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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 8 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment edit
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:
Initiated by Cunard at 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Modify to include a topic ban on proposing an article for deletion and turning an article into a redirect
Statement by Cunard edit
Previous discussions
This was previously discussed in an amendment request closed on 20 April 2024 and on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests.
Background
Before the 2 August 2022 deletion topic ban, TenPoundHammer nominated numerous articles for proposed deletion and articles for deletion. He also redirected numerous articles in 2022. This link shows the last 500 redirects he did before the 2 August 2022 topic ban. If you search for the text "Tags: New redirect Reverted" on the page, there are 189 results. At least 189 of the redirects he did between April 2022 and July 2022 were reverted.
TenPoundHammer resumed the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact.
Evidence
I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer on 2 March 2024 about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer to stop blanking and redirecting articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.
TenPoundHammer continued to redirect articles on notable topics. Between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series (a topic I focus on): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. After spending many hours searching for sources, I reverted all 14 redirects and added sources to all 14 articles. For several of the topics (such as Queer Eye for the Straight Girl and Dice: Undisputed), sources could be easily found with a Google search.
Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected three book articles (another topic I focus on): 1, 2, and 3. I reverted the three redirects and added book reviews.
Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 33 articles. Almost all of those redirects are in the music topic area which I do not focus on. I am concerned about the large number of redirects of topics that could be notable.
On 12 April 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected the television show Las Vegas Garden of Love with the edit summary "unsourced since 2010, time to lose it". I found sources for the article and reverted the redirect. I found two of the sources (The New York Times and Variety) on the first page of a Google search for "Las Vegas Garden of Love ABC". TenPoundHammer previously prodded this same article in May 2022, and another editor contested that prodding ("contest PROD, nom nominated 200 articles in a single day so it's impossible a BEFORE was done for each").
Analysis
Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from.
Blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs. Television-related prods and AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. But blank-and-redirects are not listed anywhere.
It is unclear to me whether the existing topic ban includes proposing articles for deletion. I recommend that the topic ban be expanded to prohibit both proposing articles for deletion and blanking and redirecting pages since there is previous disruptive editing in both areas where he has prodded or redirected a large number of articles about notable topics. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case.
Here are quotes from three arbitrators about the topic ban in the 2022 proposed decision regarding the redirects and and proposed deletion:
- "... This TBAN also fails to remedy the issues that appear to be evident with the use of redirects (see Artw's evidence for examples)." (link)
"... Missing PROD was not intentional on my part but that also can be added." (link)
- See Artw's evidence about issues with redirects.
- "First choice, and my interpretation is that this should extend to PROD, given the evidence, even though it seems like a stretch to call most PRODs a discussion. ..." (link)
- "First choice, extend to PROD." (link)
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TenPoundHammer edit
I assumed I was already topic-banned from PRODding articles, so I don't know why that was brought up. (Similarly, I don't know what the ruling is on deprodding but it's historically not been an issue for me, and I personally don't think it would be fair to deny me a chance to say "hey, wait, I can fix this".) Speed has been an issue, as has blunt edit summaries when I redirect something. Lately when I feel there is little to no content to merge, I try to spell out my WP:BEFORE steps in the edit summary when I redirect. I also generally don't unlink the page, to save the hassle if someone like Cunard comes along to revert my redirect and dump in some sources. One reason I don't try to initiate merger discussion is because no matter how hard I try, no one ever seems to respond. Witness Talk:Regis_Philbin#Proposed_merge_of_Joy_Philbin_into_Regis_Philbin, which opened two months ago and has had several reminders, but not a single person has lifted a finger. How long is that discussion going to gather dust? "There is no deadline" doesn't mean "do nothing and hope the problem somehow fixes itself". If I am to be topic-banned from WP:BLARing, then how can I get some action going in merger discussions? Since again, every fucking time I try, nobody acts like I'm even there -- but then two seconds after I give in and finally merge/redirect the damn thing, someone swoops in to revert me. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Star Mississippi edit
I am Involved here. TPH and I came up together on this project and occasionally ran into one another on country talk pages although it has been some time since we substantively interacted. I also have the utmost respect for Cunard's research at AfD in that they not only say "sources exist" but find and annotate them for participants to assess. This is especially helpful personally in east Asian language sourcing. That said, Cunard's case here is strong. TPH sees it as their duty to clean up the project, but I don't think their strong feelings are backed by our policies, nor is there a pressing need to remove this content. The project will not collapse and these are mostly not BLPs. If they are, someone else can handle it. I believe TPH's topic ban should be expanded to include BLAR which is a form of deletion. I have no strong feelings on PROD personally. Star Mississippi 01:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
S Marshall edit
Suggest:
- TPH may not redirect more than one article per day.
- TPH may not PROD more than one article per day.
- For the purposes of this restriction a "day" refreshes at midnight UTC.
Statement by Jclemens edit
- Support expanding the topic ban to BLARs. I really wanted to not do this, but TPH's comments above are very much in WP:IDHT territory. While editors are absolutely allowed to focus on specific aspects of the encyclopedia and its processes, TPH has been here long enough that using Google to assess for sources per BEFORE and including them (even perfunctorily on the talk page for others to edit into the article) rather than redirecting clearly notable topics is a reasonable expectation. Again, BEFORE-ish behavior is neither required nor expected outside TPH's self-chosen context of encyclopedic cleanup. Because using BLARs for deletion is a semi-end-run around the existing topic ban, expecting BEFORE behavior is not a too-restrictive burden. The fact is, TPH has been found to have used other deletion processes without appropriate discretion, and is now shown to have been doing the same thing using a different process. Again, this is not a novel problem, but a topic-banned user who is skating as close as possible to the topic ban and displaying ongoing problematic behavior. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Billed Mammal: This is not a proposal for a general rule. This is a note that TPH has been engaging in less-than-optimal deletion conduct that, had he continued to engage in it over time, could result in a topic ban, in fact did, and TPH has continued to engage in deletion-like behavior within the limits of that topic ban. I'll note that BLAR notes
If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Since TPH is topic banned from AfD, nominating contested BLARs for deletion is off the table. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Billed Mammal: This is not a proposal for a general rule. This is a note that TPH has been engaging in less-than-optimal deletion conduct that, had he continued to engage in it over time, could result in a topic ban, in fact did, and TPH has continued to engage in deletion-like behavior within the limits of that topic ban. I'll note that BLAR notes
Statement by BilledMammal edit
TPH has been here long enough that using Google to assess for sources per BEFORE and including them (even perfunctorily on the talk page for others to edit into the article) rather than redirecting clearly notable topics is a reasonable expectation.
While a WP:BEFORE search may be a good idea, it isn’t one that there is a consensus to require - and it is one that there shouldn’t be a consensus to require until we place similar requirements, retroactively applying, on the creation of articles.
Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle.
If we’re going to apply FAIT to the deletion of articles we need to first - and retroactively - apply it to their creation, otherwise we will have a situation where massive numbers of articles have been created in violation of FAIT but are almost impossible to address.
Further, I’m not convinced this is a FAIT issue; addressing previous FAIT issues is not itself a FAIT violation, even if done at a similar scale and rate.
Statement by {other-editor} edit
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.
edit
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
edit
- I find the examples of WP:BLAR that Cunard presents to be troubling forms of deletion when taken in the full context. Cunard often presents more obscure sources or coverage that can be rather short but that is certainly not the case with several of the examples shown here. As noted in the case WP:BEFORE
is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources.
but for this editor, with this past, the lack of BEFORE when some high quality sourcing was available strikes me as an issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC) - TenPoundHammer was topic banned because of disruptive behavior in AfD discussions as well as issues around the closing of discussions. While Cunard has presented a not-unreasonable concern that TPH might not be the best at finding sources for articles, I am not seeing any major issues with conduct around the blank-and-redirect issue; redirects that have been reverted tend to stay reverted, without evidence of argument or backlash. These redirects also appear to be made in good faith. In other words, I do not think we are at the point where the BLAR activity by TenPoundHammer has reached a "disruptive editing" or "conduct-unbecoming" level that would require further sanctions. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would support expanding the topic ban --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 edit
Initiated by ScottishFinnishRadish at 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Palestine-Israel articles 4 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:
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish edit
Here's a simple one. The 1RR general sanction says Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict.
Does content include talk page messages, RFC statements, user talk messages, or is it confined to actual in-article content? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim and Primefac:, see the discussion at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Involved editors repeatedly shutting down RFC prematurely for where it has recently come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Kashmiri, that's just where WP:CTOP applies, not where individual sanctions that fall under CTOP applies, or in this case general sanctions that exist outside of CTOP. This means I could impose 1RR on a talk page that is part of the CTOP, or an archive, or any other page in that CTOP using the CTOP powers. It doesn't mean that the 1RR general sanction in the topic area applies to all pages in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Kashmiri, not always and consistently. WP:ECR is a good example of this, even moreso before the most recent amendment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Barkeep49,
issues here could probably be dealt with fine elsewhere so I just note it.
Where? My talk page, or WP:AE which is just me and Seraphimblade? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)- Just to be clear, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/A-I) is not an example of healthy patrolling of a topic area. It is essentially just me patrolling, and SB when it comes to AE. I've scaled back my enforcement because one admin shouldn't be wielding that large an influence alone over the topic area, and because the incredibly large opportunity cost of already time intensive actions.
- I think the blocking of the RFC is disruptive, but should I alone really be the one who forces a content discussion and blocks or tbans editors who disagree, and then spend the enormous amount of time necessary to defend my actions? I've also held off on closing any discussions in the topic area because I shouldn't be determining the consensus that I'm going to enforce. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy edit
Statement by BilledMammal edit
Mainly out of curiosity, would it apply to hidden text within the article? I’ve always assumed it would, but I can see an argument now that it wouldn’t. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Just noting that there was discussion prior to the RFC (one, two, and I believe others), as well as multiple reverts back and forth regarding the disputed content by a variety of editors. BilledMammal (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Barkeep, where would you suggest dealing with it - would you recommend opening a discussion at AE or something else? (noting that SFR is, understandably, conflicted about dealing with it given how significant their exposure in the admin side of the topic area currently is, but that going to AE won’t get a much wider group of admins involved) BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by WeatherWriter edit
The incident referenced by ScottishFinnishRadish, which coincidentally involves BilledMammal is not the first times BilledMammal has been involved in a 1RR debate. Actually two weeks ago (23 April 2024), BilledMammal made two separate reversions ([1] & [2]) six minute apart. When the editor who was reverted brought this up on BilledMammal’s talk page as a violation of 1RR, BilledMammal directly stated it was “not a violation”. I stalk BilledMammal’s talk page, so I provided my own thoughts on it and I echoed what ScottishFinnishRadish said: One revert per page unless it is direct vandalism that is clear. Further on this incident & my full TPS comment at User talk:BilledMammal#WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war. Full clarification on whether that was a true violation of 1RR would also be helpful, as BilledMammal did not self-revert and brushed the incident off as not being a violation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Coretheapple edit
I don't think it really matters one way or the other, as both the articles and the talk pages in this subject are a disaster area, a kind of administrator-free zone in which incivility is rampant and WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct is normal. 1RR or 3RR won't make any difference on the talk pages. I think the substance of editor behavior, such as involved editors shutting down RfCs as BilledMammal complained about on SFR's talk page, is far more consequential. We're really here to discuss a side issue of limited importance. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Barkeep49 True, the talk pages are a disaster area as I said, and repetition is part of the problem. Editors' time was wasted a couple of months ago in a lengthy, immense move discussion on Israel-Hamas war that commenced within days of a previous one was concluded. So yes, that kind of thing happens and it is just part of a general free-for-all atmosphere on these talk pages that includes repetition and also includes RfCs being closed by involved editors. One has to look at the whole situation, which includes a lack of administrator oversight. and incivility being treated as a suggestion and not as a policy violation. I view incivility as a kind of "broken windows policing" kind of situation. Once that breaks down, things get completely out of hand. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier edit
Perhaps we should not stray too far from the principal issue here, do the restrictions apply only to article content, I am satisfied that question has been addressed, remaining issues can be dealt with elsewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by kashmiri edit
Our policies are straightforward: This [Contentious topic] procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
(annotation b at WP:CTOP). Thus, whenever 1RR is instituted on a page within the CT framework, it applies to all the associated namespaces as well as to subpages and archives. — kashmīrī TALK 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish We might need to go back to MediaWiki definitions. Programming-wise, Talk, User talk, File talk, etc., are all separate namespaces, just like User, File, Template, Draft, Wikipedia, Help, etc. Logically, however, MediaWiki has been configured in such a way as to link a namespace titled X_Talk with every other namespace, and to allow easy navigation between them. We thus have pairs of User and User_talk, File and File_talk, (Main) and (Main)_Talk. Of course, we all know it.
- Now, whenever we talk about editing restrictions, we always, consistently apply them to the namespace pair. Filemover is a permission to carry out moves of the pair File and File_talk. An interaction ban includes posting to the pair both User and User_talk. Move protection similarly applies to the entire pair, as do, explicitly, CT sanctions.
- It would be weird, unintuitive and very confusing indeed should revert restrictions under CT sanctions be applicable only to half the pair, epecially when ECP restrictions under the same CT sanctions arguably apply to both – as if quoting that Talk should be considered an independent namespace. — kashmīrī TALK 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish Well, ECR restrictions apply to the entire pair. Only, a limited exception has been made to allow editors make a single post of a predefined type of content in the Talk namespace. This is an exception explicitly named as such, not a rule. Similarly, we have TPA revocation, with the term reflecting its atypical construction. But otherwise, we consistently extend restrictions, access levels, etc., to the pairs, even when X_Talk namespaces are not explicitly mentioned. — kashmīrī TALK 17:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton, thanks for the quote from policy. I hope arbs will take a closer look at the policy wording and intent, and won't try to reinvent them here. — kashmīrī TALK 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by M.Bitton edit
I always assumed that it does. While The 1RR general sanction says Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict
, the "area of conflict" is clearly defined in WP:PIA as edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
. M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor} edit
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 4: Clerk notes edit
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion edit
- I think that the intent of the sanction is to be specific to article content in the broad sense. More specifically, and in a technical sense, that means mainspace, but also anything that transcludes on the article (i.e. templates). My opinion is based on starting from the original 1RR restriction. Are there issues of edit-warring in this topic area outside of mainspace, such as in the example listed of talk page messages, RFC statements, or user talk messages? I would hope that normal edit-warring warnings and blocks could deal with that kind of edit-warring, but I suppose that if there is a topic area where such a hope is asking too much, it is this one. Maxim (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Maxim beat me to the punch, but my thoughts largely align with theirs; while "page" does usually mean "anything", I do not think WP:TPO violations should be subject to 1RR (which if I am reading the inciting incident correctly, is what is being argued). Primefac (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I generally agree with Maxim and Primefac in stating that it is
specific to article content in the broad sense
. I would add as a further example of content, without being a page edit, would be moving as the name of the article is clearly a kind of content (and is listed in the article history accordingly, rather than just in a log). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)- I think in most situations it would apply to hidden text. Hidden text is often used to say "Hey there's consensus for this" or "There is no consensus for that" and that would be article content in the broad sense. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Coretheapple: After reading here I was inclined to take a dim view of editors preventing an RfC. But I do agree with the general point that RfCs are costly for editor time and so jumping into one without discussion shouldn't happen even in a contentious topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- So after reviewing BM's diffs and the history of the edits around this RfC I take a dim view of editors preventing this RfC. That is, however, not what we're being asked to clarify and issues here could probably be dealt with fine elsewhere so I just note it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- BM: I have read SFR's statement about the sanctions log with interest, but I have been holding off saying anything because I am curious what my colleagues think. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- So I spent some time today looking at 2024 AE reports in this topic area. And I am seeing a wider range of participating admin than just Seraphimblade and SFR (even though these two, especially SFR end up closing the threads). So to answer @ScottishFinnishRadish's question of where
could probably be dealt with fine elsewhere
is, I would say AE. One addendum/caveat to this comment: the more recent activity across all AE's (roughly the last 2 weeks) has been skewed towards those two. There could be any number of reasons why that is without suggesting trouble to me. So if that were to continue through the end of May that would be a different problem to look at than saying "AE doesn't have capacity to handle PIA issues" Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- So after reviewing BM's diffs and the history of the edits around this RfC I take a dim view of editors preventing this RfC. That is, however, not what we're being asked to clarify and issues here could probably be dealt with fine elsewhere so I just note it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues above. I think Barkeep's suggestion of AE is excellent to deal with concerns with RfCs or non-article talk pages could be problem-solved, and if AE is not able to deal with it the next step would probably be ArbCom. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)