Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 131

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/817961869

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Special:Diff/817961869

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

• Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Special:Diff/817961869

• Restore site ban.

A week from now could you please site ban me either permanently or temporarily. I don't think I should be on here anymore. Please note that this is not an appeal rather the opposeite to reinstate the site ban.

@CaptainEek: We've banned other users like User:Lugnuts who created many new articles but weren't of good quality and User:BrownHairedGirl who has made many contributions but had civility issues. If I want to be banned I don't see why that can't be done. Additionally I'm not asking for any negotiations here such as a promise to remove my restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac and L235: What would be grounds for a site ban then? If I was to make personal attacks would that be grounds? BHG was banned for personal attacks by adbcom, if I did the same would you do the same for me? You can block me with talk and email revoked and block my IP addresses with blocking logged in users so that I have no chance of contributing again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: A block is just a block, nothing official and can be removed by any admin while a site ban is formal and official. From what I can remember my IP addresses geolocate to places like Colchester, Danbury and Maldon and I don't think are used by anyone else so could probably easily be blocked as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cabayi: That would be global and not a formal ban for example I should still be able to contribute on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: But why not do something silly. Clearly doing the right thing hasn't got me very far. Clearly this project is sickeningly unreasonable. Clearly this project has lots of arbitrary rules that aren't even written and if you violate them or not is often down to chance. This project claims to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit not the project that wants to exclude many articles from Crouch, Swale or exclude a few hundred units from Crouch, Swale's country. The project appears to have some kind of agenda against my contributions or places in my country. But yes its not just things that have happened to me its also silly things like the ARBECR which targets new users who probably don't have a clue how this project works. So why not just do something silly and get banned clearly this project is cracy so I've probably not got that much to loose anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for over 100K edits to Wikipedia, thank you for your service. However it is best to provide reasons why your editing restrictions can be lifted in part or in full, if that is what you are looking for. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Crouch, Swale why does it need to be a site ban? I respect someone who wants to go out on their own terms, but a site ban is still an ugly ugly way to do it. If you ask me next week I am willing to put an indefinite block on your account without talk page and email access, which is what would also happen with a site ban. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

+1 to what Barkeep said, I would also be willing to place a self-requested block. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Crouch, it is highly unlikely that any admin would just randomly decide to undo a self-requested block. It would be logged as such and nobody would have any reason to unblock. Please, don't try and get banned by doing something foolish. If you did it would probably still be a single admin who blocked you anyway. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It has occured to me that if the issue here is trying to break Wikipedia addiction permanently, vanishing is probably a better option for you. It's a voluntary agreement between you and this project that you are going away for good. It's not a sanction, and it provides a clean break. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, the best way to do this is to get a self-requested block, have talk page access revoked, and then scramble your password. If you are worried about scrambling your password, have Google or some other service create three passwords, mash them together, copy and paste into the change password field, and delete your clipboard history and saved passwords for Wikipedia. That would make it extremely difficult to regain access to the account, especially with email revoked.

As my statement should make clear, amendment should be denied. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

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

• I refuse to allow suicide by ArbCom. If you want to stop editing, you can stop editing. I hope it doesn't come to that, we have purposefully not banned you because we think you can be a helpful and valuable contributor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will point out your nearly ten thousand edits this year, which is quite incredible by any measure. You make a difference on Wikipedia. I know your editing restriction is a source of discontent, but it is only one aspect of your multifaceted and long career as an editor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot see ArbCom restoring a block that is not strictly necessary any more. If a block is desired due to concern of continued editing, I highly suggest asking Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks or using the WikiBreak Enforcer. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with above, and specifically I want to highlight CaptainEek's last comment. Absent contrary opinions in the next two days or so I will close this with a rough consensus of arbitrators that ArbCom will not reinstate the ban. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Crouch, Swale, it's not what I'd like to see happen but, as JSS points out, courtesy vanishing does what you want and, since July, also includes a global lock. All the best, Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• This is not something that ArbCom should be doing, especially when there are viable alternatives that achieve the same result and don't involve discussion by committee. Admins are often willing to block editors who self-request it. - Aoidh (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by SimpleSubCubicGraph at 18:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Olympian ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Olympian ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan

• I request a modification to the probation period, and want the probation to end immediately and for all pages involving Armenia-Azerbaijan, except the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wars to be downgraded to Autoconfirmed Protection.

A recent statement was made by Armenia offering condolences to Azerbaijan which has almost never happened, I believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages blanket protection of Extended Confirmed should be lowered to Autoconfirmed protection, with the exception of the wars between the two sovereign nations. Additionally, relations are getting better between the two countries. For nearly 30 years, relations were rock bottom, diplomats were not found in Azerbaijan nor Armenia and tensions were at an all time high. However ever since the 2020 war the two nations have started to make amends. This first started with the peace deal ending the war between the two nations. Turkey whom is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan has started to resume direct flights from Yerevan, the capital of Armenia and Istanbul, the largest city in the Republic of Turkiye. In 2023, Armenia and Azerbaijan entered into extensive bilateral negotiations as well as a prisoner exchange between the two countries, and Armenia supported Azerbaijan for being the host of the UN climate change forum. Finally, last year the two countries solved many border issues and created a transport route between the two countries which is a symbol of peace. The two nations are much better off now than they were just 4 years ago and can be seen as having a cooperative/reconciling attitude. That is why I propose an amendment that will immediately downgrade all protections (from ECP to ACP) for all Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages.

@Voorts then how would I appeal or ask the community to lift sanctions over Armenia-Azerbaijan SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)  Clerk note: Moved to own section HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Houseblaster going off what voorts said, can this suggestion be repealed/deleted? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: ECP-only edits were imposed by the community as a general sanction, not by ArbCom. ArbCom does not have jurisdiction here. That said, whether or not Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are warming, the community has imposed sanctions here (and ArbCom has designated this area as a contentious topic) because of disruption in the topic area by editors. I highly doubt that you'd get the community to agree to change this rule, given that editors are still routinely sanctioned under this GS. See WP:GS/AA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: There is. You can read WP:GS for more information. However, as I said, there is almost zero chance that you will get this sanction to be removed. You should be patient and wait to get 500 edits and EC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

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

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/1064925920

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Special:Diff/1064925920

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

• Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Special:Diff/1064925920

• 2022 changes

Please either site ban me or remove the restrictions completely. If you site ban me please block with account creation, email and talk revoked and also block my IP address(es) with {{checkuserblock}} including blocking logged in users so that I have no way to contribute to here again and say I can't appeal for 10 years or never, the choice is yours but I'm not prepared to go on as is. And yes unlike last month's request this does count as an appeal but it does include the first option of a full site ban. And yes doing either of these options won't be much effort and would make you're lives easier. Option A motion would say "Crouch, Swale is indefinitely site banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you must pick one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start posting personal information about other users and myself or I start posting libel content. I could just go on disrupting Wikipedia until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

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

• Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to decline. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a false dilemma. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - Aoidh (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Decline, obviously. I have indefinitely blocked Crouch, Swale in response to Special:Diff/1271154047. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Zero0000 at 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 5 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:

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

The recent case included the following resolution:

There are two types of ARBPIA content defined by previous PIA resolutions:

1. Whole articles deemed to be entirely or mostly in the domain of ARBPIA.
2. Content in the domain of ARBPIA that lies within articles not covered in whole.

My question:Does default EC-protection apply to type 1 content only, or to type 2 as well?

My guess, relying on the phrase "strictly within" in the resolution, is that only type 1 content is intended. Please confirm or deny that.

Omitting type 2 content would allow non-EC editors to edit the non-PIA parts of those articles, while still allowing discretionary EC-protection in response to disruption. Zero^talk 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

My reading of it, which I put in my case summary in the Big Ol' LibraOffice Calc File of Arbitration Effluvia and on my userspace subpage, was that it only applied to primary content (read: articles specifically about the Arab-Israeli conflict). It doesn't make sense to summarily ECP a random page just because a couple of sentences of it touched upon a humanitarian aid project in Gaza its subject supported. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• I believe you answered your own question, but it never hurts to double-check these sorts of things. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• Concur with Primefac. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• It is only intended to apply to the first type of articles. - Aoidh (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• The word "strictly" should be interpreted as the first type of articles, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Interstellarity at 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation
  • Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.

I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.

• 1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
• 2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
• 3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
• 4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.

I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Wikipedia and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

2015, would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, 2016. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. Izno (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

To avoid risks during the current presidency, a sunset clause could be used in place of a rolling window:

1.2) a) Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. This designation is set to expire in 2030.

b) Post-2015 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. This designation is set to expire in 2040.

c) Post-2028 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

Note the first sunset is not set in 2029, but 2030. This is to allow a one year evaluation window, just in case. I expect Trump to remain contentious in 2030, but less so for Clinton or Obama. I expect Trump to be less contentious in 2040, but less so with his successors. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. TarnishedPath^talk 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be intuitive, since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I support a change to a rolling cutoff, for two simple reasons:

First, contrary to what other editors have said, I believe it's easier to remember 25 years than an arbitrary date.

Second, many of the arguments for arbitrary static cutoffs assume the view that there was a "normal" American politics that fell apart in the 90s or early 00s and we are now in a time of "weird" American politics. While this view may seem intuitive, I don't think it's supported by sources (historical politics has sometimes been very polarized, contentious, dominated by authoritarians, essentially any description you can name), and I also think it's going to seem less and less reasonable as younger generations who don't have significant nostalgia for previous political eras make up a larger part of Wikipedia's editor base. Loki (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

First, I think that the start time should only be moved forward if there is evidence that the current start date does harm, such as that it is being used to weaponize Arbitration Enforcement. I see no such evidence, and have confidence that the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement will recognize any misuse of this contentious topic designation.

Second, ArbCom first imposed sanctions on editing in the Tea Party movement case in 2013, which has been subsumed into the expanded American politics topic. Any proposal to move the start date forward beyond 2013 would be seriously misguided. I think that any proposal to move the start date forward beyond 2008, the election of Barack Obama and associated lies about his citizenship, would be seriously misguided.

Third, I respectfully disagree with LokiTheLiar. American politics really has become toxic at some point in the past half-century. I disagreed with Ronald Reagan, but politics wasn't toxic at the time. I concur with many commentators that American politics really is more polarized than it has been at any time since the period between 1848 and 1870. A rolling cutoff would be a serious mistake.

Fourth, reviewing the start date is a reasonable idea, and reviewing the start date and leaving it unchanged is a reasonable conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

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

• @Interstellarity: I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• The following actions were taken in 2024 under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
  • Cloward–Piven strategy indef pending changes
  • September 11 attacks indef consensus required restriction
  • The Right Brothers indef semi

All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

[1][2] Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  In the interest of wrapping this up, I'm a decline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?

The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... Cabayi (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 Republican Revolution, which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers Bush v. Gore and the War on Terror, while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the Tea Party movement. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.
  History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• For some reason, I get the sense that this year will be a tumultuous one for American Politics articles, so I'm hesitant to restrict AE's scope just as things heat up. The date will always be a bit arbitrary, but I don't think enough has changed in just two years to justify leaping the date forward again. I agree that it shouldn't be beyond 2000, because after 2000 is 9/11. Thus the question is: are the Clinton years that contentious still? I think yes. The Clintons continue to be the focus of a lot of conspiracy theories and also Trumpian attention, and they're both still alive and trying to influence politics. As pointed out, the Clinton years also involve 9/11 precursor events. So all things considered, let's keep things as they are for now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Barkeep49 at 20:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Arbitration_enforcement

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

• Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I'm hoping this committee can clarify how I (and other uninvolved administrators) should consider the involvement and participation of sitting arbitrators at AE. It's always been a bit of an unwritten norm (though sometimes it has been expressed privately) that arbs not participate at AE. As I did AE work this morning I saw that two sitting arbs, Theleekycauldron and Liz (who is inactive on committee business), have been regularly participating. Can the committee clarify when determining the consensus (or rough consensus) or something at AE, if arb participation should be seen as something AE admins should take their lead from (as this is delegated arbcom authority)/weight more heavily), if arb participation should be seen as advisory (and thus consider for discussion but not when weighting), or of arb participation should be treated the same as any other uninvolved administrator (and thus I'd presume they would recuse from anything referred to/appealed from AE). This is a general comment which is why I did not list the two arbs as parties (I'd expect they can answer as arbs on this) but I will notify them on their talk pages following posting. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It is unusual for sitting arbs to work AE, but I don't think we need a rule or anything about it. I would echo what others have said about considering possible future recuals though. I held my fire at numerous ANI threads while on the committee if the issue looked serious enough to become a case later.

If anyone pulls the "but an arb said this" routine, they can just be told all admins are just admins at AE. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I echo the "Arbs at AE are just admins" take mentioned by pretty much everyone, but one thing that hasn't been brought up is that because arbs participating on a request that later ends up at the Committee's door will often need to recuse there is a danger that if too many have commented there will be insufficient unrecused arbs to fairly and expediently arbitrate. This is unlikely, and I believe there is a rule in place that provides a way forwards if there are too few uninvolved arbitrators (although I can't immediately find it in the policy or procedures), but it is something to avoid if possible. To this end, I'd recommend that before participating at AE, ANI or a similar venue that arbs check how many of their colleagues have already opined and consider giving it a pass if that's more than about say a quarter of the active committee (note that some who haven't commented may need to recuse for other reasons). This doesn't need to be a rule, just an informal thing to bear in mind. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think even admins or editors who were being charitable to me would call my participation "minor". I occasionally offer my thoughts and opinions on a situation, at the most. Over the 10+ years I've been an admin, I don't think I've taken action or closed a complaint at AE. Of course, I'll comply with whatever is the consensus here (and recuse myself as an arbitrator) but I don't think I've really made substantial contributions to the AE forum. I rarely get involved in disputes on this noticeboard before or after my election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• As far as I am aware, there is no prohibition on participation on AE threads, but the conventional wisdom is that to participate in an AE thread (or similarly, AN or DRN) could lead to a later recusal in a case and is thus best avoided. I personally would treat Arbitrator participation in AE the same as any other uninvolved admin. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• When I first joined the Committee, I had a notion that Arbs were supposed to participate at AE. I was quickly disabused of that notion though, and now, as a rule, I don't participate in AE threads unless absolutely necessary. I suggest other Arbs do the same, but I understand participation is occasionally necessary. If there is a policy question at an AE thread, that issue should be brought to ARCA to ensure that the full Committee has a chance to weigh in. An Arb who participates in an AE thread, unless such participation is de minimis, should recuse should that thread reach ArbCom. An Arb who acts at AE gets no special weight, in line with the egalitarian spirit of our project. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Leeky, I think one thing I would caution you about is the unintentional effect participating as an Arb can have. I know I just said that an Arbs voice is worth no more than any others, in line with our egalitarian spirit--which is crucial for closers to remember. But practically, one can have outsized influence as an Arb, especially in Arb related spaces. It's a bit like when you're in the break room with your coworkers, shooting the breeze, when your boss walks in. Technically, you're all off the clock and she's in there as just another person taking a break. But you're gonna watch what you say, and maybe her presence will subtly shift the conversation. Bottom line: power dynamics can be weird, which is another reason I try to avoid AE. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for inviting the clarification, Barkeep :) I'm not sure I have much more to add on top of what Primefac and Eek have already said; when I participate at AE, it's in a non-arb capacity. I don't want to double-dip, so I'll of course recuse as an arb where I have to if something does end up before the Committee that I have a significant history with. More broadly: being an arb as one way I serve the community, but I in no way see it as superseding my role as a part of the community, especially onwiki. So, I plan to continue participating in community processes as an editor and an admin to the extent I feel I can do good work in a healthy way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 ("...arb participation should be treated the same as any other uninvolved administrator (and thus I'd presume they would recuse from anything referred to/appealed from AE)") is my interpretation of how best to describe sitting Arbitrator involvement at AE. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• An administrator participating in a section labeledThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators is acting as an individual uninvolved administrator, not more and not less. Whether that causes a need for recusal in a specific case is to be determined in that specific case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Arbitrators do not cease to be admins. Arbitrators & admins do not cease to be editors. So long as the rules of WP:COI, WP:INVOLVED & recusal are respected there is nothing to prevent acting in any of the roles a user holds. Just as there is nothing to prevent a cross wiki office holder, such as a UCoC member, asking procedural questions which apply only on enwiki. Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Arbs can still work AE as admins if they wish, but it can certainly require recusal in the future. The power dynamic issue that Eek raised above is also a legitimate concern. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Eek sums up my thoughts well, power dynamics and risks of recusal are good reasons to stay away, but they're just recommendations, not a requirement. Worm^TT(talk) 12:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• They should be treated as an uninvolved administrator for the purpose of determining consensus. I agree that there's no outright prohibition on an arb participating at AE as an uninvolved administrator, but there are very good reasons why it's recommended for arbs to avoid doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Swatjester at 20:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 5 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

What is the process, if anything, for dealing with editors who ignore the 30/500 ECR requirement for editing within the PIA topic space and are not detected until after they have achieved extended confirmed status? I recently came across an editor with ~3 months of editing time and 900 edits, nearly all of which was within the confines of the ARBPIA space or closely adjacent. Somehow, this editor was never caught -- they'd never even received a welcome message or talk page communication from any editor on any topic, let alone a CTOP notification, so its entirely possible they were unaware. However, this implies that as a now-EC editor, they're still unaware, which is not a great situation for someone actively editing within the space. It's also entirely possible that they *were* aware and were simply ignoring the provisions. I'm looking for categorical guidance here about the intended process, rather than feedback about handling a specific editor -- I have seen guidance about how to handle scenarios where an editor is obviously gaming the system, but how should these editors be handled when they essentially ignored and walked past the ECR provisions entirely? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue for asking.

• Thanks to the committee for the thoughtful responses. What I'm taking from this is the following: No explicit process exists, seems like there's some support for discretion to revert problematic edits from that time period if they exist but avoid being punitive (so basically, operations as they're normally supposed to be); and also just saying "that sounds like a lot of work and a pain in the ass, how about no harm no foul if they're not causing problems" is a viable approach as well; and editors that didn't get a heads up should at least get one so they're not wading blindly into a minefield. That all tracks. Happy to leave this open for further discussion if anyone else cares or has input but I've got the clarification I was looking for if the clerks want to close. Thanks again. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I find the responses here a bit odd. That might be because my view is that people who evade EC restrictions in PIA, despite having been informed, should be mercilessly crushed or at least something should happen. Sanctions should be punitive for people who think rules don't apply to them, a view that is quite common in PIA. The responses here may be based on some questionable assumptions. It's not difficult to evade scrutiny/not be noticed, and touch topic area related material, especially if you avoid discussions. An edit not being reverted doesn't tell you anything about the edit or the editor. It's just an absence of information/action. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

To answer the question "...where has despite having been informed come from?", from an apparent basic reading comprehension failure, another thing that should be mercilessly crushed, or at least mocked at the very least. Zero cost for foolishness is another one of Wikipedia systemic issues. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• My initial reaction is that if someone manages to avoid scrutiny in the area while not being EC until after they reach EC, then good for them. Sanctions should not be punitive, so retroactively applying ECP restrictions such as rolling back changes seems problematic to me. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Echoing Primefac – if you don't come across as the kind of person who needs to be reigned in, no harm, no foul. If there's continuing NPOV violations, that's something to focus on, but otherwise, I wouldn't see a need to enforce ECR at that point. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If one wishes, they could enforce the extended-confirmed restriction on pre-EC edits – for example, the restriction allows administrators to delete articles created in violation of it, but also gives them discretion on whether to do so. Swatjester, I don't want to hamstring you on what you choose as an enforcing administrator. As for what to do moving forward, making them aware of the contentious nature of the topic seems like a good idea to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sean.hoyland: For Swatjester's case study, where hasdespite having been informed come from? Sdrqaz (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• [first naive thought] Someone got away with editing in ARBPIA without being challenged or investigated by editors on either side of the ideological divide for three months? Either ARBPIA is becoming less fraught or we need more editors like that.
  I'm in line with Primefac's viewpoint. Winding back 500 3-month-old edits (which are presumable not otherwise objectionable) seems like officious make-work. Sdrqaz's suggestion of a CT awareness message would be a helpful & courteous move. Cabayi (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Concur with others. No need to revert the edits if they're fine, and no need to retroactively sanction them if they're editing productively, but the restriction can be enforced against those edits if necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Sean.hoyland, this is dealing specifically with a hypothetical editor whonever even received a welcome message or talk page communication from any editor on any topic, let alone a CTOP notification. That's (probably) not someone who evaded EC restrictions in PIA, despite having been informed, or someone who thinks rules don't apply to them. No one reads any talk page notices or edit notices, which is why we don't count those for awareness. Who knows if any of the pages even has such notices? I know the current ruling is that CTOP alerts cannot be delivered in an automated fashion, but perhaps it would make some sense to allow that, at least in this topic area.
  I think most people are aware that I held a pretty hard line on ECR, but I always made the editor aware and gave a warning. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of sanctioning or pulling privs because, assuming a little good faith, someone broke unintuitive rules they didn't know about. I know there's an enormous amount of socking in the topic, but at least some editors have to be new, right?
  As for how to handle it from an admin perspective, the first thing I would do is review their edits for obvious npov issues or other problems. They can be given a logged warning along with the CTOP alert, and if there are significant issues with their editing the can be blocked as a normal admin action, or brought to ANI. If the edits aren't bad then we're back to not sanctioning for something they were unaware of. Alert them and shrug, confident in the fact that there's really no good way to police this type of rule with perfect effectiveness. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• The way everything is currently worded, explicit awareness is required to sanction (but not warn) an editor. With this hypothetical editor and the wording of Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Enforcement of restrictions in mind, while such edits may be reverted, it is not strictly required and so the specifics of a given circumstance should determine whether those edits should be reverted on a case-by-case basis. Since this hypothetical editor was never notified, then they can be warned against future disruption if the edits were otherwise disruptive (per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Warnings) but should not be sanctioned for any pre-awareness edits (per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Enforcement of restrictions). - Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Lightbreather at 23:07, 27 February 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

• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mike Searson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scalhotrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [3] of notification Karanacs
• [4] of notification Mike Searson
• [5] of notification Sitush
• [diff of notification Scalhotrod] (not possible)

Information about amendment request

• Gun control topic ban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
  • I respectfully ask to have the ban lifted
• Restricted to one account - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
  • I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
• 1RR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
  • I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
• Reverse topic ban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
  • I respectfully ask to have the restriction lifted
• Interaction bans - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)
  • I respectfully ask to have the interaction bans removed

I successfully appealed my site ban in September 2022. Although I would have liked to have all restrictions removed at that time, it seemed like asking for too much, so I only requested lifting the site ban. I stated at the time that I would wait at least 12 months before asking to remove the other restrictions. The appeal can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1111600387#Lightbreather_unban_appeal, and what I wrote in "Dear community" stands: my promises and resolve since then remain unchanged.

In the two years since my site ban was lifted I have made hundreds of edits to dozens of articles, including the creation of two biographies (P. B. Young and Amy Kelly). I have abided by my restrictions and believe I have proved myself, as I promised.

Thank you for your consideration.

• @Sdrqaz: Yes, those statements are still true. (The only situation I might revert more than once would be for vandalism, though I'd more likely report it at the vandalism noticeboard.) As for recent inactivity, I think 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.

There is one other website that I have volunteered at for nearly 14 years, without incident. If the committee wishes to know my identity there, I will be happy to email the link. Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Sdrqaz: To answer your follow-up question: Some might ask, If she doesn't plan to do the things she was banned from doing, then why lift the bans? Then again, if she doesn't plan to do those things, why keep the bans? More than that, the existence of the restrictions cause me social pain, like a badge of shame. I'd like to think after nearly 10 years I could remove the badge. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• @ScottishFinnishRadish: You've indicated that you're willing to be convinced. Are there any questions I can answer for you? Would you and the other arbs like a link to my profile on the other website I volunteer at? (nearly 14 years now without incident) Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know him, but appreciate the input from jps regarding what it's like to edit under restrictions. I mentioned the social pain. It's true I battled in the past (especially in the couple months prior to the start of the case against me), but I also had many positive interactions. Right now, I can't say hello or give barnstars to fellow editors. (I'm not even sure if I can click "thank" on an edit.) I can't add my name to a project's participant list. It's extremely isolating.

In addition, there are some things I can't do that might help with cleanup. For instance, I'm currently using the "Random page" feature under "Category:All articles with broken or outdated citations". Up popped a page that I think should be considered for deletion. Deleting articles is not something I'm very familiar with, so I started reading about how to do it. I thought, Aha! I think I can use this PROD thing, but I dug around in the article's history and found it had already been "prodded". The next step would then be taking the article to AFD - which I cannot do under my restrictions. There's an example of a practical reason I'd like to have my restrictions listed.

But more than anything, again, after 10 years, I'd like the chance to prove myself further - more than I have been able to since my site ban was lifted. Lightbreather (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• RE the claim by Chess that I am unable to join a project, contribute, and seek review, 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: [6], [7]

Although there have been hundreds of edits in the interim and it has since been tagged NPOV and WEASEL. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen much of LB since her return, partly because I am less active due to health concerns and partly because she was and always will be bad news. She continued her antics off-wiki after being sent away, taking her attacks to various Wiki-critique sites etc - at least some of those should be documented. I know this will count for nothing because WP is far too forgiving but my opinion is that this is a leopard and the spots will not change. If she is doing good work in the areas to which she is currently restricted then let her continue there - we have plenty of other contributors who can edit the areas where she is restricted. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Before I fully refresh my memory on this case, just a note regarding the interaction bans:

• Karanacs last edited in July 2024
• Mike Searson retired in December 2019
• Scalhotrod was banned by the WMF in June 2015
• Sitush is still actively editing.

This means the first three bans are largely academic and the committee should not wait for them to respond but Sitush's opinion (should they choose to epxress one) should be taken into consideration. There was a significant amount of private information around this case (when I was on the committee), which arbcom would do well to review before making a decision. Thryduulf (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about everything else here, but I will say that the Scalhotrod Iban can be removed; AC has the history there, and the chances of them editing again is 0. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

LB and I have differed in the past. I'm glad she's back, water under the bridge, etc. The one request that should not be reversed in the one account rule, in my opinion. That's all a person needs. Everything else can be safely vanished, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I echo Carrite's sentiment, and I tend to regard lifting 10-years-old restrictions as low risk. But I also agree with arbs, who stated her edit volume has been low, about 400 edits since 2022, out of 17600 edits since 2007. I propose lifting all sanctions if @Lightbreather agrees to voluntarily comply with current sanctions until she reached 19000 edits through substantive edits! Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I'll just offer a perspective from someone who has also struggled to get restrictions removed. Sanctions levied against me acted as a kind of "chilling effect" on my activities on Wikipedia, necessarily by design. The Catch-22 of the scenario of trying to get the restrictions lifted is that I had to simultaneously be active on-wiki or other wiki-adjacent spaces online that could serve as evidence of compliance and rehabilitation, I guess, while also abiding by editing restrictions which made me pause A LOT prior to acting. Easy peasy, say some. But I think that if you haven't labored under editing restrictions at this website, I'm not sure you really know what it is like. It's a very delicate "thread-the-needle" kind of activity.

Lightbreather indicates above that she considers these sanctions to be badges of shame, and for my part I definitely can sympathize with a feeling that I had like there was a yoke around my neck when I was trying to edit under restrictions. It is discouraging, and for me it was very demotivating for editing Wikipedia. Again, I think this is kinda the intent of sanctions, as the judgement of whatever authority that imposed them is that demotivating the person who is being problematic is a preferable outcome so as to protect the sanctity of the encyclopedia.

I say this not as a means to offer advice to anyone, but basically to offer another perspective from someone who has been subject to a variety of different kinds of sanctions. The other side of WP:ROPE is WP:TIGHTROPE.

jps (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if the committee should remove the Scalhotrod iban even if it's reasonable to keep everything else in place. With a WMF ban and furthered by what Moneytrees has said above, it doesn't seem there's any chance of them coming back. And I assume Lightbreather understands it's unhelpful to be talking about an editor who was WMF banned. Frankly, it seems to me that particular iban could have been lifted with the unban. I know all this does mean the iban may seem moot anyway but if it will make Lightbreather slightly happier about things, I feel it's a reasonable change. As a two-way the committee could always turn it into a one-way if they feel that's necessary.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Lightbreather doxxed other editors in the firearms topic area on the offwiki blog that Sitush briefly mentions. I don't think the gun control t-ban should be revoked. However, it's unclear what disruption is being prevented by the broad ban on User talk, projectspace, draftspace, filespace, specialspace, etc. I'm surprised SFR only mentions AfD as an example. Being unable to join WikiProjects, participate in good article noms/featured articles noms/etc, or talk to other users makes it difficult for Lightbreather to gain the experience necessary to reduce editing restrictions. The standard advice I give to someone looking to gain experience on Wikipedia is "find a WikiProject and start contributing to it. Eventually, seek review from others on article quality". LB is unable to do either. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Plenty of time has passed. The case was complex, and some of the participants are no longer here, and that is maybe a good thing. I can't remember exactly what LB's beef was with Sitush, whom I love, but I'm sure it was nasty--but, again, time has passed and I do not anticipate a return to previous behavior in regards to Simon. I support lifting all restrictions, including the gun restriction. LB will be editing under a microscope anyway and I just don't think that a. we will have problems again and b. any such problems can't be handled without another arbitration case. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

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

• I've removed one of the party headers following a suggestion (see edit summary). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Hello, Lightbreather. I'm looking through the history of your case, but I would like to hear your response on a couple of items for now: in the 2022 appeal, you saidI won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor. Are this and your 2022 comments regarding edit-warring still true? Could you also please comment on your recent inactivity? Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the reply, Lightbreather. This may seem like a silly question (I can think of several plausible answers), but if the statements at the 2022 appeal are true, why do you want those restrictions lifted? To be clear, I'm referring to the first three restrictions that you've listed. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Recused. - Aoidh (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• There's a lot of history to read here, and I've looked through a lot of it so far. My initial thought is that they haven't made enough edits since being unbanned to reach extended-confirmed, so there's not much here to base our decision on. I also noted that ~50 of those edits were to User:Lightbreather/Push is a myth which points to the same issues they were initially banned for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  The essay displays a lack of having gotten over (or at least an inability to not pick at the scabs of) their earlier on-wiki disputes and their writing it within a few days of their unban isn't great. That it makes up a little over 10 percent of their edits since being unbanned also doesn't inspire confidence. That, combined with their overall low activity and Elli's concerns makes me a decline, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be willing to nix the Scalhotrod iban, and maybe tighten the reverse topic ban to only disallow drama boards broadly construed, or to explicitly allow AfD. The AfD example looks to the be the only concrete "sanctions preventing me from doing something constructive" example given and I can see giving a bit more rope to see if they're constructive with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'll have to review much of the context, but also not sure how I feel about the timing of this. Coming back after half a year with no edits to immediately appeal a t-ban isn't usually what I like to see. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, this is a decline at this point in time, mainly per lack of recent activity. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• I concur with Elli and SFR; PERM and resysop requests will often be declined if they come immediately after a long hiatus, and in addition there has not really been enough editing with restrictions to show they have been effective. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I'll vote decline on this appeal due to the lack of activity pointed out by the other arbitrators above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• I'm generally supportive of removing decade-old individual editing restrictions such as these for active editors, with the exception of the one account restriction. However, the qualifier there is 'active editors' — the lack of any edits by LB for the past 6 months, and very few in the past two years, make it hard to assess with any level of confidence whether it's the right decision or not to remove them. If you edit for a few months with no issues and come back here, my willingness to support will be a lot stronger. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Absent something more substantial here, I'd decline this request. Time is a great healer, and I can imagine that I would support this request in the future, however, we just don't have enough evidence of good quality editing. There was an initial flurry after being unbanned, but outside that first 6 months, and prior to this request, there are less than 50 edits in 2 years. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Decline, solely because of the lack of activity in recent months. Before I can consider lifting restrictions, I need more evidence of Lightbreather's change of behaviour, demonstrated by editing without concerns. My recommendation (speaking for myself, not the committee) is to edit articles outside of the topic restrictions, then return in six months with an appeal that outlines your positive contributions and why the restrictions are no longer needed. I think the IBANs can also remain in place, even if academic, so that everything can be considered together and in case the editors return. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• I would be receptive to lifting the now useless iban, as well as the inverse topic ban (for the reasons Chess points out). But the rest should stay until we can have a longer track record. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Decline. You've been active for a little over 3 weeks. The point of taking a period between appealing restrictions is that we can see you in action, not that we should see inaction. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 09:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Are articles like Hussein of Jordan (147 mentions of Israel) and Palestinians in Jordan (zero mentions of Israel) considered to be covered by ARBPIA as a whole? They currently do not have ARBPIA templates. [8]

Per the ARBPIA decision in 2019:

These two examples are not really considered primary articles of the Arab-Israeli conflict (a), and the ARBPIA content within them -if any- is of course covered by (b). So can editors affected by the topic ban edit the non-ARBPIA content within them? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The distinction made by SFR makes sense, if this is indeed the consensus among arbitrators here. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• I see Palestinians in Jordan as covered. The lead containsPalestinians in Jordan refers mainly to those with Palestinian refugee status currently residing there... Most Palestinian ancestors came to Jordan as Palestinian refugees between 1947 and 1967. It's primarily about refugees from the Arab/Israel conflict who moved to Jordan. Hussein of Jordan isn't a primary topic, but parts of the article would be covered by ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with SFR's interpretation of these two articles and whether they are covered, in part or full. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• Also agree with SFR here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Agreed. Palestinians in Jordan is certainly covered, as the talk page and page notice note. Any ARBPIA-related portions of an article like Hussein of Jordan cannot be edited by someone who cannot edit in the ARBPIA topic area, even though there's no technical implementation restricting it. For the non-ARBPIA content within the Hussein of Jordan article, as long as the specific content being edited is well and truly unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict then it shouldn't be an issue in that regard. - Aoidh (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Johnadams11 at 01:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350#Johnadams11

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Johnadams11 is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

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

• Johnadams11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Valereee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ealdgyth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Tamzin
• diff of notification Valereee
• diff of notification Huldra
• diff of notification smallangryplanet
• diff of notification Vice regent
• diff of notification Ealdgyth
• diff of notification of Seraphimblade

Information about amendment request

• Johnadams11 is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

• Rescind or shorten the topic ban.

This is an appeal of my indefinite topic ban in PIA, which to my read, seems based on the diagnosis that I have a battleground mentality:

The above was a reaction to a single sentence in my AE Request concerning smallangryplanet, where I'd sought to make the wholly unremarkable point that an editor who lacks the self-control to keep his emotions out of his edit comments, may well be one who is less dependable in maintaining neutrality in his edits. I failed to imagine that anyone would read this as my commenting on the merits of feeling sad. It's clear though that given that multiple people had this read, that I should have been far more explicit in making this point. TBH, I recall deliberately underbaking this because I didn't want to harp on it. I merely wanted to observe it as context the eight other matters I was surfacing. As I hope is obvious upon reflection, and as I indicated in a longer note to Tamzin, my point was entirely about what they wrote, not what they felt. Feeling sad over human death is of course only natural, and I am filled with cringe at needing to say this.

Critically, and I suppose this is heart of the heart of my appeal, not a single edit I’ve made on Wikipedia is cited as a reason for my ban, or even as evidence of the manifestation of my battleground mentality even if such a mentality were present. There is no accusation of edit warring; no accusation of personal attacks; no accusation of incivility, and no accusation or even suggestion of tendentious or disruptive editing.

I have been (at least in my view) exceptionally cautious in my treatment of the PIA topic. I have repeatedly sought consensus; I have had long successful collaborations; and by my count, I've made only 31 edits in the PIA mainspace.

I would be indebted to anyone who takes the time to study the history here, which is roughly:

1. Smallangryplanet makes an AE request against me, which admins agree is meritless, and which was filed after SAP’s primary issue (1RR) had already been cured without any resistance from me.
2. I began exploring SAP’s history, and discovered enough POV Pushing to make me feel obliged to file an AE request after first seeking to resolve with them directly.
3. There is a surprising reaction (above) to point number five in the AE Request which leads directly to my sanction.

I assume that defenses of my ban will include some charge of “retaliation.” Though I could find no specific sanction related to "retaliation" on WP (did I miss it?), I’ll assume the charge has some weight and argue that the merit of my AE Request must (or should) be a defense to this. I am eager to have anyone read the request and show why there is not reasonable enough evidence of SAP's POV pushing to warrant it. Admins agreed that my points 4 and 9 were in fact concerning. To my other points, I have substantial disagreements with their readings. I review these not to again indict SAP, but to demonstrate that my AE Request had merit, and therefore was not "retaliation."

• My point 1 was that SAP had, in the 10/7 attack article -- without consensus or discussion -- removed a lead point that had been in the article since October '23 (and which quickly returned verbatim and remains today). To reduce this allegation to a “pure content question” is a deflection of the implied charge of POV Pushing. The removal of such a longstanding and well accepted idea (one validated by nearly every RS on earth), would have required discussion, consensus, and a vastly substantial supportive argument. Instead, all that was provided was: “The conflict between Israel and Hamas did not begin on 7 October 2023.” (The article makes no argument at all about when the overall conflict may have begun.)

• To point 2, Tamzin notes that the misleading citations I reference are not in an Article, when I never claimed that they were. My point was simple misrepresentation.
• To point 3, Tamzin characterizes as a “content dispute” a claim I make about misrepresentation.
• In point 7, I provide specific detail that SAP misrepresented evidence in his AE case against me. Tamzin, without any argument or engagement, simply says they see no bad faith.

Further, Tamzin says that I used as evidence “The fact that SAP has filed four AE requests” as a part of my argument. This information was offered only as proof only that SAP was aware of contentious topic restrictions (and the information was properly placed in that section).

Generally, I would love nothing more than a forensic appraisal of what I’ve done at Wikipedia.

Primarily, since EC, I have sought to do just two things. (Prior to EC I contributed my above-average familiarity with 90's film.)

1. I sought to have the word “children” defined in an article where that term appears 57 times.
2. I’ve wanted to remove the obvious implication that more people were killed in the Israeli bombing of Gaza than were killed in three WWII bombings.

For those still reading, my statement in smallangryplanet's AE request, is a reasonable biography of my short history at WP. Thanks for your consideration. I welcome any questions you may have.

The thread filed against JA11 was in an ambiguous place at the time of JA11's counter-filing. Admins did not, as he claims,agree [it was] meritless, but the two admins to comment, Valereee and Seraphimblade, had neither proposed sanctions nor ruled them out. Then JA11 made the counter-filing. Between the blatantly retaliatory nature (and no, [9] does not read asseeking to resolve anything) and the "sadly" diff, it was immediately apparent to me that a TBAN was "necessary to prevent damage or disruption", the standard set forth at WP:CTOP; several other admins agreed. JA11 has quoted my reasoning above, so I won't repeat it, but I'll add that JA11's explanation on my talkthat I was merely saying that WP is not a place where your emotions should play a role in your editing doesn't make things much better. People shouldn't say they're sad about death is, I guess, not so cold a statement as People shouldn't be sad about death, but both are reflective of someone whose priorities in the topic area are at odds with building a neutral encyclopedia. JA11 has also never explained why "emotional bias" would be relevant to an edit that made no assertion other than 49,997 being closer to 50,000 than to 49,000. Combined with the fact that this arose as part of an overt attempt to find evidence against the person who had reported him, the case for a TBAN was clear.

If JA11 somehow can't see whatsingle edit wascited as a reason for my ban, or even as evidence of the manifestation of my battleground mentality even if such a mentality were present, I don't know what to say. And the fact that I found two of JA11's complaints non-specious does not change anything, even if we ignore the fact that that was two out of nine. There are many cases where two opponents are wrong, even sanctionably wrong, although at the moment SAP's thread is stalled, with the two likely outcomes being a closure with an informal warning (my proposal) and no action at all. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Update: Closed SAP's thread with an informal warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe this editor should be editing in PIA, due to the combination of their approach and their lack of policy knowledge to do so without causing disruption. When I expressed suprise JA11 would make a retaliatory AE filing (something workers at AE agreed on, and something I still agree on after their clarifications here) when their own case hadn't even closed yet, they characterized that as operating in bad faith. I'd already told JA11 that inexperienced editors and contentious topics were a minefield, and they seem bent on continuing to believe they understand how this place works well enough already. Yet here they are still arguing that using an editor mentioning a death statistic made them sad as evidence of inability to edit neutrally is a "wholly unremarkable point", that there is no "specific sanction" of retaliatory filings, and that bludgeoning at a CTOPs to get "children" defined is not disruptive. Valereee (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I've answered any concerns about my own behaviour over on my own AE case, but I did want to flag that Johnadams11 has admitted to being an SPA here:

Primarily, since EC, I have sought to do just two things. (Prior to EC I contributed my above-average familiarity with 90's film.)

1. I sought to have the word “children” defined in an article where that term appears 57 times.

2. I’ve wanted to remove the obvious implication that more people were killed in the Israeli bombing of Gaza than were killed in three WWII bombings.

Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If Johnadams11 can't see how an AE filing which was clearly retaliatory doesn't indicate a battleground mentality, I can't see what I could say to make them see it. Battleground mentality isn't just incivility or edit warring, it is the seeing of the topic area as, well, a battleground, where if someone does something an editor doesn't like, they then respond by doing the same thing to the original editor. This sort of motivation for an AE filing is pretty clearly retaliation for the original filing aginst Johnadams11. We need less of this sort of tit-for-tat stuff in the topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• Johnadams11's opening statement (excluding the blockquote) is just under 900 words, which is significantly over the maximum threshold provided for in the header of this page (500 words and 50 diffs). However, when looking into this, I discovered that the pre-fill for the amendment request — which presumably Johnadams11 would have used to file this — stated 1000 words; it was overlooked when the changes were made in November 2024. I have just updated the amendment pre-fill to be aligned with the header of this page, being 500 words. My individual view is that it would be unfair to ask Johnadams11 to subsequently refactor their comment when they submitted in line with the pre-fill template. However, any replies from here on out by Johnadams11 would want to be distinctly on the shorter side given this. Daniel (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Noting for the record that I gave Johnadams11 some procedural assistance setting this appeal up.
  As an appeal designated as "appeal only to ArbCom", it is governed by this motion establishing that process. Therefore, this appeal is being heardaccording to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Decline. I'm not seeing anything here, especially the almost sole focus on Tamzin, who was one of the four administrators who supported (or did not object to) a tban, that leads me to doubt the judgement of AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Decline - The retaliatory filing and comments about and towards other editors is absolutely demonstrative of a battleground mentality that has no place in such a contentious topic area. I do not disagree with the assessment of the AE admins who have commented above, and I do not see a compelling reason why the topic ban should be rescinded or adjusted at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Decline It's not our job here to give you aforensic appraisal of your edits, JA11. It's your job to convince us that AE made an incorrect decision, and you have not done that. People are allowed to have feelings. SAP can be sad. I'm sad. Lots and lots of people are sad. Get over your gotcha mentality, go edit in another area without confrontations, and in a year or so you could come back here and have us review the situation. Katie^talk 17:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Decline with a nod to our AE admins for getting this one exactly right. Daniel (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Tashmetu at 12:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I wanted some clarification regarding the judgment made in my case, the text was as follows: "For gaming the extended confirmed restriction, the extended confirmed permission of Tashmetu is revoked. An administrator may, at their discretion, restore it following a request at PERM at which Tashmetu shows that they have made 500 substantive edits."

It does not state anywhere that I am banned from any edit on the subject, only that I don't have permission to edit protected articles. But now I have an edit here that I'm told is breaking the rules placed upon me, so I need some clarification, am I forbidden to ever edit anything in anyway related to the topic(and if so,I would have appreciate it being made clear to me) or is it just EC protected articles that I can't edit until my permission is restored?

I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense. There is such thing as a topic ban, so what is the difference between a topic ban and not having permission to edit EC protected articles specifically? Tashmetu (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)  Clerk note: moved to own section. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok Thanks everyone for the clarification. Is there a place where I can find what topics are EC protected or is it just Israel-Palestine I should steer away from?

Also am I supposed to do anything regarding my past edits in the area or is it just something for me to pay attention to in future edits? Tashmetu (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Editors who are not extended-confirmed may not edit anything related to the Palestine-Israel topic area, and this applies regardless of whether the article is EC-protected or not. It is also worth noting that this also applies more granularly than just at the article level - a non EC-editor may not edit material related to the Palestine-Israel topic area even in articles that mostly about other topics (they may edit the non PI-related parts of such articles). If you are unsure whether something is related, then it is permissible to ask but in general it is best to just assume borderline cases are related. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that the judgement about which clarification is being sought is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area, not the main case judgement.

@Tashmetu: You can find a list of topics that are under an extended confirmed restriction at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Active sanctions, although this is not ideal. For starters it took me a couple of minutes to find that, and I knew where to start looking, secondly you have to read the detail of each topic area to find out whether ECR applies and thirdly it isn't clear to me whether "discretionary sanctions that mimic WP:ARBPIA" indicates ECR or not. If you keep away from all the topics listed as having sanctions though then you wont go wrong.
As for past edits in the topic areas covered, just leave them. Any edit you make would be a violation of the restriction, even if it is solely regarding one of your own edits. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tashmetu that the implications of the EC-restriction can be unclear. That's why I didn't report to Arbitration Enforcement, since it didn't appear as if Tashmetu was knowingly violating the rule.

Arbitration Enforcement might benefit from a warning template that explains that the revocation of extended confirmed applies to topic areas, and not only to articles that are under extended-confirmed protection.

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

• I've changed the "Case or decision affected" link from Palestine–Israel articles 5 to Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area, given that that is the actual decision being questioned (and for easier access). If a clerk or member objects, please revert me. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thryduulf is correct: non-ECP editors may not edit PIA topics, so it is a de facto topic ban, but one which may be lifted more easily than a true topic ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Also agree that Thryduulf is correct. I also agree with Chess that making this information more explicit would be helpful: I would advise AE admin revoking EC to post on the user's talk page that the user should not add any information to Wikipedia in topics with a EC restriction. (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase this that can be workshopped.) Now that Tashmetu knows this, I think they would benefit from staying far away from any article that might remotely be connected to Palestine-Israel. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, PIA is under ARBECR which applies to the topic area, not just articles that are currently under WP:ECP, per WP:PIA. That said, the CTOP notice that Tashmetu received a few days after ECP was revoked, while it does link to Extended confirmed restriction, only saysAdditionally, you must ... have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days ... which may be confusing for someone who has 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, but is not currently extended confirmed because that user right was revoked. I think perhaps clarifying the wording of that template to specify that it is having the extended confirmed user right specifically that is required, not just having reached the 500/30 threshold, in addition to any verbiage an administrator gives when revoking ECP. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Aoidh, I think that's a good idea, but we should clarify that distinction when it's important (i.e. when EC is revoked) instead of putting newbies through more term-of-art bureaucratic headache. That template works fine for most people, but admins should be clear about what EC revocation means when they do it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  • I agree with leeky, even though it makes more work for the admin team in the short-term: it is unreasonable to expect new editors to understand all the implecations of an EC revocation, so making it clear to the editors will make it less likely that they will make the mistake, and thus less work in the long-run for admin. Adding a sentence in the message when EC is revoked will hopefully solve this. Z1720 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

    I've normally mentioned that when revoking EC, e.g. [10][11]. Clarifying the template is still a good idea, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• I've been thinking that we should just be topic banning rather than pulling EC in these instances. It's cleaner, has clearer edges, and a well-defined appeals process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Topic banning someone for an action (gaming the system to become extended-confirmed) that is inherently not part of the topic area would seem weird to me personally. Revoking an illegitimately obtained permission is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Coordinating off-wiki to figure out how best to game the system to get access to edit in the topic area with their 502nd edit being to the topic area in a discussion Ïvana was involved in seems pretty related to the topic area to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sympathetic to this argument (and the convenience one too), but if we topic-ban someone for Palestine–Israel EC gaming and not revoke their extended-confirmed, they would still be able to use their illegitimately-obtained EC in ECR areas like Russia–Ukraine or normal protected articles. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  whynotboth.gif ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• (Noting that I abstained on this vote, given that I felt that the evidence was weak). I agree with the others on the answers to Tashmetu's questions, but forAlso am I supposed to do anything regarding my past edits in the area or is it just something for me to pay attention to in future edits?, I would say that this is something for the future. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• If we're sticking with EC revocation, maybe we could update {{uw-ecgaming}} to include some explanation of the ECR restrictions that entails? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  That template is for gaming of the system in general, so I am not sure that an ECR statement would necessarily make sense. That is probably a discussion for the template talk though. Primefac (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Tamzin at 20:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 5 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [12]

I was asked by clerk SilverLocust and arb theleekycauldron to post this clarification request based on inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive 11 § BER edge case and, I'm told, on the mailing list. There are two questions here:

1. How should the BER handle a case where a page is moved from a qualifying namespace (article/talk/draft/draft talk) into another, or vice versa, after a user edits it?
2. Depending on the answer to #1, how should this be tracked?

My view is that the current wording of the BER, at least, means we should only consider the time-of-edit namespace. Yes, this does leave some room for gaming by drafting in userspace and then mainspacing something, but 1) the BER is already a fairly gameable restriction and that is arguably by design, given that it's not that strict a sanction, and 2) there's still the edit made to mainspace when the page is moved, so really all this does is consolidates a bunch of edits by the same user to one edit, which isn't unreasonable.

If this is the Committee's interpretation as well, however, this creates an implementation problem, as it is prohibitively complicated to manually check for cross-namespace moves (XNMs) for every page, extant or deleted, a user has edited in the past 30 days, and—as much as I intend to keep toolforge:n-ninety-five working—the BER's implementation shouldn't be dependent on an external tool. The current instructions at WP:UBER § Tracking for manually tracking without regard to XNMs are a bit tedious, but still something that any person could do in a few minutes. Fully tracking XNMs would increase that by at least an order of magnitude.

N95, meanwhile, could either do the same quick-and-dirty check as the humans (easier to code), or do an exhaustive search for XNMs (harder to code, so may have to wait a bit due to my current limited availability). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Eek: I agree that most cases of a false negative would be gaming and sanctionable as such; even if not, false negatives aren't nearly as much a concern as false positives. But I can easily see how an FP could occur: Suppose a BER'd user makes 20 ARBPIA edits in a month, while making 80 edits about some band or something, and not editing anything else in qualifying namespaces. The band's article goes to AfD, and the user requests userfication in lieu of deletion, which is granted. Their actual BER percentage is 20%, but N95 and the current manual checking instructions will say 100%. So I think at least some instruction to admins to check for this edge case is merited. I don't have a strong opinion on how comprehensive that instruction should be; I'd be fine with something as minimal as "take a quick glance at their userspace contribs". (And I mean technically I can just do that, since UBER is an essay and N95 is an unofficial tool, but I'd like for whatever they say to reflect ArbCom's opinion.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• This had previously come up on the clerks list, where I said "Moving a page across spaces seems like an edge case that it isn't worth solving for. If it becomes an issue, we can use IAR and some common sense. Creating an entire edit filter just for an edge case is ineffecient overkill. Frankly, if someone is going over 30% because of moving one page, then they probably shouldn't be editing as much in that area anyway." If someone is moving things across namespaces to get around the restriction, that's WP:GAMING and they should get slapped down for it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  My hope with this restriction was that it would use minimal bandwidth. In these edge cases, I would prefer the burden be on the person with the restriction to say "actually, my number is high because of XYZ." Like, if an admin has prima facie evidence that an editor has violated the BER because N95 shows their number is off, then the burden shifts to the editor to prove that the number is wrong. I'd prefer not to have to legislate that, lest we further instruction creep. Nothing prevents an admin from being like "hmmm wonder what's up with the N95 number, 100% seems wrong," and doing further research, but I don't want to order them to investigate and waste a bunch of time, when the editor themselves can just offer an explanation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• While I agree with CaptainEek, I'm also fine with endorsing the proposed approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• I wasn't involved in the drafting of this remedy, but I think if it's going to have any chance of being effective it has to be as lightweight as possible. If that means overlooking things drafted in userspace for filter purposes, that's fine. I'm sure it'll be brought to an admin's or AE's attention that there is gaming if all the only edits outside of their userspace are to ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• An article may have been userfied without their knowledge (e.g. an article deleted via AfD restored for another editor), so admins considering a sanction for violating the balanced editing restriction (especially while this is a new practice) should ideally keep this and other edge cases in mind and give the editor a reasonable chance to explain why it may be a different percentage than they may have thought. - Aoidh (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with SFR. Katie^talk 17:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• I was of the opinion that we should be counting copy-pasted drafts as multiple edits, but in the interest of keeping it lightweight, i've come around to the at-time-of-edit interpretation. However we implement that – bot, edit filter, honor system – works for me, although my preference would be something automated. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'm on the lightweight automation side (per SFR) - I want automation to take out the heavy lifting for admins, but admins still need to think - and if the edge cases come up, they should be capable of making those decisions. Let's not try to solve every plausible but unlikely scenario. Worm^TT(talk) 10:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Agree fully with SFR and Worm - lightweight is key here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Initiated by Noleander at 14:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Noleander arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned

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

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

Information about amendment request

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned
  • Terminate the topic ban

• Over the years, I've encountered several articles that needed some improvement, and I was ready & willing, but was not able to proceed due to the topic ban. It would be nice to be able to improve the encyclopedia in those situations.
• @CaptainEek That was a long time ago ... but I think the biggest change following the topic ban was that I began to get consensus in the Talk page of articles before making any edits. I do that as a matter of habit for all articles on contentious subjects, or articles that are monitored by passionate editors. A recent example is the mathematics article pi where I wanted to make some innocuous improvements, but I knew the article was heavily watched, so I announced my intentions in the talk page and asked for input before I began making the edits. On the other hand, if I'm contemplating a benign edit on an obscure article, I'll generally make the edit directly without first posting on the Talk page. To answer another question you all may have: No, there are no specific edits I'm intending to make within the topic ban subject area. The reason I am now asking for the topic ban to be terminated is because I recently rewrote the Margaret Sanger article and got it promoted to FA status. Shortly thereafter, I discovered that her first husband was Jewish. I panicked for a moment, but figured that it did not run afoul of the topic ban since he is barely mentioned in the article. But it would nice to not have to worry about that in the future. [PS: If my reply is supposed to be up in the "Statements" area, feel free to move it up there] Noleander (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• @Aoidh I agree with the decision that the Arbitration Committee made back then. I respect the encyclopedia and the processes that have been established over the years. From day one, I've respected WP policies (NPOV, UNDUE, VERIFIABILITY, etc). I've always - even back early 2000s - enjoyed working collaboratively on Talk pages to reach consensus, because every editor brings their own unique perspective to WP, and that is a good thing. I'm not a belligerent, edit-warring kind of editor. Regarding the Topic Ban, if I recall correctly, back then I'd visit some topics and notice: "This article was written by apologists and omits some important information" or "Hey, this article is overly positive" or "Why doesn't this article have a 'Criticism of' section?" My goal, when encountering such articles, was to achieve balance by, for example, adding material that shed light on negative aspects of the topic. My intention was never to flip the balance to be overly negative. Unfortunately, in spite of my respect for the NPOV and UNDUE polices, there were times that I went too far, and put in too much negative information. If I was on the ArbCom, I would have made the same decision that they did. Today, if I encountered – what I perceived to be – an unbalanced article, I would go to the Talk page first, and start a conversation on achieving balance. If a consensus could not be achieved, I'd suggest an RfC, and then go from there. Noleander (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Eluchil404 wrote "... they have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity." I'm not sure if they are trying to suggest that I've been sulking since the topic ban, and just recently resurfaced with nefarious purposes? The facts are: after the topic ban was imposed, I've made over 30,000 edits, promoted five (5) articles to FA; promoted seven (7) articles to GA; received about 20 barnstars; created about 40 new articles; and helped scores of editors by reviewing their articles. All of that work was after the topic ban was imposed. The vast majority of those achievements were in the 2010's, following the topic ban. I'm not sure how the ups and downs of my IRL obligations impact this request for lifting the topic ban. Noleander (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• @Aoidh I apologize if I was not clearer in my prior comments. So, let me be clear now: I am committing to not repeating the behavior that precipitated the topic ban. That means complying with all WP policies, including NPOV and UNDUE, in any edits or articles related to Judaism or Jewish peoples. Specifically: my edits will not involve material excessively or inappropriately negative related to Judaism or Jewish peoples. I hope that addresses your concerns; but if I misunderstood your concerns, let me know. Noleander (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ... a meta-comment: You guys do this topic ban stuff every day. But me: I don't have a clue what is expected here, or what information I'm supposed to provide. So, although it may look like I'm reluctantly dribbling out information, in fact, I'm being terse so I don't waste your time. I'm just feeling my way along in here, step by step.

The topic ban being appealed isNoleander is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace. which overlaps with the BLP, Arab-Israeli conflict and race and intelligence CTOP designations, and potentially overlaps with the Eastern Europe and American politics designations but is not fully covered by any of them. That said a scan of his user talk archives suggests that apart from one accidental breach of the topic ban 2012 he has fully complied with it, and I see no reason not to grant the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I briefly reviewed Noleander's activity and noted that they have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity. Thus there is considerably less than 14 years of consistent editing activity since the topic ban. I suggest that having an explicit probationary period is reasonable in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

14 years is long enough to be given another chance. Also, while, as noted, they don't have 14 years of active editing to be "proven out" they have the equivalent of 3-4 years which is a substantial amount. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

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

• Fourteen years and the topic they were disruptive in allows CTOP enforcement? I'm willing to overlook the subpar appeal based on the time passed without, in my brief check, any other issues. If there's any concerns we could explicitly allow for any uninvolved admin to restore the topic ban for a one year probationary period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear a little more from Noleander about what they've learned from their topic ban and how they've improved their editing since. It may be a rather old sanction, but Noleanders brief statement still doesn't give me much to work with. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I am reasonably satisfied with their response to Eek. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Couldn't find any issues on a cursory scroll either, which is impressive for 14 years on a fairly wide topic ban; I'd be in favor of lifting the topic ban, neutral on the probationary period given how much of it overlaps with CTOPs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• I took a look through Noleander's recent contributions to see if there were any concerns. Noleander seems to have been recently editing articles related to the American civil rights movements of the 1950s, which contains a lot of delicate subjects of race. They have also edited in some mathematics articles, as they pointed out above with the Pi article. I did not see any major concerns in their article edits or talk page conversations, and am, at this time, leaning towards lifting the ban for a probationary period so that it can be reapplied more quickly should the need arise. I would like to give arbs and the community more time to comment before making my formal declaration. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• One of the issues is the Noleander's editing Finding of Fact, which noted thatNoleander's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on any Jewish subjects of the article. @Noleander: Would you mind commenting on this aspect of the TBAN? - Aoidh (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Enacted – HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. I land here at the moment per my comment above. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Fourteen years is a long time, and I'm willing to extend some rope. With the confluence of CTOPs I think that any issues can be quickly addressed. I will also support a motion explicitly calling for a probation period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Okay. No probation period needed from my side, but I would also support if the motion contained one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
4. I believe that people can change their conduct and believe in second chances. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
5. So long as Noleander is properly aware of the CT scope, I'm willing to go along with the 14 years, AGF rationale. Cabayi (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Willing to give another chance. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Fine with this, mostly in the spirit of WP:ROPE: if a concern happens later, we will be able to deal with it then. Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
8. Willing to support given how long ago this sanction was placed down, and in the spirit of providing a second chance. I would normally consider a probationary period where it could be reapplied by any administrator, as mentioned by others, but given the direct overlap with existing contentious topic restrictions it feels somewhat unncessary in this situation — any administrator can just use those levers if they need to. I'm sure Noleander is acutely aware of our attitude towards disruption in this topic area, as we explicitly outlined with our principle "enough is enough" earlier this year, so I trust that the disruptive behaviours of a decade and a half ago are exactly that — a thing of the past. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That they have made constructive edits outside of this topic area is consistent with their activity prior to the TBAN; they were able to edit constructively outside of this topic area, but not within it. I don't see any compelling evidence that the issues that led to the TBAN are no longer a concern other than "it's been a while". Their response does not assure me that they see this topic any differently, only a (non-binding) assurance that they'll use the talk page this time around. However, the issue isn't which namespace was used. - Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

   I hope you're not implying Noleander should have better demonstrated their topic-related editing ability by editing constructively inside the area. ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

   No, just that their edits outside of this area were not an issue even at the time, so the fact that their edits outside of this area are not an issue now isn't by itself a compelling rationale. - Aoidh (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

There seems to be appetite to grant the appeal and thus rescind the topic ban, so proposing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

(Though for what its worth, I'm leaning against it at the moment. I'm not convinced that lifting it is necessary or wise, though I admit a 14 year old sanction is extremely old to still be carrying.) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)