🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_133
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 133

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133


Amendment request: PIA Canvassing

Original discussion
Appeal declined. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Dovidroth at 06:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Motions: PIA Canvassing (January 2024)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Dovidroth

Hello.

I am humbly submitting an appeal on my topic ban in ARBPIA.

In the last year and a half since my tban, I have taken great pains to reflect upon what happened, as well as reaffirm to the wiki community that I can once again be considered a trustworthy and valuable contributor.

The period in which the proxying happened was in the days after October 7th. Emotions were very high, and the PIA space was as combative and high tension as it ever has been. We were all being bombarded in many directions, and I made a grave mistake by copy pasting a couple unsolicited requests on a topic I personally agreed with that had come in via email. I would also like to admit that I did what I did because I felt the situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors. I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this.

I had always taken great pains to strenuously avoid any type of prohibited edits.

I recognize that during the proceeding I was not forthcoming regarding the proxy editing. Many people were subject to constant scrutiny and false reports, and I was very much afraid that if I had admitted to what really happened (which was a couple isolated isolated instances), I would be rolled into larger accusations being thrown around at the time of wider potential editing efforts, which I am not a part of and have never been a part of.

Furthermore, I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it, but I genuinely was scared and did not feel I would have been judged in accordance with my transgression. For the record now, I wish to apologize for both the couple edits, as well as the omission.

Since being unblocked almost a year ago, I have continued to contribute in other topics, having done well over 1,000 edits. Among my edits, I have created a new article (Rabbinic period) which was featured as a DYK and for which I received a barnstar from another user. I also received a "nice work" comment from another user for work that I did on another page. I have also contributed substantially to Kiddush Levana, which I have nominated for GA status, and it is awaiting review.

More than a year has passed since the closure of the Arbcom case, and I have been very careful not to touch any topics related to the conflict. I would appreciate another shot at ARBPIA, and hope that Arbcom will consider my case favorably, or at least establish a path or timeline to restoration of full edit status.

Firefangledfeathers - The original ARBCOM case was here, my appeal of the site ban was here, and I filed one appeal that I later realized was prematurely that I withdrew.
Firefangledfeathers - There was ban on restoring content from banned users. I never appealed this. And there was a previous 3 month topic ban, for which I opened an appeal, but it was closed due to the ARBCOM case. Dovidroth (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
In response to questions from other editors, I fully intend to follow the rules fully. If there is any cited violation of rules in ARPIA, it would be fair to return the TBAN. Dovidroth (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
In response to recent comments, I want to clarify my comment that I was not indicating that I would treat ARBPIA in a combative way. Despite mistakes I made in the past, I am requesting another chance at the area, where I believe I have contributed positively, and I would like a chance to prove that I am a healthy member. I will once again state that if there are any substantial complaints against my behavior, I think reinstating the tban would be fair. Dovidroth (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Simonm223 - I never justified my behavior. I was trying to explain how I made a mistake which I deeply regret and will make sure not to repeat. Dovidroth (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

That Dovidroth states that their conduct was in part based on a "situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors" does not fill me with confidence that they won't engage in the same behaviour again if they feel that others are at fault. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223, just to clarify, they didn't canvass. They made edits which a banned editor requested they make. The behaviour was WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:PROXYING. TarnishedPathtalk 22:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Dovidroth, to make it easier for others to review your appeal, could you please link the discussions that led to your past and present sanctions, as well as any failed or successful appeal requests? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Dovidroth, any other PIA-related sanctions or appeals? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest a decline. I don't think Dovidroth is accurately conveying the extent to which they were being dishonest and manipulative in the PIA Canvassing Arb discussion; in particular, I think "omission" is seriously misleading. Emotions continue to be very high in this topic area, and most everyone expects that there will be major emotional moments to come. We are more likely to accurately and neutrally cover the topic area if we don't include editors who make major misconduct mistakes and then follow those up with dishonesty and manipulation. The loss of trust takes longer than this to heal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint

I find it puzzling that in a PIA topic ban appeal to ARBCOM, the appealing editor says that I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this ... disruptive behavior of experienced editors (I shifted the quotes around). So essentially the appealing editor is praising ARBCOM for, I believe, topic banning other editors from PIA in a recent case. Well, if ARBCOM is doing a good job at topic banning editors from PIA, then why should they reverse this topic ban then, given that disruptive behaviour has been admitted by the appealing editor? starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

I think this request should be declined. In particular I find the excuse of their actions being immediately after October 7 to be tone-deaf at minimum. This is a topic area where very upsetting things happen every single day and if their response to one very upsetting thing is to canvas to manipulate the narrative then they probably should not be editing in this space. Furthermore I share concerns expressed by other editors that they said I felt the situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors as if this justifies canvassing at all. I have no faith they won't fall back into old patterns the next time something upsets them and they believe they need to stop playing fair to compete with other perceived misbehaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPaththank you for the clarification. As far as seriousness that seems about the same level. Simonm223 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

That "Emotions were very high" after Oct 7, is not limited to Dovidroth, or indeed just after Oct 7. All through the ongoing Gaza war, emotions are very high for lots of people. People who cannot "keep their cool", should not edit in the area, IMO. And being given a barn-star by an editor who is topic-banned from the IP area, is not necessarily an advantage when you ask to be allowed to edit in the IP area again, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

PIA Canvassing: Clerk notes

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

PIA Canvassing: Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Rafe87 BER

Original discussion
Appeal declined. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Rafe87 at 19:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
User talk:Rafe87 § Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. {{{clause1}}}
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • {{{clause1}}}
    • {{{clause1-request}}}

Statement by Rafe87

I didn't originally consider contesting the sanction, though I didn't think it very fair, because I thought it'd only last 30 days, and I meant to avoid further wear and tear on this space. But, if I understood correctly the clarification provided today by Tamzin, the restriction is actually indefinite and was imposed 30 days after I received their warning, on June 16th. Acting under the apparently false belief that the restriction would take effect immediately and last for 30 days, I threw myself into new projects to avoid breaking the rule. I translated two Spanish Wikipedia entries on modern singers and created a new article on a minor figure in Roman history. Translating the articles, which are fairly long, was quite tiring, and the Roman article, although short, required some research from me in academic sources. But at least I achieved what I thought was required of me: between June 16th-July 16th, my edits to Israeli-Palestinian entries, as I've just verified, totaled only 35, while my edits to the pages I created, as well as others outside the scope of the restriction, totaled 164. My contributions to restricted topics, less than a fifth during this period, were therefore well below the required share, demonstrating I did commit to not violating the restriction. But apparently, all this was for nothing, as I wasn't even restricted in that period. The restriction would only take effect on July 16th, not June 16th. Anyway, from the day the restriction came into effect (the same day I thought it would end!), I returned to editing in the restricted topics at a normal pace, and as such, 70% of my edits since ended up being in them, and Tamzin decided to upgrade the restriction to total for 28 days. My argument is: the rule was confusing and set me up for failure. Why warn an editor he's being problematic in a given debate and then not sanction him immediately, but rather begin 30 days after the act, regardless of how he performs in the mean time? The fault may not have been with Tamzin, who could be applying a traditional remedy rather than something of their own creation, but neither can I be blamed for not being confused about the the matter. Another thing: Even if Tamzin, in their most recent decision, is within their rights to temporarily increase the restriction, the original sanction is disproportionate to the issue imputed to me; one of tone, I believe. Plus, since they the new articles I created were completed, my contribution rate to Wikipedia has dropped; and I haven't had any friction with any editors in the last two months, either. I accept the new sanction imposed for the next 28 days, as it may not have been Tamzin's fault the imposed policy was so confusing to me, but I ask that at least the indefiniteness of the sanction be revoked.

Statement by Tamzin (Rafe87)

Breaking this into three admin decisions: to BER, to sanction for the violation, and specifically to temp TBAN.

  • For the reasons I've explained on Rafe's talkpage, I believe that the level of moderate PIA disruption leading up to the BER was sufficient under the BER's standard of a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area.
  • I'm willing to believe that Rafe misunderstood the sanction, but as also explained on their talk, the fact that the sanction was indefinite and began to apply after 30 days was explained clearly and unambiguously at least four different ways.
  • I initially considered just warning them for this, but it seemed wrong to leave them active in the topic area (still able to edit any non-filter-1339-qualifying PIA pages) while at 210% the BER threshold. This seemed unwise both in terms of the technical implementation of the BER and the norms for sanction enforcement. Instead, the equitable solution to me seemed to be TBANning until the BER percentage drops down to 0, i.e. 28 days from now. This isn't much stricter than if I had just warned, since while above 33% Rafe is effectively TBANned from 1339-qualifying pages; this just means that Rafe also can't edit PIA content on non-1339-qualifying pages, and has to wait till they fall to 0% instead of 33% before reëntering the topic area.

Happy to answer any further questions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@CaptainEek. Sure, I'll quote what I said to Rafe on their talk:

Daniel Case protected the article Alaa Al Najjar on 12 June and logged that at WP:AELOG/2025/PIA. I clicked on it to see the context of the protection, clicked onward to the article now titled Killing of al-Najjar children, saw an RM, clicked through to that mostly to see if any ECR enforcement would be needed, and saw that you were trying to disrupt the RM [by striking a comment and trying to prematurely close it [2] [3] [4]]. I reverted you and warned you. A few days later I checked back in (as I often do after warning a user), saw this standoffish comment (later withdrawn, but not at the time), and then looked further at your edits and saw a history of temperature-raising participation, most notably moving the article Rafah aid distribution incidents Rafah aid distribution incidents during an active RM. I saw you had a high percentage of PIA editing, and given ArbCom's guidance that a BER simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, I judged that to be an appropriate intervention.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Rafe87 BER: Clerk notes

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

Rafe87 BER: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Tamzin, can you give a bit more of a procedural background? Was this a result of an AE filing? What was the offending conduct? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline – the BER was absolutely valid, bordering on too light. Rafe's comments at RMs and other venues are fairly aggressive and tend to raise hostility in the topic area (per Tamzin's links), but that doesn't even cover the apparent POV-pushing, like repeatedly (1 2) advancing the argument of ~"well if reliable sources don't agree, my personal opinion that it's a massacre should take precedence", based on what is at best a misreading and at worst a cherry-pick of WP:NCENPOV. I'm sure I could find other examples if I kept looking, but since we're not discussing a topic ban, I'll stop at saying yes, the blunt behavior made the BER necessary, especially given the lower standard required for imposing one. As for the mistaken interpretation of the BER that led to the topic ban, I'll AGF, but it's probably best to let the counter reset rather than doing lots of date math to try and sneak in edits wherever possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline, per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline and support the action taken by Tamzin here. Daniel (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline - AE restrictions are implemented with less process than other areas of Wikipedia, so it is important that our editors are made aware before they happen. I do hope Tamzin will reflect upon this request and modify their language a little for clarity when implementing solutions in the future. That said, Tamzin was absolutely right on the decision they made, BER is an excellent solution for the troubles in the area, and I don't see any issues with what has been imposed. I also don't believe that Tamzin's text was egregiously confusing and therefore I see no reason to modify or remove the BER. WormTT(talk) 08:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline - Per Worm That Turned. - Aoidh (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Indian military history

Original discussion
There is consensus that Tamzin's explanation is spot on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Toadspike at 11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Indian military history 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:

Statement by Toadspike

1. Does the Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction apply only to military history on the current (post-Partition) territory of the country of India, or does it include military history that took place entirely in another South Asian country?

2. If a conflict took place between a party in India and a party outside of India, does the extended-confirmed restriction apply? Does this depend on whether battles in the conflict took place within the current territory of India or not?

3. How do we treat AfC submissions that were written before the enactment of this remedy, but are only now being reviewed? If they are suitable for acceptance, can they still be accepted? If not, should they be deleted (from draftspace)?

These questions were prompted by the contributions of a specific editor. As this request for clarification is about the general principles, not that specific case, I have chosen not to name them here. If Arbs would like me to add them as a party, I will do so.

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you for your reply. Does "India" mean the current territory of India or the current state of India? What I'm really getting at is whether predecessors of India like British India also count as "India", since those entities included significant territory outside of the modern state of India.
The problem with wording like "if India was involved" is that nearly all of the conflict about "Indian military history" does not involve the modern state of India.

Statement by voorts

Since we're already here, does "Indian military history" encompass contemporary conflicts? If not, what's the cut off date or era? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

I was planning to initiate this request per my comments on the case discussion thread.[5] Just as voorts asked above, you can see the linked discussion there, which also has no answer regarding the scope.

Does the scope of "Indian military history and the history of castes in India" cover times before the establishment of British Raj or the times before the foundation of India? Koshuri (あ!) 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Reading the evidence and proposed decision of the case itself, it appears that only the diffs involving the events before 1857 events were found to be actionable for being within the case' scope.
You have made a mention of the United States, however, the DS regime covering this country also concerns its politics specifically after 1992.[6]
That said, I think a period should be thoroughly clarified. It would be reasonable to agree on events before 1947 as history because the period since 1947 is regarded as "contemporary India", not that of historical India also in scholarly sources.[7][8][9] Koshuri (あ!) 06:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Donner60

  • Please note that the military history project has an Indian military history task force shown at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force. The page includes: "This task force covers the military history of India. This includes ancient India, medieval India, early modern India (including the period of British rule), and modern post-independence India." Many, perhaps even all, articles that gave rise to this proceeding are assessed B class or below. The task force page shows all of the articles within the scope of the project that are featured articles, former featured articles, featured lists, A-Class articles, good articles and did you know articles. This may provide some guidance as to the scope of Wikipedia articles considered as involving Indian military history. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin (IMH)

(pinged) To me, the logical scope of "Indian military history" would be
  1. The military history of any entity, or vassal/proxy of an entity, based in
    1. the present-day Republic of India and/or
    2. territory that was at the time considered India
    and/or
  2. Any military activities by any other entity that took place in that region.
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
@Koshuri Sultan: I think this answers the time question as well. But to be clear, no, I don't impute any time-based limit to this. Maybe hypothetically it wouldn't cover conflicts prior to the Indus Valley Civilisation, but honestly even there I'm not sure.
I also stopped to think about whether this covers actions by Indian-originating forces far removed from the region. I knew a woman who was the lone survivor of a Free French unit slaughtered by what she described as renegade British imperial gurkhas, but according to a historian I talked to were more likely soldiers of the Nazi Indian Legion. Should those fall under Indian military history? But then I thought, yes, they should, and Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose can speak for itself as to why. Ultimately, any aspect of Indian military history, whether it's from 10 years ago or a thousand years ago, whether it happened in Mumbai or Marseille, has the same tendency to be politicized by contemporary Indian political movements. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

also (pinged), I'd mostly agree with Tamzin's description, although I would add that when considering that it is "broadly construed", this would also include any topic that is centrally relevant to the wars historically fought in the Indian subcontinent, in particular definition of borders and ethnic/national/religious/caste claims to land in the Indian subcontinent. signed, Rosguill talk 16:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with Tamzin's further comments on scope, including ancient history and operations by Indian military groups outside of India. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sohom Datta

While I nominally agree with Tamzin's statement and definition of "Indian military conflict", as person who has infrequently worked on the topic area of the Indian freedom struggle (and other areas), I feel like this net is waay to wide for a extended-confirmed sanctions by default. If Subas Chandra Bose is included, would almost any article documenting any of the various parts of the Indian freedom struggle/conflict be considered part of this restriction? -- Sohom (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester

I want to emphasize that it's vital for the scope to cover modern day (including current-events) Indian military history and the portions of related articles thereof. Since the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict there's been widespread nationalist edit-warring and propaganda pushing on articles relating to the military equipment involved in the conflict -- particularly the aircraft, missile, and air-defense systems involved (as these by convention usually have a section for "Operational History" documenting their usage). Additionally I want to reiterate that the scope needs to encompass military actions conducted in India even by non-South Asian actors. For instance, during the hunt for Bin Laden in the early 2000's, both the U.S. Delta Force and British Special Air Service conducted operations in Kashmir against a Pakistani militant group in which intelligence sharing was conducted with the Indian government while said Indian government issued public denials; references to this event should presumably be covered (both because of the intelligence sharing arrangement with the Indian military, and due to the geographic location being within the scope of coverage). As far as I can tell Tamzin's interpretation covers both these concerns but I wanted to raise my concerns if other interpretations prevail here.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:58, 16 August 2025 (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.

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

    1. Only India or related to India.
    2. Yes, if India was involved it doesn't matter where the conflict took place.
    3. They can be accepted.
  • This is obviously just my view, but it seems fairly clear-cut. #1 does get at one of my concerns about the grand unified CTOP, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    I think Tamzin's description is pretty apt. Trying to narrow it down or draw explicit lines around it won't work with how broad the topic is. If someone is unsure if a particular subtopic, article, or piece of content is covered they can ask about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I have mixed feelings on what "Indian history" means for arbitration enforcement because we need to balance the need for the definition to be easily understandable against the historical reality of the term.
    In my opinion, we indicated in "Breadth of topic bans" that Indian history also includes history prior to the Partition. Just as how Chinese history spans the various dynasties prior to the PRC/ROC (even if it wasn't called China at that point) and how American history doesn't just begin in 1776, I think that Indian history covers the current republic as well as clear predecessor states like the British Raj and Mughal Empire, even if they go beyond the current republic's borders. The term "India" was used before the Partition as well: the Raj was commonly called "India" and the term was used for many years prior to the current republic's creation. Hopefully that also answers Koshuri Sultan's question as well and I otherwise agree with SFR regarding Toadspike's Q2 & Q3.
    Voorts: I don't think that there is a good place to cut off when history begins – aren't we all creating history now? – so would rather that we kept contemporary conflicts as well. If enforcing administrators wish to sanction people from (eg.) pre-Modi Indian military history instead of the entirety of Indian military history, they would have support in doing so. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I'd say Tamzin's definition could be used in a textbook. That's exactly what I would have said, in many more words. WormTT(talk) 08:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • What ScottishFinnishRadish and Worm That Turned/Tamzin said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Venezuelan politics

Original discussion
Motion adopted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by WMrapids at 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Venezuelan politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#WMrapids banned
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by WMrapids

After this time off, I want to return to my first passion on Wikipedia; providing images and information about local locations and places visited. This can be seen with my recent uploads on Commons (including my first quality images! [10][11]), which I wish to place on Wikipedia. I have no interest in Venezuelan topics or certain interactions, so please keep the two-way IBAN and topic ban in place to leave those problems in the past. Overall, I'm eager to collaborate with others on Wikipedia again and learn more along the way, like I have on Commons. Thank you for your consideration! --WMrapids (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, apologies! Due to word counts, I kept things brief for ArbCom. My other account created for privacy (which I still recognize/recognized was created improperly) was blocked and no other account has been created. I'm fairly certain ArbCom wouldn't consider an appeal if my IP showed up elsewhere during this time.--WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm committed to using only one account and have no desire to use another. Thanks to everyone involved for having empathy and respecting my privacy even though we like our answers and want to hold each other accountable. I wish I could provide more answers, but due to past incidents (including people at my door), I politely ask you to put yourself into my shoes. I'm human; an average person from Michigan who wants to help build a good encyclopedia. My behavior wasn't perfect, but my edits were genuine, my own and I hold no animosity towards anyone. I know asking for respect is a lot, but I'm more than just another user. I'm a person on the other side of the screen and I'd do anything within reason to protect others from experiencing some of the things I've faced just for my edits.--WMrapids (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
ToBeFree, it's disappointing that you suggest my trauma is "exaggerated", but I understand your point of view. Why go back? What helped with my decision to continue editing was consulting another Wikipedian who had their identity exposed, who said they "would absolutely do it again" and stood behind their edits. I've already shared with ArbCom what I think is the best course for my privacy and I'm not holding anyone responsible for it. That was my own doing. Again, I'm committed to using only one account.--WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
ToBeFree, thank you for your concerns and frankness. I understand my situation and am hopeful that those in the know are as well.
SandyGeorgia, I'm sorry. I want the best for every user and know I'm not more special. Recognizing that respect is earned (and was lost), respecting someone's privacy is fundamental. We all know that I protected my privacy the wrong way, but know that I'm done with the topic. I want us to bury the hatchet following any decision and I'll focus on local topics. Please take care!--WMrapids (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

WMRapids was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and was banned by ArbCom to recognize the CheckUser block. This request does not address the abuse of multiple accounts, which is an issue of trustworthiness. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223 (Venezuela)

As WMRapids is willing to return with the topic ban and the iban in place and as they have accounted for the sock puppetry issue and have committed to not repeating that mistake I think we should support allowing them to return. Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia

KrakatoaKatie, I'm hoping you will reconsider the sensitivity of the statement in this case that "unblocks are cheap", considering the weightiness of what you all are about to do. In contrast to other recent cases, Wikipedians have been detained there are consequences for living persons Edited, 03:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC) in Venezuela, and there are other "average people" on the "other side of the screen" who deserve the same respect being requested here. If this unban is "cheap", something has really been missed in the deliberations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie I wasn't questioning your !vote or your reasoning, rather the sensitivity of describing the !vote with the words unblocks are cheap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Re TarnishedPath, I am not "linking this unblock request to the arrest of Wikipedians in Venezuela".
I am pointing out the seriousness of the situation in Venezuela, to contrast wording used in a !vote about a non-trivial arbcase (that is, where the cited evidence in the findings involved BLP vios with incriminating accusations about living people) to a case in which that kind of (seemingly trivializing) wording might be appropriate (use of capital letters on the Internet).
I asked for respectful consideration for all editors, as "unblocks are cheap" could feel like a trivialization to Wikipedians now blocked or otherwise unable to edit or speak here, for various reasons. Those were serious BLP issues in a country where Wikipedia content has consequences; hence the "weightiness" of what the arbs are contemplating -- unbanning an editor who used non-reliable sources or parroted deprecated sources to add BLP vios on people who had to flee their country or have been detained or have had family members detained.
With issues also in Peruvian content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Re TarnishedPath, recognizing your point and the potential for misunderstanding, I have attempted a fix above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

I'm quite concerned by the above comments by Sandy linking this unblock request to the arrest of Wikipedians in Venezuela. Unless Sandy has some evidence linking WMR to those events, the implication should be struck. TarnishedPathtalk 01:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Sandy, you need to understand how even bringing it up on what is a behavioural noticeboard would appear to most readers as a implication of a linkage. I'll take you word for it that is not what is intended, but point out that occurrences for which WMR is not responsible have no place in a discussion about their conduct. TarnishedPathtalk 03:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Venezuelan politics: Clerk notes

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

Venezuelan politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I find this request persuasive and am currently inclined to support it, retaining the interaction and topic ban. Keen to provide the opportunity to potentially hear from other interested members of the community over the coming few days, before proposing a motion. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Same as Dan. Inclined to support lifting the ban with the iban and tban in place, would like to hear from those who were party to the behavior that led to the ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
    Put me at support, with the tban and iban still in place and with the understanding that the committee can't prevent people from putting 2 and 2 together when it comes to other accounts and account restrictions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • As long as the iban and topic ban remain in place, I'm not opposed to accepting this appeal. - Aoidh (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to hear from the parties in the case, but if we do accept, can we add a single account restriction to the mix? One of the issues was misuse of multiple accounts, so we should make it clear that's not even potentially ok. WormTT(talk) 08:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline for private reasons. A one-account restriction is a distant second choice to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Based on some private discussions that have taken place, while I am okay with an unblock (keeping the existing other restrictions in place) I am uncomfortable doing so unless we limit WMRapids to using a single account. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I was the only one who thought that a site ban was unnecessary, and I still believe that. Robert, please see my and Barkeep's comments there regarding use of multiple accounts (and at § Use of multiple accounts too). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Please consider me provisionally inactive on this thread unless I come back to cast a vote. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Assuming the private issues are resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I'm inclined to support an unban with a one-account restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
    The underlying issue is currently un-resolvable in my personal view, so that condition is unlikely to be fulfillable in 2025 at least as long as "everyone" means every arbitrator. Either the above-mentioned privacy reasons are exaggerated and don't exist in their alleged form, or letting WMrapids edit Wikipedia at all would be a mistake. WMrapids, you have mentioned "people at my door" above. If you're concerned about your personal safety, at very least in your situation, don't rely on ArbCom and "privacy" on Wikipedia; stop editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
    To my mind, it's for WMR to decide what level of risk is acceptable to him. ArbCom's role in an unban request is to decide what level of risk he poses to the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
    That would be a fine argument if it didn't involve us silencing other users' behavioral concerns under the threat of oversight blocks for the alleged benefit of someone willing to risk their safety a little but please not too much. If I understand correctly, "You can't have your cake and eat it" is an English proverb describing this. In German, I'd say "Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mach mich nicht nass" (~ please wash me but make sure I don't touch water in the process). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
    WMrapids, thank you very much for the entire message of 6 September above. I respect the majority decision that has now been reached and wish you all the best; welcome back to Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia, I am aware of the situation in Venezuela. I don't think this is some great sockmaster aiming to create AI slop or the like, and that's why I'm willing to grant a ROPE unban and unblock. But if they cross the line again, I think it's clear from this motion that our patience will, at that point, have been exhausted. Katietalk 23:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Motion: WMrapids unbanned

Following a successful appeal of their site ban to the Arbitration Committee, WMrapids (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The topic ban and interaction ban, which were passed at the same time as the site ban, remain in force.

Further, WMrapids is subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this motion, and every twelve months thereafter.

Enacted – HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Daniel (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  3. Unblocks are cheap. Katietalk 21:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  4. Aoidh (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  5. I believe WMR is an enthusiastic contributor who got in over his head without realising it and made mistakes, as opposed to a political zealot. In trying to fix or cover up those mistakes he made things worse and broke the community's trust, necessitating the site ban. Time heals (almost) all wounds and I believe WMR is sufficiently penitent to repair some of that trust. With the topic ban remaining in place and the one-account restriction, I think the risks to the project from an unban are low. As I said above, it's for WMR to evaluate the risks to himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  6. See my statement above and the linked comments at the case (finding, remedy). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  7. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Per my statements above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (Italian brainrot)

Original discussion
Withdrawn by filer, to re-file for community review. Daniel (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Matrix at 20:27, 17 September 2025 (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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Matrix

Daniel Case protected Italian brainrot with indefinite ECP. ARBPIA remedy 7 says "the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment" instead. I feel this would be more appropriate, along with lowering the protection to PCP, since the only section affected by this case would be "Controversial audios". Daniel Case told me to bring this to AE, but this seemed like a more appropriate location. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 20:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Moved from arbitrator-only section. @Daniel: sorry, I'm still discombobulated at how arbitration works since it's my first time with anything like this (more of a Commons regular). I just want to get it reviewed. @SilverLocust: I thought the enforcement page was only to request bans? If it's easier I (or you) can move it there. Cheers, —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 21:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel Case

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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't see this meeting any of the three criteria listed at "On Arbitration Committee review" at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard of review, and this seems better framed for the criteria listed at "On community review". Would encourage the applicant to consider a different venue to review on that basis. Daniel (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    • @Matrix: with the greatest of respect - Daniel Case advised you to bring it to WP:AE (something you note in your filing that he recommended you do), and given your admission in your ping back to me that you are not familiar with Arbitration processes, I feel it would have been prudent to follow his advice. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
      On a general note, I think an actually novel question of policy interpretation counts as "compelling circumstances that warrant the full Committee's action" (and historically what ARCA is for). I'm not saying that definitively does apply here, i haven't looked into it enough, but I think it might. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
      • That was indeed the criteria most likely (as the other two are clearly not applicable), and my assessment was/is that it doesn't meet the "compelling circumstances" threshold by quite a long way. If it helps formalise it, decline to review as this clearly fails the three criteria in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

Original discussion
Motion enacted. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Newslinger at 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict"
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Newslinger

I recently encountered a user talk page discussion titled "Views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war", in which Patternbuffered said, "I was going to just revert, but I'll give you a day or so to clean it up", in reference to article content related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. As Patternbuffered was not extended confirmed, the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) of WP:CT/A-I prohibited Patternbuffered from performing the described revert.

Per current practice (e.g. ScottishFinnishRadish's warning of Long-live-ALOPUS in another discussion for violating ECR by posting another user talk page comment), my understanding is that ECR also prohibited Patternbuffered from starting the user talk page discussion in the first place. However, Patternbuffered pointed out to me that the wording of the clause in question excludes "userspace" from the "area of conflict" without additional qualifiers. Long-live-ALOPUS also interpreted the clause as it was written.

I do not believe it is the intent of the userspace exception to allow non–extended confirmed users to openly discuss the Arab–Israeli conflict on other users' talk pages in ways that are prohibited in other namespaces and restricted on article talk pages. I ask the Arbitration Committee to amend the clause to limit the exception to the editor's own userspace, which better reflects existing practice. — Newslinger talk 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The problem is that, in the lead section of WP:CT/A-I, the text "with certain exceptions as provided below" contains a link to WP:CT/A-I § ARBPIA General Sanctions, which does invoke the term "area of conflict" in the bullet point "Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict." An editor who is unfamiliar with the case history cannot be expected to know that ECR applies to the entire topic area (and not just the defined "area of conflict") after reading the WP:CT/A-I page. — Newslinger talk 14:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Patternbuffered

As I wrote on my talk page I was fine with the warning and just curious about an apparent loophole. I agree it should be addressed to mitigate future confusion or conflict; how that should be done I will leave in more experienced hands. Patternbuffered (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Long-live-ALOPUS

Statement by Thryduulf

While at first glance the simple change seems unproblematic, there does need to be some allowance for posting on other users' talk pages. The first scenario that comes to mind is:

  • User:Example is not extended-confirmed. They make a good-faith edit to content related to the area of dispute on a page that is not ECP protected.
  • User:Foo reverts this edit on the grounds that Example is not extended-confirmed
  • User:Example posts on user talk:Foo seeking clarification (maybe they didn't understand jargon used in the summary)
  • User:Foo replies
  • User:Example posts a follow-up question (e.g. perhaps still not understanding, perhaps disagreeing that the content is related to the dispute)

As long as Example is not sealioning or otherwise acting in bad faith, we don't want to prohibit this sort of interaction yet a simple reading of the proposed language would do that. My first thought is a much-wordsmithed "this does not include discussion of actions taken regarding a user's own edits that takes place on the talk page of the user taking that action." While "discussion with the editor taking that action" is simpler, it would prohibit follow-up to a reply given by a talk-page stalker which I don't think would be desirable. Other things to consider are that good-faith, genuinely new editors are not guaranteed to know about pinging users to their own talk page, won't know how to determine whether some other editor is or is not extended-confirmed and if the queried actions relate to more than one editor (e.g. User:Foo reverted user:Example and user:Example2) it is better for all concerned for all discussion about it to happen on a single page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

At WP:ARBPIA4#Definition of the "area of conflict" it says "For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing...edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace.". And the application of ARBECR to PIA is "The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict." (my bold). So, even if "topic area" at WP:ARBECR is more general than "area of conflict", the ARBPIA page explicitly exempts userspace from it.

To repeat myself, ARBPIA4 does not apply ARBECR to the PIA "topic area" but only to the "area of conflict", which is a defined domain.

If ArbCom wants to replace the motion, they should do so with a motion to repeal and replace it, as this is not the first time the issue has come up and it won't be the last unless it is put to rest.

Personally I think that there is nothing wrong with a general userspace exemption, but reducing it to own-userspace would not be a big problem. On the other hand, restricting non-ECs from making comments in their own userspace would seem to have no purpose whatever, as there are other mechanisms for handling disruption. What sense is there in allowing edit requests on article talk pages but disallowing the same on own talk? I think own-userspace should be a general exemption to ECR in all topics. Zerotalk 12:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I think Elli raises a valid concern, and would suggest that any extended-confirmed editor should be allowed to remove such a notice. If we're concerned about these notices as a locus of disruption (would they be so moreso than anything else to do with the conflict?), you could adopt language to the effect that any gaming or editwarring in relation to such notices be treated with extreme prejudice or some other such guidance. signed, Rosguill talk 01:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction

Remedy 4 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows: For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text: The {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.

Remedy 6, Remedy 7, and Remedy 8 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case are repealed.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  3. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  4. I'm not keen on expanding this restriction if not strictly necessary, but the ambiguity between the different pages is causing confusion amongst editors and resulting in editors being sanctioned for making edits they they believe they are permitted to make because of the way things are worded. I considered proposing a less vague wording that would make a userspace exception more clear, but having a different set of ECR rules specifically for this topic area is unnecessarily complicating the issue. Standardizing the wording to match ECR's scope is the best route towards uncomplicating this as much as possible. - Aoidh (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  5. While this narrows the topic area a little bit, I think this will help lessen confusion and bureaucracy. If problems come up later, editors are invited to go to the appropriate noticeboard to find a resolution. Z1720 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  6. This will hopefully reduce confusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I don't like the implementation here: allowing someone to add a comment that only admins can remove seems like a bad idea. What if there's an article that has a section that touches on this conflict (and is appropriately tagged), but someone wants to remove that section (for example, they think it's out of scope for the article)? They wouldn't be allowed to do so here (or they'd need to keep a comment around for a section that no longer exists). Abstaining because no better solution comes to mind for me right now. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction

Original discussion
There is a clear consensus among participating Committee members that contesting a speedy deletion on the talk page is considered an edit request for the purposes of WP:ARBECR. Non-extended-confirmed editors may therefore do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Ahecht at 14:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
WP:ARBECR

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ahecht

I am requesting clarification on whether contesting a speedy deletion on the talk page is considered an edit request for the purposes of WP:ARBECR. This issue originally came up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 224#User Intarface encourages actions that are against rules and can have unintended consquences for new users and was further discussed at Template talk:Db-meta#Modify Db-meta template to hide "Contest this speedy deletion" button to non-extended-confirmed users on pages with ARBECR restriction.. In the latter discussion, Primefac suggested that contesting an speedy deletion on the talk page could potentially be considered a type of edit request, while HouseBlaster was unsure whether we should prevent a non XC editor from contesting a speedy deletion altogether because the likelyhood of success is low, or whether we should modify the notice to instruct all non-XC editors, even if they're not the page creator, to contest on the talk page rather than trying to remove the speedy deletion tag themselves if the page is subject to WP:ARBECR.

Statement by GWWU

Statement by Nil Einne

My view is it arguably is technically possible for contesting a speedy deletion to be an edit request but it's of so little benefit it's not worth saying it is lest it confuses people. Let's remember an edit request isn't for simply requesting a change to an article but requesting a change either already has consensus or so simply that it clearly has consensus even for someone unfamiliar with anything about the article (i.e. uncontroversial) e.g. a typo correction, adding details to a ref etc. Edit requests shouldn't be used for proposing controversial changes, editors should start a discussion and gain consensus first. If they cannot start a discussion because of ARBECR, then using an edit request to initiate a discussion is IMO a clear abuse of ARBECR even if they stay out of it after. Given all that, it's technically possible for contesting a speedy deletion to be an edit request when it's so simple that any editor with extended confirmed status even one who knows almost nothing about speedy deletion would be willing to remove the speedy deletion template because there's something so problematic about it that they do not need to let an admin or at least someone more familiar with speedy deletions look it over. But in such cases, surely an admin would see that without needing to be told. And so all this is doing is hoping some other extended confirmed editor sees it first and removes it to slightly reduce the workload on admin. But if we say it's okay, it's far more likely that it will be mostly used by non EC editors in cases where it's not so simple why the speedy deletion template shouldn't be removed but this isn't allowed similar to the way editors cannot make "edit requests" which are actually an attempt to start discussion on controversial changes. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2025 (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.

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Contesting a CSD is not an edit request. If you can't discuss the deletion of an article you can't request a CSD be removed or added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Not an edit request in my opinion, which has a very narrow definition. Prohibited by ARBECR. Daniel (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter much. "Contesting" a speedy deletion is a non-formal process adding a mostly meaningless message to a talk page that, if we're honest, often won't even be read before deletion. It is not the start of a formal internal project discussion such as an actual deletion discussion at WP:AfD. And it is equivalent to creating a formal edit request for "Please replace {{the CSD template}} by nothing". To me, it doesn't matter if we explicitly forbid making the last protesting comment before the page and the comment are removed forever. We should perhaps clarify that blocking someone for clicking a button inviting them to do so, and de-facto for creating an edit request, would be rather inappropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
    PS: I think the only reason why this blue button exists is to secretly discourage users from removing the speedy deletion template by letting them send a meaningless message, channeling their frustration to a place where it doesn't disrupt the process, instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I seem to find myself in the minority here, but I think that the example given by ToBeFree is exactly how a contested deletion request should be taken. "Please remove this deletion nomination because..." is a request to edit a page they should not normally be able to edit. Just because it is not headed by {{edit protected}} should not immediately invalidate it, and just because they cannot participate any further than making the request does not mean the request needs to be invalidated. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think you're in the minority there, as I agree. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    CSD is a deletion process that falls outside article content. Since one of the main points of ECR was to keep non-EC editors out of internal processes it seems to me that they shouldn't be making arguments as to why a page shouldn't be deleted. It's the same as RMs not falling under edit requests even though they're requesting a change to the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • This seems like a very edge case but I agree with TBF. "Please don't delete this page" is largely equivalent to an edit request. It's an action that doesn't have much effect anyway because if the page unquestionably meets the CSD it will be deleted anyway, and if it clearly doesn't the speedy will be declined but I wouldn't want to rule out an edge case within an edge case where a non-EC editor can add vital context. But more importantly blocking somebody for contesting a speedy deletion would seem absurdly bureaucratic, and policing the content of a talk page that is about to be deleted is probably a waste of time and would come across as mean-spirited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Given that CSD contesting is one of the few areas where consensus isn't a factor, I don't really see the harm in allowing it, especially when they wouldn't be allowed to follow up at AN or DR. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Inclined to allow contesting/keep the button, per others. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Yasuke

Original discussion
Consensus of arbitrators commenting is that this is automatic. Daniel (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by JHD0919 at 17:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Yasuke 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:

Statement by JHD0919

In regards to Remedy 1a, specifically this portion:

Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.

 When it comes time for the expiration, does it expire automatically, or is a motion required? The remedy text doesn't say, which has left me confused. JHD0919 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2025 (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.

Yasuke: Clerk notes

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

Yasuke: Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original discussion
Consensus is that removing prods and improving articles is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by JHD0919 at 18:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Conduct in deletion-related editing 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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by JHD0919

Here's the deal: Yesterday I PRODed Stony Point Fashion Park under the belief that it failed GNG. Shortly afterwards, TenPoundHammer attempted to expand on the article to prevent deletion, only to undo it after coming to the conclusion that they were flirting their topic ban. And then, earlier today, they sent a message on my talk page claiming to have found a ton of coverage on the subject in Richmond, Virginia newspapers. I am unsure as to whether coverage in newspapers from a single city is enough to strengthen the article, but I am also willing to give TPH the benefit of doubt and allow them to expand upon it with said coverage...except, I have no idea if they'd be violating their topic ban by doing so. Does TPH's topic ban apply to attempting to improve on articles that have been PRODed, as well as removing PRODs? JHD0919 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry TPH, I had no idea what pronouns you use. I've revised my initial statement accordingly. JHD0919 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Nyttend, with all due respect, I hard disagree with your assertion that this request was unnecessary. As I said above, the reason I made it was because neither TPH nor myself knew whether edits to PRODs and De-PRODs count as violations of the former's topic ban. Had TPH not self-reverted their initial Stony Point edit, or self-reverted it for a reason other than "I fear I'm flirting my topic ban," we wouldn't be here talking about this. JHD0919 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TenPoundHammer

First off, a polite reminder that I use they/them pronouns.

The level of coverage from the local newspaper has a strong historical precedent of being sufficient for shopping malls. Compare Muscatine Mall, Tri-City Pavilions, Colonial Plaza, University Park Mall, Swifton Center, or any of the other GA-class shopping mall articles out there. I think the precedent is very much in favor of Stony Point Fashion Park. (Is any of this flirting too close to "don't talk about notability when you're topic-banned"?)

I have made edits to articles that were at PROD, but to my knowledge no previous attempts have even implied that I shouldn't make any edits to an article at PROD. Even at David Slater, the warnings were about my invocation of WP:BLPUNDEL and discussions of notability being in violation of my topic ban (which I concede are valid concerns, and why I've tried to avoid discussions of notability since), and not the fact that I was making good-faith expansion of an article that at the time was at PROD. Even before the topic ban, I don't recall deprodding ever being an issue of concern for me.

I still decided to self-revert my Stony Point edit immediately as I wanted to play it safe after both the David Slater incident and my recent block. I know that past edits of mine have given the impression of trying to get one over on the topic ban, and I've tried to refrain myself from any such edits, which is why I'm hesitating and questioning.

I want to know what the right method is in a case like this. I genuinely do want to expand the Stony Point article because it's a topic of interest for which I have found substantial sourcing. It already was on a personal list I keep on my computer of articles I want to improve. So is it okay for me to just add those sources in or not? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

So it looks like there is no apparent objection to me editing articles at PROD so long as I don't go overboard. Per the precedent of Johnpacklambert's topic ban, does this also mean that removing PRODs is acceptable if I disagree with them and subsequently improve the article -- again if I don't overdo it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Toadspike

While I appreciate that the committee is heading towards allowing these specific edits by clarifying that PRODs are not deletion discussions, I think it would also be helpful to clarify whether regular editing of pages up for any kind of deletion is allowed. If I understand correctly, the topic ban was intended to stop disruptive communication with other editors, not issues with content, so I personally think that e.g. expanding an article with an ongoing AfD should not be restricted by this topic ban. Toadspike [Talk] 08:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

S Marshall

I think the topic ban was because TPH's deletion-related contributions were so prolific that TPH's personal opinions and thoughts about deletion were having a significant impact on the project.

TPH is a good faith editor, and a passionate and prosocial one. Their edits individually are unproblematic, as in this case.

But tens of thousands of such edits can become a problem when taken together.

This PROD-related stuff is fine in the volumes we're talking about here. But don't throw the floodgates wide open, please. Just let a little water through.—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

Can confirm that the drafters of the case (and ultimtately the committee through the votes) did not consider PROD a deletion discussion and crafted remedies with that understanding in mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens

Only in the most extreme circumstances, post-disastrous behavioral breaches, should any sanction be considered to prevent the good faith improvement of content facing any form of deletion through the appropriate addition of reliable sourcing. If we ever get so wrapped around the axle of disciplinary process that we lose sight of this, we are in trouble. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Cunard

A September 2024 clarification request concluded that "PROD and contesting proposed deletions are covered by the topic ban." The topic ban includes both actions until and unless the Arbitration Committee decides to overturn this previous decision.

I recommend allowing TenPoundHammer to contest proposed deletions and improve articles nominated for proposed deletion. I am not aware of any past disruption in that area.

I'm concerned that there will be disruption if they are allowed to nominate articles for proposed deletion. In this May 2022 ANI post, I wrote:

According to TenPoundHammer's last 5,000 contributions, between 12 May 2022 and 30 May 2022, TenPoundHammer nominated 637 articles for proposed deletion (based on a search of "Notification: proposed deletion"). In the same time period, TenPoundHammer brought 188 articles to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (based on a search of "Creating deletion discussion page"). In the last 18 days, TenPoundHammer has averaged 35 proposed deletions a day and 10 AfD nominations a day.

In an April 2024 amendment request, I wrote that I told TenPoundHammer that their redirects of television articles was controversial and they should stop. They did not heed my message and redirected over 50 more articles later that month. The Committee imposed a topic ban for blank-and-redirecting, suspended for a period of 12 months.

The suspended topic ban expired on 4 June 2025. TenPoundHammer was blocked four months later on 4 November 2025 for edit warring. They had blanked-and-redirected Gambino Family (group) six times and Ghetto Organized seven times. In the ANI thread TenPoundHammer started, another editor wrote, "What I find more disappointing is that @TenPoundHammer with 20 years on WP and over a quarter million edits stoops to multi-reverting in clear violation of 3RR and seemingly as a repeat of the behaviour that got a just-expired ban."

TenPoundHammer has made strong content contributions since their topic ban. I hope they can continue their good work in this area but stay away from areas that have caused trouble.

In the proposed decision, two arbitrators had recommended making proposed deletions explicit in the remedy but this did not happen. I ask that TenPoundHammer be topic banned from blank-and-redirects and proposed deletions but not topic banned on contesting proposed deletions and improving articles nominated for deletion.

In a previous amendment request, I did not receive a response on whether I should have submitted a separate amendment request (context). Please confirm whether I need to file a separate amendment request or if my request will be considered as part of this clarification. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Saw this at WP:AN, and I hope you don't mind a totally uninvolved editor chiming in. (If you do, feel free to remove this.)

Frankly, I don't understand why this is even considered to be related to TPH's bans at TenPoundHammer topic banned (1) and Amendment: TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban for blank-and-redirecting (June 2024). PRODs aren't discussions, and at a brief glance (which is all I know about this, having previously been unaware of this Arbcom case) I don't see anyone alleging that TPH was disruptively prodding or deprodding articles — and since the case banned two other users from deprodding articles, I daresay Arbcom would have included such a ban for TPH too, had this been intended — so I'm surprised that this is necessary at all. (Thank you to TPH for being careful about this.) If this were a community ban, and someone had raised the issue at WP:AN or WP:ANI, I'd say "no way is this a problem" and be dumbfounded if anyone sought sanctions. Since we've ended up here, Arbcom might as well say "sure, we didn't intend TPH's ban to cover prods", but otherwise no attention is needed. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit — now I see the link to the clarification request from last year. I'm very surprised by what was said there, and I don't think it wise at all. If I understand rightly, people objected to TPH nominating too many articles for deletion (thus overwhelming the system) and perhaps being too vigorous in seeking deletion. Deprodding an article helps to de-overwhelm the PROD system, and any inappropriate behaviour (e.g. abusing whoever prodded the article) can be dealt with as such, instead of with Arbcom sanctions. Just throw out all PROD-related restrictions (or if you absolutely have to keep some restrictions, create a completely new statement comprising all extant PROD-related restrictions) and make the whole thing simpler. But don't leave it in the clarification requests; that's just confusing for uninvolved admins and perhaps for involved parties too. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2025 (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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Lightbreather

Original discussion
motions enacted. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Lightbreather at 23:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Gun control topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
  2. Restricted to one account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
  3. 1RR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
  4. Reverse topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
  5. Interaction bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [12] diff of notification of Karanacs
  • [13] diff of notification of Mike Searson
  • [14] diff of notification of Sitush
  • [diff of notification of Scalhotrod] (not possible)
Information about amendment request

Statement by Lightbreather

Green tickY Extension granted to 750 words.


I successfully appealed my site ban in Sept. 2022. I stated I would wait at least 12 mos before asking to remove the other restrictions. The appeal is here: [15], including my "Dear community" promises.

I waited until this March to ask that the remaining restrictions be lifted. Between Sept. 2022 and March, I made hundreds of edits to dozens of articles, including the creation of (P. B. Young and Amy Kelly). I abided by my restrictions and behaved as promised, but the request was declined: [16]

It was suggested that I edit more and try again in a few months. I recently put a lot of work into improving Mexico–United States border wall, which had been the destination page for an unconventional "merge" from Trump wall. This work had the potential for conflict, but there was none. I also recently worked to improve Ed McCurdy.

I respectfully ask once again to have the rest of my restrictions removed. And I thank you once again for your consideration.

In anticipation of some of the questions that you might ask:

  • Re: recent inactivity: As I said previously, that will probably be a pattern for me: Edit for some length of time (days, weeks, or months) and then, out of choice or necessity, be inactive when my energy is directed elsewhere. (For instance, my dog died last May and I just adopted a young dog from the pound. She is going to need lots of supervision and training as she came in off the street.)
  • There is one other website that I have volunteered at for over 14 years, without incident. If the committee wishes to know my identity there, I will be happy to email the link.
  • Someone suggested at my last request that I am unable to join a project, contribute, and seek review, but that is untrue. In Jan. 2015 I set a goal to bring "Gun show loophole" to good article status, I invited others to join me, and we did it. Links: [17], [18], [19]
  • Rather than focus on the quantity of my edits since being unbanned, could I get some feedback on the quality of my work? Consider perhaps what user wbm1058 said [20] re my article on Amy Kelly.
  • In a nutshell, I would like to put the past - 10 years past - behind me and further prove myself. I promise I will not let the community down.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for the notification and consideration.

@Primefac: et al. I have explained why I "pop up" here to edit. Surely there are other editors in good standing who edit in this way. As for need, this is a sincere question: Is it policy that an editor must demonstrate a need to have a restriction lifted? Equally sincere: If an editor demonstrates that the restriction is no longer needed, is that not taken into consideration? Per the motion of Sept. 2022 [21], I have engaged in no behaviors identified in the Findings of Fact from my case, and I have adhered to normal editorial process and expectations. I understand that was about my site ban, but is it not relevant in considering my current requests?

@Anastrophe: My reverted response wasn't about guns, it was about an apology you made to me.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I have no intention or reason to create another account. If I want to someday, I will follow whatever policy is required. I would like all restrictions lifted because: 1) It took me four appeals just to get my site ban lifted and each attempt caused me extreme stress (which you will understand because of info I shared privately). 2) This is my second appearance before the committee to request lifting my remaining restrictions, and the thought of having to return a third or fourth time stresses me badly just to think about. 3) I feel I have shown that I am perfectly capable of editing here productively and without conflict, unlike the spring of 2015.

Arbs: Keeping this short for word-count and stress reasons. 1) Discussion A. mentions was in response to notifications on my talk page about gun-related articles. I neither can nor want to discuss guns on-wiki. 2) Said discussion was in a private area. 3) The quote A. gave was about Scalhotrod, banned for sexually harassing me. 4) More I will discuss via email, for word-count and stress reasons. 5) WPO has "shit-talking" members (as A. wrote) but there are many guys (it's mostly men, like here) who are temperate. A kind one proved to WMF Scalhotrod's abuse.

Statement by Karanacs

Statement by Mike Searson

Statement by Sitush

Statement by Drmies, former arb and friend of the show

OK, I never got the "one account requirement"--the only thing that's different is arb approval rather than arb notification. Might as well do away with it. The other restrictions should also, in my opinion, be lifted. LB had been editing conflict-free, has done good work, and should be just another member of the flock. The inactivity doesn't concern me at all: LB offered reasons for it, but the question is, IMO, just not really appropriate: we all have lives. My edit count over the last year will tell you I've been going through things but that's just not relevant to my participation here. Same applies to LB. I favor a lifting of all restrictions. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Wbm1058

  • I too support a reversal of all sanctions, for time served. But, it seems too late for that as it appears that she's throwing in the towel and giving up on the idea of ever getting her good name back. Her next step may be to request a WP:Courtesy vanishing, which as far as I know, she doesn't need to have her sanctions lifted in order to do that – or does she?! She's made a boatload of edits on Mexico–United States border wall, which have stuck, without drama. What the hell more does she need to do to demonstrate she's a capable editor in controversial topic areas? – wbm1058 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • This is not a "one fell swoop" request. There was a previous request to undo one of six. A "one fell swoop" would be to undo all six at once. This is just to undo #2 through #6. I also point out that all six remedies were imposed in ONE FELL SWOOP. If you can impose six with one fell swoop, what's the big deal with taking two fell swoops to terminate all of them? If y'all didn't wait until things got to ten times boiling point to even accept a case, then you might not feel the need to impose so many sanctions at once, and if sanctions were imposed over time as a series of escalations, then it might make more sense to relax them over time as well. /soapbox wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Per Drmies above. Time served. Please lift. Andreas JN466 22:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Anastrophe

(Sorry, I'm back)
I'd never heard of "wikipediocracy.com", and wish I still hadn't. I'm loathe to ever revisit it.

I have questions.†
Shouldn't arb committee members who are active members on that site, and have interacted with requestor there, recuse? I ask this in good faith. Interaction offsite with requestor strikes me as 'giving even the whiff of impropriety' which is generally seen as enough to recuse, in my general understanding. I am not implying any impropriety - I don't believe there is any - only the potential appearance of it.†

Shouldn't the 'notification of involved users' be more than three inactive and one that's banned? Item 3 in 'submitting a request' seems to imply so. All editors who contributed commentary in the original site ban, the failed return attempt(s), and the restricted return, deserve to be notified and to contribute. They are all 'party' to this upcoming decision, for all intents and purposes. I again ask this in good faith.†

†I understand that these sorts of procedural queries probably won't be addressed here, as this isn't the right venue. If you're inclined to clue me in on my talk page, fine. If not, fine. I recognize you all have a lot on your respective plates, and that indirect communication with me on these queries may be verboten.

I've been led astray. The old behaviors are still patent on wikipediocracy. Shit-talking existing editors of various stripe, by name. Obsessively trying to 'prove' that a current editor is really a long-gone/banned editor, soliciting for more 'proof' of same, offering to privately share their 'proof', because, and I quote: "I do *not* want them to be allowed to edit at WP" (ital emphasis mine). Still obsessed with gun-related topics, and dismayed they are being edited by "gun nuts". These are some of the behaviors that contributed to the site ban, and based on a reading of recent activity there, haven't abated in the slightest. The requestor has not learned from past mistakes.

I no longer believe that anything in "Dear community" is authentic or can be trusted.

Rescind Motions B, C, D and E. Sure, I guess. Motion A? No. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you for your reply and clarity with the link to 'involved'. As I've said elsewhere many times, but not here, over the decades I have intentionally tried—as much as possible—to avoid learning about the arcane, medieval bureaucracies that are rife on WP. This creates an intentional disability that I'm willing to live with, in order to minimize engagement in such entanglements - but sometimes I'm obligated to engage. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: As above. I was asking a question. I was ignorant of WP:INVOLVED. Apologies. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by FIM

Per Drmies, lift all restrictions (with the possible exception of the one a/c restriction). I also agree that LB's levels are wholly in accordance with community ethos. She has 750 edits to mainspace this year—ironically more than most active arbs! (OK, it's apples/oranges), But she's demonstrated a commitment to uncontroversial article work which should not be used against her. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Out of curiosity, what defines "interaction" on another site? Quoting one of her posts? Commenting in a particular thread? /or, perhaps, simply being a member is sufficient...? —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

confused face icon Just curious...has ArbCom decided to put #8 of Larry Sanger's 9 Theses into play? My thoughts actually bounce back to User:Jytdog so will he also be coming back? I realize each case is different, but...is Wikipedia now completely erasing all lines? Atsme 💬 📧 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Luckily Sanger published that, otherwise no one would have ever been unbanned or unblocked after an indef, That's how things were before he wrote that, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Oh nevermind, I just checked and LB was already unbanned before that list was published. So I guess the answer is no, it had no impact at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

(re Atsme) indefinite blocks, even those imposed by ArbCom, have always meant "until it is no longer needed" not "forever" so, no, nothing has changed. Jytdog will be welcome to return if they (a) appeal, and (b) convince ArbCom (and possibly the community, I can't remember the details off the top of my head) that they will not repeat the behaviours that result in their ban. Lightbreather's appeal is completely unrelated to a hypothetical appeal by Jytdog (and, afair, both were entirely uninvolved in why the other was banned) though so I don't understand why you think it is relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector (Lightbreather)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: isn't replying to comments in other users' sections frowned upon here? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Much like the sectioned discussion on the pending decision talk pages, Arbs have some latitude to reply where they think it would be most effective or constructive. Since it didn't have to do much with the actual report (much like this response) it's better off outside of the arb deliberation and discussion sections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Cool. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

(general comments) I normally oppose lifting one account restrictions on principle, but Lightbreather is under this restriction from having edited while logged out once, ten years ago. I can't tell why the Committee imposed it in the first place.

For the other restrictions, I stopped reading when I saw that the newest of them is a decade old. I frankly don't care about anything else, having happened while Obama was still in the White House.

The restrictions should be lifted, not for time served but because Lightbreather has kept their side of the bargain, and because they clearly are here to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I note some suggesting Lightbreather's gun control topic ban shouldn't be lifted because the topic is "still" a political hot potato. Are you all going to insist that the Americans actually solve their gun violence problem before Lightbreather can be allowed back in the topic again? Just in case you haven't noticed, things are trending in the opposite direction, to put it mildly. It's not Lightbreather's fault that Americans can't get their shit together. Among parties to the original case only Lightbreather has made any progress towards returning, and keeping them banned prevents no disruption and helps nobody.
Lightbreather's site ban was lifted on a probationary basis back in 2022 yet Lightbreather's block log is empty since the lifting of that block. I see no (good) reason not to try lifting the topic ban on the same probationary basis. I read these comments as grasping at politically sensitive straws and perpetually moving goalposts to keep a productive contributor banned forever. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
@EggRoll97: the {{ACWordStatus}} template you placed here is producing an inaccurate count. The comment that ScottishFinnishRadish inserted here is 53 words on its own, and should not be included in my total. Please update the count. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement condensed to comply with (still broken) word limit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Iljhgtn

I would like to recommend that Lightbreather not have their topic ban rescinded. This gun control topic ban was put in place it would seem with very good cause, and this editor shows an obsession with the topic of gun control, and any editors who have touched the area. From that prior matter, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." Lightbreather continues to make bad faith off-wiki attacks but has never reached out to me for comment or brought any matter to WP:Dispute Resolution involving me that I am aware of. Lightbreather has recently made comments and threads on Wikipediocracy attacking my character immediately preceding this ArbCom request, all beginning on August 31, 2025. Lightbreather claimed I am someone named Scalhotrod (apparently that editor had a history with Lightbreather, I did not know either of them until I saw the threads). I think it would be a mistake to remove any of these restrictions, but especially the topic ban. They are not able to edit in that area without extreme POV pushing and may have attempted to dox me. I have never seen another editor assume bad faith worse than Lightbreather did on there. I hesitated to make this comment, but it would appear as if some people believe that Lightbreather has reformed from their very contentious editing of the past. Judging by the prior discussions I read here, and the off-wiki discussions, that does not seem to be the case. Thank you to the ArbCom, and for anyone that has already commented, I think it would be worth reconsidering your support for ending this restriction. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Evidence has been emailed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks Iljhgtn (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Iggy pop goes the weasel

I don't see a need for ongoing restrictions that aren't being violated and haven't been for a long time. It should be pretty clear that a block or other sanctions can be easily reapplied if problematic behavior resumes, but we should give productive editors a chance to continue showing us they won't be a problem. Keeping unnecessary restrictions in place appears punitive vs preventative, which flies in the face of the general spirit of Wikipedia. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (other editor)

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.

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by automatic template check

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion A: Gun control topic ban rescinded ????Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with heading
Motion A: Gun control topic ban rescinded
0 0 Currently not passing Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?". 2 supports conditional on Motion C failing
Motion B: Restricted to one account rescinded ????Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with heading
Motion B: Restricted to one account rescinded
0 0 Currently not passing Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Motion C: 1RR rescinded ????Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with heading
Motion C: 1RR rescinded
0 0 Currently not passing Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Motion D: Reverse topic ban rescinded ????Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with heading
Motion D: Reverse topic ban rescinded
0 0 Currently not passing Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Motion E: Interaction bans rescinded ????Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with heading
Motion E: Interaction bans rescinded
0 0 Currently not passing Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".

Notes


Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As with the previous request, I am recusing. - Aoidh (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • One of the big issues raised in the last appeal was lack of activity. This appeal follows about a month of activity following 5 months of inactivity after the last appeal. There's no explanation of why they want or need the ibans, one account restriction, or 1RR lifted. There was some discussion in the last appeal about the reverse topic ban being onerous, and I'm most amenable to lifting that. Giving this more thought, but I didn't want this to sit here with LB not knowing that it's being considered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    anastrophe, I assume you're talking about my single reply on September 3rd,
    You mean small caliber semi-automatic pistols with standard magazines, right?
    I stay away from gun debates on Wikipedia because the drama to constructive editing ratio isn't worth it without some impetus, like BLP concerns, but I know a lot of firearm owners, as well as being one myself. The general gist I've gotten in discussions is that they're bothered by the focus on the type of weapon by people who don't know that an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 are capable of the same thing, but push against ARs because the furniture looks tacticool. Focusing on ARs is like focusing on F-150s and Silverados. Sure, they're involved in the most fatal crashes, but they're also very popular and there's a ton of them in use.
    That's not directly related to Wikipedia editing, but I assume that gun editors follow the same general vein as gun owners. Just like they don't care the brand or model of shotgun I used to take a deer, they don't care about the brand or model a criminal used and find the the focus on it misses the point.
    As far as I'm aware that is my single interaction with LB outside of Arbcom. That falls well below include[ing] current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature or age of the dispute. Simply having been in a discussion with and having made a single reply to another editor does not make one involved, or the easiest way to avoid sanctions would be to vote in every RFA and respond to an admin in any discussion you see them in. If you'd like to discuss this in further detail feel free to reach out on my talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • My initial thoughts are similar to those of SFR. I will note that this is a standard I would give to just about any request; a period of sustained activity is more likely to demonstrate need/ability (depending on circumstance) than popping up out of nowhere and asking for things. Primefac (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Re Lightbreather: it is (clearly) not a policy, just my own opinion on the matter. I will also note that it does not preclude someone from getting what they ask, just that it makes the decision a lot easier. I am still waiting on a few responses but I will note that at the moment I am leaning positively towards most of your requests. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm of a mind to support lifting restrictions and throwing out some rope. Unfortunate to see LB reverse course after just a few days and threaten to quit but I understand that Wiki life can be stressful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Supportive of removing the reverse topic ban and the interaction bans. Open to removing the topic ban and 1RR, pending further input from the community and my colleagues. Opposed to removing the one account restriction. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • In general, I don't agree with lifting all restrictions in one fell swoop. I hear the concerns about activity but I also take Drmies's point, and I can see that a restriction as onerous as the reverse topic ban might contribute to a decline in activity. I'm open to a loosening of restrictions as the first step on the road towards removing them, but not to lifting them all outright. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I've had a tough time making up my mind here. I (and I think most Arbs) usually want to see a decent amount of activity before lifting sanctions, with a higher bar for sanctions that don't meaningfully impact one's ability to contribute (such as a one-account restriction). Someone staying inactive doesn't necessarily show that problematic behavior won't recur when that person becomes more active -- it's not evidence against that editor, it just means we don't have enough information to really tell.
Looking specifically: Lightbreather's recent contributions are good, including contributions in contentious topics. Additionally, after a few days for input, no one in the community has expressed concerns. While Lightbreather hasn't has had sustained activity over the past few years, she has been sporadically active; since being unbanned, there's been six months where's she's made at least fifty edits, mostly to articles. Given these circumstances, I support lifting all sanctions. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Last time, Lightbreather was told to become more active. She's made over 500 mainspace edits in 2025 and 800 since her unban in 2022. Let's keep in mind that she's a volunteer, under no obligation to maintain any activity standard. Lightbreather was 10 years ago. I think that we can move on, and hope that people change after a decade. I support lifting everything. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Quite the Catch-22 you've set up, Anastrophe – how is Lightbreather supposed to prove she's no longer a threat to disrupt to the gun control topic area when she's no longer allowed to touch the topic area, if her word and productive editing elsewhere isn't enough? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Motions: Rescinding of Lightbreather restrictions

I have presented these motions all individually, to allow them to be voted on separately, per the split in commentary in the arbitrator views and discussion section above between 'rescind all' and 'rescind some'. (I have kept the interaction bans as one proposal, given they were one remedy in the original case.) Once the below motions are all concluded either way, any motion(s) that pass can presumably be actioned as a singular unit. Daniel (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Motion A: Gun control topic ban rescinded

Remedy 2 (Lightbreather: Gun control topic-ban) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

Enacted – Sennecaster (Chat) 18:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. On the condition that her 1RR remain. If motion C passes, treat this as an oppose. I think that gun control is not as hot a topic as it was ten years ago. But if we're going to lift the ban, I think that she would only benefit from the restraint a 1RR poses. Easier to not edit war if you can't be tempted to. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. Looks like it's breaking this direction, allow gun control edits, keep 1RR. That works for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. See my comment above. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  6. If the 1RR remains, I'm a support. If 1RR is lifted, I'm an oppose. Katietalk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  7. Per WP:ROPE, if Lightbreather displays more concerns in the topic area, they can be topic-banned again. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  8. Contingent on the 1RR restriction remaining. Cabayi (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Gun control was at the very heart of the issues and remains a hot-button issue. I'm willing to assume good faith that Lightbreather has mellowed over the years and therefore willing to think about loosening restrictions, but reintroducing a a controversial editor into an emotive topic area is not the place to start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. I can't say I'm keen, per Harry. WormTT(talk) 09:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion

Motion B: Restricted to one account rescinded

Remedy 3 (Lightbreather: Restricted to one account) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

Enacted – Sennecaster (Chat) 18:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. Socking doesn't seem to have been the biggest issue in the case, and any future socking would be sanctionable in its own right. I do honestly believe that Lightbreather wants to rehabilitate her reputation so it seems unlikely that she would jeopardise that with socking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. I'm unaware of any allegations of sockpuppetry that aren't many many years old. The last block for socking was in 2014. See my comment above and I agree with Harry. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. It's been over a decade since the last block for socking. It's already against policy to use a sock incorrectly, so I think I'm fine lifting this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. Per above, especially SFR. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  6. I am weakly here; our sock puppet rules cover most cases of improper use of a secondary account, and I suspect Lightbreather has no interest in creating legitimate alts anyway. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  7. I am going to take LB's statement I have no intention or reason to create another account. If I want to someday, I will follow whatever policy is required on face value and (somewhat weakly) support this, moving from oppose. The fact that the 1RR restriction is being maintained means a clean start and many other uses of alternate accounts is off the table anyways. Daniel (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
    Daniel (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Moved to support. Daniel (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. I see no reason to lift this now. Katietalk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. Don't see the benefit. WormTT(talk) 09:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. Cabayi (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Is there any pressing reason why they would need this restriction removed other than wanting to be out from under sanctions? Lightbreather, do you have any intention of creating or using alternate accounts? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Motion C: 1RR rescinded

Remedy 4 (Lightbreather: 1RR) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. I haven't seen any recent evidence of edit-warring and doubt that Lightbreather will start now. See my comment above. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. Looks like the other arbs had a stronger preference than myself for which sanction to remove and which to leave, and that works for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. Willing to be convinced, but edit-warring was an issue and this is not an onerous restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  6. Per Harry. Katietalk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  7. Discussion is better than reverting. This doesn't need to be lifted at this time, especially if the topic ban is lifted. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  8. WormTT(talk) 09:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  9. Cabayi (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

I'm more likely to support one of the other between this and the gun control topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Motion D: Reverse topic ban rescinded

Remedy 5 (Lightbreather: Reverse topic ban) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

Enacted – Sennecaster (Chat) 18:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Daniel (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. This is a particularly onerous restriction and of dubious necessity a decade on. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  6. It is a particularly onerous restriction. Deliberately, and necessarily, so at the time but I'm not sure it was intended to last a decade. Rather, it should have provided a path back to good standing. I'm willing to lift this as an attempt to put Lightbreather on that path and hope that she stays on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  7. See my comment above. I think that it is very plausible that this restriction is discouraging greater participation. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  8. Katietalk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  9. A very harsh restriction. I think a narrower topic ban would have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, per WP:ROPE, if more problems come up a topic ban on specific pages can be reimposed. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  10. Yes, I can accept this. WormTT(talk) 09:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  11. Cabayi (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion

Motion E: Interaction bans rescinded

The interaction bans assumed by the Arbitration Committee in Remedy 6A (Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)) of Lightbreather are rescinded.

Enacted – Sennecaster (Chat) 18:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Daniel (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. Only one editor is really impacted here. Of the four editors she was ibanned with, two are now blocked, one hasn't edited since 2019, and the other is Sitush, who hasn't edited in five months. If Sitush comes back and says no, I'd consider opposing. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  6. See my comment above. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  7. Willing to see how this goes; if Sitush has a problem with it, we can address it when they return. Katietalk 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  8. Per Katie. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  9. It's kind of moot given the absence of those LB should not be interacting with. Cabayi (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'd rather the iBans stay in place. They are de facto rescinded for the reasons laid out by Eek, but I don't agree they should be removed. WormTT(talk) 09:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. I'm undecided here. I also have some previous involvement (I was on good terms with Eric Corbett and I imposed the interaction ban on Mike Searson), so I'll sit this part out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original discussion
Motion enacted. GoldRomean (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Johnpacklambert at 16:43, 18 October 2025 (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. 4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  2. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [diff of notification Username]
  • [diff of notification Username]
Information about amendment request
  • 4) Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • I want it to be clear this clause allows me to participate in categories for discussion
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
    • State the desired modification

Statement by Johnpacklambert

The restriction on my participation in deletion discussions and related discussions was imposed in July 2022. I understand that I was at times too combative on issues and apologize for that. The discussion at the time focused only on my participation in article deletion discussions. However when the restriction was written it was written in a way to cover topic discussions on things other than articles. This included a ban on participation in discussions about categories. After almost 38 months I am asking that that specific part of the restriction be lifted so that I can participate in discussions about deleting, merging and renaming categories. I understand these restrictions were imposed for wise reasons back in 2022, but I feel allowing me to participate in Category discussions would be reasonable at this time. The decision speaks of reconsideration after 12 months. There has been no discussion on this restriction now for I believe 22 months, and I better understand now how to cooperate with others. I feel allowing me to participate in Categories for discussion discussions would be a reasonable modification of this restruliction at this time. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  • I was wrong in my actions in late 2022 that lead to a total editing ban for a time. That was over 3 years ago and I have not done anything like that since. I have tried to avoid discussing deleting articles at all. My understanding was that the ban applied to articles. I did not think it prevented me from making comments on the organization of categories. I was under the impression that I was not able to participate at CfD because the pan on Afd was extended to other general discussion formats. My understanding though was that the broad ban on discussing deletion was a ban on deleting of articles, broadly construed, and did not apply to non-article things such as categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

The best way to learn if an editor has learned their lesson, is to allow them to prove it. Recommend lifting the aforementioned restrictions. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Per GoodDay above, that's the way to find out if it's going to work. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by HouseBlaster

Johnpacklambert has a habit of requesting that editors merge categories, time and time again. Their talk archives have plenty of examples (I have yet to find one without such comments), and they were blocked for violating their topic ban back in 2022 following an AE thread.

I gave Mr. Lambert a note about this last year, and it seems the behavior has continued. However, AE seems to think that merge/rename nominations are not covered by the topic ban. I strongly believe that merger discussions are covered; the only difference at CFD between "merge" and "delete" is whether the former contents of the category are added to another before deletion. I have no firm opinion on whether rename discussions at CFD are covered, though a sizeable minority of rename nominations end with deletion or merging. If the ban is not lifted or narrowed, some clarification on what is and is not permitted would be appreciated.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Harry, I was deliberately vague about that because I don't have a firm opinion on the matter :) ... consider my above comment something of a Brandeis brief.

From what I can tell, the restriction was a deliberately overbroad; to paraphrase a recent vote of yours, it was ensuring the same caravan did not pack up and move on to overzealous deletion of categories or files or drafts. Mr. Lambert was already under a community XFD restriction, an unrelated topic ban in religion, his block log is not super pretty, and a site ban was on the table and was seriously considered; in those circumstances, broad strokes would seem wise. Using more refined strokes would not be a terrible idea, though I would oppose repealing the ban wholesale; the article deletion processes (PROD, AFD, BLARing articles) should continue to be covered. A suspended removal, allowing uninvolved admins to reinstate the ban if need be, would be wise. In other words, I think a probationary lift allowing all participation regarding CFD would not be a terrible idea.

My impression of Mr. Lambert's comments are that they are helpful, though I have not read them in detail. I would be curious to hear Smasongarrison's thoughts on lifting the topic ban; she is a category superstar, CFD regular, and has interacted with Mr. Lambert frequently. My real advice would be to listen to whatever she says :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Pppery

This topic ban was imposed for overzealous behavior in AfD discussions. It never made sense to expand its scope beyond AfD discussions and I would suggest it be narrowed to that. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Smasongarrison

I have mixed feelings about JPL becoming more involved at CFD. He has a long history with categorization. Most of the discussion has focused on his topic ban in terms of article work, but historically, he's had similar issues in categorization (e.g.,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:_Johnpacklambert_emptying_categories_prematurely;_edit_warring, which makes this directly relevant here.

On one hand, I do think he's shown real growth. When editors are willing to put in the time to work with him, he's open to the feedback and able to have productive conversations. On the other hand, consistent follow-through on that feedback hasn't been his strong suit.

My main concern with full participation at CFD is that he can be extremely rigid on certain topics, particularly when it comes to distinctions between nationals from modern and/or former countries. That rigidity tends to cause recurring friction (e.g., recent ones include [22] User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2025/October#Manually_overriding_templates, User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2025/August#Please_populate,_parent,_and_sort_key_the_categories_you_create). There's also a bit of irony in his approach: he often points out that categories are underpopulated and should be merged, but he continues to create new, narrowly defined ones of the same kind, without recognizing the contradiction.

All that said, I don't think the answer is to exclude him entirely. He does have good ideas and, given structure and oversight, can make valuable contributions. I'd support allowing him to comment in CFD discussions but not to make proposals himself. I think that that would strike the balance between giving him the opportunity to demonstrate his growth, without disrupting the project. SMasonGarrison 05:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Question: Do the two proposals allow him to propose categories for deletion? It's not clear to me based on how they're written.SMasonGarrison 22:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
To my reading, yes. Daniel (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! SMasonGarrison 01:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by FOARP

I've been very occasionally keeping tabs on JPL and as far as I can see the ban converted them into an effective, productive, gnoming member of the EN WP community, and they have (admittedly with some shakiness at the start) kept their nose clean. I can't claim to have reviewed every edit they've made since the ARBCOM decision, but the ones I've reviewed have been entirely on-point. In the spirit of WP:ROPE I think at the very least the request can be granted, and that possibly loosening of restrictions can go further. FOARP (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

S Marshall

  • As a participant in the Arbcom case being modified, I would support this provided that JPL's reintroduction to deletion discussions is rate-limited in some way, such as for example: (a) participating in no more than one XfD at a time (he can choose a new one to participate in when the previous one is closed); or (b) editing no more than one XfD page per day.
JPL's conduct in individual XfDs isn't highly problematic. It's the aggregate effect of participating in hundreds of them.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
500 words is very long for a CFD !vote, isn't it?—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The obvious corollary to my first comment, of course, is that I would oppose this if not rate-limited in some fashion. JPL can be very prolific indeed, and CFD is not all that well-attended, so he could have a significant impact on how our category system works. Simply put: we need it to be JPL that adapts to our category structure and not the other way around.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

At the time of the decision, JPL asked if merges were included in the topic ban, and then arb L235 answered yes something that I, as another then arb agreed with at that time. I believe there might have been more discussion about this either on arbwiki or the list (or maybe it was IRC) at the time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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).

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Sdrqaz (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion: Johnpacklambert topic ban amended (categories exception) ????Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with heading
Motion: Johnpacklambert topic ban amended (categories exception)
0 0 Currently not passing Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Motion: Johnpacklambert topic ban amended (limited categories exception) ????Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with heading
Motion: Johnpacklambert topic ban amended (limited categories exception)
0 0 Currently not passing Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?". 6 supports second choice to first motion

Notes

  • I'm reasonably receptive to this request but XfD is not my area of expertise. HouseBlaster@ should I take your comment as opposition to the request? Besides the ambiguity of whether the restriction applies to CfD, have JPL's contributions there been disruptive or unhelpful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • There was some discussion of whether merge discussions are incorporated into this sanction at that AE thread, but I think the controlling factor was really the nature of his participation and the question wasn't fully dissected. I would hold that participating directly in a merge discussion almost certainly violates the restriction. They involve whether a standalone page should exist or not, which gives them a lot of the same personal-philosophy baggage as AfD.
    As for amending the sanction to allow weighing in on categories, I'm hesitant. As I understand it, the category area combines a lot of procedural rigor with a tendency for controversy disproportionate to the weight of the matter a la ARBCAPS. If we were to do something that allows him to show he's here to contribute constructively, I'd say an unban that allows for a maximum of 3 CfD comments per day – limited to 1 comment per thread, 500 words per comment, and no nominations – would be my starting place. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    happy for it to be 250 as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I think leek's idea for cats is a reasonable way to proceed, maybe with a 6 month wait before review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with leeky's proposed modification. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above, but tend to also agree with S Marshall's comment that 500 feels quite long. Reckon 250-300 is the sweet spot - this comment, for reference, is 42. Twelve times the length of this, is a very long CfD comment. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • There was a 2022 clarification request and 2023 amendment request on the possibility of a categories exemption to the topic ban. Based on community input here, I think that we can loosen this, especially since some of the cited misconduct is quite old.
    I don't like overly-complicated restrictions: enforcement eats into time and energy that is better spent elsewhere. Of the options so far (word limits, nomination ban, CfD rate limit) I think that having all would be too much: from the case's findings, the main issue is the speed at which Johnpacklambert works, so I would have only the CfD limit that automatically expires. If we want to give someone the ability to show that they have changed, having an extremely short leash is not always helpful. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I would prefer a suspended removal over rate-limiting participation; if we really are willing to give them slack to demonstrate their changed ways, we might as well just do it rather than kick the can down the road and have to revisit this (again) six months down the line. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • A quick update - noting that there's general sentiment to make some sort of amendment here, just working out wording etc. with colleagues and we'll be able to post some motions for voting at some point hopefully soon. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Motions: Amending of Johnpacklambert topic ban

These motions are based off two competing suggestions in the 'arbitrator views and discussion' section above. They have been lightly workshopped internally. These are competing proposals (only one can pass), so stating first choice/second choice preferences where supporting both would be very helpful. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Motion: Johnpacklambert topic ban amended (categories exception)

Remedy 4 (Johnpacklambert topic banned) of Conduct in deletion-related editing is amended as follows:

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed, except for categories for discussion; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Should Johnpacklambert fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area, any uninvolved administrator may remove the categories for discussion exception (therefore reinstating the topic ban for all deletion discussions) as an arbitration enforcement action. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After twelve months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, this provision allowing for reinstatement by an uninvolved administrator will automatically lapse.

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. First choice. This was a good suggestion from Sdrqaz and Primefac above, and the text added was based off previous similar suspensions. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. First choice. - Aoidh (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. This works for me, first choice, with the understanding that bludgeoning and flooding processes is disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. Support first choice. While it is getting into the "too complicated" territory, I like that this motion empowers administrators to step in without needing to come to ArbCom. If Johnpacklambert has any concerns with an administrator's actions against them, they can email ArbCom. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. Equal choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  6. First choice. - Cabayi (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  7. First choice: allows Johnpacklambert the needed space to demonstrate change. I don't think that this is complicated: it allows him to work at CfD with the understanding that misconduct will lead to sanctions. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  8. First choice per Sdrqaz. Easy to understand, does what it says on the tin, strikes the balance between preventing disruption and giving JPL a chance to rehabilitate his reputation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Motion: Johnpacklambert topic ban amended (limited categories exception)

Remedy 4 (Johnpacklambert topic banned) of Conduct in deletion-related editing is amended as follows:

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed, except for categories for discussion (where he is limited to participating in three discussions per day); (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Second choice. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. I understand the intent of the three discussions per day verbiage, but I'd prefer the first motion, since it allows JPL to contribute more fully, while allowing to the revocation of that exception if there are any issues. - Aoidh (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. See above. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. Equal choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  6. Second choice. - Cabayi (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  7. Second choice, since enforcement of complicated restrictions eats into time and energy that is better spent elsewhere, and we will be stuck here again some time down the line when there is a request to remove the rate limit. Still supporting since it is still a path to demonstrating change and the previous issue was speed, but this is just too narrow for me. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  8. Second choice. The first motion is cleaner and simpler and provides a mechanism for any problems to be addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Transgender healthcare and people

Original discussion
Consensus of commenting arbitrators is that the restriction applies to discussing user conduct, at any noticeboard. Daniel (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Springee at 22:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Transgender healthcare and people 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:

Statement by Springee

I'm seeking clarification on the scope of my restriction from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. I have presumed that means ANI, ARE, 3RR, user conduct ARBCOM cases, and possibly COIN would be off limits absent an admin saying I can post as an involved editor. Out of caution I asked about participating in a VP topic[23] about ANI[24]. Rosguill suggested I seek clarification[25] after my posts in this discussion at NPOVN[26]. The discussion in that thread was primarily focused on the neutrality of a series of edits. I didn't comment on any potential COI. To what extent can I comment on editor behavior outside of the forums I listed? Am I allowed to comment that Editor A's comment about Editor B was a personal attack? Can I ask Editor B to retract the comment? Thank you Springee (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

SFR, I don't think that makes for a clear line while making a lot of areas potentially off limits if someone claims any sort of behavior issues. In the example above there were two questions, COI and NPOV. The COI would be user conduct, is the NPOV question? Am I excluded from a NPOV or even a RSN question if someone starts raising behavior questions as part of the discussions? The finding of fact dealt with ANI/ARE where I often argued for lesser sanctions. It feels like any and all discussions of editor conduct is much wider than the issue that was raised. Is it reasonable to ask that the line is drawn at the noticeboards I listed + any part of any noticeboard discussion regarding sanctions of a specific editor(s). This would leave content related questions still open as well as the ability to ask for things like striking a personal attack. That would make a clear line an avoid inadvertent cases where content questions are mixed with behavior questions. Springee (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Two follow up questions. If the topic starts as non-user behavior is the topic OK so long as I stay away from any behavior aspect? Using something similar to the NPOVN thread above, if the question was originally raised as a pure question of neutrality then evolved into accusations of editor behavior I assume I would be allowed to participate initially (before any conduct questions were raised). Can I continue to discuss just the content question if others start raising behavior issues or does that automatically remove me from the discussion?
Second, if I see something I think is an editor behavior issue (edit warring, personal attacks etc) what paths do I have to address the concerns? Springee (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell:, I want to make sure I understand something you just said because it seems like an expansion of the sanction. The sanction says editor conduct at noticeboards. It's clear that this isn't just the usual conduct noticeboards but also discussions about editor conduct at places like NPOVN and, if it were an issue, even at RSN. However, it sounds like you are saying this would apply at article talk pages and user talk pages as well. Thus if I see someone being uncivil to another editor, am I not allowed to point that out? Springee (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
@Springee the remedy says noticeboards specifically. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
OK, I was concerned, "Discussing editors is off-limits regardless of venue" (emphasis mine) was intended to mean even article and user talk pages. I think we are all on the same page if we agree no discussion of user conduct on the list of noticeboards here [27]. Springee (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2025 (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.

Transgender healthcare and people: Clerk notes

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

Transgender healthcare and people: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • It's user conduct on a noticeboard, so yeah, stay away from it. There's a lot of hybrid locations and noticeboards, so if you see it's about editor conduct stay away from it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    Springee, I feel like if we modify this it's likely going to be wider, like any discussion that concerns an editor's behavior. The section in question opens with I'd like other's perspective on @Iljhgtn's edits in relation to Elliott Broidy, which is plainly a discussion on an editor's conduct on a noticeboard. It's not some tertiary point. I can understand the initial confusion or uncertainty, but I think staying away from noticeboard discussions specifically on editor conduct in hybrid venues should be clear enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    This is just one arb's opinion, but if a discussion started off as purely content, part of it turned into a discussion about an editor's behavior, and you avoided the behavioral part of the discussion I wouldn't see an issue with that. For your second question, bring it to an admin and if they tell you bring it to a noticeboard then bring it to a noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree with SFR's interpretation. Cabayi (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I also agree with SFR. Daniel (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • My default advice about all bans is "if you are unsure whether it does, the ban applies". Which is perfectly applicable here too and answers even the follow-up question. Unsure enough to ask here? Ban applies.
    [...] does that automatically remove me from the discussion? – At very least from the behavioral part of it, which may quickly turn the entire noticeboard section into a minefield for you. When you see the focus shifting to conduct, please just stay away from the discussion from that point on. You have likely made your point about the content already anyway and repeating it in different words wouldn't improve the discussion.
    Other users' behavior, if actually disruptive, will surely be seen soon enough by someone who can take the necessary steps. This never has to be you. I'm fine with you reporting it to an admin as SFR describes, but you're probably overestimating the necessity of this and Wikipedia will continue existing without your intervention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree with SFR and TBF. Discussing editors is off-limits regardless of venue. If in doubt, assume the ban applies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

Original discussion
Amended. ~delta (talk • cont) 19:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by L235 at 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Noticeboard_scope_2
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
    • Expand the scope to a broader set of communtiy-imposed general sanctions

Statement by L235

In 2022, as part of WP:CT2022, ArbCom authorized AE to hear requests or appeals relating to community-designated contentious topics, so long as the community wanted AE to hear those requests or appeals. A recent RfC has taken ArbCom up on this offer and now allows community-designated contentious topics (CCTOPs) to be enforced at AE.

In the process of writing the documentation at AE to implement this RfC, I have noticed that the current language has the potential to create its own confusion, because AE can only hear requests and appeals that arise from CCTOP enforcement and not enforcement of other community remedies like 1RR or ECR. To clarify what I mean, there are currently four buckets of community-authorized general sanctions:

  1. Plain CCTOP designations without 1RR or ECR (WP:GS/UKU, WP:GS/PW, WP:GS/MJ, WP:GS/UYGHUR, WP:GS/ACAS);
  2. CCTOP designations plus 1RR (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:GS/Crypto);
  3. ECR to supplement an existing ArbCom CTOP (WP:RUSUKR, which imposes community ECR within the broader WP:CT/EE; WP:GS/AA, which imposes community ECR to supplement WP:CT/A-A; WP:GS/KURD, which imposes community ECR to supplement WP:CT/KURD); and
  4. Plain non-CCTOP restrictions (WP:GS/PAGEANT, which authorizes indefinite semiprotections).

Now that the community has authorized enforcement of CCTOPs at AE, bucket #1 works great. But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC.

This state of affairs is quite confusing because some restrictions within a topic can be enforced (and some enforcement actions can be appealed) at AE, but not all of them. I can't think of a principled reason for this difference in treatment. I would therefore ask that ArbCom permit the community to designate AE as a place to hear enforcement requests and appeals for a broader set of topicwide restrictions.

Below I've included some suggested motion text, but the exact way this is done is of course up to ArbCom.

After such a motion is enacted, the community would then need to allow the use of the AE noticeboard in those cases, which it could do by RfC. Speaking personally, based on the results of the last RfC, I think such an RfC would pass fairly quickly.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I thank the arbitrators supporting the amendment and will note that such a change will likely need to be made by motion announced (with 24 hours notice) at ACN and AN in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Modification of procedures. Therefore, a rough consensus of arbitrators of arbitrators under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Closing is unlikely to suffice. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Since it has been over a week since the last action on this request, I would appreciate an update from the arbs. Thank you! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@Z1720: This may have been a bit camouflaged, but I included motion text in the statement above in case that's of interest to you. Thank you! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Before this gets archived, because I expect this ARCA will be linked at any forthcoming RfC to assess whether the community wishes to make this change, I wanted to address a couple points.
  1. Regarding Snow Rise's statement:
    • (a) The community has indeed decided to permit CCTOPs to go to AE (see the recent RfC, question #2), but has not yet considered whether to hear non-CCTOP GSes at AE.
    • (b) Regarding the opposition to any community proposal which would seek to move appeals of a sole administrator's decision to apply such a sanction under the auspices of a community CTOP away from AN/I, the WP:CCTOP procedure already adopted by the community should alleviate this concern. The rules are clear that: An editor appealing a restriction may: [...] request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"). (emphasis added).[a] This provision affirmatively guarantees that editors may appeal to AN, much like in a normal ArbCom-designated CTOP.
    • (c) Getting permission from ArbCom to use AE first is important because otherwise the community could not decide to use AE even if it reached a consensus to do so.
  2. Regarding voorts's comment that ArbCom has previously said the community can opt to have any GSes enforced at AE, and now they they've done so: I agree that ArbCom should allow the community to have all GSes enforced at AE, and that the community should do so. As a drafter on WP:DS2022 (which is where the committee first authorized the community to use AE for CCTOPs), I disagree that ArbCom already has done so, because the current language refers to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added). And as the initiator of the recent RfC, I don't think the community has allowed all GSes enforced at AE, because the question was whether the community [should] authorize enforcement of community contentious topics at AE, not all community GSes. I expect to author an RfC to fix this on the community side once the motion is formally adopted.
Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated) § Appeals and amendments 2

Statement by Newyorkbrad

For editors who spend most of their wikitime in mainspace rather on the noticeboards and arbitration pages, the distinction between ArbCom-based contentious topics and community-based general sanctions, and the existence of different procedures for invoking or appealing them, takes time to learn about and can be a distraction. Anything that makes the procedures more parallel, and therefore easier to understand and implement, warrants serious consideration. The proposal would seem to fit into that category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by RGloucester

I agree that this is a good change, but I want to make clear that, for general sanctions other than contentious topics, the community has yet to assign those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as the recent RfC was limited in scope to contentious topics. I hope that, if this change is adopted, the community will come to a consensus to make such an assignment. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by voorts

But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC. I don't see why this is true. I read the recent change as the community aligning all GSes, past and present, with the CTOP regime. The fact that some CCTOPs have different restrictions (such as 1RR or ECR) does not mean that they can't be enforced under the CTOP procedures. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I still don't see what that has to do with whether it can be enforced at AE. ArbCom has previously said the community can opt to have any GSes enforced at AE, and now they they've done so. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

@Voorts: If you look at discussion in the RfC, it's disputed whether there is consensus to align community ECR (allowing constructive comments in addition to edit requests) with WP:ARBECR (which only allows edit requests now). Nothing in the opening statement mentioned the difference between ARBECR and community ECR, and the difference arose later, after the amendment made on this motion passed on 11 November 2023, not when DS was changed to CTOP. The text adopted here Wikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated) doesn't mention anything about ECR either. A single editor in the !voting part about alignment mentioned ECR but even they didn't mention difference until later in the discussion part where the objection was raised. For that reason, I'd suggest the objections are reasonable and if we did want to align ARBECR with community ECR, a new discussion is needed where this is clearly specified. My impression is a lot of people don't even know there is a difference but also I recall when ARBECR was changed, at least one editor objected felt we didn't want such a strong requirement for community ECR. (Not complaining about people not knowing, I myself didn't know until just now that the community had already agreed to rename GS to CTOP back in 2024.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: No as highlighted by L235 they only said the community can do so when "community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure". I don't knew about 1RR but CCECR explicitly does not match the ARB CTOP as it still allows stuff ARBCOM have chosen to disallow on their version of ECR that is part of CTOP. ARBCOM could choose to change this here by motion but until they've done so their authorisation doesn't apply to current CCECR. Alternatively the community could choose to match ARB CTOP ECR then the authorisation would apply. But at least one needs to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd add that it would probably be better for ARB to clarify/amend because otherwise we could end up with the weird situation where the community has to work with ARBCOM to amend our ECR at the same time if it ever changes again or we'll end up with the weird situation we need to use some combo of IAR and NOTBURO to continue to hear such matters at AE until the community realigns. Alternatively the community would need to say CCECR is just community imposed ARBECR and the it always matches. 12:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

@Nil Einne: Note community consensus was for a transition to occur from community-authorized discretionary sanctions (modelled on the arbitration committee discretionary sanctions framework) to community-designated contentious topics (modelled on the arbitration committee contentious topics framework). This is not a renaming of general sanctions, since general sanctions is a catch-all term for all editing restrictions that apply to all editors, versus a specific named individual. This is why an amendment to the arbitration procedures is required. The committee previously allowed the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to be used for requests to enact a restriction under the contentious topics framework, for community-designated topics, and for appeals to enacted restrictions. By design, these restrictions are enacted on the authority of one or more administrators, delegated to them by the community. However the community can also enact its own restrictions directly on a topic area, such as one-revert rule. The proposed amendment will allow the community, if it chooses, to use the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to request enforcement of such community-enacted restrictions, or to appeal them.

Requesting enforcement is likely to be uncontroversial, but appeals would shift authority for hearing the appeal from the community to administrators. For the contentious topic framework, this is intended to make enacted restrictions less likely to be quickly overturned. It's not clear to me, though, if this consideration is sought by the community for all general sanctions it enacts – perhaps just for general sanctions related to a designated contentious topic. isaacl (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: The primary advantage I see in the arbitration committee enabling the noticeboard to be used in this manner first (should the community choose to do so) is that the committee generally can come to a decision faster than the community on these types of matters. Thus the committee can clear the way for the community to hold its discussion, without any uncertainty regarding whether or not the committee will agree to a change. As I previously stated, I agree that while requests for enforcement aren't a significant concern, transferring authority to decide on appeals is a significant change. I am sympathetic to concerns that it's confusing for sanctioned editors, though, regarding the appropriate place to find information about an enacted sanction and the appropriate process to follow to appeal it. Perhaps there should be a common framework used to find information (such as logging) and to post an appeal request, while who responds to an appeal will depend on who has authority for the sanction. So a single appeal page can be used as the starting point for all appeals related to contentious topics, but the process followed will differ accordingly. (If desired, the appeal can be moved to an authority-specific page.) isaacl (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I am not concerned about the community doing something simply because the arbitration committee said they are open to a given approach. Particularly with respect to enacting sanctions, historically the community has maintained its own independent rationale for its processes. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the ability to appeal at both the administrators' noticeboard and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as discussed by KevinL (L235): currently the sanctioned editor doesn't have a choice but to appeal to the same body that enacted the sanction. Allowing for both approaches means the editor can choose to bypass a community-enacted restriction through a decision made solely by administrators. I'm not confident that the community wants this to be possible for any community general sanction, including those unrelated to any designated contentious topic area. isaacl (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Snow Rise

L235 has noted (and I absolutely agree) that the community would need to authorize AE for the purposes of administering enforcement of community-designated CTOP actions, but I am curious: has this notion already been floated or formally proposed at any of the recent community discussions for harmonizing the ArbCom and community CTOP schemes, or is the idea to hold this discussion next? For what it's worth, I do believe the notion should have been debated before the community before getting ArbCom's authorization, but the most important thing is that both bodies authorize AE as an appropriate forum for this purpose, independent of the other.

Just forecast my own position, I think that there is a colourable argument to be made that the change to the distribution of authority will be minimal if all enforcement actions are permitted at AE, since ultimately an admin has to choose to act on any enforcement request, wherever it takes place. On the other hand, if any proposal sought to relocate appeals of sanctions made to individual editors under a community CTOP designation, I would have very serious concerns about that. CTOPs and community authorized sanctions are expanding at an alarming weight, and creating an absolutely fundamental seachange in the administration of the project and the distribution of authority between ArbCom, the administrative corps, and rank and file editors. It is absolutely essential that any decision by an individual admin to apply an editing restriction, block, or ban to a specific editor, under the special authority of community-designated scheme for a specific subject matter (whether that ends up being called discretionary sanctions or "community authorized contentious topics") remain appealable directly to the community.

So I would strongly oppose any community proposal which would seek to move appeals of a sole administrator's decision to apply such a sanction under the auspices of a community CTOP away from AN/I. To create a scheme where only admins have authority over review of such decisions would lead to knock-on effects that would completely unbalance the project. Administrator-applied sanctions taken pursuant to ArbCom CTOPS at least have ArbCom itself to appeal to (and if I am honest, I'd love to see ArbCom CTOPS and ERs made under them subject to community review, but I don't see that happening any time soon). Having an admin's unilateral enforcement decisions made under community CTOPS reviewable only by the admins who happen to be volunteering at AE at any given time would be problematic in the extreme. SnowRise let's rap 01:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Isaacl and Thryduulf: I agree that there is a certain economy in holding these discussions in this particular order, but my concern was that there might be a certain degree of fait accompli influence on ever aspect of the proposal once ArbCom endorsed the change. But I say "was" because L235's most recent comments above clarify that the recent community discussions did already authorize this change in fora, but also made an express carve-out retaining AN as a choice of venue for appeals, which I feel is by far the most important possible concern of a migration of the CCTOP process to AE. Thanks for the update, L235; I followed those harmonization discussions as they opened but lacked the time to keep up with them in recent weeks. SnowRise let's rap 02:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

@Snow Rise: The question being asked of the committee is "Can we do this?". If the answer to that is "no" then asking the community whether we want to do it would be pointless, but the Committee's answer to the "can" question is not dependent on the answer to the "want" question. Asking the questions in this order also makes the question to the community much simpler and will make it easier to keep the discussion about it focused and thus more likely to result in a clear consensus one way or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope: Clerk notes

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

Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2 is amended by striking the last list item and inserting in its place the following: enforcement requests and appeals from enforcement actions arising from community-imposed general sanctions (including community-designated contentious topics), if the community has assigned those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Key word being "if". Daniel (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  2. 😄 Oh my. Thank you very much for organizing this, L235. It seems to be a lot of bureaucracy for "if the community wants to, they can use that noticeboard" to me. I'm fine with anything in that direction. The amount of formal RfCs and motions needed must seem comical to non-Wikipedians. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
    I wish changes like this could be done just based off consensus in the arbitrator comments section, but alas, it seems (per Kevin and Harry's comments) that this isn't currently possible. Might put it on the agenda for 2026... Daniel (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  4. Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  5. Aoidh (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  6. I agree with myself. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  8. Katietalk 18:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  9. WP:CT2022 seems sooo long ago. I recall there being some discussion about the need to keep some clarity between CTOP & what is now CCTOP. I'd like there still to be some clarity as regards the distinction in the logging and the noticeboard. In regard to Daniel's comment, I see this as a step in the evolution, not necessarily the final step. Cabayi (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
  • Noting that I haven't put forward the second part relating to AELOG, per s.q.'s comments - feels like practicalities need to be worked through and general sentiment needs to be better surveyed. Maybe this passing (if it does indeed pass) can prompt that discussion in the future. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_133&oldid=1324627381"