Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 20 April 2024 (→Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing: hat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 20 April 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 Motion (orig. case) 18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing Motion (orig. case) 16 April 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131


Amendment request declined. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by TenPoundHammer at 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

9.1) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • This (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing; I can't figure out how to format this template properly, as I get a redlink no matter what I do to the title) was passed a year and a half ago. I would like to appeal it per the condition of This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

  • A limit may be placed on how many AFDs, PRODs, and CSDs I may place in a day or week (e.g. one a day, five a week, etc.)
  • I may maintain a list of content I plan to nominate for deletion with evidence that I have done WP:BEFORE (in the case of articles) or otherwise understand why the content should be deleted.
  • I am not to send material to AFD immediately after it has been de-prodded.
  • If another editor argues "keep", I must refrain from personally attacking them if I disagree with their opinion.
  • If an editor argues "keep" and presents sources, I must refrain from bullying them into adding sources into the article.
  • Optional: Anything not intended for a deletion outcome (de-prodding, renaming a category), obviously vandalism or hoax (G3), or clearly done as maintenance (G6, G7, U1, fixing an improperly formatted discussion) may be exempt from the limitation.
  • Optional: Another editor may volunteer to check my work and make sure if I am working within restrictions.
  • If I am deemed capable of working within the restrictions for a period of time (e.g., one month), restrictions may be lessened. However, if I exhibit behavior in violation of the restrictions, actions may be taken as needed (e.g., return to full topic-ban from deletion).

Per Thryduulf, I have chosen not to pursue complex restrictions further, but instead demonstrate that I understand why my behavior led to an XFD topic ban in the first place. I would like to present my understanding of my ban and appeal it accordingly. Thryduulf suggested my conduct since the topic ban is conducive to lifting it, and I would also like to show an understanding, and attempt to resolve, my past tendentiousness, recklessness, stubbornness, and other negative effects on the deletion process as a whole. My past behaviors included massive queues of nominations which flooded the queues, caused sloppy errors in fact checking and other practices of WP:BEFORE, attacks on editors whose participation in said discussions I disagreed with, and so on. I would like to appeal to a partial or full reversal of this ban -- whichever is decided better for me -- to prove that I have learned what I did wrong since the topic ban was enacted.

(Comment: This template is severely borked and I don't know how to unfuck it. I've tried a million things. Can someone fix this please so it's readable?)

This is my first time doing something like this, so I don't know all the ins and outs. I was told it can be appealed so I am attempting in good faith to appeal it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenPoundHammer

I was asked by ToBeFree (talk · contribs) to provide a view on what led to the topic ban. It's my understanding that my behavior in XFD included mass nominations which flooded the queues; aggressive behavior toward those who voted "keep" (e.g., browbeating them into adding the sources they found themselves, aggressively confronting them on source quality, general WP:BLUDGEON tactics); poor application of WP:BEFORE (likely stemming from the frantic pace in which I was nominating); and misleading edit summaries (e.g., saying an article was "deprodded for no reason" when the deprodder did explain their reason and/or added a source). No doubt my actions negatively impacted the opinions of other participants in such discussions, which instilled in me a feeling of bias against me that only made my actions even worse. I can also see how informing editors of active deletion discussions on relevant topics constitutes WP:CANVASSing, such as the entire "List of people on the postage stamps of X" debacle. I also expressed great frustration in my inability to properly execute any WP:ATD such as redirection, not thinking that maybe my attempts to redirect or merge content were being undone in good faith and not as some sort of vendetta against me. In general, these show a track record of being sloppy, knee-jerk, and aggressive, and trying way too hard to get my way in spite of what others think. And again, I can see how such actions have caused others to view me unfavorably even before the topic ban was issued.

I know this isn't the first time I've been here, and my deletion tactics have been problematic in the past. Ever since I was topic banned, the thought of "how could I have done that better?" was on my mind, and I'd been formulating theories on how I could have approached XFD better. It didn't help that I spent much of 2022 unemployed and I was not in a good mental state because of that. I feel that I am overall in a better state as an editor right now, as to my knowledge I have not had any conflicts with editors in the months since the topic ban. I also feel that I have formulated solutions to keep the previously mentioned problems at bay and take a more measured, less stressful approach to XFD. This is why one such proposal should the topic ban be rescinded was for me to keep a list of articles I intend to nominate, with proof of WP:BEFORE being done. I had attempted such a list before the topic ban, but it never got very far and I'm sure I was already too deep in the throes of my angry hasty approach. But now I've had plenty of time in which I feel I have sufficiently cooled down and can tackle a more systematic approach.

I did take some time to try and find sources for some TV articles I had questioned the notability of in the past. In just the course of a few minutes I was able to give Stump the Schwab a source, but found it difficult to find others and tagged it with {{notability}}. Ego Trip's The (White) Rapper Show I trimmed some plot summary out of and added a couple reliable sources which I feel are just enough to assert notability for the show. By comparison, Fast Food Mania did not seem to be a notable show, and I made a post here with my analysis of sourcing. This is the kind of behavior I wish to continue executing, so I can take a more measured approach with more time to present my findings or lack thereof before (if the topic ban is lifted) sending anything to XFD.

Since it was brought up on my talk page, I would like to know: is participating in WP:DRV (which I honestly forgot even exists) a violation of the topic ban as it stands? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the result is to allow me to participate in XFDs but not initiate new ones, what would the conditions be to lift the topic ban entirely? I assume a second appeal after twelve months (the time established in the original topic ban), provided my behavior in the interim stays on point and no further problems arise? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: So at what point is this considered passed? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly: @Cunard: I agree, blar'ing was not covered under the original topic ban. I stated clearly (or at least what I thought was clearly) in my edit summaries every time my attempts at a WP:BEFORE and why I think the redirect was justified. Some were obvious enough, such as a one-sentence stub on a song being redirected to the artist or album, that I felt a more elaborate edit summary was not needed. I also did not delink the articles as a courtesy to any other editors such as Cunard, in case they found something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Are you done wikistalking me yet, Cunard? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh yeah, if I'm making statements like the one above, then it's clear XFD is still too stressful for me to handle without fucking it up again, at least for the time being. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re TPH)

A complex list of things you can and can't do is unlikely to gain the favour of the committee - complex restrictions are hard for everybody to remember, complicated to work out whether specific behaviour is permitted or not, and generally easier to accidentally violate. Instead, something like narrowing the scope of the topic ban to allow participation in deletion discussions initiated by other editors but retaining the prohibition on you nominating pages for prod or XFD is more likely to gain favour. Any removal or relaxation though will only happen if you have demonstrated an understanding of why the topic ban was initially placed and your conduct since the ban makes it seem probable that your presence in deletion discussions will not be disruptive. I have not yet looked to see whether both are true. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: your current restriction prohibits you from taking part in "deletion-related discussions", that includes DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to Izno's suggestion, although it would need careful wording, e.g. it should mention explicitly whether they are allowed to discuss the deletion of drafts, and what happens regarding pages moved into or out of a namespace they cannot comment on (for simplicity I would suggest not allowing comments regarding redirects that either are in or which target namespaces they cannot comment on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: wrote I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews. I don't think it's clear that the proposed wording does prohibit all of those. I would read topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. as:

  • Clearly prohibiting:
    • Initiating or closing discussions at XfD
    • Initiating or closing discussions at DRV
    • Initiating or closing discussions challenging deletion discussion closures at noticeboards
    • Initiating or closing proposals, RFCs and similar discussions about the deletion of pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)
    • Adding proposals to delete to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
  • Clearly not prohibiting:
    • Participating in any of the above types of discussion
    • Participating in discussions about challenged closures
    • Responding to queries about deletion discussions or comments left in such discussions
  • Implicity prohibiting:
    • Initiating or closing discussions about (mass) draftification
    • Adding proposals to draftify to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
    • Blanking and redirecting pages or initiating or closing discussions proposing such
  • Being entirely unclear about:
    • Nominating pages for PROD or speedy deletion
    • Endorsing PRODs placed by others
    • Deprodding or challenging speedy deletions initiated by others
    • Asking for clarification regarding the closure of a deletion discussion
    • Supporting or opposing proposals regarding the deletion or draftification of pages or types of page
    • Asking for deleted pages to be REFUNDed to draft or userspace

Accordingly I would suggest the topic ban be worded more clearly, perhaps something like: TPH is topic banned from:

  • Nominating or proposing pages for deletion or speedy deletion
  • Endorsing or declining proposed or speedy deletion nominations
  • Challenging the closure of a deletion discussion (at DRV or elsewhere)
  • Closing any deletion-related discussion
  • Initiating or closing proposals to delete, speedy delete or draftify (types or classes of) pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)

They explicitly may:

  • Participate in deletion and deletion review discussions.
  • Challenge proposed or speedy deletion nominations by posting on the talk page.
  • Seek clarification regarding the closure of deletion discussions.
  • Request pages be REFUNDed to draft or userspace.

Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: The proposed restriction specifies the topic as only initiating or closing deletion discussions which is a lot narrower in my reading than it is in your apparent reading - e.g. PROD and CSD are not "discussions". The current restriction explicitly states "broadly construed" the proposed one does not, it is therefore reasonable to assume that its absence is intentional and significant. Certainly I cannot see any reasonable way to regard participating in deletion review discussions as prohibited by the proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree the word "topic" is irrelevant to my comment because whether TPH is "banned" or "topic banned" from initiating or closing deletion discussions makes no difference to what they are and are not permitted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

It would be reasonable to restore TPH to participation in existing XfDs opened by others, and this will give the community time to see how that interaction goes. That is, a good few months of collegial comments, working towards consensus, finding sourcing or describing its absence, honoring ATDs, and the like would go a long way to demonstrating that TPH is moving past the binary battles of the old school AfDs we both remember. I'm most concerned that AfD participation is too low to sustain good discussions on more open AfDs at a time, and this would prevent that as a problem. I have seen TPH's desire to improve the encyclopedia, despite our being on the opposite sides of a lot of discussions over the years, and I would be pleased to find the dip in participation quality called out in the case was an anomaly in a long-term editor's carer. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given Cunard's experience below, I am withdrawing my support and suggesting that the sanction be extended to include redirection. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

I remain of the opinion that the ban from all XFD was overly broad. The FOF for TPH referenced article deletion exclusively. Another alternative stepping stone besides banning from nominations and lifting otherwise would be to retain the ban in these areas (AFD, CSD in main space, RFD in main space, CFD for main space categories?, PROD) while removing it from the other forums. IznoPublic (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

If you do decide to lift this restriction, I'd encourage you to leave a provision allowing an uninvolved administrator to reïmpose it should it become necessary down the road. The appeal is pretty good, but the appeal in 2019 was also pretty good, so while I hope it won't happen, I think it's important to have a failsafe in case things go south again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cunard

I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer a few days ago about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer not to blank and redirect articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series. I monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television so am focusing on the redirects of television series articles. I reviewed the first three television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected: My Tiny Terror, Steampunk'd, and Window Warriors. I found sources for these articles and reverted the redirects. I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later. It took me several hours to find sources and expand just three of the 14 television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected.
TenPoundHammer is resuming the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact. TenPoundHammer is continuing to redirect articles despite my 3 March 2024 request to stop the redirects.
I ask that the topic ban be amended to prohibit proposing articles for deletion and to also prohibit blanking and redirecting pages. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later" regarding TenPoundHammer's redirects of 14 articles about television series between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. After spending many hours searching for sources, I reverted all 14 redirects and added sources to all 14 articles. For several of the topics (such as Queer Eye for the Straight Girl and Dice: Undisputed), sources could be easily found with a Google search.

Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 33 articles. Almost all of those redirects are in the music topic area which I do not focus on. I am concerned about the large number of redirects of topics that could be notable. Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle as it is very time-consuming to search for sources on so many articles. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer redirected three book articles on 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024: 1, 2, and 3. I reverted the three redirects and added book reviews. Cunard (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly (talk · contribs), you are the first arbitrator to comment in this amendment request since I presented evidence of continued disruptive editing on 18 March 2024. Should I present the evidence and request for expansion of the topic ban in a separate amendment request or keep it here? Cunard (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: I am responding to your question about "have there been any other negative interactions around these blankings". Before the 2 August 2022 deletion topic ban, TenPoundHammer nominated numerous articles for proposed deletion and articles for deletion. He also redirected numerous articles in 2022. This link shows the last 500 redirects he did before the 2 August 2022 topic ban. If you search for the text "Tags: New redirect Reverted" on the page, there are 189 results. At least 189 of the redirects he did between April 2022 and July 2022 were reverted.

I am not aware of other recent negative interactions around these blankings. This could be because blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs. Television-related prods and AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. But blank-and-redirects are not listed anywhere so editors may not have noticed. I would have not become aware that TenPoundHammer had begun redirecting a large number of articles had he not redirected Monkey-ed Movies. He had previously nominated that article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey-ed Movies, where I supported retention.

It is unclear to me whether the existing topic ban includes proposing articles for deletion. I recommend that the topic ban be expanded to prohibit both proposing articles for deletion and blanking and redirecting pages since there is previous disruptive editing in both areas where he has prodded or redirected a large number of articles about notable topics.

Cunard (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer redirected the television show Las Vegas Garden of Love yesterday with the edit summary "unsourced since 2010, time to lose it". I found sources for the article and reverted the redirect. I found two of the sources (The New York Times and Variety) on the first page of a Google search for "Las Vegas Garden of Love ABC". TenPoundHammer previously prodded this same article in May 2022, and another editor contested that prodding. Cunard (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BOZ

I'm going to back up the assertions by User:Cunard that we need to look into this habit of TPH of using WP:BLAR frequently on articles, although I am not sure whether it should be done as part of this request or if a separate request should be made. BLAR is not necessarily a controversial activity, but if an editor has been demonstrated to be redirecting articles on topics that can meet the GNG over and over again, then that is concerning. If we have an editor who has been topic banned from deletions, and that same editor uses BLAR inappropriately as an end-run around this topic ban, then we may have a situation worth further examining.

Processes like AFD and PROD will show up on Article Alerts pages for WikiProjects and on Deletion sorting pages and in other areas of Wikipedia where editors will be able to address for themselves if a topic is notable or not. With BLAR, if you have not watchlisted every article you might ever want to read or work on, it would be easy to miss an article being redirected. One of the few methods I have found to keep track of redirections is the Articles by quality log; for example, I have gone through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Board and table game articles by quality log in a many-hours-long journey of painstaking research to find every article that was ever deleted or redirected from that WikiProject. I do not recommend this activity to anyone else, although for me I feel it was worth it. I know this is only one example, but one of the many redirected articles I encountered in this research was The Mad Magazine Game, which was BLAR by TPH in 2022: [1] This seems uncontroversial enough given the state of the article at the time, but when I asked Cunard to help me find sources on Talk:The Mad Magazine Game there were a plethora! BLAR does not require any WP:BEFORE activity, so it is concerning to me to think that a user can just redirect dozens, hundreds, thousands of articles that may turn out to be notable after all, and no one might ever correct this and the articles may stay redirected indefinitely. BOZ (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Cunard in case my attempted ping failed. :) BOZ (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery

The BLAR situation misses the point entirely IMO. All Cunard has proven is that he is better at source searching than TenPoundHammer, but honestly Cunard is better at source searching than pretty much everyone, myself included. It might be wise for TenPoundHammer to slow down with BLAR-ing (or nominating for deletion if allowed to do so) articles, but I don't see why the situation there has anything whatsoever to do with whether he is allowed to participate in deletion discussions. I would appreciate it if the arbs opposing due to this would explain their reasoning, since I'm completely missing it.

A topic ban appeal is not the appropriate venue to impose additional restrictions that were not covered by the original topic ban, especially with reference to issues that predate it as BOZ's example does.. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

Not as a pile on, but for the next appeal of either the topic ban, or further modification thereof should this pass. TPH, we've both been around forever. I believe you're editing in good faith but SLOW DOWN. There is no need to rush to BLAR/nominate 14 articles on one topic even if you can. The project will survive just fine assuming they're not BLPs. Keeping the project clutter free is not a day one job. Flooding an editor like Cunard or any other one who wants to save the articles just causes frustration. So whenever this is lifted, just take the time to pace it. Star Mississippi 00:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I'd prefer to avoid voting for customized, user-specific sanctions – there's either a topic ban or there isn't. Also, no formal sanction should ever be needed to require adherence to the policies against personal attacks, harassment or similar behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello TenPoundHammer, no worries. If I see correctly, the appeal currently contains a list of proposed replacements for the existing topic ban, but it doesn't describe what led to the ban and how this changed in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, TenPoundHammer, and sorry for the slow response. I'm fine with reducing the scope of your topic ban, as for example proposed in the first motion below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TenPoundHammer, thanks for asking. Motions are majority decisions; looking at WP:ArbCom#Members,* we'd currently need 7 support votes for the motion to pass. There are 5 so far.
    (*This can be more complicated when an arbitrator is generally inactive but decides to join the discussion here, in which case they're "active on the motion" and counted as active here. Irrelevant in the current situation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am open to the idea of amending the TBAN so that it is a topic ban on initiating deletion discussions rather than a topic ban on deletion discussions as a whole. However, @TenPoundHammer: could you elaborate on how you would approach such deletions discussions differently than in the past? - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not immediately opposed to amending the topic ban following TenPoundHammer's reply above. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My !vote is to modify the TBAN. I think a TBAN of initiating deletion-related discussions (that is, nominating articles for PROD, XfD, etc.) and closing deletion discussions is appropriate, but I am willing to lift their ban on participating in deletion discussions. I would also add the stipulation that any admin can reimpose the TBAN for all deletion discussions if they find that TenPoundHammer has returned to the bludgeoning and harassment conduct that led to the TBAN. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Barkeep and reinstatement if concerns continue: I would rather that the reinstatement be indefinite, with TPH having to come back to ArbCom to get it lifted again, accompanied with an explanation of their conduct. I do not want to stop TPH from being able to appeal (as admin make mistakes, and TPH should be able to point that out) but also if TPH's full TBAN is reinstated I do not want it automatically lifted because of a time limit. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720: I am suggesting that an individual admin could only reinstate for the first 12-18 months. So if no one does in that time, it would have to be reinstated by the committee or community rather than as an individual admin action. If reinstated it would then be indefinite. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to a modification along the lines of what Z1720 suggests (also not opposed to Izno's scope) though I would want the ability for an individual admin to reinstate for 12-18 months given the conduct issues from the case during discussions and the previous failure when a TBAN was removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH: it's probably better for someone who will be on the committee next year to tell you, but I would want at least 12 months of problem free editing and truthfully longer because of what happened previously when a topic banned was repealed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appeal shows the appropriate level of self-reflection and understanding of the problems. I think this is a classic case of a good editor with a blind spot in a particular area. I'm quite happy to consider lifting or loosening the restriction. I'd be happy with either allowing TPH to participate but not initiate, or with lifting completely with a caveat like EW's that means it can be re-imposed with minimal bureaucratic overhead. I could also see my way to supporting something a bit more nuanced if those two options don't gain traction. Not that I doubt TPH's sincerity, but this seems to be a big blind spot and complaints about TPH and AfD stretch back many years (I seem to recall seeing complaints back when I was first starting out 15 years ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy with modifying the TBAN to permit participating in XfDs (but not starting or closing), with an uninvolved admin being able to reimpose the full tban within the first 12 months. Maxim (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: TenPoundHammer topic ban modified

TenPoundHammer's topic ban (Remedy 9.1) is modified to read TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. An uninvolved administrator may reimpose a full topic ban on deletion discussions (broadly construed) within the first twelve months.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Feel free to wordsmith. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"topic" removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support as written. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoidh (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:# I think this is a reasonable enough solution. firefly ( t · c ) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Striking while I consider the evidence around blanking-and-redirection, without prejudice to restoring the vote. firefly ( t · c ) 14:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. (As I'd prefer to avoid supporting user-specific/custom restrictions and TenPoundHammer has understandably asked for how this discussion continues, I'll formally add an oppose vote here so my non-support is properly counted and we have 6 arbitrators who have already voted.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The blanking and redirect issue places me here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Guerillero - I'm not ready to modify this (with this wording at least) at present. firefly ( t · c ) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per the redirect concerns and Special:Diff/1219160953. - Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I commend TPH for their candour in the diff given by Aoidh. It is not quite a formal withdrawal of the request, but still indicates to me that a bit more time away would be helpful. I will note that I still have no major concerns with the BLAR activities since they are easily overturned and so far have not been shown to be an area of dispute (other than people disagreeing with the redirect creation itself). Primefac (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per the recent votes above. Maxim (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per TPH's presumed withdrawal. Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
Generally supportive, but as written I don't think the motion includes PROD, which I strongly believe it should. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this motion doesn't include PROD, I'm afraid the current sanction doesn't either. And I can see that, as proposing deletion is meant for exactly the cases that are perceived to not require a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous motion was broadly construed and this is not. If I recall correctly that's where the thinking was that it included things other than XfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep would you like to add "broadly construed" at the end of the first sentence? I would consider this addition to include PROD. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would also include CSD which I don't think is the current intent? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that the current restriction applies to CSD or PROD and nor does this one. Ultimately I support largely lifting all restrictions but with the ability of an uninvovled admin to re-impose them. If there are issues with TPH's deletion-related conduct in the future we can look at them then. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the matters it hears. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans are broadly construed by default, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. Note: As this is a topic ban, I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, if I understand correctly, you either believe that in the current case, the word "topic" shouldn't have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, or the word "topic" should be removed. While that's an option – a user-specific custom ban type – I personally wouldn't support it. A topic ban from closing deletion discussions, or less ambiguously, a topic ban from deletion discussion closures, does include discussions of such closures, e.g. at DRV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, that would already be said by the text "TenPoundHammer is banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions". Adding the word "topic" then just adds confusion and ambiguity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that neither CSD nor PROD are deletion discussions, and I'd say that assuming they're included in the original remedy is a bit far-fetched. Regarding "topic" and "broadly construed", the motion is currently demonstrably not clear enough about what is included and what is not. I'll strikethrough "topic" in the motion as it's either irrelevant or confusing or comes with unintended implications. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine adding "broadly construed" as it was in the original motion and does allow for less pigeonholing. I would also agree with those above who indicate that the original does not mention CSD or PROD so this one probably should not either. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, now that "topic" is gone and my interpretation of the proposed ban is narrow, I personally would recommend against adding "broadly construed". To decide this, perhaps an example would be needed of behavior that is meant to be (additionally) prohibited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard - thank you for the ping. I have struck my vote for the time being. I am sympathetic to the idea of including blanking-and-redirecting as part of the new restrictions, although at that point I have to wonder whether we're reaching a point where it would be better to keep the original restrictions in place until they can be removed more cleanly... firefly ( t · c ) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any debate or otherwise negative inter-editor interaction as far as these redirects go? BLAR does not seem to be covered under the original restriction, so pointing to it as a "problem" to consider with regard to deletion-related editing seems odd to me. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have clarified that I've not come to a conclusion there, but wanted to pull my vote while I consider. I agree that it's not part of the original restriction, but I think it's reasonable to consider BLAR 'deletion-related editing'. Your point around "have there been any other negative interactions around these blankings" is what I'm looking for at the moment :) firefly ( t · c ) 14:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Motion enacted Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Olympian at 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Link to remedy


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


Information about amendment request
  • Removal of TBAN


Statement by Olympian

More than a year ago, I was topic banned from Armenia, Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Since then, I’ve fully acquainted myself with the principles and decisions of the case and adjusted my behaviour to not edit-war under any circumstance (the reason for my topic ban). I promise to follow the rules and principles of AA3 and all relevant judgements, and respectfully ask that my topic ban is lifted.

I didn’t stop editing as a result of the ban, rather, I kept contributing to and improving Wikipedia in other areas. Other than the countless random improvements I made, I also authored two new articles ([2][3]) and improved another to become a GA nomination. Moreover, I assisted an editor in authoring several GA’s as they frequently enquired regarding MOS, structure, sources, and copyediting.

In the AA3 case, it was agreed by the majority of arbitrators that I had erred by using a denialist source and that I had edit warred. Since then, I err on the side of caution in thoroughly checking each source. Moreover, I generally abstain from reverting others’ edits and am always the first to initiate dialogue with fellow editors to reach a consensus ([4][5][6]). I would also like to add that I don’t have a history of sanctions prior to this. – Olympian loquere 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Firefly. Indeed I have slowed down my editing because the topic covered by the TBAN is one of the few areas where I have significant knowledge due to years of reading on the subject. But since my ban, I've been trying to branch out more to other topics I know about but sadly haven't been able to contribute significantly due to IRL reasons – I started a new job and have been dealing with an increased workload from my studies. I am confident that I will not edit war again, as during the first time (during the case), I was not aware I was doing so, due to being unfamiliar with the policy. After the arbitrators pointed out my edit-warring, I acquainted myself with the edit-warring policy and what conduct constitutes it, and thereafter abstained from doing so in any form. – Olympian loquere 12:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KhndzorUtogh

I was following the AA3 developments at the time, I was forced to comment myself once. When it comes to Olympian, I had my fair share of problems with this user; at one point, I suspected them of sockpuppeting. My suspicion was before the topic ban, but there is something that I wasn't sure about, yet I think it's of importance to the committee as it happened during the topic ban and raises some suspicions about Olympian's claim of not violating the topic ban - 2 months after the AA3 closure and Olympian's topic ban, a user named WikiHannibal posted this message on Olympian's talk which piqued my interest; the user was essentially complaining about an unverifiable info restored by Olympian about exodus of Azerbaijanis from an Armenian village (I had removed it prior to Olympian's restoration). About an hour and a half after that message, another user named Samiollah1357 restored Olympian's added content that WikiHannibal removed and complained about, with summary: "archived version of the source mentions removed information". I assumed Olympian didn't restore this as they would've violated the topic ban, and they had admitted it themselves, only replying 3 days later to WikiHannibal's concern saying: "Sorry, I'm topic banned so I can't comment on that." - only for someone else (Samiollah1357) already having restored the content 3 days prior, an hour and a half after WikiHannibal's complaint to Olympian. At the time, all of this seemed extremely suspicious to me and I had suspected either sockpuppetery or meatpuppetry proxy-editing, but I didn't want to open another SPI based on this one example as my earlier SPI with more diffs was closed with no action. To be honest, I didn't have much experience with SPIs either at the time. Regardless of everything, I think this is important info for the committee to consider in the context of this appeal.

And upon doing some more research into this, it seems to me that there is more stylistic evidence that Olympian likely either sockpuppeted or meatpuppeted via proxy-editing while they were tbanned: see that Samiollah1357 other edits in similar niche Armenian villages after Olympian's tban [7] (reverting me like Olympian), are very similar to Olympian's other restorations prior to the AA3 tban [8], [9] (again reverting me) in terms of edit summaries and nature of restoration, i.e., adding archived link to a removed dead url like with the first example involving Olympian's talk page. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Clerk notes

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Of the parties sanctioned in AA3, Olympian's conduct seemed the least-bad from what I can see - although edit-warring in the topic area during an arbitration case is of course manifestly unwise!
    Olympian - you say that you have not stopped editing after the TBAN, which is plainly true, however your activity has dropped significantly. I am slightly concerned that while you have avoided edit warring outside of the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, you would be at risk of doing so in an area where you would edit more intensely / with greater personal attachment. Could you speak to how you would avoid doing so?
    • Thinking out loud for my colleagues' benefit - I am wondering whether a suspended removal could work here? Remove the TBAN but allow any uninvolved administrator to re-impose it within the first twelve months. firefly ( t · c ) 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be open to replacing the topic ban with a version of the parole I created for this case --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a suspended removal is a good option here. I'm not against replacing the current topic ban with the probation remedy from the case, but it would a second choice, as I would prefer on appeals to not leave in place an indefinite sanction. Maxim (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to doing something and would slightly prefer a longer than normal suspension given the huge dropoff in activity where the total activity since the TBAN is less than any one of the 6 months before it. So 18 or 24 months rather than 12. Probation would be a second choice as I agree with Maxim that I think appeals should generally sunset if successful. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the proposed FoF discussion, the proposed remedies discussion and the appeal, I'd be fine with lifting the ban entirely. Yes, edit warring during an arbitration case about the article's topic is unwise. Olympian says they were unaware of having done so, which – see the complicated history part linked from the FoF – isn't an absurd claim to me. The 1RR would still be in effect to prevent this type of disruption. The proposed "Use of Sources" FoF didn't pass. This is not the type of ban I'd uphold in doubt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify on some of the above arbitrator opinions, are we referring to "probation" and "suspension" both as meaning any uninvolved administrator to re-impose it as written by Firefly, or are there differences in the wording choices here? I think we are ready for motions but I want to make sure I am not ignoring or combining other alternatives. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would concur in Firefly's recommendation. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support Firefly's recommendation. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Olympian's topic ban rescinded with suspension

Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Swapped the wording to the one below with permission of firefly. I am ready to support --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thanks Guerillero - I should've checked for a previous instance of this being done. firefly ( t · c ) 18:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aoidh (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
Proposing without votes to allow for wordsmithing as this is something of a bespoke remedy. firefly ( t · c ) 17:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last time we did this it was worded "is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted." and I feel like it is more crisp way of doing the same thing (keeping the 18 months for this one). If others disagree I'm not going to stand in the way --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not that bespoke; I would favor the language suggested by Guerillero but there are plenty of other options to draw on if needed. It's not a big issue for me though. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Guerillero's proposed wording. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing

Initiated by Seraphimblade at 01:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Rp2006 notification: [10]
  • SFR notification: [11]
Information about amendment request
  • Enforcement of restriction


Statement by Seraphimblade

Initially, this stems from an AE request filed by ScottishFinnishRadish ([12]), regarding allegations of repeated topic ban violations by Rp2006 even after guidance and warnings. As the AE request contains the details of such violations, I won't rehash them here. Arbitrator Barkeep49 indicated at the request that ArbCom has private evidence relevant to handling this request. Since this would mean that AE admins do not and cannot have the full picture, it's therefore requested that ArbCom handle it since they have access to that information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rp2006

In any reasonable court, the accused has the right to see the evidence being used against them and respond. Does Wikipedia believe it is above that policy, or will I have access to the "private evidence" mentioned with a chance to respond prior to admins sentencing me? Rp2006 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Replied. Rp2006 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

If anything is needed other than what I provided via email and the statements I made at AE with examples of topic ban violations and numerous warnings let me know.

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Skepticism and coordinated editing: Clerk notes

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

Skepticism and coordinated editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I agree that sharing the private evidence with Rp2006 is appropriate and have supported the effort of another arbitrator to do so. Hopefully this will happen soon. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rp2006: you should have an email with the private diffs/links. If you didn't get it please email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and we will reply with it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite share the view of my comrades here. I think Rp2006 deserves some explanation, since he clearly isn't getting something. Such feedback must be provided in private here, which we're working on. Still, the continuing topic ban violations are not reassuring. You can't just violate a topic ban you don't like. You need to appeal it, or ask for clarification. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism and coordinated editing motion

For violations of their topic ban and for continued editing which violate the conflict of interest guidelines, Rp2006 is blocked for 1 month. This block may be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee.

Support (Skepticism and coordinated editing motion)
  1. I find the evidence of violations presented at AE to be clear and Rp2006's response unconvincing. In addition the Arbitration Committee has received private evidence that Rp2006 continues to violate our guideline on Conflict of Interest editing. While no remedy was passed about this, it was named in the finding of fact against them. As such I think the upper limit for a first violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy is appropriate (While the Committee is not strictly bound by that enforcement limit that individual admins/AE is, I don't see a reason not to abide by it here) Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is proportionate per the evidence presented at the AE and what we've received. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. firefly ( t · c ) 17:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would support an indef next time we have to intervene here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aoidh (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Skepticism and coordinated editing motion)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1219891572"