Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

ARCA template

I've just filed a request for clarification, using the built-in process at WP:ARCA. The {{Arbitration clarification request}} 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)

I'll put this on my list of things to look at. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Why 500 edits to edit the talk page?

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)

Here's the log. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The logs don't provide an answer to the question. Where is the discussion where the decision was reached to only allow extended confirmed users to participate on talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Joe vom Titan (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

[1] is where, and that is an Arbitration motion, not an AE thread. (Despite what the log says, I can't find anywhere the protection was discussed on AE in the timeframe provided; it was likely done ad hoc as a discretionary sanction.) It should be noted that motion only became a thing because the talk page was practically unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2024

Not an issue for Arbitration. Referred elsewhere.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C.

In the article about Glasgow Rangers Football Club, the "Founded" date is stated to be March 1872.

This should say June 2012 to reflect the reformation of the phoenix club in 2012 when the original club were liquidated.

Similar articles such as Airdrieonians FC and Gretna FC show this date as being the date the new club was founded after a company liquidation occurred.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_F.C._2008

The change of name in Airdrieonians is not sufficient enough to state a new club was founded as this is evidenced by the Manchester United article where a name change from Newton Heath is stated at the foundation section, but the "Founded" date is still said to be 1878.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C.

Therefore, the changing of a name is not regarded as being a foundation of a club with Man United, so therefore wouldn't be for Airdrieonians.

This therefore shows the 2002 date for Airdrieonians is not related to any name changes, but is in fact based upon Liquidation of the old company which owned the original Airdrieonians FC.

Therefore, as that is the case, for consistency, the Rangers FC article "Founded" date should say 2012, as that is when one company liquidated and a phoenix club was created which then had to apply for a new membership to the Scottish football pyramid system.

I have raised this in the "Talk" section, however, I feel the issue is dismissed as Rangers are a much more popular club than Airdrieonians and Gretna and the decisions are made differently to appease a larger fans base. I also believe the people deciding what is "correct" are likely to be Rangers supporters who wish to pretend liquidation of the old company didn't happen.

Please resolve this inconsistency to show a similar treatment for Rangers foundation date to clubs in a similar position like Airdrieonians and Gretna. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. If you'd really like to begin an arbitration case, you can do so here, but I think you would have better luck following the suggestions for dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention Arbitration explicitly is for conduct matters (i.e. user behaviour), not content matters such as what you're complaining about. Arbitration will not touch content disputes, and regularly remands those to the community. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Seconding (or thirding) the comment that this page is the wrong page to raise this issue. Perhaps there is a relevant wikiproject whose members might be able to provide input? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this has been asked and answered on the talk page of the article, and is not a matter for ArbCom. However, what may be related to the arbitration process is the {{Troubles restriction}} tag on the talk page (which also includes a 1RR restriction). It did some digging and it appears to have been added by Uncle G back in 2012 (diff), along with Celtic F.C. (diff). Neither of these applications ever appear to have been recorded at WP:AELOG, and I can't see any connection from either of these articles to The Troubles. Should these tags be removed? – bradv 20:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The Rangers/Celtic issue is a Catholic/Protestant issue, not an Irish/Troubles issue. The tags should probably be removed. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for word-limit extension.

Per Barkeeps comment here, [2], and his later question, which requires a response, [3] I'm going to need a word-limit extension if I am to reply. I'm currently at just under 500 words I think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump 250 more words granted. If you need more beyond that please let us know. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)