Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Horn of Africa	Motion	(orig. case)	14 November 2021

Arbitrator motions

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).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. 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).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and 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.
• 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:

Clarification request: Horn of Africa

Initiated by TomStar81 at 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Horn of Africa 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:

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by TomStar81

"This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies."

As it has been some months, I would like the committee to reopen this case for the purpose of establishing whether or not a full case should be heard, and independent of that whether or not the authorized discretionary sanctions should be made permanent. I feel that it is important for the committee to take up this issue in order to avoid any apparent "cracks" as it were with which editors who have been sanctioned, blocked, or otherwise affected by the committee's previous ruling may argue that the enforcement procedures no longer apply to them. I cite Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Horn_of_Africa as proof that the community is putting these sanctions to good use, and as before I cite User:TomStar81/Horn of Africa disruption as evidence that the situation is not under control and therefore more action (such as Community Sanctions, Arbitration Committee / Arbitration Enforcement, Discretionary Sanctions, etc) is needed to allow for effective interdiction of the effected region. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• I do believe a full case would be beneficial for several reasons. Aside from the obvious reason of closing a perceived loophole that could be exploited for malevolent reasons a full case would allow for a broader review of what is working and could in turn allow the committee to work in or extend to this region enforcement remedies already in place on other areas of Wikipedia which impact this one as well (for example, three or four cases generally involve the middle east, such as Arab-Israel, sanctions and remedies there could be placed here, while Kurds and Kurdistan concerns ethnic tribes and remedies there could be put to use here). This would also be useful in establishing a single, centralized heading for reporting SPI-based blocks as opposed to the current system which is run by a small group (namely me) tracking the myriad of socks. If the committee were so incline, they could take up this issue by requiring SPI cases on or related to the Horn of Africa to be reported and logged for enforcement. Community feedback on a full case could also help to establish what is or is not working at the moment, and could help show areas that could benefit from a full case. The matter of protection levels could also be definitively discussed, whether the committee would allow for permanent semi-protection or 30/500 protection for the articles could be discussed and agreed upon. This would also offer some accused accounts that were either cleared or for which evidence was lacking for action to weigh in, which could help build consensus for long term changes in this region should a full case be heard. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: That's exactly why I'm bringing this back up, people forget, and then cracks form, and then before you know it we have people who suddenly start saying "wait, what?" because they were unaware of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Apaugasma: A full case would do two things. First, it would draw Wikipedia wide attention to the fact that the arbitration committee has opened a case on the matter, which in turn would in theory provide a fuller, more detailed picture of the extent of the problem, which in turn could allow ARBCOM to adjust the parameters for the case and its provisions. Second, as editors arrive to air grievances, the committee could get a better sense from the community about the kind of issues being presented in the articles. For Arab-Isreali, for example, when the third case the committee heard on the matter was accepted it was decided to specifically take the entire region, broadly construed. For other cases the committee has heard a full case for its shown the extent of nationalistic editing and has helped to shape provisions and guide discretionary sanctions when they are judged to be needed. As an exercise in psychological warfare, a full case could also be seen as a flag waving exercise to help deter would be trouble makers by making it known that arbcom has its eyes and ears on the region, which in an of itself may help help reduce the problems with the pages. A full case would also show arbcom's commitment to the community by hearing out all aspects of the issue rather than attempting to sum it in simple terms and solve it exclusively by discretionary sanctions. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Doug Weller: Part of not being able to find people is not being able to find people who respect the site. As @Kzl55: pointed out previously, editors have been encourage/recruited into editing in this area for the purpose of hijacking the articles so they say what the people behind them want them to say instead of staying neutral. To a certain extent information covered in this area is addressed by proxy by more active projects (Ethiopia's military, for example, is under the auspices of MILHIST, the countries under Wikiproject Africa, etc), but those who would be specifically knowledgeable about these things are not, as you stated, editing the area nor expressing an interest in being part of the group to reach out to an maintain the articles. Part of a full case then should be whether or not semi protection or ECP protection should be more liberally applied here, but part of a full case wold also need to look at why editors aren't contributing here in the first place. If this is a recruitment issue then its outside our ability to effect, but if its due to a toxic environment then whats needed is the Wiki-superfund to help clean it up and get it back where it needs to be for the benefit of the project as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• @GeneralNotability: That furthers the argument for a full case being heard before ARBCOM, as it demonstrates opposing view points on the matter. I think more room and more evidence would help clarify this in the event a full case was heard, and I be very interested to see the evidence presented for why DS would not work for the Horn of Africa region. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by floq

Wait: I was involved in administering discretionary sanctions?! That doesn’t sound right. —Floquenbeam (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by User:力

There is a hot war in Ethiopia right now, and various Tigray topics not directly related to the conflict have seen continual disruption on Wikipedia as well. Somalia topics have also historically seen a lot of disruption. The Discretionary Sanctions should be made permanent (at least until the next mass Discretionary Sanctions re-evaluation). I'm not sure why a full case would be needed, though - apart from imposing DS (already done) and banning users (which can be done with DS) what would be done? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I must advertise the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre discussion here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I'm not familiar enough with the patterns of editors in the area to know whether ARBCOM would help. I feel like one difficulty of Horn of Africa DS enforcement compared to other DS regimes is that our admins tend to be much less familiar with it as a topic, and thus less confident taking action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what Apaugasma and others have said that beyond the admin issue, we have a broader deficit of solid editors in this topic, which is compounded by a comparative dearth of RS material in languages commonly spoken by editors of enWiki. I wasn't an expert on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict when I first started handling related cases, but I was able to get up to speed fairly quickly thanks to there being lots of usable coverage in English and Russian and an FA-quality article about the 1989-1994 war. It feels like HoA disputes often stall over a few incommensurable claims from academic sources, and a total lack of verifiable up-to-date news sources. Anecdotally, East Africa seems to be one of the regions of the world with the lowest degree of English-language coverage or usage, a problem further compounded by the diversity of languages (and even language families) on the ground. If I were dictator of the WMF, I would consider devoting resources to recruiting and training more editors to actively edit articles about this part of the world, but that's out of scope of what we're discussing here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A related note, it seems like HoA-related disputes tend to be either "Ethiopia and Eritrea"-related or Somalia-related; I'm not aware of much overlap between these categories. Would there be any benefit to splitting the current DS regime to handle these disputes separately? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Barkeep49, the WP:HORN country, Ethiopia (population ~120 million people), is currently on the brink: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/07/1051940127/rebels-are-closing-in-on-ethiopias-capital-its-collapse-could-bring-regional-chaos. Which I fear might lead to an ethnic genocide that could dwarf that of Rwanda. Personally, I don't find HORN content more obscure than, say, BALKANS, where the medieval often intertwines with the modern. While for Africa, Ethiopia probably has the longest recorded history (alongside Egypt), the key history of the current conflict can much more easily be reduced to its three most recent eras:

1. The Derg and Ethiopian Civil War era (1974-1991).
2. The Tigray People's Liberation Front dominance (1991–2018) and Ethnic_federalism era.
3. And the current era of the Prosperity Party and the abandonment of Ethnic federalism, which has led to the present Tigray War.

See also: Category:Massacres_of_the_Tigray_War (116 pages), War crimes in the Tigray War, Famine in the Tigray War, Casualties of the Tigray War, Sexual violence in the Tigray War, Spillover of the Tigray War, 2018 Eritrea–Ethiopia summit (worked), and the Tigrayan peace process (didn't work). A few more pages of interest: Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present), Oromo conflict (2021), Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia § Tigray War, 2020–2021 Ethiopian–Sudanese clashes. But to actually answer your question: yes I, at least, am making use of the DS (though less than I expected), which I strongly recommend be retained, especially seeing how bleak the future may be. El_C 09:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

TomStar81, hopefully, Kzl55 comes back soon. I found them to have been a true asset on countless occasions, especially about anything Somalia and Somaliland. Sending positive thoughts. El_C 13:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sidenote: thanks to whomever suppressed my revdel'd edit (glad I caught it in less than 5 min). I used to think revdel was enough for nearly anything, because I trust other admins (at least with privacy matters). But recently, after the whole IcedCream RfA debacle, I admit to being much more wary. El_C 14:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, I alone have 10 log entries in WP:AELOG/2021#Horn of Africa. By contrast, here's a list of any of them which had seen less than 5 log entries this year:

• Genetically modified organisms = 0
• German war effort = 0
• Gun control = 0
• Electronic Cigarettes = 0
• Article titles and capitalisation = 0
• Catflap08 and Hijiri88 = 0
• Climate change = 0
• September 11 conspiracy theories = 0
• Civility in infobox discussions = 0
• Infoboxes = 1
• Pseudoscience = 1 (yours truly!)
• Scientology = 1 (yours truly!)
• Abortion = 1
• Shakespeare authorship question = 2
• Macedonia = 2 (yours truly!)
• BLP issues on British politics articles = 2
• The Troubles = 3
• Motorsports = snuh!

Anyway, looking at many of these subjects, I think the chances of an influx at the HORN topic area might be higher than any of those twenty DSs. Due to reasons that are profoundly tragic. But we need to be realistic. El_C 17:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GN. To expand a bit: I think DS is helpful and a time saver wrt enforcement of editors whose disruption is more nuanced in nature, as opposed to more obvious disruption that can be better handled through normal admin action. But it's difficult to predict what ratio of which side of that continuum would appear in any given topic area at any given time.

DS also helps with somewhat extraordinary action. So, for example, upon Joe Biden assuming the presidency, I invoked AP2 to protect Jill Biden (from none to indef semi), even though nothing had happened (i.e. preemptively). Hope that makes sense. El_C 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Apaugasma

I believe that Rosguill is pointing in the right direction when talking about our admins being less familiar with the topic and thus less confident taking action. But the real problem, as I see it, is that there are hardly any experienced editors active in the topic area. There's no one to pick up on a problem when one occurs, or to give sufficient attention to it when one is reported. Recently, a related AE enforcement request was archived without closing (this one; cf. my unanswered query here). Likely for the same reason, responses to ANI reports have also been a bit underwhelming (archived; two current ones [1] [2]).

It seems to me that we only have the capacity to deal with the most obvious of problems (e.g., extremely ducky sockmasters like this one), and that we will simply have to live with the fact that most articles in this area are going to remain in a very bad state.

I have no idea of what could be gained from opening a full case so I won't comment on that, but I will note that there has been considerable confusion over whether these DS are still active (e.g. [3] [4]), so clearing that up by a motion to make them permanent would be very helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging Yamaguchi先生 and NinjaRobotPirate, who patrol a lot of these pages and protect some of them from time to time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

I think Apaugasma is correct. We simply do not have enough decent editors in this area and I have no idea where we can get them from. I feel a bit guilty for giving up editing relevant articles because of the problems and my lack of real knowledge of the issues. I also don't know if a full case is required but it is essential that it is made clear that the DS are permanent - any confusion needs to be cleared up quickly considering the violence in the area. I'd also recommend a very liberal use of ECP. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GeneralNotability

In the areas that I have worked in this topic area (dealing with the couple of sockpuppeteers active in the area, particularly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walkerdude47), I actually do not believe DS are necessary; since sockpuppetry is the problem, blocks/reverts/protection are self-justifying without applying DS. All DS would do is make my page protections harder to overturn, and I have yet to hear any concerns about them to start with. I cannot speak for the rest of the topic area, though, and if other Horn of Africa pages are seeing lots of independent ethnonationalist (wow I use that word a lot around here) editors showing up, DS might be worthwhile. For the sake of transparency, I tend to be against employing DS unless it is absolutely necessary; if a page sees a lot of fights over a DS topic then it probably merits protection anyway, and if we have someone disruptively editing in one of these topic areas it's rare that they are enough of a positive to the encyclopedia to warrant a topic ban rather than a normal block. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I'll absolutely defer to you on the need for DS, you're the one who's actually making use of them, has skin in the game, boots on the ground, whatever the metaphor is here. I just want to make sure we've stopped and asked the question "do we really need to be using DS to stop the disruption?"; that is, what is DS letting us do that we could not do with the normal admin toolkit and within normal admin discretion. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

I'd favor making the WP:ARBHORN sanctions permanent. Since a full arb case is tiring, the committee might consider doing this by motion. The kind of situation where sanctions are most useful are where someone has been POV-pushing over a period but staying below the threshold of WP:3RR. In that case an admin could use the option of banning an editor from the topic of the Horn of Africa. In practice my only uses of ARBHORN so far have been to apply WP:ECP to certain articles. For example, to address reverting between 'Somaliland' and 'Somalia' by a succession of new editors. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

A full case is not needed here. WP:ARBHORN should undoubtedly be made permanent, given the current precarious situation in Ethiopia. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Horn of Africa: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse since I have been invited to participate in the discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Horn of Africa: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @TomStar81, El C, Rosguill, GeneralNotability, EdJohnston, and Floquenbeam: as the admins who have used this DS do you have any feedback on this? Would there be any benefit, in your view, to a full case as opposed to the sanctions just being made permanent (assuming this is what you believe)? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I promise I didn't make it up Floquenbeam. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Non-arb reply moved to the its own section. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing anything that suggests a full case is warranted. But I do see reason to believe we should make the DS permanent and would support doing so by motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with confirming that the DS authorization is permanent, based on what's already been presented. We can readily do that by motion. Open-minded on accepting for a full case, but interested in more input on what that might accomplish that admins using the DS as needed would not. (I've noted TomStar81's points on this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• I am open to the idea of holding a full case. At the moment, however, I do not see much more than a need to make the "temporary" DS a bit more permanent. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with NYB and Primefac in that I see the benefit of another motion, not so much a full case. --BDD (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• I wasn't on board with the trial, as I felt the community should be handling it. However, I'm happy this has improved things. I'd rather a motion than a full case in this scenario unless anyone spots something that needs more investigation. Worm^TT(talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced for the need for a full cases. My biggest concern is that there would be no established parties to it, which is a considerable departure from other arbitration cases that involving users with some history on the project. My other concern is that without established parties, the cases would be more a workshop for laying out discretionary sanctions (or other remedies) as opposed to examining conduct of parties. While such a case could be potentially useful, I don't think it's a necessarily a case that we want for that work, but instead we ought to finish the DS reform that's stalled out somewhat from the Committee end. Maxim_(talk) 16:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• If someone wants to request a full case outlining why a motion to make the current temporary DS permanent is not sufficient, they are welcome to do so. So far, I see mostly support for making the DS permanent which I would support. Regards SoWhy 20:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Motion: Horn of Africa

The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are made permanent. The committee declines to open a full case. Any further amendments or requests for clarification should be made following the normal method.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 15:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Rescinding the previous motion so there's no confusion about a full case in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
2. With the addition I made to clarify that those are not new authorizations but just the old sanctions being made permanent. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Maxim_(talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Worm^TT(talk) 22:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
7. BDD (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
9. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
10. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• If we formally rescind the previous motion, don't we also need to formally transform all current sanctions to be treated like they were issued under the new authorization? That seems complicated just for the sake of complication. After all, the current motion already includes the wording "any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies" (emphasis added), so it was always clear that making the authorization permanent via motion was a possible outcome and that outcome would be instead of a full case. So why can't we just have a motion that says "The previous motion is amended; the authorization is made permanent."? That way, we don't have to duplicate the authorization and it's clear that the current authorization just continues to exist. Regards SoWhy 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  You're right, SoWhy that was too complicated and introduced its own problem. I have revised the motion to note DS being made permanent. I do want to close the "anyone can ask for a full case" provision and so I have noted we are not opening the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: I rephrased your proposal a bit to make it clear that those are not new authorizations but just the old ones being made permanent. I think that should be uncontroversial. Regards SoWhy 20:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  I was trying to avoid the word permanent but yes noting that they were already authorized does make sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  If you have an idea for a different wording, I'm okay with that, I just used that one because it mirrors the language in the original motion ("should be made permanent"). Regards SoWhy 21:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not to get too into the weeds on the matter, but "permanent" on Wikipedia is about as forever as "indefinite", so I do not see an issue with using the term. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)