Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 124

Initiated by Interstellarity at 17:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Valereee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

• American politics of the past X years and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

In 2021, I proposed that the AP2 dates were changed from post-1932 to post-1992. One idea that hasn't got a lot of attention is Valereee's idea that the years that American politics be sanctioned to be the last 25 years which would mean that the starting year that AP would be sanctioned would automatically change year after year. I'm not saying whether we should or should not use 25 years as a basis of at what point the sanctions start. I'd be open to other possibilities such as 30 years and 20 years, maybe 10 years. I think that with the idea of having the year automatically change from year to year, we won't have to revisit what should be covered in the current CT procedure. To give you an idea of what I am talking about, right now it is 2023. 25 years ago would be 1998. This means that when 2024 rolls around, the starting year that the CT would be 1999 and so on. Of course, if something falls out of the range we choose, it can be sanctioned if need be. I hope that the community will be willing to consider whether this will be a good idea. The other case that has it which is Iranian politics has a starting year of 1978 so we potentially talk about adjusting the dates there if need be.

@Valereee: I think in present times, Clinton, Obama, and Trump will likely remain contentious topics. I believe there will likely be a point in time where these three people will no longer have to be contentious topics since we are inherently biased towards current events. There will be a time when no new information about these three people will occur especially in the years or decades following their deaths. I think if Wikipedia were around during the 1970s, Richard Nixon would likely be a contentious topic. I don't think it needs to be one since we are a reasonable distance away from the event that disruption is at a minimum. I think it is unlikely that we will still need the 1992 cutoff when we get to years of 2050 and 2100, assuming Wikipedia is still around by then since it will be a reasonable distance away from current times and that disruption will likely remain minimal. I hope this clarifies my points. Interstellarity (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to the general concept but I'm not sure this is as much about years as it is about what was happening. It might be good to be able to eliminate 99% of the politics of 1998 from inclusion, but we'd certainly have to immediately make the Clintons a contentious topic. I suspect that in ~2033 we'd have to add Obama and in ~2041, Trump. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarity in terms of what articles fall under a topic area is one of the most important aspects to consider when defining it (probably the most important aspect.) Having one that changes automatically year after year therefore seems exceptionally undesirable. Would it tick over based on the new year? Based on the date of the AP2 arbcom case? How do we define the year when something occurs? This is in theory already an issue, but it's much less of one when the threshold is not a moving target - the question only has to be answered once, and only for things right on the edge, whereas a moving threshold would ensure that it is a constant issue. Would we use a bot to automatically remove templates for restrictions placed on AP2 articles that tick over the limit? And would the bot even be able to accurately determine when to remove such templates?

On top of this, I see no benefits whatsoever to doing this. The relevance of something to current AP2 focus is not directly a function of time; it's a function of the current way politics breaks down and which issues are hot-button within it. I don't think any automated system will be able to tell us when the Clintons (clearly one of the main things keeping us at the 1992 threshold) are no longer controversial enough to require AP2 restrictions - that will have to be done the old-fashioned way, by having humans consider it with their human brains via an amendment request, looking over the logs for which articles attract disruption, etc. Finally, the amendment request before was not that onerous; the next one will be even more lightweight because it's been done before and therefore won't attract as much conversation and because we have precedent for what sort of data and arguments to consider when setting a new threshold. I feel like the complexities of an automatically-moving window are going to waste far more editor time and energy than a simple amendment request that is likely to only come up once a decade or so. --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• I'm going to be fairly skeptical that a rolling X year restriction is the right way to curb disruption. When we set the AP date to 1992 it was about the fact that the disruption that was happening was after that date following an extensive analysis of the enforcement log. It's also a significant date in American political history - Clinton was elected. You could maybe convince me that it's more appropriate to go 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution, but without much effort I saw last year's protection of Federal Assault Weapons Ban demonstrating continued disruption within that general timeframe. Similarly in Iranian politics 1978 is a significant non-arbitrary year. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think this is a good idea. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Sanctions that require this level of attention and maintaining tend not to work out so well. If we arrive at a point where it is clear that 20th century American politics are no longer a contentious topic, we can adjust accordingly then. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm of the opinion that the date was chosen to include a specific event (i.e. Clinton's election). While I may be open to arguments to change the date, I don't agree that a rolling period is a good idea. Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• I like new ideas, so I'm in favour of this being proposed for consideration as the notion that recent events tend to get more of the disruptive attention so articles covering older events need less protection is one I agree with; however, I think it could be too problematic to monitor a constantly shifting area. I pondered some form of talkpage template on AP2 pages that kept track of dates and could be reset by disruption, but nothing easy came to mind. It all sort of involves more work for those monitoring the area, so I'm a decline, but a reluctant decline. SilkTork (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think it is a reasonable question to ask / proposal to make, but I concur with the above that the date was chosen not because it was X years ago but because it is a demonstrable cutoff point for when the topic seems to become controversial. If the cutoff gets changed, it should be to a specific date and with intention, not just arbitrarily. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• I concur that a crisp cutoff is needed. For the most part that would be a presidential transition. 9/11 would also be a break point. An ever shifting cutoff of {{Months before now|300}} is an insecure basis for a policy. Cabayi (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by ScottishFinnishRadish at 17:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 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)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I invoked WP:PIA's 30/500 to stop disruptive editing on Jimmy Carter where a new account was repeatedly removing the Israel/Palestine section. The general sanctions state When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} on the talk page and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} in the editnotice to do so. Do I really have to place the entire page under EC protection with the edit notice and all that jazz to partially block an editor from the page for editing 30/500 content?

SilkTork, yep. I placed the required notices and some hidden text in the article. Much appreciated Nableezy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

SFR, you can use the relatedcontent=yes flag in the edit notice and make a note with hidden text around the section that this is the section that it applies to instead of protecting the page. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice|relatedcontent=yes}} would do it.

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.

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

• I think what you did was a reasonable remedy to address the 30/500 issue. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• ScottishFinnishRadish, has your question been answered by Nableezy? SilkTork (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 21:22, 16 April 2023 (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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Dovidroth

Considering PIA falls within contentious topics, and has an arbitration decision, what is the position on editors who are government-affiliated, as is the case with the editor Dovidroth who states on his user page that he is an employee of the National Library of Israel? WP:ADVOCACY states that "Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics. This basically applies to all PIA articles and would be a troublesome conflict of interest. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that the NLI is 50% owned by the Israeli government, and is currently being subjected to further political influence by the country's far-right wing government, for future considerations. [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As stated on the National Library of Israel page, the library is an independent corporation owned partially by the government. I am thus not considered a government worker. Dovidroth (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A librarian does not seem important enough to count him as an agent of the Israeli government. If he is the boss/manager of that library, I would agree he can be counted as expressing the views of the Israeli government. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless Dovidroth is being paid to edit Wikipedia by the NLI, the extent of Dovidroth's conflict of interest is the same as any other resident of Israel and their edits should be judged on their own merits. Editors are allowed to edit contentious topics even if they're from the region that the topic affects and presumably have strong opinions about it, so long as it doesn't interfere with the quality of their editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Extending the definition of "Government employee" to include any employee of any organisation or corporation partly owned by a government would be inappropriate. For example in the UK, it would in effect apply to all employees of the NHS, BBC, teachers and the myriad of arms lengths agencies. This is clearly not the intent of the policy - nobody surely thinks it is reasonable to limit the edit rights of a teacher to prevent them editing an article about, say, Brexit (a controversial subject). The clarification request here should be closed as confirming that editors like Dovidroth are not government employees MarcGarver (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing threats to the libraries independence notwithstanding, the institution is independent by law. It has been noted that the government has a 50% stake, but, shy of a majority, this is not a controlling interest, and does not make it a government subsidiary, so WP:COIPOLITICAL does not obviously technically apply here. In any case, many libraries are semi- or fully public institutions, but, regardless of this, are not typically considered government organs, but simply public institutions. More generally, the more librarians editing Wikipedia the better. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• More or less failing to see how this is relevant either to WP:CTOP or the other restrictions in place for the area. A community explanatory essay having X to say about what Y people with COI can edit is not particularly pertinent to the factors that caused the institution of the restrictions and the previous arbitration designation of the area as a contentious topic. Izno (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• I disagree with my colleague Izno that community policies and guidelines are not relevant to Contentious topic enforcement as WP:CTOP itself states Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guideline (formatting removed). So for this question I would start by noting that WP:ADVOCACY, which is what the filer linked, is an "explanatory essay" which isn't nothing but means it has considerably less weight behind it than a guideline which has less weight than a policy. Instead we need to look at what the WP:COI guideline itself says. COI does have the text the filer quoted Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics. As such I think administrators can certainly consider any declared COI when assessing whether or not to sanction or warn a user. If I were the administrator considering enforcement, I would largely think about it the way that tgeorgescu suggests: an ordinary civil servant does not necessarily have a conflict of interest with any political topic. A high ranking civil servant (e.g. a Permanent secretary) or a political appointee is much more likely to have a conflict of interest. So in this case I personally would not be bothered, on its own, by a librarian in the Israeli government editing with-in the topic area and would find no reason to sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• By default, I prefer we look at the edits, not the background of the editor. There are situations where that is not true, and Barkeep goes into a few of them, but I don't see the need for anything over and above normal procedures here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• If there are edits that have been made which are a concern, I'd be interested in seeing those. I'm rather less interested in where a person works or lives, who they voted for, or what they had for breakfast. I like the Parable of the Good Samaritan in which a person is judged by their actions, not by which nationality or religion they are. SilkTork (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Plenty of Wikipedians are librarians. Libraries in the United States are almost exclusively run by various levels of the government, yet we take no issue with those librarians. So not seeing why this is an issue here. I in fact quite encourage librarians to edit Wikipedia, as they are particularly well suited to the research that Wikipedia requires. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Government employees should not edit articles about ... controversial political topics. This basically applies to all PIA articles. No, it does not. Jerusalem and Israel (just to pick two recent pages edited by Davidroth) are designated as CTOP pages, but the pages (when considered as a whole) are not "controversial political topics". A COI is not a prohibition from ever touching anything related to that topic, never mind that in this particular circumstance (as indicated by my colleagues) there does not actually appear to be the alleged "government employee COI". Primefac (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 22:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Gender and sexuality 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Not applicable. They are far too many to list here, and the question is abstract (general). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Does WP:ARBGENDER include topics such as sexual addiction, pornography addiction and NoFap? Reasons for asking: "Sex addiction is also used as a way to pathologize homosexual behavior." [3], [4], and [5].

To put it otherwise, "porn addiction therapy" is often a cover story for "pray the gay away". Since conversion therapy is often illegal, while porn addiction therapy is still legal. And both push people towards suicide. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Izno and Barkeep49: This was discussed at Talk:Gary Wilson (author)#Arbitration, but there are more places where it is applicable. See [6]. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Why I posted that DS notice? Because an admin did that at Talk:NoFap and Gary Wilson (author) is more or less the same topic as NoFap. Gary Wilson is the ideologue of NoFap, while Alexander Rhodes is its organizer. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: The DS notice is about WP:ARBPS, not about WP:ARBGENDER. MarshallKe did not object to the article being subjected to WP:ARBPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how one could honestly argue that NoFap falls under WP:ARBPS, but Gary Wilson (author) doesn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I voiced my opinion (always as my opinion, not as the WP:RULES of Wikipedia), got the official decision and I won't engage in trouble-making. Nobody claimed here that marking Gary Wilson (author) as falling under WP:ARBPS (not WP:ARBGENDER) would be controversial. And, yup, inside the talk pages (not inside articles) I can be excused for engaging in a little WP:OR. Original research is banned from articles, not from talk pages. Being afraid of performing some edits it is actually a good thing: one needs to be afraid of performing certain edits in order to be a good editor. If there is no fear of consequences, people get haughty and misbehave. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Yes, it can be closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

My gut reaction was that conversion therapy and closely-related topics would be covered but that "NoFap" would not. However, on reading the contentious topics designation at WP:ARBGENDER (WP:GENSEX targets the same page) says Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people are designated as a contentious topic., the plain reading of which would exclude all the topics you mention. If there is disruption the community is unable to handle at present, but which could be handled by an expanded designation, then I'm sure the committee would consider that - but only if evidence is presented. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork Both CT and the previous DS regimes (tgeorgescu's edit was made before the change) are/were clear that only uninvolved administrators can/could place restrictions on users or pages. Under DS, alerts were seen as purely informational and any editor was explicitly allowed to make someone aware that a given subject was subject to discretionary sanctions using {{Ds/alert}} on their talk page, and Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics is the spiritual successor to that and also explicitly allows anyone to alert specific editors.

Neither procedure explicitly mentions who can place notices on talk pages alerting editors that the topic is covered by DS/CT but which is not subject to specific sanctions, however Template:Contentious topics/talk notice does say Anyone may place a contentious topics talk page notice.. That references Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 21#Who can place Talk page notices of ACDS page restrictions and when from 2019 where @GorillaWarfare said It's important to distinguish between a sanction and a notice. Page sanctions (1RR, protection, etc.) may only be placed by administrators, but as far as I'm aware there is no restriction on who may place a notice that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized. [emphasis in the original].

It might be worthwhile adding this to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, but that's tangential to this request. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork And can anyone remove a notice? To the best of my knowledge that's never been defined anywhere. In practice, if a notice is egregiously incorrect then someone will remove it pretty quickly, other than that then I don't recall notices being removed other than following a consensus discussion.

Looking at how talk pages notices were dealt with when DS authorisations were rescinded, in 2014 Callanecc (a clerk at the time I believe) removed the notice from Talk:Monty Hall problem shortly after the motion passed.[7] In December 2016 the DS for Austrian Economics were rescinded but the notice wasn't removed from the article talk page until Srich32977 (a non-admin) did so in January 2018.[8] In January 2021, the cutoff for the WP:AP2 discretionary sanctions was changed from 1932 to 1992, the only relevant article from the 1932-1991 period that I found to have the template was talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower where non-admin Interstellarity removed the notice in April 2021.[9] Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• Is there an actual need beyond curiosity about the limits here? Izno (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  This was also my question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am not entirely clear who is allowed to put a page under CT restrictions. My understanding and assumption is that it is admins who are permitted - in order to keep control of the process. Is this [10] allowable by a non-admin? SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Thryduulf. And can anyone remove a notice? SilkTork (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks again Thryduulf. So we have a situation where anyone can place a notice on an article which they reasonably feel might come under CT - such as tgeorgescu placing a notice on Gary_Wilson_(author) because they feel it relates to ARBGENDER. The placing of the notice was challenged by User:MarshallKe; though it appears there is no accepted precedent for notices being removed other than by consensus discussion. Because of the intimidating nature of the CT notice which may put some good faith users off editing, I think I'd prefer such notices to be only placed by users whose judgement the community have assessed via a process such as RfA, or by some form of consensus discussion, perhaps on the article talkpage, but which is perhaps logged somewhere. And if we did have some form of accepted way for a notice to be placed on a talkpage, then requests such as this needn't come via ArbCom. ArbCom would only get involved if there were a dispute over the placement. SilkTork (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Has your question been answered Tgeorgescu? Can this request be closed? SilkTork (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am not in favor of codifying restrictions on who can place CT notices. It should (almost always) be uncontroversial. For the first time in a long time, it seems we've found one that is controversial. I think regular 'ol consensus can establish whether a page is, or isn't, suitable for a notice. But that notice isn't binding anyway. Its up to the admins at AE to decide if a page is in scope and whether sanctions are appropriate.
  For what its worth, it seems a considerable stretch to say that the Gary Wilson page fits under GENSEX. As much as it talks about sex, it isn't engaged in controversial issues of sexuality, which is what the SEX part of GENSEX applies to. The idea that Wilson himself turned "pray the gay away" into "pray the porn away" just does not seem backed up by the available sources. Of the sources Tgeorgescu linked on the talk page, neither of the news articles mentioned Wilson (the PDF wasn't searchable for me, but perusing it, I didn't see his name). Nor do the sources back up the idea that anti-porn is somehow intrinsically anti-gay. Bottom line: GENSEX does not generally apply to topics around sexual intercourse (which if you were wondering, that page does not have a notice on it), and the links to sexuality are dubious at best. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by Robert McClenon at 04:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

If your request does not concern a case, provide a link to the arbitration decision affected.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

This question is about moderated discussions at DRN when the topic is a contentious topic. If the moderator has stated in the discussion that the topic is within the scope of the contentious topics procedures and sanctions, are the parties considered to have sufficient notice so that an Alert is not required? If the answer is currently No, can the footnote listing methods of notice be updated to include a statement by a moderator that the topic is subject to contentious topics procedures and sanctions?

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.

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

• The relevant footnote, presently m, reads An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor: [...] Ever participated in any process relating to the contentious topic (such as a request or appeal at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ["AE"], the administrators' noticeboard ["AN"], or an Arbitration Committee process page [requests for arbitration and subpages]); .... This bullet currently uses "such as" which indicates this bullet to be of examples of processes. Given the examples presented, I would include DRN as such a process. So the answer I have is yes, they would be sufficiently notified, assuming also that relevant contentious topic pertained to the DRN thread of interest. Izno (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• ^What Izno said. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• So I agree that as it's currently written participation at a DRN where they have been told about CT is sufficient for AWARENESS and think we should add it to the footnote (and am open to voting to do so if arbs think we need to do that in this circumstance). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by Cinderella157 at 08:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Eastern Europe 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:

• Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

A clarification as to "broadly construed" in respect to WP:ARBEE and Russia/Soviet Union. Does this capture articles about the Soviet Union and Russia in a global context for example: the Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Soviet–Afghan War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia (central Europe) and like?

Based on comments, this clearly encompasses Eastern Bloc European countries not otherwise considered Eastern European. Does this also extend to the lands of former Soviet Republics also outside Eastern Europe (ie Asia) in the Soviet era/Soviet collapse, on the basis that the Soviet Union is considered Eastern European but is also trans-continental?

Rosguill, please clarify CPC v CCP. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Context clarified by BilledMammal that they are edit warring over which term should be used on EnWP. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that anything to do with the Warsaw Pact is definitely within the scope, but the other topics you listed are not as they are not related to Russian/Soviet activities/policies/etc in relation to eastern Europe. the table in my comment here is a useful but unofficial guide to what counts as Eastern Europe. A simpler (but equally unofficial) rule of thumb would be that if the area concerned is in Europe (in the relevant context) and was on the Soviet side of the Iron Curtain then it counts as Eastern Europe (although there will be exceptions both ways). Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

How much disruption do we actually see for Warsaw Pact/Eastern Bloc topics outside of geographical Eastern Europe? Anecdotally, most of the EE disruption we see relates to ethnic disputes, and I'm not sure we see much Eastern Bloc or Communist Party-related disruption outside of the flashpoint of Mass killings by communist governments and CPC vs. CCP SPAs. Unless there's evidence of widespread disruption, I think we can limit the CT regime to just topics geographically limited to Eastern Europe (although I would include Czechoslovakia in that region a la Thryduulf). I think expanding the regime to cover Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea and other Soviet-bloc countries, or Soviet interventions in other regions that did not significantly affect ethnic relations inside the USSR and Warsaw Pact, would be unnecessary. Although n.b., Soviet-Afghan War would be covered by the A in IPA (and, somewhat amusingly, our Armenia-Azerbaijan CT regime is arguably redundant with EE by virtue of Azerbaijan's location). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Note how Thryduulf's advice does not include Kazhakhstan and I expect them to clarify. In other times we should use our head and exclude Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Soviet–Afghan War, and non-Kazhakhstan Central Asia as they solely concerns the Asian aspects of Soviet Union (even through Soviet decisions are from Moscow). Use due diligence. ibicdlcod (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• Thryduulf's advice looks good. SilkTork (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Per my colleagues (i.e. per Thydruulf) Worm^TT(talk) 08:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'd quibble with Thryduulf's choice to mark Greece as EE for religious purposes (Turkiye/Turkey is not despite being the seat of Orthodoxy), but generally Thryduulf's table is sound. As regards countries further east, if they were in the Warsaw Pact as an independent country or as a soviet republic, they are EE for these purposes. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 13:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Manning naming dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Discriminatory speech by 'x'

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Request: On the case's summary page, replace the quoted content in brackets by a simple diff link. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I recently revisited this ten-year-old case, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the disparaging comments that are reproduced directly in the case summary and findings of fact marked "Discriminatory speech by 'x'". I don't think reproducing the borderline hate speech is necessary to get the point across that these users have exhibited sanctionable behaviour. Could this be toned down to just a link to the diff in question? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: That is correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I voted on that case, and looking back now, I’m kind of surprised it was done this way. Should be a simple, non-controversial fix to just retain the diff links without the quotes. Or, perhaps, better just courtesy blank everything but the remaining in force remedies? Courcelles (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I was also one of the arbitrators in the case, and have no objection to addressing this request, perhaps by substituting diffs for the quotations on the main decision page, and courtesy-blanking the other pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely against blanking the case page because I don't see how that is of any benefit to anyone. As for removing the quotes, I can see Ritchie333's point, but my preference leans slightly towards leaving them in. I think it's pretty clear that the quotes aren't being endorsed by arbcom, and they demonstrate exactly what arbcom found objectionable in those diffs. That's where I'm at. Still, if other users find them to be too offensive, then I'll defer to their sensibilities on the matter. I just wanted make my thoughts on this clear as genderqueer person who wasn't there at the time but has used this case as reference point. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Much like how I don't see a need to courtesy blank the main case page, I don't see a need to blank the supplementary materials. It just would make it more difficult to find historical discussions that contributed to how we now handle the GENSEX topic area. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Against blanking the case page, but all in favour of replacing the quotes with just the diffs. They really do stick out. --Andreas JN466 15:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• Ritchie333, I have reformatted the request a bit and added a request summary; please modify (or even revert/remove entirely) in case this doesn't match your intention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Recused. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see your point. While it certainly brings the issue to the forefront, preserving those quotes in the case instead of simply linking to them was an unusual move for the committee. I beleive the "principle of least astonishment" is applicable here, people don't expect to find that kind of vulgarity in an arbitration decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to blank everything due to ongoing editor restrictions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• For the avoidance of doubt, am I correct that the problematic sections are FoF 15, FoF 16, and FoF 18.1? Did I miss anything? Primefac (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am not opposed to replacing the verbatim quotes with Special:Diff links. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• I feel a courtesy blanking of the supplementary case pages (Proposed decision, etc) plus a replacement of the quotes with diffs on the main case page while keeping intact the record on the PD page would be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed:

Support

1. As proposer; a link to the diff is how we usually present such information, never mind the fact that the quotes themselves are quite graphic. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
2. I have no issue with swapping to a diff link. Izno (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
4. Yes - on the main case page only (not the PD page), and I would also support a courtesy blanking of the supplementary case pages. SilkTork (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
5. sure --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
6. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

I am fine with any wordsmithing or tweaking. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

With the current list of arbs plus Money's abstain, majority is 6. Izno (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by The C of E at 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

• The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed except in relation to sporting articles.

This is an appeal for amendment for my Troubles restrictions. After almost 3 years under these restrictions, I have understood where I went wrong and apologise for my editing in that time. I have followed the restrictions and I am currently under a separate tban from DYK. I would like to ask if my sanction could be amended to clarify that editing sporting articles related to Ireland be permitted. The reason I ask is that I wish to be able to work mostly on underrepresented women's football in Ireland and I believe the ban as worded currently restricts me from doing so. I had previously done work in this area pre-ban in Northern Ireland Women's Football Association and a number of clubs such as Derry City Women. I no longer have DYK as an option so any work done would solely be for content creation and development of an area underrepresented and separate from politics. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I was going to let the debate happen naturally but I believe there might have been a little misunderstanding here. @Cabayi: I was put under the restrictions I am currently under for issues relating to pushing pro-unionist content, not nationalist. If anything, creating that Derry City article before the ban (which is a nationalist majority club as well as minimising the Stroke City terms in it) shows I am capable of treating things equally and the 3 years I have stayed away has given me the time to reflect that what I did was wrong and I would like to have the chance to prove I have changed. That's why I'm asking for the amendment to clarify that editing sports articles are permissible. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Cabayi: Even if the women's team has no political associations whatsoever being part of a club that founded pre-Troubles and the women's team being founded after that period but just so happens to share the contentious name of the city? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"the multiple declines of the DYK ban which indicates that the community has not yet moved past the previous issues (though I do note there appears to be more support in the 2023 appeal)."

Putting aside the rather insulting reframing of the consensus process, that when the community has outright declined a ban appeal it is the communities fault for 'not moving past it'. It could be equally said that The C of E has not moved past the fact there is no community appetite to let them back into an area where they were extremely disruptive over an extended period of time. Also there is absolutely not more support in the 2023 appeal, given the similar level of support !votes and substantially more opposition compared to the previous appeal, indicating opposition has hardened over time, not softened. Had the closing statement accurately reflected the consensus in the 2023 appeal it should have said "There is consensus not to lift the ban" rather than "there is no consensus". The only way it could be argued there was more support is if you completely discounted any of the opposes or took some liberties with basic maths. This is 'I didnt get the answer I wanted from the community so now I am trying my luck with arbcom.' It should be declined as asked and answered. 3 years with a ban is 3 years of the community not having to deal with their crap. That is a topic ban working as intended. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to remark that it looks like this request has been open for an unusually long time. Are the arbitrators awaiting further community input before they make a decision? I'd be happy to provide my thoughts, but only if they're desired. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• I am tentatively leaning towards accepting, my main concern being the multiple declines of the DYK ban (July 2022, April 2023). which indicates that the community has not yet moved past the previous issues (though I do note there appears to be more support in the 2023 appeal). That being said, I appreciate that The C of E has taken to asking us first rather than wait for someone to call them out on it, indicating that they realise it might be controversial and thus seeking approval rather than forgiveness. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Only in death, my apologies for the wording, I did not want to say "has not forgiven The C of E for their actions" as it did not sound right to me but clearly I chose a poor choice of alternate wording. "The community is not yet ready to accept that The C of E has changed" is likely a better way to phrase it. Regarding consensus, you are also correct, and I have no good answer for that particular blunder. Primefac (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have re-evaluated per the discussion and my thoughts on it below, and agree that it should be possible to maintain separation here without needing to formally amend the written topic ban. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  WaltCip, I believe it is a case of simply not having been closed. I will see about setting those wheels in motion. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm of two minds. On the one hand, looking at the history, there was a patter of pushing boundaries right up to the limit until CofE teetered over the edge. That sort of brinkmanship does not give me hope for the future, as the community is not great at dealing with that sort of grey area. However - I'm also aware that the majority of issues were at DYK, and ask CofE points out, they are tbanned there. More, the request is very specific, regarding sports and therefore might be a good place to show the understanding that they say they now have. Finally, we are three years down the line, so that's a positive too. At the moment, I'm leaning towards accepting a limited relaxation, but I'd like to hear more from the community before we do. Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  After reviewing the other arbitrators thoughts, I would decline this request. Sport in general should not be covered to this topic ban, and I do not see the benefit of adding a tweak for sport. I would expect The C of E to ignore sections of articles related to the topic ban, which should be a small part of the articles in question. There will be some articles where it would be a large part, but given the number of sports articles (and potential sports articles) out there, I see no reason that The C of E should be focussed on them. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• To be clear, the original ban was for trying to get a particular POV onto the main page through DYK, so the community not wanting to lift the DYK topic ban is material to me. One of the examples given in the appeal Derry City F.C. Women, is from the city whose (contentious) name C of E was trying to get on the main page in the AE where he was topic banned. It's not clear how well monitored the North Irish women's football topic area is, but I'd rather we not make that a test case. This topic ban came at the nexus of two issues: disruption related to The Troubles and disruption related to DYK. If the community is not willing to budge on its end (DYK ban) I do not feel comfortable undermining that consensus by weakening our end (Troubles ban). I'm not strongly opposed to loosening the sanction at some point, but doing it now, so soon after the community said no to lifting a related sanction, strikes me as imprudent to say the least. — Wug·a·po·des 01:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• I note, The C of E, that you have been editing at least one sports article related to Ireland since the restriction was put in place - British & Irish Lions. The wording of the restriction doesn't appear to cover such editing, though I understand your uncertainty, and your desire for clarification moving forward. The oddity, of course, is that by making this request, you may end up losing the access to editing sports articles related to Ireland which it appears to me you currently have. Having looked at those two articles you mention, which you created, Northern Ireland Women's Football Association and Derry City F.C. Women, I feel it would be a shame that you should end up being prevented from creating more such articles not though any misbehaviour, but merely by asking if you could do it. As these sporting articles appear to me to be unrelated to the issues which caused your ban, and indeed appear to me to be unrelated to your topic ban - and as it appears to me to be inappropriate to restrict someone from editing in an area they are currently not restricted from editing, and in which they have no history of problematic editing, indeed, have made uncontroversial edits fairly recently - then I vote to accept the amendment, which I see as a clarification of an existing situation rather than an actual adjustment. SilkTork (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Would we be willing, along the lines suggested by Izno below, to say that The C of E is free to edit articles that relate to sport in Ireland as long as they do not relate to the exception area; and that The C of E, like every other user subject to a topic ban, should be able to assess themselves which articles they should stay away from, which includes grey areas (essentially, if you have to ask about it, then best not to edit it), and that the Committee doesn't need to make a formal amendment to the clause so this request can be closed? SilkTork (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    • If it is a statement and not an amendment, sure, if only to sate the folks who will say "all of Ireland = The Troubles" or expand "broadly construed" a little too broadly. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking of a close summary along the lines: "Provided the pages do not relate to the exception area area they are not allowed to edit, The C of E is free to edit articles that relate to sport in Ireland. The C of E, like every other user subject to a topic ban, should assess themselves which pages they should stay away from, which includes grey areas such as pages related to Derry (essentially, if you have to ask about it, then best not to edit it)." If another arb agrees, then I'll close this request with that summary. No formal amendment, just a rough answer to the question. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
        • The "exception area" was the proposed exception to the TBAN which is sports, so your sentence does not make sense. Izno (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
          • I read that as "the area they are not allowed to edit" i.e. The Troubles, but I can see your point. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
            • I've adjusted the wording. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Recuse as the admin who implemeneted the consensus of AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• I am a decline due to the way sport and community are linked in Northern Ireland. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Do we actually want to vote on this one? I see a mix of responses above. I think I'd be a decline for the requested amendment, but mostly along the lines that the user should be able to figure out which sporting articles, and which sections of articles, are inside and which outside the area covered by the ban, especially if he really has learned what went wrong to cause the topic ban. As Guerillero points out, sports were a particular issue to the Troubles, though apparently uncontroversial editing has been happening in the desired exception area as pointed out by SilkTork. Izno (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Decline Sport is interwoven with politics in this context, or at the least, the perception of politics. Derry City F.C. Women is not problematic but its name does reflect a nationalist take on the stroke city issue. Do I think The C of E is able to avoid the marbling in this particular chunk of beef, or that we should give license for him to try when the current restrictions have worked well? No. Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  The C of E, I cited that article as an example of the mingling of sport & politics. Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by Lemonaka at 14:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Scottywong 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:

• Lemonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Scottywong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Scottywong
• diff of notification ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

During the case, Scottywong blocked himself indefinitely from the English Wikipedia, and then got desysopped. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was locked through all Wikimedia projects. How can this interaction ban be enacted?

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.

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

• ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ currently has an appeal to the Enwiki Arbitration Committee and Stewards open. Scottywong could be unblocked whenever. So while today there could be no interaction, that situation could quickly change. If it does the interaction ban is present. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Barkeep puts it well. Worm^TT(talk) 14:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by Thepharoah17 at 02:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan § Thepharoah17 topic-banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

• Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

• State the desired modification

• Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

• State the desired modification

I would like to have my topic ban removed. Last time I tried, I was not quite ready yet but now I am ready.

I mean I tried last year but my appeal was rejected. During these last two and a half years since I was topic banned, I have made about ten thousand edits (although none in 2022). I made numerous articles and categories. Sorry about that attempt in February. I wasn’t sure how to do this. When I tried to appeal last year, I went to WP:AE. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I was talking about my appeal last year.

@Thyrduulf: I went to talk pages on Talk:Killing of Muammar Gaddafi, Talk:Yasser Arafat, Talk:New Orleans and Talk:2021–2022 Afghan protests (an article which I created). Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Are you saying that I’m currently to quote Thyrduulf "editing tendentiously and showing battleground behavior?" Even if I am, I promise I will not. The only reason I was topic banned was because a user did a WP:WITCHHUNT here. He claimed he was "trying to decide whether we need a new admin" when in fact it was just a WP:WITCHHUNT for anybody opposed to Kurdistan. I was just reverting a sockpuppet and the user didn't even get one of the edits right. He claimed I was removing a Kurdish name when in fact it was a Hebrew name (I'm not sure how you get those mixed up). Do you see any issues here and here? I don't really even have a strong opinion about Kurds and Kurdistan. I might have an opinion but it’s not a very strong one. Literally, everything was calm and then I find somebody hunting down my edits. It’s all really bizarre. I’m really asking for you to give me a chance. I was really just topic banned for reverting a sockpuppet and perhaps opposing Kurdistan and the case was opened by a banned user. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Literally, a user just did a witch hunt. You can get anybody banned like that. I could go to the administrators’ noticeboard and just hunt down all your bad edits and say you should be banned for them. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty much the shortest appeal possible. It would be helpful to elaborate a bit on why your topic ban should be removed, what constructive contributions you have made elsewhere, etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thepharoah17 was topic banned in February 2021 for, in short, battleground mentality and tendentious editing. To support the appeal of anyone banned for those reasons I generally want to see evidence of constructive collaborative editing on (potentially) contentious topics and good talk page interaction. However, all I'm seeing since at least late 2021 is intense periods of edits that are almost entirely gnoming and copyediting (especially page moves and categorisation) with long gaps between them (e.g. they made exactly 4 edits between 6 December 2021 and 4 January 2023 and then no edits at all between 11 February and 20 July 2023). The edits I sampled all looked good with no evidence of topic ban breaches, but there was basically no evidence of the ability to edit collaboratively and constructively - the only example I've found of them discussing content on an article talk page since October 2021 is Talk:Muammar Gaddafi#Death, which demonstrates almost nothing about anything.

They have made a lot of edits, so I may have missed something, but if so I'm going to need to see both specific examples and an explanation of why they want the topic ban lifted now when it appears not to be hampering their editing at all. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Having now seen the last appeal, it's not clear that anything has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• Noting for the record that the most recent appeal was posted in Feb 2023 but removed shortly thereafter as being malformed, with no Arbitrator comment. I will note that there is mention of last time I tried to do it but I see no other edits to this page by Thepharoah17. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, AE July 2022, moved to ARCA and declined. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Decline per the insistence that absolutely nothing at all was done wrong and they are somehow the victim of a conspiracy. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• This appeal does not speak to the reasons for the topic ban at all, so I really see no basis to even consider removing it at this time. You say you are ready now, but don't explain at all what would be different about your participation in this topic area were the ban tpo be removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Decline per the recent comments here. You seem to have forgotten that it was this very committee, not a witch hunt, that determined your edits were problematic. Substantial evidence was presented to us to establish that, and your appeal refutes exactly none of it. So if you were trying to convince the committee it was wrong to issue a sanction, you've actually done the exact opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is hardly an appeal. And if you're intending your last appeal to be your appeal, it included the word "please" nearly TWO HUNDRED times. So the answer is no. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Decline due the to lack of forward motion --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Decline. Thepharoah17, you have not addressed any of these issues identified at the ArbCom case. To make a successful appeal you need to show understanding of your sanction, and convince the Committee that those issues will not be repeated. Arguing that you were in the right, is doing the opposite of what you should be doing as it indicates you are likely to cause the same problems. SilkTork (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Initiated by JPxG at 23:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

SmallCat dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. The following remedies has been enacted

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• JPxG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• L235 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1173047299 jp×g 23:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Information about amendment request

• Post at WP:ACN reading "The following remedies has been enacted"

• Change to "The following remedies have been enacted" or "The following remedy has been enacted"

L235's announcement post to WP:ACN of the recent decision in the SmallCat dispute has a typo, which currently reads The following remedies has been enacted. Since I am not allowed to edit the announcement, I would like to formally request that it be amended to say either "The following remedies have been enacted" or "The following remedy has been enacted". Thank you. CC @L235: @Dreamy Jazz: jp×g 23:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Really? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

Initiated by MarioProtIV at 19:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

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

Information about amendment request

• MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

• Lifting of topic ban

Good afternoon. I’m writing this since it has now been at least 6 months since the placing of the topic ban on May 25, 2022. I intended to write this in November 2022 which was 6 months after but I have not been able to get around to writing it and then I just ended up forgetting about it and focused on other things (having actually spent much more time focusing on stuff related to Marvel Cinematic Universe-related things to fill the niche). In that time, I’ve had time to think about how I want to approach this appeal. My time away has allowed me to see what I did wrong and how I will behave should the topic ban be lifted. I am aware I had a history of grudges, sometimes trying to do things my way, and how bad stealth-canvassing is which ended up causing my topic ban. I’ve worked to tune down my language and temper so as to be better-minded and more willing to compromise (an underlying issue which sort of caused this) on stuff within the area of WikiProject Weather should the topic ban be lifted. As such I deeply regret my behavior that led to this, considering the spark that set it off was the color discussion in early 2022 that got nullified because of canvassing (before being restarted this year and implemented).

I believe that should the ArbCom decide to lift my topic-ban they will see better cooperation from me within that area. But I do not think I should just be let off scott-free and I don’t think the ArbCom would think so either. I am aware that they would likely keep tabs on me from time to time so as to monitor progress, and as such I am fully aware that any deviation or violation of WikiProject rules or incidents like last year could easily lead to another topic ban or worse consequences. If the committee wants me to explain more of my stance on this I can gladly provide that info to them below.

As clarification I have included Barkeep49 as part of the involved parties as during the deciding phase for the remedies near the end of the RfC, Bar expressed that he would be open to an appeal in as soon as 6 months from the enactment of the topic ban. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Ah okay thanks for making that clear. I had assumed he could be considered involved since he was the one that suggested to me that he’d be possibly open to an appeal 6 months after but seems that’s not the case. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: If that’s asked towards me then I don’t mind it being posted in either section. Though, it might be more helpful for those who already stalk/watch the page (those who had contributed to discussion/evidence gathering phase during the initial case (since I think some suggested the TBAN originally). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Izno: My use of reversions back then admittedly sometimes had some attitude, some cases like an image change or whatnot. Mostly because I had an impression that perhaps if I reverted them once or twice they’d either back off or open a discussion (even though I sometimes was hesitant to do so). Nowadays I really only use the revert if there’s an obvious reason (redundant information, random ip edits that are non-constructive, etc.), and I think that the topic ban helped me realize that. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

So at least one ArbCom member wants to hear from the community. Which areas would the committee find acceptable to have this discussion posted in (i.e. WP:WEATHER), or do you prefer those who already watch or stalk this page regularly? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This is my first time commenting on WP:Arbitration, so I apologize if I am doing something wrong.

I am also a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones (WPTC), albeit an inactive one. I admit that I have not extensively participated in anything related to the project for nearly two years. However, I remember MarioProtIV from my time as a more active project member back in 2020-2021. We never had any interactions one-on-one. That being said, I recall that MarioProtIV had some sort of leadership role in the community. He was a mentor to a user, and I had no objections to the way he fulfilled that duty.

Simply stated, I support lifting the topic ban in question. I have read MarioProtIV's statement above. It seems to me that the user has done some critical reflection of their behavior, and they are ready to return to a welcoming community at WPTC. I do not object to anything that MarioProtIV wrote. However, I encourage older and newer WPTC users than myself to give their input for a true consensus.

And @Nova Crystallis:, I am going to be bold and post a notification on the WP:WPTC talk page if that is acceptable. Since CaptainEek asked for more community input, it is only fair that members of WPTC, where MarioProtIV was involved with, voice opinions here. That being said, Arbitrators, if you object to me posting such a notification, please let me know.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As a bystander, I have apprehensions about the whole situation in general, just watching some of the drama that has unfolded around WPTC over the years. However, MarioProtIV seems to me to just be one of many parties in this whole business, and it seems as though there has been some self-reflection and understanding on his part. I align with WTT in terms of being unimpressed with prior conduct, of course. I'd also concur with MPIV's statement of I do not think I should just be let off scott-free and I don’t think the ArbCom would think so either, but while I think some form of probation or editing restriction would be of benefit, given the history of this case I have the inherent worry that it may be exploited by other users in an edit war. I'd sure like to see further community input as well. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about this further puts me, an uninvolved community member, in favor of lifting the block. In my opinion, our propensity should always be one towards forbearance and the benefit of the doubt, with a keen eye toward ensuring future growth and collaboration. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As a high-profile member of WPTC/WPWX, I have been wondering over the last few days, if I should comment on Mario's appeal or not. The main problem that I see with his contributions is that he caught up in pursuing his interests in a way that wasnt conducive to the way the encyclopedia works. I would suggest that if Mario does get unblocked that he concentrates on writing articles either outside of the Atlantic Ocean or the present day and not get involved with images for the time being.Jason Rees (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• I have removed Barkeep49 from the "involved users" list for this amendment request as they acted as an arbitrator in this case, so are not considered involved. They are also currently an arbitrator, so may wish to comment as an arbitrator on this request. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• While I'd like to wait for further comment before making my mind up, I'll note MarioProtIV has been editing regularly and (from what I've seen) been conscientious in abiding by the tban. I'm leaning towards lifting the restriction. Cabayi (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm also open to lifting the TBAN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Glad to see the above diff, which puts me in favour of lifting. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear from the community a bit before voting. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• I was singularly unimpressed with the brazen nature of MarioProtIV's requests for other members to intervene on their behalf, so I'm not predisposed to accepting. However, I do appreciate that they have been conscientious in abiding, and a reasonable period of time has past. I'd like to hear more from the community, and yes User:Nova Crystallis that includes you, wherever you feel you fit. Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  WTT: I was also unimpressed. I do think it worth noting, however, that we had a mixed bag of evidence when it came to Mario's conduct in the area. Obviously enough that we both voted for the topic ban but for me that mitigation does matter when it comes to appeal and the positive work that has happened since then. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• MarioProtIV, has your thinking about about editing conflict, and particularly the use of reversions, changed, and if so, how? You can see in the PD from the case I had noted that you employed a revert button when you should not have. Izno (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Support

1. I agree with the thinking of the arbs above and so we might as well start voting. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Cabayi (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. MarioProtIV has made a self-reflective appeal which shows understanding and regret - this is the sort of thing that tends to get my support. I would like to see MarioProtIV in future stating in discussions and votes if they have discussed the issue under consideration in any other venue or with any other users on or off Wiki - such transparency encourages trust and respect. SilkTork (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
9. I'm sufficiently satisfied with Mario's responses and the community's lack of concern that we agree this. Worm^TT(talk) 10:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Initiated by Extraordinary Writ at 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. All pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• All pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

• This remedy should be rescinded; sample motions here.

This is a low-priority one, but I figured now was as good a time for it as any. Prem Rawat, an Indian spiritual figure, author, and speaker, is considered a contentious topic under a remedy passed in a 2008 case (back in the days of "article probation"!) and occasionally updated since. I'd argue (as I suggested a while back) that there's no longer a need for this level of restriction 15 years after the fact. Most obviously, there hasn't been a single logged sanction in over a decade, which makes it really hard to argue CT is still needed. There have only been a small number of awareness alerts in that amount of time, and most editors involved in the original disputes haven't edited in ages. And while there have been a handful of flare-ups in the last few years, there's no reason why our usual processes aren't sufficient to contain any disruption, particularly since the main article is already subject to the BLP contentious-topic designation. For a request like this, you should ultimately be asking yourselves "if I were getting this request for the first time, would I support [CT]?", and I think the answer to that is a resounding no. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I've had occasional involvement with the Rawat biography, and from my experience would agree with Extraordinary Writ's suggestion that the current restrictions would seem unnecessary. There are clearly still Rawat enthusiasts about who would like to add their spin, and no doubt opponents likewise, but they don't seem to be active to anything like the extent that led to the restrictions in the first place. Existing WP:BLP policy (much tighter now) is probably sufficient to deal with most issues, as long as experienced but non-partisan eyes are kept on the article. Other than having to persuade the occasional over-enthusiastic believer that we don't have to report everything and anything the man does, and we aren't going to base the whole thing on primary sources, the biggest problem with the article (from Wikipedia's point of view) is that Rawat doesn't get much said about him either in the media of in academic works these days, making the whole thing look rather dated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I’d say NEWBLPBAN and ARBIPA are, between them, entirely covering this designation to the point it could be removed without actually changing anything. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• A reasonable set of arguments; I am inclined to accept the request. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Absent any objections I'm OK with this. I'd also be OK with leaving it in place (I don't see CT as being intrusive in the way that Full or Semi can be), but I feel that if someone makes a reasonable request to lift CT we should oblige. SilkTork (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'm good with removing this CT. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Izno (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
7. SilkTork (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
8. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
9. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Initiated by Johnpacklambert at 18:10, 24 October 2023 (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

1. Johnpacklambert topic banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

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

Information about amendment request

• Johnpacklambert topic banned

• I would like to see this restricted to not apply to actions that are part of Categories for discussion

I understand that my actions in the past were disruptive, and that I was not cooperative enough with others, and not willing enough to try and discuss matters. This was initially appealable after a year, it has actually been over 14 months since the decision was imposed. There was one issue with compliance, in which I thanked someone for an edit, but that was also over 14 months ago. There have been no issues that were brought up at ANI or other such processes in the last 12 months. I am however going for a very narrow change attempt, since my last attempt 12 months ago to broadly change a restriction on me was responded to in a very negative way. I am here proposing that the restrictions on deletion of articles remain intake for the time being. I am only asking that the broad application of this sanction to include Categories for Discussion be limited to only article deletion, or at least not to extend to Categories and participation in Categories for Discussion. This is a forum where no articles are directly discussed, only the categories we use to group articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• • I would like to fully and completely withdraw this request at this time. I need more time to think over the best ways to speak about further issues that were brought up. I want to at this time just ask that this request be withdrawn and nothing be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

• I'll wait for community input here, but I have to say the first thing that jumped right out at me is the very large number of CFD notifications on your talk page from the last few months, many of which clearly closed with a result of deletion. This would tend to suggest you may not have a firm grip on what the community expects in categories. I'm wondering if you could address this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'm very concerned at the lack of understanding being shown in category creation. Rather than agree to an increase in participation in the area of categories, I think I'd prefer a decrease. I question the value of the bulk of the categories being created. There appears to be something of a nuisance value here in creating so many inappropriate categories which then have to be discussed by other volunteers. We all have to learn, but when someone is clearly not learning because they are continuing to create categories along the same lines as those which have just been deleted, then that person should be requested to stop participation until they have learned more about the process. SilkTork (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'm OK with allowing the withdrawal of this request. If no arb objects, I'll ask the clerks to archive this request in the next day or two. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fine with me. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• We can let this request fade into the archives. @Johnpacklambert: Based on your talk page, I think you are starting to become disruptive within this area. I suggest you disengage with creating categories until such a time your creations are in line with community consensus. Continued disruption will lead to being shown the door by the committee or the community. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)