Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter

: Original announcement

I'm not surprised. Was this based on private evidence? Zero^talk 13:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Was a checkuser run on the account? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of their work in the PIA, so I was surprised by this. They did a lot of work over at WP:URA. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Four out of five of their [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/Someonefighter#top-edited-pages top edited artcles] were in the zone, tbf. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

: Original announcement

: Original announcement

: Original announcement

I'd like to begin by sincerely apologizing to the editors involved. I'm grateful to have been given a second chance, and I take full responsibility for all of my actions. I have changed since then, and am looking forward to contributing constructively. On a related note, I wanted to kindly ask if the topic ban extends to talk page edit requests. (specifically, I would like continue to help expand the List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine by submitting entries in talk page) Someonefighter (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's gotta be the shortest siteban ever :) welcome back! But seriously, I think it's very open and upfront of you to make a public apology like that. It rarely happens. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you 🙏 Someonefighter (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:By the way, {{u|Someonefighter}}, not speaking fopr the cttee obviously, but WP:TBAN says {{blue|unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so... Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, the topic ban applies to talk page requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Someonefighter (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

So this is far from the first time this has happened, but for whatever reason only just now jumped out at me: When ArbCom says, by motion, that a user is topic-banned, what does that mean in terms of enforcement? I would assume it's {{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_enforcement_of_restrictions}}—at least that's how I approached it the one time I blocked someone for violation of a by-motion restriction—but I don't think that's actually written down anywhere, and the most straightforward reading would be that there are no restrictions at all (as with community TBAN enforcement). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Given it's still 'our' sanction, just done outside a case, I would agree that applying the 'standard provision' is probably the most logical approach. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

In a case like this where information is not public, including the argument presented in the appeal, is there a way for the community to know which parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures were pertinent to the result, even if only something like...this happened, then this, then this, the end. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Fair question and not one I have a complete answer to right now, beyond saying (in my view) we received a very good appeal following the initial sanction. I will also say that the internal process around off-wiki coordination reports is something we can, and perhaps should (when we get a chance to), examine. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)