change. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues. There is no need to change the wording. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very clearest version would actually be something like "Only registered editors with at least 500 edits and at least 30 days' tenure may edit articles in this topic area; other editors may not do so." (The negation of an "or" statement is an "and" statement; see De Morgan's Laws.) By the way, this is as good a time as any to mention again that I dislike the whole concept of a whole topic-area being under an extended-confirmed restriction, but I'll accept the word of those active in the area that the alternatives are worse still. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I object to changing the wording - there are many ways to say the same thing - but I don't believe the hypothesis that there is confusion about this that would actually be alleviated by changing the text. I do think there's a lot of motivated reasoning about this topic - as in, people naturally subconsciously gravitate toward whatever interpretation means they get to do what they want - but the problem isn't really in the wording. Opabinia externa (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Zero's suggestion

  • While we all pretty much agree with there being no need to change the wording of the general prohibition, I think Zero0000 brings up a good point regarding the use of the phrase "original author" in the general 1RR. I'm not worried about dropping "author", since for better or worse, Wikipedia defines those removing content as an author. I am concerned about "original", though. I think we intended that restriction to apply to the most recent editor who added the content to slow down or prevent edit wars. Is there an appetite for making that more clear? ~ Rob13Talk 17:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit 'meh' on the topic. If there's evidence of the restriction being gamed in the way Zero explained (which hasn't/can't be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions) I'd be more willing to do something. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to change it as we never meant it to mean the original editor who added the text, and that's what "author" means to a lot of people, including me. I'm happy with Zero's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Huldra at 21:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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 Huldra

Are edits in user space also bound by WP:ARBPIA3? RebeccaSaid is/was working on an article in her user space, User:RebeccaSaid/Eva Bartlett, Shrike blanked the page, with the edit line "WP:ARBPIA3 new users aren't allowed to edit articles relating to the conflict". I undid it, which one of us is correct? Please clarify, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz: you write "there ain't much point in creating a draft if you can not mainspace it, requiring a proxy editor" ....that of course presumes that you finish with the draft within 500 edits, or less. Some people might do that, but I know for myself that I typically work on drafts much longer than that. Eg., I have had literally thousands and thousands of edits since I started eg User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami or User:Huldra/Maqam Sitt Sukayna (and none of them ready for mainspace yet, IMO), Huldra (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Icewhiz: That is an interesting question, where I dont know the answer. I honestly didn't think Eva Bartlett was part of WP:ARBPIA. (Hey, I virtually live in the ARBPIA area on WP, and I had never even heard of her work on Palestine.) Well, live and learn. Huldra (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

@Alex Shih: The usual practice in the area revert the violation in sight and discuss it with users after the violation is removed and that what I did but I understand where you comments coming from and in similar cases I will take more lax approach next time. --Shrike (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RebeccaSaid

Not that this is actually relevant here - but I'll clarify what I was actually doing, why I was doing it and how this situation arose.

The article of Eva Bartlett was deleted as it was created by FromNewsToEncyclopedia, block evading sock of M.A.Martin. This is what the article looked like at the point of deletion. Eva Bartlett. An attack page. The article was retrieved and then proposed for deletion again. AFD.

I started a practice/dummy article in a user space, in order to pull together some actual biographical information which is completely lacking from what is supposed to be a BLP. The intention being to post it at the AFD or within the Talk Page of the article for consideration. The article did not at that stage fall within the "Arab/Israeli conflict" scope. This is because the article subject is not notable for her work around Gaza - she has gained any notability she has for her more recent reporting on Syria, which is reflected in the article.

This morning I posted a brief statement here: ARE Cross & directly under the statement of Shrike, who, incidentally, I've never interacted with before. Within 30-40 minutes of me posting my statement, Shrike blanked my user space, concluded that the article of Eva Bartlett fell within the scope of the "Arab/Israeli conflict" (based on what I'd written, not what was actually within the article itself) and followed that with a veiled aspersion about me having had previous user accounts. Here's the sum of their Contributions to Wikipedia for the day.

To be frank, I am more concerned about the motivation behind this editors sudden interest in my edits, my account & the article of Eva Bartlett, than I am about whether I am "allowed" to edit something, or not. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I didn't imply that I was being personally restricted if that's what you mean. In plain terms I was questioning whether the article fell within the scope of the "Arab/Israeli conflict" in it's present format, particularly as the main justification given was "Between 2007 and early 2013 Bartlett spent a cumulative three years living in Gaza and eight months in West Bank. During this period she volunteered with the International Solidarity Movement and documented her experiences on her InGaza blog. ", which isn't in the article. The article has been around for a while, nobody has made that distinction before and I felt that restricting the article on the basis of something that might go in the article, or might not, was jumping the gun.
Lessons learnt:
A. polish crystal ball to avoid wasting time trying to improve badly written, biased BLP's - as someone may come along and make a tenuous link to something you're not allowed to edit, and wipe out all your work.
B. Accept that random people will regularly cast veiled aspersions about previous accounts/sock accounts/multiple accounts without an iota of evidence or justification - because assuming good faith is unnecessary when dealing with someone new/inexperienced. Got it! --RebeccaSaid (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the article subject is only notable for her work in Syria, there's nothing within the body of the text that covers her actual work in Gaza, apart from mention of her blog (which doesn't even link to the blog, it links to a critical opinion piece - surprise, surprise!), it wasn't flagged up as falling within the scope until yesterday and other new users have edited it without issue - combined, I'd suggest that I would need a crystal ball to realize, at the time of writing, that they'd be a problem in the future. Rest assured, I won't waste any more time here, on what is obviously, a pointless exercise. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Shrike is correct, as WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 clearly forbids editing to any page. There is a single carveout - talkspace for constructive suggestions. Carevout 2 is not an exception, but merely admin discretion on enforcement in article creation ... As to whether the rule should be modified - that's a different matter, but there ain't much point in creating a draft if you can not mainspace it, requiring a proxy editor.Icewhiz (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: - I suspect that an editor that reaches 500 edits mainly by editing to a draft in their user space will probably have their extended confirmed bit removed due to gaming. (Nothing wrong with draft space edits - to the contrary - generally a "good thing" to work in draft (either online or offline) - the issue is the EC bit).Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2018 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (clarification): Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (clarification): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Correct. You may not work on drafts or otherwise be involved in this topic area in userspace until you meet the requirements for the prohibition to no longer apply. The only exception is the Talk: namespace. ~ Rob13Talk 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While entirely correct, I think Shrike's approach here could have been slightly less aggressive ideally; rather than issuing a alert at 08:52, requesting extended confirmed proteciton at 08:59 and blanked the user page at 09:00, I would allow some time for the new user to voluntarily revert themselves, if they would. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 #2 briefly describes that discretion should be exercised. Alex Shih (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RebeccaSaid:, User:Shrike did not apply a restriction to you as you suggested on your talk page. That restriction is for all new editors and applies automatically. And as my colleagues have said about, that restriction applies everywhere except talk space. It's common for Administrators to take action involving editors they haven't been involved with before, I see nothing untoward about Shrike's actions. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RebeccaSaid: the subject always fell within the sanction area. I don't think you needed a crystal ball to know that a rights activist covering Palestine would fall within ARBPIA. And sadly we have had a lot of socking within our most tendentious sanctions area. This edit[1] is another one, please don't make such edits until you achieve ECP. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Initiated by Davidbena at 04:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] arbitration case ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|t]]) ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Evidence|ev]] /[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Evidence| t]]) ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Workshop|w]] /[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Workshop| t]]) ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Proposed decision|pd]] /[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Proposed decision| t]])
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Banning policy; Second paragraph: "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)."


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
  • Wikipedia:Banning policy; Second paragraph: "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)."
  • Suggested amendment to clause: "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus after an unequal number of non-involved administrators (acting as judges) have read the deliberations made by an equal number of advocates and prosecutors - either for or against disciplinary actions being taken, or by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)."


Statement by Davidbena

It is my view that when incidents are brought before the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for a decision, due to the overwhelming number of incidents, that some minor incidents may occasionally be brought, haphazardly, before the board without prior consideration or thorough inspection of the edit history of the person in question against whom the complaint is made. By the nature of the Administrators' noticeboard's set-up and arrangement (based on current standing-laws governing its conduct), arriving at a fair and equitable (impartial) decision/verdict by means of "community consensus" may, in fact, be sometimes compromised if, let's say, those editors attracted to the site and who comment on the particular case are either inexperienced, or display toxic tendencies towards their fellow-editors because of their preconceived notions about that editor. Wherefore, the best way to handle incidents brought before the Administrators' noticeboard is to have an equal number of advocates and prosecutors (arguing for and against the editor), while the administrators rendering the verdict will be made-up of an unequal number of three or five, and their decision - based on the arguments heard from the advocates and the prosecutors - made by a majority vote of 2 to 1 (in the case of there being only 3 administrators). In this manner, we can avoid miscalculation of an editor's behavior or intent. Of course, this will require setting up a team of editors who will agree to work in the capacity of advocates (working to highlight the editor's good qualities), and another team who works solely as prosecutors (looking for the editor's bad qualities). Perhaps Wikipedia can compile a list of willing editors who will take in these roles, and when they are summoned to respond to a specific incident, will be given 48-hours to respond.

Statement by Bishonen

Statement by Someguy1221

Statement by power~enwiki

I greatly dislike this trend of appeals at ARCA claiming that site policies as a whole are wrong, rather than claiming that a specific sanction was too harsh. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I have to ask what jurisdiction that Davidbena feels that ArbCom -- an entity whose purpose is essentially to adjudicate behavioral problems -- has over the structure and practices of a community page such as AN/I. It seems to me that the very most the Committee can do would be to "strongly suggest that the community discuss changes in AN/I", or something to that effect, and that it cannot, on its own authority, force the community to change AN/I, or even to force the discussion they might think is appropriate. If I am correct in my apprehension of the limits of ArbCom's remit, then it would seem best for the Committee to reject this request for "clarification and amendment" (which is not actually a request for clarification or amendment, but, at best, should be the subject of an RfC, and, at worst, is simply an attempt to avoid a community sanction) entirely, as outside of its authority to consider. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, since his comment was posted while I was writing the one above, "per Newyorkbrad". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @Davidbena: We are unable to identify which decision of the Arbitration Committee you are seeking to clarify or amend. If there is an incident you are seeking to open a case for, see WP:ARC. If you are seeking clarification or amendment of an Arbitration Committee ruling, please link to that decision at your earliest convenience. Otherwise, the Committee or the clerks may close this request expeditiously. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=855134977"