Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 133

---

Initiated by Dovidroth at 06:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Motions: PIA Canvassing (January 2024)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban

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

• Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban
  • I wish to appeal the topic ban

Hello.

I am humbly submitting an appeal on my topic ban in ARBPIA.

In the last year and a half since my tban, I have taken great pains to reflect upon what happened, as well as reaffirm to the wiki community that I can once again be considered a trustworthy and valuable contributor.

The period in which the proxying happened was in the days after October 7th. Emotions were very high, and the PIA space was as combative and high tension as it ever has been. We were all being bombarded in many directions, and I made a grave mistake by copy pasting a couple unsolicited requests on a topic I personally agreed with that had come in via email. I would also like to admit that I did what I did because I felt the situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors. I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this.

I had always taken great pains to strenuously avoid any type of prohibited edits.

I recognize that during the proceeding I was not forthcoming regarding the proxy editing. Many people were subject to constant scrutiny and false reports, and I was very much afraid that if I had admitted to what really happened (which was a couple isolated isolated instances), I would be rolled into larger accusations being thrown around at the time of wider potential editing efforts, which I am not a part of and have never been a part of.

Furthermore, I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it, but I genuinely was scared and did not feel I would have been judged in accordance with my transgression. For the record now, I wish to apologize for both the couple edits, as well as the omission.

Since being unblocked almost a year ago, I have continued to contribute in other topics, having done well over 1,000 edits. Among my edits, I have created a new article (Rabbinic period) which was featured as a DYK and for which I received a barnstar from another user. I also received a "nice work" comment from another user for work that I did on another page. I have also contributed substantially to Kiddush Levana, which I have nominated for GA status, and it is awaiting review.

More than a year has passed since the closure of the Arbcom case, and I have been very careful not to touch any topics related to the conflict. I would appreciate another shot at ARBPIA, and hope that Arbcom will consider my case favorably, or at least establish a path or timeline to restoration of full edit status.

Firefangledfeathers - The original ARBCOM case was here, my appeal of the site ban was here, and I filed one appeal that I later realized was prematurely that I withdrew.

Firefangledfeathers - There was ban on restoring content from banned users. I never appealed this. And there was a previous 3 month topic ban, for which I opened an appeal, but it was closed due to the ARBCOM case. Dovidroth (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

In response to questions from other editors, I fully intend to follow the rules fully. If there is any cited violation of rules in ARPIA, it would be fair to return the TBAN. Dovidroth (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

In response to recent comments, I want to clarify my comment that I was not indicating that I would treat ARBPIA in a combative way. Despite mistakes I made in the past, I am requesting another chance at the area, where I believe I have contributed positively, and I would like a chance to prove that I am a healthy member. I will once again state that if there are any substantial complaints against my behavior, I think reinstating the tban would be fair. Dovidroth (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223 - I never justified my behavior. I was trying to explain how I made a mistake which I deeply regret and will make sure not to repeat. Dovidroth (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That Dovidroth states that their conduct was in part based on a "situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors" does not fill me with confidence that they won't engage in the same behaviour again if they feel that others are at fault. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223, just to clarify, they didn't canvass. They made edits which a banned editor requested they make. The behaviour was WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:PROXYING. TarnishedPath^talk 22:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Dovidroth, to make it easier for others to review your appeal, could you please link the discussions that led to your past and present sanctions, as well as any failed or successful appeal requests? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Dovidroth, any other PIA-related sanctions or appeals? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest a decline. I don't think Dovidroth is accurately conveying the extent to which they were being dishonest and manipulative in the PIA Canvassing Arb discussion; in particular, I think "omission" is seriously misleading. Emotions continue to be very high in this topic area, and most everyone expects that there will be major emotional moments to come. We are more likely to accurately and neutrally cover the topic area if we don't include editors who make major misconduct mistakes and then follow those up with dishonesty and manipulation. The loss of trust takes longer than this to heal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that in a PIA topic ban appeal to ARBCOM, the appealing editor says that I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this ... disruptive behavior of experienced editors (I shifted the quotes around). So essentially the appealing editor is praising ARBCOM for, I believe, topic banning other editors from PIA in a recent case. Well, if ARBCOM is doing a good job at topic banning editors from PIA, then why should they reverse this topic ban then, given that disruptive behaviour has been admitted by the appealing editor? starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this request should be declined. In particular I find the excuse of their actions being immediately after October 7 to be tone-deaf at minimum. This is a topic area where very upsetting things happen every single day and if their response to one very upsetting thing is to canvas to manipulate the narrative then they probably should not be editing in this space. Furthermore I share concerns expressed by other editors that they said I felt the situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors as if this justifies canvassing at all. I have no faith they won't fall back into old patterns the next time something upsets them and they believe they need to stop playing fair to compete with other perceived misbehaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPaththank you for the clarification. As far as seriousness that seems about the same level. Simonm223 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That "Emotions were very high" after Oct 7, is not limited to Dovidroth, or indeed just after Oct 7. All through the ongoing Gaza war, emotions are very high for lots of people. People who cannot "keep their cool", should not edit in the area, IMO. And being given a barn-star by an editor who is topic-banned from the IP area, is not necessarily an advantage when you ask to be allowed to edit in the IP area again, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 10 August 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).

• @Dovidroth, you are currently above the word limit. Please request an extension if you wish to add more. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• For ease of reference: April 2024 announcement of successful appeal against site-ban (sanction was handed down at the same time as the topic ban). Daniel (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• I've topic banned them in the past, so if anyone thinks I should recuse on this appeal feel free to let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  If having topic banned Dovidroth in the past would be a problem requiring recusal by itself, the entire committee of 2024 would have to recuse, so... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's a bit different when sanctioning as an individual admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Decline, emotions [are] very high, and the PIA space [is] as combative and high tension as it ever has been. It's a fairly small topic area and off-wiki coordination/POV pushing is too serious an issue to let someone back while the conflict is still active. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Decline per SFR. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline - Also per SFR. - Aoidh (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline Primefac (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• I think a decline from me too, if only for the sentence I had always taken great pains to strenuously avoid any type of prohibited edits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Initiated by Rafe87 at 19:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

User talk:Rafe87 § Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. {{{clause1}}}

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

• Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Information about amendment request

• {{{clause1}}}
  • {{{clause1-request}}}

I didn't originally consider contesting the sanction, though I didn't think it very fair, because I thought it'd only last 30 days, and I meant to avoid further wear and tear on this space. But, if I understood correctly the clarification provided today by Tamzin, the restriction is actually indefinite and was imposed 30 days after I received their warning, on June 16th. Acting under the apparently false belief that the restriction would take effect immediately and last for 30 days, I threw myself into new projects to avoid breaking the rule. I translated two Spanish Wikipedia entries on modern singers and created a new article on a minor figure in Roman history. Translating the articles, which are fairly long, was quite tiring, and the Roman article, although short, required some research from me in academic sources. But at least I achieved what I thought was required of me: between June 16th-July 16th, my edits to Israeli-Palestinian entries, as I've just verified, totaled only 35, while my edits to the pages I created, as well as others outside the scope of the restriction, totaled 164. My contributions to restricted topics, less than a fifth during this period, were therefore well below the required share, demonstrating I did commit to not violating the restriction. But apparently, all this was for nothing, as I wasn't even restricted in that period. The restriction would only take effect on July 16th, not June 16th. Anyway, from the day the restriction came into effect (the same day I thought it would end!), I returned to editing in the restricted topics at a normal pace, and as such, 70% of my edits since ended up being in them, and Tamzin decided to upgrade the restriction to total for 28 days. My argument is: the rule was confusing and set me up for failure. Why warn an editor he's being problematic in a given debate and then not sanction him immediately, but rather begin 30 days after the act, regardless of how he performs in the mean time? The fault may not have been with Tamzin, who could be applying a traditional remedy rather than something of their own creation, but neither can I be blamed for not being confused about the the matter. Another thing: Even if Tamzin, in their most recent decision, is within their rights to temporarily increase the restriction, the original sanction is disproportionate to the issue imputed to me; one of tone, I believe. Plus, since they the new articles I created were completed, my contribution rate to Wikipedia has dropped; and I haven't had any friction with any editors in the last two months, either. I accept the new sanction imposed for the next 28 days, as it may not have been Tamzin's fault the imposed policy was so confusing to me, but I ask that at least the indefiniteness of the sanction be revoked.

Breaking this into three admin decisions: to BER, to sanction for the violation, and specifically to temp TBAN.

• For the reasons I've explained on Rafe's talkpage, I believe that the level of moderate PIA disruption leading up to the BER was sufficient under the BER's standard of a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area.
• I'm willing to believe that Rafe misunderstood the sanction, but as also explained on their talk, the fact that the sanction was indefinite and began to apply after 30 days was explained clearly and unambiguously at least four different ways.
• I initially considered just warning them for this, but it seemed wrong to leave them active in the topic area (still able to edit any non-filter-1339-qualifying PIA pages) while at 210% the BER threshold. This seemed unwise both in terms of the technical implementation of the BER and the norms for sanction enforcement. Instead, the equitable solution to me seemed to be TBANning until the BER percentage drops down to 0, i.e. 28 days from now. This isn't much stricter than if I had just warned, since while above 33% Rafe is effectively TBANned from 1339-qualifying pages; this just means that Rafe also can't edit PIA content on non-1339-qualifying pages, and has to wait till they fall to 0% instead of 33% before reëntering the topic area.

Happy to answer any further questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@CaptainEek. Sure, I'll quote what I said to Rafe on their talk:

Daniel Case protected the article Alaa Al Najjar on 12 June and logged that at WP:AELOG/2025/PIA. I clicked on it to see the context of the protection, clicked onward to the article now titled Killing of al-Najjar children, saw an RM, clicked through to that mostly to see if any ECR enforcement would be needed, and saw that you were trying to disrupt the RM [by striking a comment and trying to prematurely close it [2] [3] [4]]. I reverted you and warned you. A few days later I checked back in (as I often do after warning a user), saw this standoffish comment (later withdrawn, but not at the time), and then looked further at your edits and saw a history of temperature-raising participation, most notably moving the article Rafah aid distribution incidents Rafah aid distribution incidents during an active RM. I saw you had a high percentage of PIA editing, and given ArbCom's guidance that a BER simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, I judged that to be an appropriate intervention.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:47, 16 August 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).

• Tamzin, can you give a bit more of a procedural background? Was this a result of an AE filing? What was the offending conduct? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline – the BER was absolutely valid, bordering on too light. Rafe's comments at RMs and other venues are fairly aggressive and tend to raise hostility in the topic area (per Tamzin's links), but that doesn't even cover the apparent POV-pushing, like repeatedly (1 2) advancing the argument of ~"well if reliable sources don't agree, my personal opinion that it's a massacre should take precedence", based on what is at best a misreading and at worst a cherry-pick of WP:NCENPOV. I'm sure I could find other examples if I kept looking, but since we're not discussing a topic ban, I'll stop at saying yes, the blunt behavior made the BER necessary, especially given the lower standard required for imposing one. As for the mistaken interpretation of the BER that led to the topic ban, I'll AGF, but it's probably best to let the counter reset rather than doing lots of date math to try and sneak in edits wherever possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline, per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline and support the action taken by Tamzin here. Daniel (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline - AE restrictions are implemented with less process than other areas of Wikipedia, so it is important that our editors are made aware before they happen. I do hope Tamzin will reflect upon this request and modify their language a little for clarity when implementing solutions in the future. That said, Tamzin was absolutely right on the decision they made, BER is an excellent solution for the troubles in the area, and I don't see any issues with what has been imposed. I also don't believe that Tamzin's text was egregiously confusing and therefore I see no reason to modify or remove the BER. Worm^TT(talk) 08:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline - Per Worm That Turned. - Aoidh (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Initiated by Toadspike at 11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Toadspike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

1. Does the Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction apply only to military history on the current (post-Partition) territory of the country of India, or does it include military history that took place entirely in another South Asian country?

2. If a conflict took place between a party in India and a party outside of India, does the extended-confirmed restriction apply? Does this depend on whether battles in the conflict took place within the current territory of India or not?

3. How do we treat AfC submissions that were written before the enactment of this remedy, but are only now being reviewed? If they are suitable for acceptance, can they still be accepted? If not, should they be deleted (from draftspace)?

These questions were prompted by the contributions of a specific editor. As this request for clarification is about the general principles, not that specific case, I have chosen not to name them here. If Arbs would like me to add them as a party, I will do so.

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you for your reply. Does "India" mean the current territory of India or the current state of India? What I'm really getting at is whether predecessors of India like British India also count as "India", since those entities included significant territory outside of the modern state of India.

The problem with wording like "if India was involved" is that nearly all of the conflict about "Indian military history" does not involve the modern state of India.

Since we're already here, does "Indian military history" encompass contemporary conflicts? If not, what's the cut off date or era? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I was planning to initiate this request per my comments on the case discussion thread.[5] Just as voorts asked above, you can see the linked discussion there, which also has no answer regarding the scope.

Does the scope of "Indian military history and the history of castes in India" cover times before the establishment of British Raj or the times before the foundation of India? Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Reading the evidence and proposed decision of the case itself, it appears that only the diffs involving the events before 1857 events were found to be actionable for being within the case' scope.

You have made a mention of the United States, however, the DS regime covering this country also concerns its politics specifically after 1992.[6]

That said, I think a period should be thoroughly clarified. It would be reasonable to agree on events before 1947 as history because the period since 1947 is regarded as "contemporary India", not that of historical India also in scholarly sources.[7][8][9] Koshuri ^(あ!) 06:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Inviting Tamzin and Rosguill to share their views here. Koshuri ^(あ!) 15:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding Tamzin and Rosguill. I would also like to know your views regarding "Indian military history", whether it covers the times before the establishment of British Raj or the times before the foundation of present India, or something else? Koshuri ^(あ!) 17:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Please note that the military history project has an Indian military history task force shown at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force. The page includes: "This task force covers the military history of India. This includes ancient India, medieval India, early modern India (including the period of British rule), and modern post-independence India." Many, perhaps even all, articles that gave rise to this proceeding are assessed B class or below. The task force page shows all of the articles within the scope of the project that are featured articles, former featured articles, featured lists, A-Class articles, good articles and did you know articles. This may provide some guidance as to the scope of Wikipedia articles considered as involving Indian military history. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

(pinged) To me, the logical scope of "Indian military history" would be -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Koshuri Sultan: I think this answers the time question as well. But to be clear, no, I don't impute any time-based limit to this. Maybe hypothetically it wouldn't cover conflicts prior to the Indus Valley Civilisation, but honestly even there I'm not sure.

I also stopped to think about whether this covers actions by Indian-originating forces far removed from the region. I knew a woman who was the lone survivor of a Free French unit slaughtered by what she described as renegade British imperial gurkhas, but according to a historian I talked to were more likely soldiers of the Nazi Indian Legion. Should those fall under Indian military history? But then I thought, yes, they should, and Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose can speak for itself as to why. Ultimately, any aspect of Indian military history, whether it's from 10 years ago or a thousand years ago, whether it happened in Mumbai or Marseille, has the same tendency to be politicized by contemporary Indian political movements. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

also (pinged), I'd mostly agree with Tamzin's description, although I would add that when considering that it is "broadly construed", this would also include any topic that is centrally relevant to the wars historically fought in the Indian subcontinent, in particular definition of borders and ethnic/national/religious/caste claims to land in the Indian subcontinent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with Tamzin's further comments on scope, including ancient history and operations by Indian military groups outside of India. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

While I nominally agree with Tamzin's statement and definition of "Indian military conflict", as person who has infrequently worked on the topic area of the Indian freedom struggle (and other areas), I feel like this net is waay to wide for a extended-confirmed sanctions by default. If Subas Chandra Bose is included, would almost any article documenting any of the various parts of the Indian freedom struggle/conflict be considered part of this restriction? -- Sohom (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that it's vital for the scope to cover modern day (including current-events) Indian military history and the portions of related articles thereof. Since the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict there's been widespread nationalist edit-warring and propaganda pushing on articles relating to the military equipment involved in the conflict -- particularly the aircraft, missile, and air-defense systems involved (as these by convention usually have a section for "Operational History" documenting their usage). Additionally I want to reiterate that the scope needs to encompass military actions conducted in India even by non-South Asian actors. For instance, during the hunt for Bin Laden in the early 2000's, both the U.S. Delta Force and British Special Air Service conducted operations in Kashmir against a Pakistani militant group in which intelligence sharing was conducted with the Indian government while said Indian government issued public denials; references to this event should presumably be covered (both because of the intelligence sharing arrangement with the Indian military, and due to the geographic location being within the scope of coverage). As far as I can tell Tamzin's interpretation covers both these concerns but I wanted to raise my concerns if other interpretations prevail here.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• 1. Only India or related to India.
  2. Yes, if India was involved it doesn't matter where the conflict took place.
  3. They can be accepted.
• This is obviously just my view, but it seems fairly clear-cut. #1 does get at one of my concerns about the grand unified CTOP, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think Tamzin's description is pretty apt. Trying to narrow it down or draw explicit lines around it won't work with how broad the topic is. If someone is unsure if a particular subtopic, article, or piece of content is covered they can ask about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings on what "Indian history" means for arbitration enforcement because we need to balance the need for the definition to be easily understandable against the historical reality of the term.
  In my opinion, we indicated in "Breadth of topic bans" that Indian history also includes history prior to the Partition. Just as how Chinese history spans the various dynasties prior to the PRC/ROC (even if it wasn't called China at that point) and how American history doesn't just begin in 1776, I think that Indian history covers the current republic as well as clear predecessor states like the British Raj and Mughal Empire, even if they go beyond the current republic's borders. The term "India" was used before the Partition as well: the Raj was commonly called "India" and the term was used for many years prior to the current republic's creation. Hopefully that also answers Koshuri Sultan's question as well and I otherwise agree with SFR regarding Toadspike's Q2 & Q3.
  Voorts: I don't think that there is a good place to cut off when history begins – aren't we all creating history now? – so would rather that we kept contemporary conflicts as well. If enforcing administrators wish to sanction people from (eg.) pre-Modi Indian military history instead of the entirety of Indian military history, they would have support in doing so. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• I'd say Tamzin's definition could be used in a textbook. That's exactly what I would have said, in many more words. Worm^TT(talk) 08:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• What ScottishFinnishRadish and Worm That Turned/Tamzin said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Initiated by WMrapids at 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Venezuelan politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#WMrapids banned

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

• WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#WMrapids banned
  • Request to appeal indefinite ban

After this time off, I want to return to my first passion on Wikipedia; providing images and information about local locations and places visited. This can be seen with my recent uploads on Commons (including my first quality images! [10][11]), which I wish to place on Wikipedia. I have no interest in Venezuelan topics or certain interactions, so please keep the two-way IBAN and topic ban in place to leave those problems in the past. Overall, I'm eager to collaborate with others on Wikipedia again and learn more along the way, like I have on Commons. Thank you for your consideration! --WMrapids (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, apologies! Due to word counts, I kept things brief for ArbCom. My other account created for privacy (which I still recognize/recognized was created improperly) was blocked and no other account has been created. I'm fairly certain ArbCom wouldn't consider an appeal if my IP showed up elsewhere during this time.--WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm committed to using only one account and have no desire to use another. Thanks to everyone involved for having empathy and respecting my privacy even though we like our answers and want to hold each other accountable. I wish I could provide more answers, but due to past incidents (including people at my door), I politely ask you to put yourself into my shoes. I'm human; an average person from Michigan who wants to help build a good encyclopedia. My behavior wasn't perfect, but my edits were genuine, my own and I hold no animosity towards anyone. I know asking for respect is a lot, but I'm more than just another user. I'm a person on the other side of the screen and I'd do anything within reason to protect others from experiencing some of the things I've faced just for my edits.--WMrapids (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree, it's disappointing that you suggest my trauma is "exaggerated", but I understand your point of view. Why go back? What helped with my decision to continue editing was consulting another Wikipedian who had their identity exposed, who said they "would absolutely do it again" and stood behind their edits. I've already shared with ArbCom what I think is the best course for my privacy and I'm not holding anyone responsible for it. That was my own doing. Again, I'm committed to using only one account.--WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree, thank you for your concerns and frankness. I understand my situation and am hopeful that those in the know are as well.

SandyGeorgia, I'm sorry. I want the best for every user and know I'm not more special. Recognizing that respect is earned (and was lost), respecting someone's privacy is fundamental. We all know that I protected my privacy the wrong way, but know that I'm done with the topic. I want us to bury the hatchet following any decision and I'll focus on local topics. Please take care!--WMrapids (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

WMRapids was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and was banned by ArbCom to recognize the CheckUser block. This request does not address the abuse of multiple accounts, which is an issue of trustworthiness. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

As WMRapids is willing to return with the topic ban and the iban in place and as they have accounted for the sock puppetry issue and have committed to not repeating that mistake I think we should support allowing them to return. Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie, I'm hoping you will reconsider the sensitivity of the statement in this case that "unblocks are cheap", considering the weightiness of what you all are about to do. In contrast to other recent cases, Wikipedians have been detained there are consequences for living persons Edited, 03:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC) in Venezuela, and there are other "average people" on the "other side of the screen" who deserve the same respect being requested here. If this unban is "cheap", something has really been missed in the deliberations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie I wasn't questioning your !vote or your reasoning, rather the sensitivity of describing the !vote with the words unblocks are cheap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Re TarnishedPath, I am not "linking this unblock request to the arrest of Wikipedians in Venezuela". I am pointing out the seriousness of the situation in Venezuela, to contrast wording used in a !vote about a non-trivial arbcase (that is, where the cited evidence in the findings involved BLP vios with incriminating accusations about living people) to a case in which that kind of (seemingly trivializing) wording might be appropriate (use of capital letters on the Internet). I asked for respectful consideration for all editors, as "unblocks are cheap" could feel like a trivialization to Wikipedians now blocked or otherwise unable to edit or speak here, for various reasons. Those were serious BLP issues in a country where Wikipedia content has consequences; hence the "weightiness" of what the arbs are contemplating -- unbanning an editor who used non-reliable sources or parroted deprecated sources to add BLP vios on people who had to flee their country or have been detained or have had family members detained. With issues also in Peruvian content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Re TarnishedPath, recognizing your point and the potential for misunderstanding, I have attempted a fix above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned by the above comments by Sandy linking this unblock request to the arrest of Wikipedians in Venezuela. Unless Sandy has some evidence linking WMR to those events, the implication should be struck. TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Sandy, you need to understand how even bringing it up on what is a behavioural noticeboard would appear to most readers as a implication of a linkage. I'll take you word for it that is not what is intended, but point out that occurrences for which WMR is not responsible have no place in a discussion about their conduct. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 6 September 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).

• I find this request persuasive and am currently inclined to support it, retaining the interaction and topic ban. Keen to provide the opportunity to potentially hear from other interested members of the community over the coming few days, before proposing a motion. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Same as Dan. Inclined to support lifting the ban with the iban and tban in place, would like to hear from those who were party to the behavior that led to the ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Put me at support, with the tban and iban still in place and with the understanding that the committee can't prevent people from putting 2 and 2 together when it comes to other accounts and account restrictions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• As long as the iban and topic ban remain in place, I'm not opposed to accepting this appeal. - Aoidh (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
• I'd also like to hear from the parties in the case, but if we do accept, can we add a single account restriction to the mix? One of the issues was misuse of multiple accounts, so we should make it clear that's not even potentially ok. Worm^TT(talk) 08:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Decline for private reasons. A one-account restriction is a distant second choice to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Based on some private discussions that have taken place, while I am okay with an unblock (keeping the existing other restrictions in place) I am uncomfortable doing so unless we limit WMRapids to using a single account. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• I was the only one who thought that a site ban was unnecessary, and I still believe that. Robert, please see my and Barkeep's comments there regarding use of multiple accounts (and at § Use of multiple accounts too). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Please consider me provisionally inactive on this thread unless I come back to cast a vote. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Assuming the private issues are resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I'm inclined to support an unban with a one-account restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  The underlying issue is currently un-resolvable in my personal view, so that condition is unlikely to be fulfillable in 2025 at least as long as "everyone" means every arbitrator. Either the above-mentioned privacy reasons are exaggerated and don't exist in their alleged form, or letting WMrapids edit Wikipedia at all would be a mistake. WMrapids, you have mentioned "people at my door" above. If you're concerned about your personal safety, at very least in your situation, don't rely on ArbCom and "privacy" on Wikipedia; stop editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  To my mind, it's for WMR to decide what level of risk is acceptable to him. ArbCom's role in an unban request is to decide what level of risk he poses to the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  That would be a fine argument if it didn't involve us silencing other users' behavioral concerns under the threat of oversight blocks for the alleged benefit of someone willing to risk their safety a little but please not too much. If I understand correctly, "You can't have your cake and eat it" is an English proverb describing this. In German, I'd say "Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mach mich nicht nass" (~ please wash me but make sure I don't touch water in the process). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  WMrapids, thank you very much for the entire message of 6 September above. I respect the majority decision that has now been reached and wish you all the best; welcome back to Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, I am aware of the situation in Venezuela. I don't think this is some great sockmaster aiming to create AI slop or the like, and that's why I'm willing to grant a ROPE unban and unblock. But if they cross the line again, I think it's clear from this motion that our patience will, at that point, have been exhausted. Katie^talk 23:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Enacted – HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Support

1. Daniel (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Unblocks are cheap. Katie^talk 21:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Aoidh (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
5. I believe WMR is an enthusiastic contributor who got in over his head without realising it and made mistakes, as opposed to a political zealot. In trying to fix or cover up those mistakes he made things worse and broke the community's trust, necessitating the site ban. Time heals (almost) all wounds and I believe WMR is sufficiently penitent to repair some of that trust. With the topic ban remaining in place and the one-account restriction, I think the risks to the project from an unban are low. As I said above, it's for WMR to evaluate the risks to himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
6. See my statement above and the linked comments at the case (finding, remedy). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
7. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my statements above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

• Thanks for creating the motion. We've reached a point where only voting leads to a result. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Initiated by Matrix at 20:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Matrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1311944697

Daniel Case protected Italian brainrot with indefinite ECP. ARBPIA remedy 7 says "the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment" instead. I feel this would be more appropriate, along with lowering the protection to PCP, since the only section affected by this case would be "Controversial audios". Daniel Case told me to bring this to AE, but this seemed like a more appropriate location. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Moved from arbitrator-only section. @Daniel: sorry, I'm still discombobulated at how arbitration works since it's my first time with anything like this (more of a Commons regular). I just want to get it reviewed. @SilverLocust: I thought the enforcement page was only to request bans? If it's easier I (or you) can move it there. Cheers, —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• I don't see this meeting any of the three criteria listed at "On Arbitration Committee review" at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard of review, and this seems better framed for the criteria listed at "On community review". Would encourage the applicant to consider a different venue to review on that basis. Daniel (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Matrix: with the greatest of respect - Daniel Case advised you to bring it to WP:AE (something you note in your filing that he recommended you do), and given your admission in your ping back to me that you are not familiar with Arbitration processes, I feel it would have been prudent to follow his advice. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

    On a general note, I think an actually novel question of policy interpretation counts as "compelling circumstances that warrant the full Committee's action" (and historically what ARCA is for). I'm not saying that definitively does apply here, i haven't looked into it enough, but I think it might. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

    • That was indeed the criteria most likely (as the other two are clearly not applicable), and my assessment was/is that it doesn't meet the "compelling circumstances" threshold by quite a long way. If it helps formalise it, decline to review as this clearly fails the three criteria in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)