User talk:Emdosis

Welcome!

Hi Emdosis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Just plain Bill (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Thanks! 
 ———————————————————————————————————————————
 Emdosis (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Emdosis! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Thumbnail margins, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Levite Priest

The article Levite Priest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

created in error

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Emdosis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account has extended confirmed rights (automatically granted when an account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits).

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A discussion on the reliability of sources is far beyond an edit request. Please do not violate WP:ECR further or you will be sanctioned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing anything. It was already established a while ago (on the talk page) that the Lancet report was unreliable (when it comes to ascertaining whether Israel is (or isn't) committing a genocide). Emdosis (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to discuss content relating to the Arab/Israel conflict which is prohibited until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Emdosis:, why are you continuing to discuss matters covered by ECR despite having been told that if you do so you will be sanctioned? This suggests that you do not believe that Wikipedia's rules governing content and behavior apply to you. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule that disallows me to speak about anything on a user's talk page. If Joe Roe has a problem, let him take it up with me. The fact that you came on my talk page, rather than address my arguments (on the topic at hand) at the place where I (supposedly) violated Wikipedia's laws, tells me quite a bit about your personal/political pov in all of this. Emdosis (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Look up. "The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page." You are aware. It provides no information about my 'personal/political pov' not does it have any dependency on them. It tells you that there are rules, that you were made aware of the rules, that you violated the rules repeatedly, and that you were told that you violated the rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No matter how many times you say "yOU aRe aWAre", the only thing. I think (hope) you will admit at this point that the only thing you had made me aware of at the time was your interpretation of the rule. (And that I genuinely disagreed). Emdosis (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed your ECR violation here. You are aware that it is a violation, so you have no valid reason to object to its removal. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I'm curious how others think about this. In any case, the fact that you administrated, in the way that you did, still tells me about your pov. Emdosis (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland is correct. You cannot discuss or make edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict anywhere until you are EC. The only thing you can do is make edit requests on the impacted articles' talk pages. S0091 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hallmarks of bad process, Approaches that don't usually convince. Also recommend you two to read Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law. Emdosis (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Emdosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Emdosis (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

for WP:ECR violations, imposed at

      Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240721163500-User_sanctions_(CT/A-I), 

  logged at

      16:34, 21 July 2024

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1235894037/1235900682

Statement by Emdosis

I was about to post the following to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee when I saw I got banned. I'll post it here instead:

 (topic:ECR)

"The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed"

I'm guessing it's so broad that it includes user talk pages, and going even further, that it would allow a non-admin to remove an edit on another user's talk page (even though that would clash with WP:UP#OOUP). (To be very clear, I absolutely did not add that comment on Joe Roe's page knowingly violating ECR rules). Emdosis (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Emdosis²

Just found out the original block wasn't even applicable under the ARBPIA decision to begin with:

Definition of the "area of conflict"

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

1. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
2. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Emdosis (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Emdosis

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by BilledMammal

Emdosis made a comment that was in violation of ECR, it was reverted, and they reinstated despite discussion on their talk page saying they shouldn't. Reasonable block.

Emdosis, if I can give you some advice; this sanction is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. I suggest that you withdraw this appeal and instead accept it. In a week, when it expires, you can return, make 200 productive edits and non-trivial edits in other topic areas, and join this topic area if you are still interested in doing so. Don't earn yourself a more permanent sanction over trying to contribute to the topic area a couple of weeks early.

I realize you're only 100 edits from ECR, but I suggest 200 just to avoid any controversy in the future over the edits you made within the topic area contributing to you earning ECR.

In addition, I see you cited WP:IAR; for inexperienced editors, IAR is a trap that will only get you in trouble. Eventually you'll realize when it's appropriate to apply, but for now, especially within contentious topic areas, I suggest you stay well clear of it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I also cited WP:UP#OOUP which was my main 'excuse', so to speak, for reverting. You said I reinstated despite discussion on my talk page saying I shouldn't. Why should I agree with the interpretation of a rule (as unclear as the one I mentioned) by two non-admins on my page, who clearly are more bothered by what I had to say, than the fact that I said it..? Emdosis (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt, because you have no choice. I understand why you disagree, and I understand why this feels unfair, but this is how that rule works and you aren't going to be able to change it.

All you can do is decide how you want to proceed next; you can either carefully avoid the topic area until you become extended confirmed, or you can continue to push your interpretation and get additional sanctions, which will almost certainly include being banned from the topic area.

The former will let you make comments like that in a couple of weeks; the latter will mean you will not be able to make comments like that for months, maybe years. BilledMammal (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"To be blunt, because you have no choice"

At the time, I had the choice 😛.

...you can either carefully avoid the topic area...

I was already doing that my friend. Can I continue avoiding the topic area whilst being unbanned pls? Emdosis (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't make that decision, and to be honest by posting this formal appeal - rather than saying "mea culpa, I'll avoid the topic area until I'm extended-confirmed" - I think you've lost your chance for that to happen. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You make it sound as if I've wronged SFRadish personally by putting out this appeal :/ Emdosis (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a difficult topic area to work as an admin in, and appealing their actions, while sometimes necessary, does make it harder yet. In this case not too much, because this admin action is an easy one to defend and no one is going to question it, but by putting out the appeal you have made it harder for him to justify - to himself and to others - unblocking you early. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

How do I withdraw an appeal? Emdosis (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just say you'd like to withdraw the appeal, and someone can copy it over to AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the appeal if you take a day off of the sentence. Does that sound reasonable to you? Emdosis (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's really not how this works. WP:GAB goes into detail on how to put together a decent unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to write an entire apologia-essay explaining why I was wrong and how I won't do it again to prove that I acted in good faith and that I didn't know about the level of strictness wth regards to the issue (or how (certain) Wikipedia warriors editors take it upon themselves to enforce this over the top ruling wherever it may be, in Orwellian fashion). But the fact that you think/suggest I do tells me a bit about your intentions here... Emdosis (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Doubling down and banning me for this is was ridiculous and shows once again there's an issue with communication. (Or that you are much too strict (or both :).) Emdosis (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

I know that in theory all blocks are appealable but I will say it again, non EC editors arguing about EC restrictions should not have any standing at this board. By the time we are done here, the block will have run its course. Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry ☹️. Would the administrators board have been a better choice vis-a-vis a potential hastening of a resolution? Emdosis (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It probably would have taken longer, and there's a higher chance for it to go off the rails there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting... Though it seems to be the first choice in the Wikiverse. Emdosis (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Emdosis

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Emdosis (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

[1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and casting aspersions.[2][3][4]

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"uninvolved administrator"... Emdosis (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused." [WP:BURO]. Emdosis (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"When an editor's prior bad conduct is raised in a discussion, consideration should be given to whether the current conduct issues are a de-escalation from the prior conduct and not regard the mere act of repetition as escalation. Improving one's conduct is a sign that an editor is responding in good faith to the concerns of the community and tougher sanctions for lesser misconduct only discourage that editor from improving further." Emdosis (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and casting aspersions.[5][6][7]"

I've been pushing off writing this as no-one reads my talk page except you (which in a weird way, I appreciate but whatev...)

Ok there's so much to unpack here so I'll just jump right into it:

First of all, you didn't warn me about casting aspersions, not even once. This goes against standard policy/practise on Wikipedia. (Unusual for you too.)

Let's get to the meat and bones shall we: I didn't cast aspersions based on thin air. In the first link, I cast aspersions based on questionably motivated (i.e. non-NPOV qualifying edit) behaviour by a non-admin (i.e. meaning, it is not their duty to enforce Arb. remedies) that removed a legitimate, and obviously good faith comment on a talk page (the 'aspersion' was extremely innocuous too). Furthermore, what really lured out my aspersion was Sean's aggressive tone of voice (yOu aRE aWArE) and provocative statement: "This suggests that you do not believe that Wikipedia's rules etc. apply to you" (there, an aspersion for you :)). In the 2nd link, I said: ..."who clearly are more bothered by what I had to say, than the fact that I said it...": This, once again, is a rationalizable aspersion to make considering official Wikipedia policy is to let users deal with their own talk page as per WP:UP#OOUP. Sure, you might argue that both of them just care a lot about ARBPIA enforcement and that they've set up flagging systems for supposed violations (which would be quite weird considering talk pages do not fall under the topic restriction as I've shown in my 2nd statement). Another reason why the aspersion was justified is because the first user made zero attempt to deny they had a pov. The third link isn't even an aspersion. I don't know what you were even thinking with that. Tho I did later edit an aspersion (against you) into it, which too is rationalizable as I made you an extremely reasonable offer (to take off 1 day of the sentence in exchange for withdrawing the appeal) but you flat out rejected it. I've already proven to you that your original block was unjustified (I saw that you saw it).

No doubt the AR notice is uncomfortable for both you and the ArbC. The fact that you haven't unblocked me to just get this over and done with... (You can still make this right, (not for me, for yourself).) Heartfully. Emdosis (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There are useful lessons here.

• If you want to know someone's POV just ask them. You can use an assume nothing approach.
• It is a mistake to infer motive to explain actions without an evidentiary basis to do so. In this case, you should have assigned a near-zero credence to your inference result. The AGF policy is a good reminder that we are not that smart and make a lot of mistakes.
• It is a mistake to assume there is a causal relationship between personal POVs and edits without an evidentiary basis to do so (which usually requires some kind of pattern analysis unless it is blatant). There will very often be alternative explanations.
• In my case it is easy to understand my actions once you know that a) I support enforcing ECR compliance in the PIA topic area b) I don't care why someone is violating ECR. The test is simply "Is this an edit request or something that closely resembles an edit request?" There is a clue on my user page, and you could have looked through my contributions and found many instances inconsistent with your theory of the case. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"If you want to know someone's POV just ask them. You can use an assume nothing approach."

I get that my assumptions are not facts. I never claimed they are. You have to look at it from my perspective for a second. I did not notice (or focus) so much on the "broadly speaking" part of the rule. Instead, I used common sense and assumed that userpages would be fine. (ScottishFinnishRadish insists that I'm wrong even after quoting the original ruling but whatever). I felt it was unfair that a good faith comment was simply removed from a userpage, especially when it's not your own userpage. There has to be another reason why you care so much other than: "thems the rules boy". Hence the (innocuous) aspersion.

"If you want to know someone's POV just ask them. This is terrible advice. You're not supposed to have voice your pov, ever, or you risk being accused of not being eligible to maintain NPOV. Emdosis (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"There will very often be alternative explanations."

I agree, which is why I see aspersions as more of a challenge to ask what those other explanations are. You didn't provide one; leading to more speculations...

"There is a clue on my user page, and you could have looked through my contributions and found many instances inconsistent with your theory of the case."

I'm sorry but I have very little experience trying out the different search tools on Wikipedia (I didn't figure out till yesterday for instance, that the default search function on contributions can only search tags. I always thought it searches contents). Emdosis (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• WP:ECR applies everywhere, in every namespace. You're incorrect about how it applies which is one of the reasons I'm unwilling to unblock.
• You don't need a warning to be sanctioned. Additionally you've already been made aware that behavior that violates policies and guidelines, or does not follow best practices, can be sanctioned.
• Editors don't have to deny they have a POV, and it is inappropriate to accuse an editor of editing to support their POV without evidence, which you did not provide.
• The fact that you struck warriors even as you made the comment demonstrates that you knew it was an inappropriate aspersion.
• I'm not going to plea bargain over a block when you haven't demonstrated that you understand the sanctions in place in the topic area and you continue to cast aspersions against other editors.
• It's really not uncomfortable. It isn't uncommon for there to be multiple appeals and reviews of my actions open at any time. Thems the breaks when you're an active administrator and closer.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"WP:ECR applies everywhere, in every namespace. You're incorrect about how it applies which is one of the reasons I'm unwilling to unblock."

Maybe, maybe not. I would like to see a Request for clarification and amendment just to make sure...

Even if you are right, I clearly said I didn't know that the ban encompassed userspaces in my very first statement. It's up to you to assume good faith that I'm not lying... Emdosis (talk)

"You don't need a warning to be sanctioned. Additionally you've already been made aware that behavior that violates policies and guidelines, or does not follow best practices, can be sanctioned."

Yes you do Have a sliced quote (from: WP:BEFOREBLOCK): "In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking."

I know this is about civility but I think it would have been a much more amiable and fruitful approach to use than the one you used.

Same with this one. A very sensible approach for general purpose blocking.

"Editors don't have to deny they have a POV, and it is inappropriate to accuse an editor of editing to support their POV without evidence, which you did not provide."

Editors also don't need to be needlessly authoritative and demanding.

"The fact that you struck warriors even as you made the comment demonstrates that you knew it was an inappropriate aspersion."

No I struck it because I knew you are sensitive to that sort of speech, but maybe I shouldn't say that out loud...😬

"I'm not going to plea bargain over a block when you haven't demonstrated that you understand the sanctions in place in the topic area and you continue to cast aspersions against other editors."

The plea-bargain was before you banned me for the aspersions tho...

It's really not uncomfortable. It isn't uncommon for there to be multiple appeals and reviews of my actions open at any time. Thems the breaks when you're an active administrator and closer."

Eh, I don't know if many admins are as unbothered about it as you are. Emdosis (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 125#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no mention of userspace, maybe one or two editors (like the non-neutral Levivich) suggested that the ban should apply everywhere, but the final motion doesn't mention the word userspace. This is the ruling that's currently in effect when it comes to ARBPIA (as far as I can tell). Emdosis (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_126#Clarification_request:_Extended_confirmed_restriction

"everything that isn't the Talk namespace (namespace 1) is prohibited" Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That's all very nice but 6 admins agreed on the specifics as it related to IPC at ARBPIA as per [8]

Also, in the motion you linked user:Barkeep49 contradicts himself:

"Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive."

Emdosis (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That's correct, edit requests at talk pages are allowed, everything else isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"...may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area..."

Emdosis (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR Read it (which is all you had to do this whole time). Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh so now we're going back to that again are we? Why would WP:ARBECR have precedence with regards to PIA over ARBPIA? Emdosis (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Both apply. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that makes zero sense whatsoever. In one, namespaces are explicitly exempted from the ruling, in the other, namespaces aren't mentioned at all. Emdosis (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the diff in question? I am no longer an arb but I can obviously clarify what I meant as an arb (and also link to some other clarifications about this if relevant). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Shalom and welcome to my page. What we're (were?) discussing is the 1st and 4th bullet of this section. Emdosis (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Alekhem Shalom. I get that's what you're discussing. But that's not what you were blocked for. What is the diff that you were blocked for violating? I'm not interested in just discussing things in the abstract. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's these 2 Special:Diff/1235509784/1235516542, Special:Diff/1235850307/1235861288. Emdosis (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The key - and I think this is made more clear if you read the discussion where the wording was adopted - is that only refers to the only ways Talk name space may be used. It's not edit requests in talk and constructive comments anywhere. You're not the only confused by this but when alternatives were proposed they created other kinds of confusion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, oh my goodness, you guys keep on making me jump from one motion to another everytime I explain why the previously discussed one is not applicable. This motion is the global ruling as it pertains to WP:ECR. The ARBPIA ruling, (which I have copiously linked probably like 15 times by now) has a clear 2nd clause exempting 'userspaces' from the ruling. Emdosis (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You quoted me and did it in a way that pinged me. So here I am telling you what I meant and mean. I'm understand you find that frustrating and understand the answer isn't the one you like. But it is a consistent answer from a variety of people, both admin and editors who actively participate in the topic area. It's OK to be frustrated and it's OK to think the rule should be different but I hope you at least can accept it is the rule and expectation. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I never denied that it is the rule... globally speaking. I'm sorry if my pinging you caused an inconvenience to you and I'm sorry that you don't understand my argument. My argument is that, when a person wants to edit in PIA articles, it is reasonable that they follow the arb decisions that are specifically assigned for PIA articles. It is in fact, highly appropriate as Joe Roe himself was one of the drafters of the 2019 PIA amendment, and voted on the motion (to allow non-ECR users to discuss on userspaces). Emdosis (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahh. This is perhaps where some of the confusion comes into play. What happened in 2019 was superseded. So PIA does not have bespoke rules about extended confirmed anymore. I believe Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict is up to date with all the rules in the topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

literally has the same ruling. Emdosis (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Area of conflict there still says edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content"), but the next section links to ECR which has the "only edit requests" language. It's a good example of why editors should listen to the input of experienced editors and administrators. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Linking doesn't have any impact on the policies set out on the page itself (unless so stipulated). Emdosis (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#General sanctions upon related content - All edits made to related content (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) will be subject to ARBPIA General Sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.: "area of conflict" being defined in the previous section. Emdosis (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. That should have been amended with the change to standardized ECR but also it should be clear which of the two statements actually is applying. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair to the opposition tho. I know that norms don't necessarily coincide with the written rule. I'm combing through a lot of essays and also some official guideline-related pages, and it just so happens to be, that the one I just came across talks about exactly that: Policies and guidelines reflect (and are written descriptions of) communal views. They may become close to mandatory when they reflect a norm that the community has shown it agrees and accepts, and may be set aside in rare cases where the community feels it is appropriate to do so. They may change whenever a change is proposed and the community shows the change is agreed and accepted. Policy wordings are in ongoing development so the on-wiki wording may not always or fully reflect community norms at any given time. source: Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community. I happens to be that the written rule is convenient for me, but that's obviously not an argument to let it supercede accepted norms. Emdosis (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

this is relevant, trust me

@ScottishFinnishRadish Am I a good faith user? Emdosis (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I give up. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I win. Emdosis (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)