Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality	none	(orig. case)	16 July 2015
Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man	none	(orig. case)	4 August 2015
Amendment request: Argentine History	none	(orig. case)	17 August 2015

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section 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).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. 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:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality

Initiated by Callanecc at 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Christianity and Sexuality 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Roscelese

Statement by Callanecc

Following an AE request (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in Roscelese's restriction ("and is required to discuss any content [emphasis added] reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.

My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if WP:BANEX could be applied to the whole dot point?

Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: That really depends, currently there is no mechanism other than a formal amendment for the arbitrator comments below to be taken into account (or even found and referred to) for any enforcement in the future. If the Committee doesn't have an appetite for a formal amendment by motion perhaps they could do it through this request by foot noting the remedy with a summary of the arb comments here (though that would probably need to be done by an arb rather than a clerk). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually given that not all of the arbs commenting have answered:

• Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?
• Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)?

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing to consider here (and something which has come up in the past) is that if the admins involved in the enforcement of the Committee's decision don't understand or need clarification to confirm their interpretation (whether the interpretation is correct or not) then the Committee should provide that clarification as clearly as possible. The comments here are equivalent to obiter dicta on the PD page and they disappear to the case talk page, that is, you'd look at the decision the Committee has passed when deciding whether to report/enforce not the case talk page. In this case the dot points are separate items and so don't necessarily rely on the conditions set in in each other, so in this case the questions being asked are valid and may very well come up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

• Obviously, I agree with the arbs who have commented here; if the user had provided some reason for removal (either in the edit summary or the talk page) I wouldn't have reverted with a simple "?" ("why did you do this?"), which seemed like a nicer thing to say than "rv vandalism" despite the lack of a summary, the fact that the text was cited to reliable sources, and the absence of other edits on the account. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by WP:BANEX simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Christianity and Sexuality: Clerk notes

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

Christianity and Sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Generally speaking, an unexplained removal of large chunks of an article, especially by a very new editor, is reasonably treated as a vandal or test edit. Roscelese was well within reason to do so here. I would see the meaning of "content revert" as the reversal of a content edit, which would exclude vandalism. Regardless, I'm not inclined to require Roscelese to start a talk page discussion every time she removes "HI JOE!!!!!!!!" type vandalism from a page. If, of course, that editor comes back and provides a reason they believe the material should be removed, that would then bring these restrictions into force should Roscelese revert it again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• I just re-read the restriction in question and was surprised to see that we did not explicitly say it did not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism/BLP violations; that said, I agree with Seraphimblade. It would be a waste of time to have Roscelese open a thread whenever she were to revert vandalism. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• i agree with both of my colleagues. Next time we must make this explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having thought about this more since my comment at AE, I think all that is needed for vandalism reverts is an edit summary that notes it is vandalism being reverted (which is good practice for everyone). I'd be happy to amend the wording of the restriction to make this clear if people think that would be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Callanecc: to explicitly answer your two questions:

  • Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts? It is neither required nor prohibited.
  • Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)? An explanation is needed, but an edit summary noting the nature of the revert (i.e. that it is reverting indisputable vandalism or BLP violations) is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• We need to examine the full relevant sentence of the restriction being clarified:

  [Roscelese] is: indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page

  Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. AGK [•] 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's actually the second bullet point that clarification is being sought with regards:

    [Roscelese] is: indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;

    While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes it is, thanks Thryduulf. I think all of the above in any case have answered the question from that angle fairly exhaustively, so I still concur that no amendment is required. AGK [•] 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Yes it applies to both"; or "yes it applies to the first only"?. I read it as applying to both. There can be a need to revert vandalism immediately; there is not a need to revert without explanation. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I read it as no discussion is required for reverting obvious vandalism, and Rosclese did nothing wrong here. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that Roscelese should not be required to start a talk page discussion for reverting obvious vandalism. An edit summary mentioning that this was vandalism wouldn't have been a bad choice, but I'm not terribly concerned by "?". If we need to modify restrictions so that this is more clear, so be it, but I think that the exception of obvious vandalism is implied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• I think at this point we need input. Do @Callanecc, Roscelese, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: or anyone else feels that the clarifications are sufficient as they stand or whether we need to amend the wording? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Mildly surprised this is necessary, but suggest we add "except when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations" so that the sanction is clearer for anyone considering it at AE. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Euryalus:, that would have to be done by motion, but it is not a bad idea. I'm going to write one, hopefully this is noncontroversial, and we can get this out of here. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man

Initiated by Nyttend at 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Kww and The Rambling Man 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Kww

Statement by Nyttend

As noted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, the second remedy is rather confusing. Did you mean to say that Kww may not get the editfilter right unless he re-passes RFA, or did you not mean to address such a situation? I'm not marked Kww as a party because this isn't related to his post-case behavior: it's just a confusing element of the decision, and an authoritative interpretation would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note after reading Salvio's comment — my only concern is that we get an unambiguous statement from Arbcom, because everyone loses when there's an ambiguous decision. I don't really know either editor and don't have an opinion on what Arbcom should decide here (so no point in asking my opinion); I just hope you'll decide something in place of the current wording, so that we all know what you were intending in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dragons flight

Due to his apparent lack of due care and competence in previously implementing edit filters, I am opposed to any process that would allow Kww to regain the EFM right without a community review. See my previous comments: [1][2]. My understanding of remedy #2 while it was being drafted is that a desysopped Kww would be required to pass RFA before getting EFM restored, and I don't see any reason to weaken that. If this case hadn't been coming to RFAr already, I would have opened a separate community discussion about revoking Kww's EFM right. In practical terms, I assume it will be years (if ever) before Kww passes an RFA, but I don't think there ought to be a path that allows Kww to regain EFM any sooner than that (and I'm not sure he should be an EFM even if he passes RFA). Keep in mind that EFM capabilities are in some ways more powerful than the normal admin toolkit. Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: It has never been clear to me that you really understood my criticisms / concerns, which is part of the problem. However, I don't want to have an argument with you about this. Should you actually want additional feedback on this issue (either now or some time in the future), I would suggest that you ask for other people at WT:EF to give you their opinions of your previous filters. Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I already understood the restriction to be much as Salvio phrased it. I deeply resent Dragon flight's portraying our different opinions as to the weight that should be placed on false positives as a competence issue: I could just as reasonably claim that his insistence on consuming resources looking for rare corner cases was a competence issue. Neither one is: it's a difference in opinion as to where a reasonable balance between execution efficiency and false triggers lies.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Salvidrim

Since we're really getting down-and-dirty with the specifics of wording, I don't feel too bad about chiming in: in Salvio's proposed wording underneath (visibly inspired by an earlier post of mine), the removal of EFM is described first as a "restriction" that would automatically expire, and later as a "remedy" than can be appealed. The wording should probably brought in line with either term (restriction or remedy) for consistency? I really feel pedant pointing this out though. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken

This may be understood in the current comment by Arbs (although I see no reference to it) but a non-admin desiring "edit filter manager user right" has to go through some procedure as described at Wikipedia:Edit filter#User right, second and third paragraph (starting with "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users, and only when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it...")

My point is this: if and when (within a year or whatever) a non-admin Kww would request a lifting of remedy 2 of the ArbCom case, I don't see how this could automatically result in Kww getting the edit filter manager user right back. Or would the ArbCom plan on overriding the regular procedure by ArbCom decision? Any future decision to lift that sanction should imho be formulated thus that after lifting of the sanction (if and when this is granted, in a scenario where Kww would not be an admin at that time) the regular procedure for a non-admin to be granted the right should be followed.

Seeing the analysis here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Kww's edit filters I can imagine some reluctance by those allowed to grant the right to non-admins.

All this is a bit far ahead, and needs to be dealt with when it would occur in the future (if and when etc.), and by that time procedures might be completely different (especially when the community would take up on remedy 3 of the case), but I think it best this caveat is taken into the equasion now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Kww and The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

• I have added Kww as a party, because they are named in the above mentioned remedy ("Kww's edit filter permissions revoked"). L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: Oh, I hadn't seen your note. In any event, they are still required to be notified, as the clarification request could directly impact a remedy against Kww and what they can and cannot do. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Nyttend, you are quite right that the remedy, as currently worded, leaves a bit to be desired and gives the impression that, short of another successful RFA, Kww may not receive the edit filter manager bit back; as far as I'm concerned, that's not satisfctory and, for that, I propose we reword the relevant remedy to Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. If he regains the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire; in addition, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Given that Kww has been desysopped, the only thing of relevance is how Kww may regain his EFM permission. The remedy is not brilliantly worded I agree, but the restriction it imposes is not ambiguous: He may not regain the bit while the restriction is in effect. The restriction automatically expires if he regains adminship at RfA, at which point he may regain the bit according to policy at that time (if there is no change between now and then he could assign it to himself if he desired). There is no restriction on when he can stand for adminship. I agree with Salvio that the restriction should be appealable at WP:ARCA 12 months after it's imposition (i.e. no sooner than August 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• I also agree that the EFM restriction should be appealable after some reasonable period of time has passed, 12 months would be fine for that. I don't think we need an amendment for that, though, as any arbitration remedy can be appealed at ARCA after a reasonable period, and the Committee can at that time choose to accept the appeal and lift the restriction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'd be in favour of changing the wording of the decision, per Salvio giuliano's text above. At the time it was written (when it was unclear whether the desysop would pass or not) the current wording was arguably preferable; now that Kww has been desysopped it's overly convoluted and would benefit from being simplified. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Out of the loop guy here. I would much rather us not have our hands in restoring permissions and have a fresh RfA be the only route of removal of the restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In a hypothetical appeal to ARCA I would not be supporting any granting of the permission directly. I would consider giving permission to ask the community, taking into account the change in attitude and behaviour over the year and the level of scrutiny likely to be imparted at the relevant venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    • But that is disingenuous. There isn't a good WP:RFP like place to have that discussion that is in view of the community. By giving the OK for a discussion to happen at a little watched part of project space we are basically flipping the switch ourselves. I would much rather not have the committee in these matters. If anyone has a better idea for a community-centered way of signaling that the restriction is no longer needed, I am all ears. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Currently that is indeed the case and I would not support it. However if the proposal to split the EFM permission that was raised during the case happens, or if something else changes between now and next August that makes requesting the EFM bit something other than a barely observed blip in a backwater then I might support (depending on Kww of course). Alternatively, we could just say that the restriction may be appealed at the later of (a) when such a community process exists and (b) 12 months have passed. Of course this is academic if Kww does not wish to regain the EFM bit in advance of a successful RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'd prefer the community to handle this, not us. Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• The remedy was convoluted, I'm sorry for that, but the part of it was to create provisions with or without the desysop, given that usual policy is that admins may self-assign the flag. This could easily be reworded now to be clearer that the remedy expires if/when RFA is passed, but I will not support any appeal other than via RFA given the absence of any process with scruitiny to grant the EFM flag, and a belief that Arbcom should not be (re)granting permissions that have clear community processes to grant. This flag is a bit unusual, but we've given a clear community appeal here. (Had he not been desysopped, there would have been no community process of any rigor/scrutiny to regrant the flag) Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Argentine History

Initiated by MarshalN20 at 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Topic ban

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

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [3]

Information about amendment request

• Topic ban

• Requesting removal of topic ban. This is an appeal that was allowed after one year of the decision; nearly 2 years have passed.

Statement by MarshalN20

A considerable amount of time has passed since the "ARBARG" case reached its conclusion. After the topic ban was placed, I asked then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare on how to proceed in order to appeal it; he suggested that I tackle a controversial article and take it to featured status (see [4]). Since then, I have taken three articles to featured status (Peru national football team, Falkland Islands, and Pisco Sour), and I am now in the process of passing another one through the GA-FA process (Bicycle kick) as well as conducting a GA review of an article by Kareldorado. It is worth mentioning that I worked on the controversial Falkland Islands article with Wee Curry Monster and was supervised by administrator Basalisk.

I am requesting the removal of this topic ban on the basis of the following points:

• First, I have demonstrated through actions that I am a valuable contributor to this encyclopedia. Over a year has passed since the ARBARG case, and so the topic ban at present is punishing rather than preventative (which goes against WP:NOTPENAL).
• Second, I understand my mistake and apologize for it. I was accused of battleground conduct because I pointed out that the editing patterns of certain editors were suspicious and favoring a national POV rather than a neutral POV. I felt that my points were left ignored, so I became increasingly aggressive. This behavior was wrong. At the time I did not know that there existed a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where I could have taken my concerns. I now know of its existence and, in the future, plan to use it in order to avoid creating bilateral conflict that is disruptive to the encyclopedia.
• Third, since its inception, the topic ban has been the cause of much harassment against me. Most of the enforcement and amendments that followed were the result of hounding users taking advantage of the TBAN's lack of clarity. Luckily, in all cases either an administrator or the Wikipedia Community stood by my side and repealed any harm done to my user account. Unfortunately, this has not prevented users from still using the TBAN to attack me. For example, most recently I was called a "delinquent" and unfairly accused of misbehavior for simply directing a new user to contribute to Wikipedia; the situation was so ridiculous and upsetting that administrator EdJohnston boxed it up (see [5]).

The third point, which goes against WP:HARASS, is what has prompted me to request this TBAN removal. The harassment needs to stop, and the only way to do so is by removing this unnecessary, punitive topic ban. My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves and demonstrate that I am not an editor that deserves this type of mistreatment. In fact, this experience has taught me many valuable lessons about Wikipedia and its community, including the reality that many editors also deal with this problem of harassment; in the near future, I would like to become an administrator in order to help users become productive editors while also tackling harassment issues which drive away productive editors. To achieve this goal, I will have to earn the community's trust, and this I will do by committing myself to continuing my positive behavior and contributions to this online encyclopedia. To be more precise about my near future plans, I would like to first take the Peru article through an FA re-review (since it no longer meets the standards) and next work on taking more articles to featured status (mostly those in my sandboxes).

Please let me know if you have any questions. I would kindly appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions prior to arbitrators making any final decision on this request.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In light of recent comments, I would just like to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon. I believe that, if needed, @EdJohnston: can provide further insight on the situation that recently occurred with Keysanger, and he can also explain each side's behavior. As I write this message, I read the following recommendation from the committee: "Be professional. Comments that are intended to provoke a negative reaction or that are uncivil are completely unhelpful." That's exactly what I plan to do. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero

I understand the reasons why I was topic banned back then. I know that many people does not trust me, I can't simply ask for a lift of the topic ban by just stating my good intentions. Although two years have passed, I think that I have to earn that trust, and time alone may not be enough. For that reason, I asked some months ago for exceptions for the biographies of the Argentine presidents from 1983 to modern day: if I manage to make them all featured articles, then I may have something to justify my case. Unfortunately, my limited time did not allow me to have any progress that I may show at this point (I'm just with a good article nomination, and nothing more). Because of this, I will make no special request in this case for me at this point.

On the other side, there is a request I would like to make: please do not tie Marshal20's fate with mine. His situation is not the same, and his topic ban should be lifted now. The original dispute was with the biography of Juan Manuel de Rosas; the scope was expanded to all of latin american history surely to prevent the problems with "testing the limits" if the thing was too narrow. But if you check him, you will see that before that dispute he had never took part in any discussion or made any significant number of edits to either the article of Rosas or to some other article that may be more or less related (such as those in the navbox {{Argentine Civil War}}). In fact, he's not Argentine but Peruvian, and the national histories of Argentina and Peru had very little points of intersection. MarshalN20 simply joined the discussion when the discussion had been taken to venues to request to intervention of more users, just that. If someone deserves to be punished for that old dispute, let it be just me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Second comment: please take Keysanger's comments with care, and check them instead of taking them at face value. First, have in mind that MarshalN20 has not been topic banned because of his work in the article on the War of the Pacific. That article has never been discussed during the case, it just fell into the expanded topic ban placed to make sure that we did not get anywhere near Juan Manuel de Rosas (and let's point that both topics are not even contemporary; the war started almost 30 years after Rosas was ousted in the distant Buenos Aires). The topic ban does not prevent MarshalN20 from discussing with or about Keysanger as a user (for example, providing evidence in a sock puppet discussion about Keysanger). Neither should be forbidden to talk about the articles as articles (as in "X user has been editing Y article"), as long as he does not discuss the content of the article or try to influence the way it is being edited (and note that when Keysanger says that MarshalN20 provided info in a sockpuppet discussion related to the War of the Pacific, he's not pointing that the user under investigation is him). He describes a diff as "was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific", which is a completely inaccurate description of the discussion linked (note that admin EdJohnston saw no problem in that discussion; a newbie asked MarshalN20 for help and he simply told him someone else who may help). As for the wikisource link, which is the alleged problem? Here in wikipedia, the name of the article about a document would be that document's name, and I'm sure that the same applies in wikisource; there can hardly be a hidden agenda if we simply call a spade a spade. In any case, have in mind that Keysanger already held several disputes with different users about the war of the pacific, in a short investigation I have seen two mediation attempts (see here and here), an edit war that led to article protection for two months (here), and another edit war that had him blocked (here, the admin points that "The saga of the War of the Pacific continues"). Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by BarrelProof

I was dismayed when the topic ban was imposed on MarshalN20 (on 23 June 2013), and I expressed my disappoinment on MarshalN20's User talk page at the time. I have interacted with MarshalN20 for some years here, and have personally always found MarshalN20 to be a helpful and constructive contributor who seems to be here to help write a good encyclopedia. I also recently encouraged MarshalN20 to request for the ban to be lifted (on 3 July 2015), which at the time I thought was one year after the topic ban was imposed, but actually I now notice that two years has passed by. I think enough time has gone by to further demonstrate that this user is a very helpful contributor to Wikipedia. The user has also expressed regret for the prior behavior that led to the ban, which further demonstrates a willingness to do better in the future. I never really thought I properly understood the prior dispute, but have always thought MarshalN20 was a generally good editor who should be allowed and encouraged to help further improve Wikipedia – in all areas – and especially for the history of Latin America, as that is a subject on which MarshalN20 appears to have considerable expertise and a commitment to try help and to try to improve accuracy and NPOV (e.g., with regard to political and nationalistic biased editing). I thus strongly support removal of this old topic ban. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Keysanger

The ban was imposed on 23 June 2013. Since then MarshalN20 has broken the ban a lot of times, always in an agressive manner:

• On 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 commented in the talk page of the War of the Pacific: diff
• On 27 Feb 2014 he wrote Hopefully now that Keysanger has "retired" the editing of War of the Pacific articles will have less conflict. diff (BTW he is canvassing votes for his nomination of an article)
• On 6 Mai 2014 he participated in a investigation about my contribs in the War of the Pacific : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keysanger/Archive
• On 29 May 2014 he wrote I am still concerned by the behavior of these users. Their contribution history is filled with combative nationalist behavior in controversial articles (please see [6]). diff
• On 27 June 2014 Cloudac seeks advice by MarshalN20 how to proceed in the War of he Pacific diff
• On 21 October 2013 diff MarshalN20 induced Darkness Shines to gather information against an editor of the article War of the Pacific (Darkness Shines is now blocked for different causes) ... My only recommendation is that you document all of the nonsense and later present it at AN/I or an RfCU for review...
• On 22 October 2013 diff Darkness Shines asks MarshalN20 for information to post to the War of the Pacific article EMail me the full quotes please
• On 22 October 2013 diff MarshalN20 sent the information needed for reaking the ban. He knew that he was breaking the ban but he didn't care: The information is found in the second paragraph of page 192. I'd rather not take any further action at this point without listening to Basalisk's advice. Nonetheless, if Basalisk thinks it's appropriate, I can also just write the text to your talk page (both in Spanish and the translation). I am honestly not trying to mock the topic ban (and have been mindful of it in my actions); in this case, the issues of vandalism and conflict of interest are pretty blatant.
• On 23 October 2013 Darkness shines explained to MarshalN20 which is the best way to break the WP rules diff: :{{reply|MarshalN20}} Spanish is not my language, posting on my talk page would violate the TBAN, mailing it to me will not.
• On 27 July 2014 Darkness Shines reverted my proposal at the article War of the Pacific: diff
• On 28 July 2014 Darkness Shines was congratulated by MarshalN20 for breaking his ban:diff Stay strong, friend. Don't lose your cool in the face of stupidity.
• On 4 August 2015 was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific: diff

It doesn't belong to the scope of this committee, but this intervention demostrates the true intentions of MarshalN20.

A topic ban should not be punitive, but should be preventive, that is it schould protect the others editors working in Wikipedia. And the quality of MarshalN20's edits, if any, say nothing about his capacity to team work. There is al lot of "good" editors that have been blocked or are unable to work in team.

In the light of MarshalN20 breaks of the ban, can anyone guarantee that MarshalN20 will respect the Rules of Wikipedia this time?. No. He didn't respect the rules before the ban and not during the topic ban and he will not respect the rules if the ban is lifted.

I thus strongly oppose removal of this neccesary topic ban. --Keysanger (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Argentine History: Clerk notes

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

Argentine History: Arbitrator views and discussion

• It would be most appreciated if Wee Curry Monster and Basalisk could comment here. That being said, provided there are no serious objections, I could see using the same method we've used before, with a probationary lifting of a ban for a year followed by lifting entirely if no incidents occur. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• I concur with Seraphimblade,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• I also think Seraphimblade's proposal of a probationary lifting is a good way forward here, and pending any credible objections I recommend we follow that route. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agree that a probationary relaxing of the restrictions would be a good precursor to fully lifting the ban. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

---