WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by NoonIcarus at 00:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Venezuelan politics}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 4.3.3. Interaction ban

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

• {{userlinks|NoonIcarus}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

• 4.3.3. Interaction ban
• "The interaction ban between NoonIcarus and WMrapids is rescinded."

Kind regards. After an email exchange with the Arbitration Committee, I include the original request (almost) verbatim:

I hope this message finds you well. Over a year after the decision of the Venezuelan politics case, given that WMrapids are currently indefinitely banned, and that at any rate they remain topic banned from Venezuelan politics (the main reason of the dispute between both in the case), I kindly wanted to ask if it was possible to ask for an appeal of the current interaction ban.

From what I gather, an interaction ban goes as far as even mentioning the other user, which currently makes difficult to discuss the circumstances of the case, and I would like to ask a review for the community regarding my current own topic ban, particularly since I would like to contribute more in contests such as the Pride Month and this month's Women in Red event. Best wishes and many thanks in advance.

Re {{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} It's the primary reason, yes. A rescission would also allow me to contribute in related articles, but I consider that less important than appealing the broader TBAN. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a stake in the iban but, if Noonicarus is seeking an amendment to their tban, I'd be interested in asking them a few rather specific questions. They are not apropos to the iban on which I have no opinion. Should this progress to the point where a tban appeal is being discussed and I don't notice the discussion is ongoing I'd appreciate a courtesy ping. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Daniel thank you for that clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 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).

• {{u|NoonIcarus}}, is the primary reason you want the iban lifted to allow you to discuss it in an appeal of your topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm amenable to temporarily adjusting the interaction ban to allow discussion at a TBAN appeal. I think how NoonIcarus handles that allowance could do a lot to inform the community about the necessity of the topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• My preference would be to retain the interaction ban at this time, given that WMrapids only became eligible to appeal their indefinite site-ban a few weeks ago (and could very well do so in the next few weeks or months, for all we know). I was not on the Committee when it was placed, but the comments at the proposed decision vote support the view that retaining past the 12 months is worthwhile. That being said, I'm inclined to support an explicit carving out of an exception for NoonIcarus to 'breach' the interaction ban and speak freely when challenging the community-imposed topic ban at the appropriate noticeboard, given the interaction ban is our sanction. WP:BANEX says there's an exemption for "appealing the ban", but it's arguably unclear whether this allows an exemption from one ban for appealing a different one. In my view, common sense here suggests we should explicitly allow it to happen — with a cautionary note to NoonIcarus that unjustified "sniping" (to borrow a term from the proposed decision) will likely not reflect well in the community appeal of the topic ban. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• {{ping|Simonm223}} the topic ban is a community sanction so won't be appealed here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with Daniel above. Z1720 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• I think a statement here explicitly indicating that appealing a community-imposed ban will not trigger the ArbCom-imposed ban is reasonable, provided that in the spirit of BANEX any mentions of WMrapids are kept brief and to-the-point, with little to no editorialising. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :+1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Concur that BANEX should be interpreted here to allow them to appeal the t-ban. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with the above, with an emphasis on Daniel's comment about {{tq|unjustified "sniping"}}. - Aoidh (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|WikiProject Tropical Cyclones}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones#MarioProtIV_&_NAC 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:

• {{userlinks|MarioProtIV}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones#MarioProtIV_&_NAC 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.]
• Repeal of restriction

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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1295593717 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)

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).