Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

suggested small edit to WP:ECR

Current text: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

Suggested text: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

I feell like I've seen a number of non-ECP users recently asking for clarification of what this means. To me it seems perfectly clear already but the bolding makes it harder to argue that it says anything other than what it does say. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any issue with that emphasis being added. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Per Thryduulf. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps reword to "for the sole purpose of making edit requests..." I don't think boldface will add clarity for anyone who sees ambiguity with the current text. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Non-extended-confirmed editors may only use the "Talk:" namespace, and only to make edit requests would be less ambiguous? - Aoidh (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Or alternatively Non-extended confirmed may not make any edits with the sole exception of making edit requests in the talk namespace? (I'm also happy with Aoidh's suggestion) The current text can be read as the intended "the only thing non-EC editors are allowed to do is make edit requests, and the only place they are allowed to that is the talk namespace" but it could also be read as "the only thing non-ECR editors are allowed to do in the talk namespace is to make edit requests, there are no restrictions on other namespaces." I agree that adding boldface alone will not resolve this. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Last time we had this discussion people were able to find ways to misread Thryduulf's suggested wording (or something close to it). I'm skeptical that there is any wording here that will be clear for everyone and think there is some cost to changing things for clarity as some will think it's a substantive change. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I honestly can't see how Thryduulf's version could be misread, except deliberately as "Non-extended confirmed may not make any edits (with the sole exception of making edit requests) in the talk namespace." A comma after "edits" would make that interpretation harder. But Aoidh's version is more succinct, clearer, and harder to misinterpret on purpose.

If we must go with something minimally different from the current text, but the bolding isn't clear enough, may I suggest '...may use the "Talk:" namespace, but only to make edit requests...'? —Cryptic 15:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, reading Thryduulf's version had me immediately thinking 'wait, so edit requests are only allowed in the talk namespace?', which obviously is not true(WP:RFED), and isn't an issue I had with the current phrasing. – 2804:F14:80E0:5601:8060:D58C:5EBC:74E2 (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue not discussed here is not with the wording itself but with the perceived definition of "make edit requests". Clarifying somehow whether it means "publish a single comment containing an edit request" or "workshop with others a single edit which you propose" would help. Most of these cases where I've seen disagreement are where non-EC users continue to discuss their own edit request with others, rather than non-EC users using namespaces other than Talk. Tollens (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic talk templates

ARBCOM contentious topic templates (and anything about the talk page subtopics, really) do not show up in mobile web. - Desine (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)