Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

{{hat|There is a clear consensus among participating Committee members that engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution includes addressing concerns about other sanctions, though NoonIcarus is reminded to keep such comments succinct. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)}}

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• "The interaction ban between NoonIcarus and WMrapids is rescinded."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)
• I agree with my colleagues that BANEX should be interpreted to allow an appeal of a related sanction. I don't think a formal motion is necessary but I'm happy for ArbCom to clarify here that there should not be sanctions for mentioning the other party to an interaction ban in the course of appealing the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

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)

{{ping| 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)

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).

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.{{pb}}{{re|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)
• 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)

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

;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

:#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:

• {{userlinks|Bohemian Baltimore}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

• User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
• "You are indefinitely topic banned from the self-identification or citizenship of living or recently deceased people Indigenous to the Americas, broadly construed."
• State the desired modification

{{ACWordStatus|section=Amendment request: Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.|page=ARCA|user=Bohemian Baltimore}}

I was banned from the topic of self-ID/citizenship of BLPs (living or recently deceased). This prevents me from adding basic information such as "Dutch musician" or "French architect" to uncontroversial BLPs. It also prevents me from creating non-controversial BLPs for figures such as Catholic priests, since "Roman Catholic" is a form of self-ID. The intent of the topic ban was to keep me away from the subject of whether a person is Native or pretendian, and I have complied with the topic ban by strictly staying away from BLP citizenship & self-ID. I mistakenly believed that I was banned from all deceased 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 and Edward Temple without mentioning he was American. Preventing me from adding uncontroversial basic information is overly broad and prevents me from creating more BLPs. This is unnecessary to preserve the intent of the ban, which is to prevent me from editing BLPs related to pretendian allegations. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{clerk note}} Originally inline as a reply to ScottishFinnishRadish. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish The conduct other editors objected to in regards to Judaism in that case was they objected to me characterizing removal of info about Black Judaism as racist (which I specified, was regardless of intent). There were never any disputes related to Jewish identity on any BLPs. I acknowledge my use of the word racist was problematic in that case. I'm not certain why that reflects on Jewish BLPs specifically, where there wasn't a pattern of problematic editing. In regards to editing on Jewish topics or other topics, I have since refrained from using the term racist to describe other editors editing. Which I believe is indicative that I have taken the broader issues you've mentioned into consideration. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:@User:Aoidh as example of commonsense leniency I'm requesting: I cannot create BLPs for living Catholic priests or Rabbis, even though their self-ID obviously isn't contested, because Catholic priests are Catholic by definition and rabbis are Jewish by definition. A figure like [https://rabbiwiseorg.wordpress.com/about-me/ Rabbi Alissa Wise] is entirely notable as a Rabbi; I believe I'd be banned from making such a BLP, even though "Rabbi" is her reason for notability. Or could I create an article about a rabbi as long as I omitted the word "Jew"? Is Rabbi an identity or a job title? Surely there could be some way to allow for obvious, uncontroversial additions like these, as they have nothing to do with controversy over identity? Can I mention someone has fibromyalgia? Is that identity or diagnosis? Is it "identity" to say someone was raised in a poor family? The BLP ban is so broad/vague that it's confusing as to exactly what I am or am not allowed to edit. Given that I'm prohibited from BLPs related to "marginalized" groups, that means that I'm permitted to state a person is Christian? And indeed, is Catholic a marginalized group? I'd say no. Am I thus permitted to added categories like "Catholics from Minnesota" or "Lutherans from Texas" because those aren't marginalized groups, but rather part of the dominant Christian majority? If I cannot be granted leniency, I'd at least like clarity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ACWordStatus|section=Amendment request: Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.|page=ARCA|user=ScottishFinnishRadish}}

At the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1257542669#Bohemian_Baltimore 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African-American_Jews&diff=prev&oldid=1251847331 this] demonstrate that the issues were broader than identification of indigenous people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ACWordStatus|section=Amendment request: Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.|page=ARCA|user=SarekOfVulcan}}

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)

{{ACWordStatus|section=Amendment request: Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.|page=ARCA|user=Barkeep49}}

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)

{{ACWordStatus|section=Amendment request: Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.|page=ARCA|user=theleekycauldron}}

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)

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).

• {{re|Daniel}} The "arbitration enforcement appeal referral" is for AE admins who are exercising their authority to refer AE threads to the entire committee, and is even wrapped in {{t|if admin}}. The "click here to file an amendment request" button also states it should be used for {{tqq|an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction.}}

  As a procedural note, this appeal is being heard according to the Arbitration Committee review standard. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Noted, apologies - I've struck that. Checking the prefill for the one that is "meant" to be used, it feels like a bit of a square peg in a round hole for appealing an AE action (rather than a case or motion by the Committee), as the party subset is very different - but we can discuss that offline away from this. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• {{yo|Bohemian Baltimore}} the Arbitration Committee makes use of sectioned discussion (like WP:AE). Please only leave comments in your own section. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• {{yo|Bohemian Baltimore}} your statement is now over the 500 word limit; please request an extension or shorten a part of your statement not responded to before adding more. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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 "{{tq|to prevent me from editing BLPs related to pretendian allegations}}" as others have mentioned. - Aoidh (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)