Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia   14 June 2025 7/1/2
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 08 Jun 2025 22 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Motion (orig. case) 16 June 2025
Amendment request: Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs. none none 18 June 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  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
127128129130131132

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 and this report 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
127128129130131132

Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

[edit]

Initiated by MarioProtIV at 21:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. 4) MarioProtIV is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by MarioProtIV

[edit]

This may come as a non-standard request, but in light of recent events I decided to bring this up with the ArbCom. I’m well aware I had a NAC ban as a result of the 2022 saga, and it’s been more than 3 years since then, far past the minimum 12-month appeal period. Since then I never requested a rescission because I didn’t feel like it was important compared to the topic ban restriction, but I did allow RMs to continue naturally and instead of closing myself if I felt it was dragging I simply opened a closure request and let it run from there, as proof I’ve learned from this mistake. However that’s not necessarily the full reason why I’m requesting this.

The WikiProject has been dealing with a LTA user known as Andrew5, who is known for sockpuppeting across many articles related to the project and ones specifically tailored to his interests such as politics and sports. Recently, he has developed the obsession of removing my edits reverting information under BMB policy that he entered. Where it gets murky is that he has also opened RMs on these IPs on pages, and these edits I reverted also under BMB (such as this one which was a reversion of a DUCK IP (not banned yet, but highly likely Andrew given the same three reverts), although I was advised that I bring this to ArbCom as even under this policy the reversion could possibly count as a NAC by me. A full rescission of the restriction would allow me to continue BMB edits without possibly violating this restriction even though I’m assuming good faith in this decision. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: I should note that RM in March was later revealed to have been opened by a sock, but besides that that RM was very messy as we were trying to determine what dates to move it to and others were suggesting non-standard names (it got closed as not moved). The other point you have was a genuine lapse of thought by me as I had briefly forgotten I was still under the NAC restriction and thus quickly reverted my change upon being notified of that. It had been almost 3 years since the end of the case and my other priorities in life caused me to forget that momentarily. Hope that makes sense for those. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

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.

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Clerk notes

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

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • A BMB revert shouldn't count as a t-ban violation as long as it's crystal clear that the edit was really made by an LTA. Not opposed to lifting the sanction here altogether, though will have to do a bit of a more thorough review first. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think WP:BANEXEMPT covers this, unless the edits themselves are obvious vandalism. If it's just a non-vandal LTA edit it can be taken care of by the next person who doesn't have a topic ban. That said, I wouldn't ding someone with a topic ban for reverting any of the obvious LTAs that I know, so I guess it's a bit of a IAR around BANEXEMPT. I'll take a deeper look at the circumstances surrounding the restriction when time permits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the edits being reverted are obviously disruptive (ie any reasonable editor can see what the problem is), I would be fine with invoking BANEXEMPT but if nuance and detailed explanation is required it would be better to leave it to another editor and/or bring the issue to the attention of administrators at AIV or SPI or whichever venue is appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BANEX covers reverting obvious vandalism, though I don't think that it goes so far as to cover BMB unless the edits are obvious vandalism in themselves. Stretching it like that by default would be too prone to gaming, given how sock detection is sometimes an art rather than a science.
    @MarioProtIV: Please comment on Special:Diff/1281279843 (March RM) and Special:Permalink/1282053230#Topic ban violation. Others: please note the previous topic ban amendment that passed. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is really stretching BANEX when the "LTA" editor isn't yet blocked, and could potentially cause problems per Harry and s.q. above; for contrast as to what I think is included under BANEX, if someone with an AfD close/re-open tban reverted the IP LTA who forges admin signatures when closing AfD's as "pure vandalism", that would be acceptable in my view. That being said, having spent some time researching this issue and Mario's recent contributions and talk page discussions yesterday, I am supportive of a motion to rescind this topic ban at this time, absent any evidence that doing so would be unwise. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request above does indicate a reasonable measure of conscientiousness regarding moves; I am not at this point opposed to removing the restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: MarioProtIV's editing restriction rescinded

[edit]

Remedy 4 (MarioProtIV & NAC) of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones is rescinded.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Per my comments above in the discussion section. Daniel (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unlikely to resume the behavior that led to the restriction, it's been a while, and they're constructively engaged with the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Enough time has passed, and this can always be reinstated if problems resurface. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Aoidh (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Katietalk 03:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Z1720 – they've already reintegrated themselves into the topic area, which speaks to their ability to grow from a ban and not repeat the same mistakes. All the best, Mario! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I generally lean towards removing sanctions after some time and this is a lighter sanction compared to the topic ban. But I can't vote for this when Mario acknowledged that they couldn't remove RMs due to the restriction but still did so. I'm also unconvinced by Mario's response to my question: that March RM was opened by EF5, not a sock (I thought that they may have mixed up the RM with the ANI discussion, but they had separated the two when writing, so maybe not?). Mario's comment above Special:Diff/1281279843 makes it seem like they may work too hastily when closing RMs: I do not think that lifting the restriction is a good idea at the moment. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I just don't know this case or the parties well enough to have a strong opinion. I haven't seen a compelling reason to lift the sanction altogether, but nor have I seen a compelling reason not to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Amendment request: Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.

[edit]

Initiated by Bohemian Baltimore at 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
"You are indefinitely topic banned from the self-identification or citizenship of living or recently deceased people, broadly construed."
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Bohemian Baltimore

[edit]
   Bohemian Baltimore's statement contains 481 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I was banned from topic of self-ID/citizenship of BLPs (living or recently deceased). This prevents me from adding basics such as "Dutch musician", "French architect" to uncontroversial BLPs. It prevents me from creating uncontroversial BLPs for figures such as priests, as "Roman Catholic" is a form of ID. The intent of topic ban was to keep me away from subject of whether a person is Native or pretendian; I have complied with topic ban by strictly staying away from such BLPs citizenship. I mistakenly believed I was banned from all BLPs, but now see it only says "recently deceased". But as example of intent to adhere to topic ban, I created articles like Joseph Rytmann without mentioning he was French, Edward Temple without mentioning he was American. Preventing me from adding uncontroversial info is overly broad, prevents me from creating more BLPs. This is unnecessary to preserve intent of ban, which is to prevent me from editing BLPs related to pretendianism. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. It was my understanding that the pretendian issue was the primary reason for my topic ban, and that the general BLP prohibition was due to other incidents like using terms like "racist" to describe others' editing, and was done through an abundance of caution, as I was told "broadly construed" was to prevent any ambiguity or possible abuse. I have demonstrated my cooperation by not editing those BLPs and not using terms like racist/bigoted to describe editing.
  • 2. I am aware that titles like "Priest" or "Rabbi" are roles and not self-IDs, but they inherently imply self-IDs. Yes, I try to use an abundance of caution because, no, I cannot assume what any admin interprets as a violation and I must be careful. That's an attempt at cooperation.
  • 3. I see that the word "marginalized" is not in the formal language of the topic ban itself, but the word was used by admins when they instituted the ban, so that is why I inquired if the ban only related to marginalized people. It has been clarified that it applies to any self-ID.
  • 4. Per admin ScottishFinnishR, an "appeal for a lessening or removal of the sanctions due to lessons learned and behaviors changed are normally looked upon favorably after at least six months have passed...In your case, with three months of adherence to the topic ban I wouldn't be surprised if you could get the sanction scaled back to only applying to self-identification". Per instruction, I waited over 6 months; I requested what I thought was a narrower leniency than SFR suggested, as I didn't request the ability to edit Native BLP citizenship. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. @User:CaptainEek BLPs for long deceased people are not subject to the topic ban. As for why I didn't appeal sooner; because SFR explicitly said I'd be "looked upon poorly" if I moved too quickly to appeal. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

[edit]
   ScottishFinnishRadish's statement contains 50 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

At the AE report that led to these sanctions their behavior around LGBT and Jewish and other minority/marginalized people was also raised as an issue, which directly led to the broader topic ban. Diffs such as this demonstrate that the issues were broader than identification of indigenous people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

[edit]
   SarekOfVulcan's statement contains 39 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

BB's omission in the amendment request of the other things that led to the broader sanction suggest to me that the request may be premature. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: - bad example. :) Welsh poet? Scottish poet? Northern Irish poet? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

[edit]
   Barkeep49's statement contains 88 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Building off the comments of SFR and Sarek, I want to note that while initial discussion was about Native Americans, other BLP issues emerged during the course of the discssion, with comments by Hemiauchenia/Andre and a list of issues by theleekycauldron which convinced me to change in support from a Native American scope to a wider topic ban. Even still I also think the AE admins attempted to create a narrow enough sanction that BB could continue doing other valued work, including with Native Americans. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by theleekycauldron

[edit]
   theleekycauldron's statement contains 241 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'll recuse here out of an abundance of caution. I think the topic ban could be narrowed a bit to accommodate labels that are obviously applicable and uncontroversial, like "British poet" – something like: "Bohemian Baltimore's topic ban does not apply to a BLP's undisputed citizenship status as it relates to a widely-recognized country, narrowly construed." Still topic-banned from tribal citizenship, subnational citizenship, or citizenship of maybe-countries; from discussions about whether or not a BLP is a citizen of country X; and from identification with respect to gender, sexuality, religion, and otherwise. But if they want to write a BLP about someone who's uncontroversially a citizen of a certain country, they can mention that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hah! fair point, Sarek :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a procedural note, the ARCA review guidelines on CTOP actions (linked by House below) lay out a few narrow circumstances in which ARCA will "overturn" an AE action. None of those circumstances really seem to apply here, and BB doesn't seem to be asking for an overturn in the strict sense, just a narrowing on a no-longer-necessary basis. If the guidelines do apply even though BB isn't asking for an overturn, the Committee should decline this request as out of scope, because it doesn't meet the guidelines. If they don't apply, there wouldn't be anything stopping the Committee from considering this on the merits, but either way, this is probably something we should clarify. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

[edit]

Given that I'm prohibited from BLPs related to "marginalized" groups, that means that I'm permitted to state someone is Christian? The topic ban does not include the word "marginalized" and I cannot see anybody suggesting that the ban only applies to marginalized groups. I do not see how this is unclear.

I do not think that the ban currently prohibits BB from creating articles on e.g. living rabbis so long as they do not discuss the subject's self-identification as Jewish. Being a rabbi is not a matter of self-identification; one is generally ordained as a rabbi. Other editors can always add information about the subject's religious self-identification later.

re. theleekycauldron's proposed amendment, if BB is confused by whether being a rabbi or a priest is a matter of self-identification I do not think making their tban less clear-cut is a good idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yuchitown

[edit]

I support overturning this topic ban since Bohemian Baltimore has complied and has been reasonable and respectful throughout the entire process. As the quote about the ban being related to "marginalized" groups shows, this ban is arbitrary. Bohemian Baltimore has made significant and sustained contributions to topics about Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which is an area Wikipedia desperately needs informed editors. Bohemian Baltimore's contributions to articles about citizens of federally recognized tribes articles have not been remotely controversial. If anything Bohemian Baltimore does need reversion or further discussion, then that can happen as it does for every other Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia is poorer for this topic ban, and it should be lifted. Yuchitown (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Netherzone

[edit]

I am familiar with Bohemian Baltimore's work in the area of Indigenous peoples of North America. The majority of their work was useful due to their knowledge and expertise of issues regarding tribal citizenship and tribal recognition, sovereign nationhood, and federal recognition. I also want to say that I believe their mistakes in the past were because they working too quickly, and perhaps did not check all available Indigenous newspaper sources in advance. I think this sense of urgency may have factored into the problems that resulted in the ArbCom ban. However, I do not think their edits leading to the ban were made in bad faith, and I do believe they are a trustworthy person of integrity. I think their overly quick edits were due to legitimate concerns about fraud which is a real thing that has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. They should have started more talk page discussions rather than moving ahead so quickly. There were times when the tone and bluntness of their communications could have been adjusted. To my mind, they were and are a highly valuable and knowledgeable editor and I hope that ArbCom will consider loosening the restrictions. WP:IPNA needs knowledgeable editors like BB who have expertise in the subject matter. Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

[edit]

I see a reference above to "non controversial" nationality, e.g. identifying someone as a British musician. However, I'd question whether it's workable to craft a sanction against non-controversial edits in this area. For example, it's routine for articles to identify someone as a British musician based on assumptions about their home location, place of birth, name, and other details in the absence of any source that states they are a British citizen. I have long avoided inserting this info into articles where there is not a source for it, which has led to conflict in the past. I don't have a position on whether the topic ban should be lifted, but I don't think theleekycauldron's suggestion is workable. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

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.

Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.: Clerk notes

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

Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • This should have been filed using the "Arbitration enforcement appeal referral" prefill. The Administrator who placed the sanction is a party and must be notified (which is something that using the "Arbitration enforcement appeal referral" prefill would have captured). Daniel (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving past the procedural issues, on the merits this appeal seems significantly lacking. There is no demonstration of understanding as to how the conduct that caused the initial topic ban to be placed was unacceptable, and by logical extension there is no commitment to cease that kind of unacceptable conduct. I think this topic ban was correctly implemented per the discussion at AE, and appears to still be serving a useful purpose at this time. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restriction seems warranted as-is. It isn't as broad as a blanket BLP topic ban, but appears to be just broad enough to cover the behavior that was identified as an issue, is which more than simply "to prevent me from editing BLPs related to pretendian allegations" as others have mentioned. - Aoidh (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand slightly on SarekOfVulcan's response to leek, some editors have very strong opinions on calling a BLP subject British, and it is not quite so uncontroversial. Whether to use British or Welsh is often determined by considering how the article's subject self-identifies. @Bohemian Baltimore: changing the topic ban to You are indefinitely topic banned from the self-identification or citizenship of living or recently deceased people Indigenous to the Americas, broadly construed does not address the issues that led to the topic ban. Also to be clear, unless you have received an additional restriction that I cannot find record of, you are not prohibited from BLPs related to "marginalized" groups. - Aoidh (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unconvinced by the appeal; the interpretation and execution of avoidance of the topic ban is problematic and (I admit somewhat cynically) seems to be more of a pretence for having the restriction removed. That being said, I do appreciate that the appeal has been followed, even if somewhat excessively. However, one can write an article (for example) on a baker from Germany without needing to explicitly say they are a "German baker", which neatly avoids the topic ban. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No A few points. First, this restriction was imposed 7 months ago, so I'm not sure why clarification wasn't sought sooner. Second, I'm still seeing that BB is making extensive categorization edits around nationality and occupation,which seems like a violation of the topic ban to me.Third, we have a pretty high standard to overturn or amend AE actions. AE acted within their discretion to try to solve a problem; they had to weigh the complexity and enforceability of the sanction against its impact, and I think they made a reasoned decision, even if we might have worded it differently ourselves. Lastly, if this is to be treated as an appeal, then "meh". I'm not convinced that BB understands what they did wrong and that it won't happen again. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArbCom can only overturn an AE action if it was out of process or unreasonable. It plainly wasn't either. The argument that the restriction inhibits routine uncontroversial editing has some merit but that's not something ArbCom can rule on. I would suggest that a conversation between the sanctioned party and the sanctioning administrator would be more productive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1297303851"