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
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Rktect	none	(orig. case)	10 December 2013
Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	none	(orig. case)	4 December 2013
Clarification request: Argentine History	Motion	(orig. case)	27 November 2013

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

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

Clarification request: Rktect

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 23:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Rktect arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision

This relates to the enforcement section

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

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) confirmation, although there's no real need for it
• Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Am I really required to confirm this?

Statement by Nyttend

Just curious, do we ever impose short bans like this anymore? Should this be interpreted as "may be briefly blocked"? The guy's de-facto banned (indef-blocked in early 2009 after tons of WP:IDHT), but the socks keep appearing (see the block log for Khamis Mushat), so I figured it couldn't hurt to get a little clarification.

PS I've added Dougweller to this purely because he should be able to contribute if he wants to. He just now blocked the Khamis account due to clear WP:DUCK evidence (he emailed me the evidence; I'm sure he wouldn't mind sending it to you if you care to see it), and a comment from him is the only reason I'm aware of this situation. I fully back his actions, and I can't imagine anyone other than Rktect objecting to what he's done. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller

The wording is clearly wrong. It says " Rktect (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology)." and then under enforcement "

Should Rktect (talk · contribs) edit any article which related to weights and measures (metrology) he may be briefly banned, up to one week in the case of repeat offenses.". Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This arbitration case long predates any current member of the Committee (I'm the second most senior member in point of seniority and I've never heard of it). The editor in question has been blocked indefinitely since 2009. I doubt very much that the arbitration decision from 2005 is of any current relevance. (In answer to the question about whether we do short bans like this any more, the answer is that enforcement provisions today sometimes provide for short blocks for breaches of remedies, but they also expressly authorize longer blocks for repeat violations.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• I think the confusion arises out of the "may be briefly banned" enforcement provision. It is clear to me that the enforcement provision meant he "may be briefly blocked" for up to a week. These days, we are much more diligent about making the contents of our decision clear, and in any case for us to authorise enforcement as lenient as a one-week block would be atypical. AGK [•] 10:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Seems clear that it meant "may be briefly blocked" not "may be briefly banned", but given that he's indefinitely blocked since 2009 and indefinitely topic banned, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Worm^TT(talk) 11:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• The differences between a ban and a block used to be a standard question for admin candidates. The essential differences are 1) a ban formally inhibits the person behind the account from editing Wikipedia through any account, while a block is a restriction on an individual account which in certain circumstances still allows the user to legitimately edit through another account; 2) a block can be undone by a single admin, while a ban can only be undone by consensus after a discussion.

While these days when ArbCom imposes a block it is treated effectively as a ban which can only be reversed by consensus - I'm not sure that was the case in 2008, which may explain the wording. As regards duration of blocks/bans - I think attitudes toward the purpose and effectiveness of blocks/bans are continually evolving. The community are reluctant to use short blocks as a punitive measure, though will do so for repeated minor infractions as an incentive to the user to remember what the boundaries are - rather like a low voltage electric fence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with all the above, though this case is one it might be useful to include in a general review of past cases to see how effective they were. The reports of continued socking concern me. It is in some ways a failure if people resort to socking instead of feeling they can engage with other editors. Though some types of editors will always be so headstrong and determined to get their way that they will resort to socking, ultimately, the only people they are harming is themselves. They should recognise that the best way to advance their views is to set up their own website, not to latch on to and attempt to subvert Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 07:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Remedies

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

• Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]

Statement by Fram

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Richard Arthur Norton got three sanctions and one admonishment, all intended to stop his copyright violations. Strangely enough, no actual sanction for making copyright violations in the mainspace was included, although the admonishment said "He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing."

Since then, he hasn't edited a lot until very recently, when he started creating a lot of articles in his userspace, mostly related to subjects where the sources are from 1915 or thereabouts, and the chance of copyright violations is smaller. He has also edited the mainspace, and when he strayed into more recent events, he again immediately created a copyright violation, following the text and structure of the source much too closely. It's not a large one, but it is worrying. Is this sanctionable under the ArbCom cae admonishment, or does it need standard admin sanctions?

• [2]

Richard's full text (with link to the source):

• " In the 2011 American superhero film "Captain America: The First Avenger" as Brooklyn native Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a super soldier, he lies about his hometown. One of the towns he uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey."

Copyrighted source[3]:

@SilkTork: no, my request here was more about "if you violate a restriction, you get reported at AE; but if you violate an admonishment (which was the basis for the restrictions, and which has a block threat in it), where do you get reported? No problem in taking it to AE (or AN or ANI or whatever), but it wasn't clear to me where this was supposed to go. Fram (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@RAN: first, there was no indication in your post that you were restoring older content, which is itself problematic. I didn't check whether you reinserted some older post made by someone else, why would I? Anyway, if you reinsert text, you take responsability for it. Claiming that because Alansohn didn't remove it as a copyright violation, you were free to reinsert it is not a valid defense. But in this case, it is worse, you didn't simply resinsert it, you added the source, so you should have seen that the text you reinserted and the source were basically identical. If you are not able to spot such similarities when sourcing two sentences to a short article, then we have a problem. If you did spot the similarities but didn't see a problem with them, then you have an even bigger problem. Fram (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@All: At User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#File:Boelckeo.JPG, where I warned RAN about a technical violation of his restrictions, which I didn't bring here (something which was not really appreciated however), he compared me to Javert ("You certainly are the Javert of Wikipedia."), which I considered a personal attack and stated as much in my replies there. For him to repeat this here, in his reply, repeatedly, is unacceptable behaviour. I try to make comments about the edits, not the editor, and certainly not in such a deliberately provocative manner. Can someone remind RAN that such comments are not acceptable? Fram (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Norton

User:Javert User:Fram is 1/3 correct. User:Commander edit on December 3, 2013‎ added "In the 2011 American superhero film 'Captain America: The First Avenger' as Brooklyn native Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a super soldier, he lies about his hometown. One of the towns he uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey." It was deleted as unreferenced by User:Alansohn. It was not deleted as a copyright violation. I then restored it and added the reference in this edit on December 3, 2013‎. If User:Alansohn had deleted it as a copyright violation and not as unreferenced, I would not have restored it. Kudos for User:Javert User:Fram for detecting it, but it would be nice if he showed the whole story of the edit. Instead he showed 1/3 of three edits in succession, as a "gotcha" moment, to get me banned from Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

@Newyorkbrad - I don't quite see how you can agree with both SilkTork's and Salvio's comments as they appear to me to be somewhat contradictory. Could you explicate?> Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Alansohn

I've never been a fan of these fleeting references to a place, usually of the sort that reads "On Glee, Adam Lambert's character, Elliott 'Starchild' Gilbert mentioned that he was originally from Paramus, NJ", which I removed in this edit. A statement about Captain America had been added several times, which I removed each time as an unsourced fleeting mention( see here, here for a few recent examples). Most recently, it had been reinserted here. After I had removed it (yet again) here, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reinserted the material in this edit, finally adding the reliable and verifiable source needed to support the claim, one that specifically mentions the movie and associates it directly with Paramus. I was still wary, but I looked at the source and came to the conclusion that it supported the statement. If I had felt that it hadn't been an appropriate source, I would have removed it; It was appropriately reliable and verifiable. I read the source word for word and if I had thought there was a WP:COPYVIO issue, I would have removed it; I didn't see a COPYVIO issue. User:Fram's analysis shows that there is some overlap between the source and the material that had been added to the article, but this is at worst a close paraphrase, and the close paraphrase was by User:Commander edit. RAN's actions were intended to add the source that I had specifically indicated as missing, and if I hadn't deleted the edit as unsourced there would be zero issue here; RAN would have only been adding the source, not assuming responsibility for Commander edit's edit with what may be a close paraphrase. I do understand how an editor could see this as a copyright violation or a violation of arbitration terms, but having been personally responsible for the edit that effectively burdened RAN with the claim of a COPYVIO issue, this was not in any way an effort by RAN to insert material in violation of a copyright, but rather appears clearly to me to be an effort to finally add a source to the article for a claim that had been added over and over again without one. RAN deserves credit both for his efforts to address the concerns raised via arbitration and for his efforts to add appropriate references to an unsourced statement. That the two issues sadly overlap and combine in one claimed incident is at worst an inadvertent reinsertion of someone else's possible close paraphrase, and is simply not the type of COPYVIO that is relevant to the arbitration enforcement. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by NE Ent

I personally don't care about copyright to the extent many Wikipedians seem to. It's not going to be "The end of Wikipedia." (Fair use, no economic damages necessary to win a case in court, DMCA...)

But if RAN's reversion with a source of a close paraphrase is an inadvertent copyvio, logically Fram's copypaste of the full quote is an intentional one. (I've removed it; will be interesting to see if any reverts the removal and what justification they provide.). NE Ent 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This looks to me like a question for AE. That's either an infringement or not - and if it is, then a decision by AE can be made as to the response. However, if the question is if the wording "continued violations" implies that just one more violation would immediately result in an indefinite ban, then I'm not sure it does. I think the wording would allow consideration of each situation, such that a single gross violation may result in an indefinite ban, while a single example of borderline infraction may result in a stern warning and/or a brief block. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• I have always thought that admonishments cannot be directly enforced at AE, because, doing otherwise, would pretty much obliterate the difference between them and the other, more serious sanctions ArbCom may impose (such as topic bans, whose violations may lead to blocks). If the sanctioned editor perseveres in disrupting Wikipedia after (and in spite of) the warning, then it's possible to ask for an amendment of the case which may impose enforceable restrictions; until then, however, it's better to just ask for standard admin actions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The wording of AE is "breach of the remedies", and this particular remedy is worded "...continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing." I think that if the wording had been left purely at an admonishment, then I'm not sure we would be discussing this - but that the admonishment carries a block warning for violation does seem to me to allow AE enforcement at the discretion of AE admins; though I take your point that admonishments should be differentiated from direct sanctions. If there is some doubt about if the block warning for violation is enforceable by AE, then perhaps we should be looking to clarify if - in general - admonishments which carry block warnings for violations do come under AE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the two above comments, particularly Salvio's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Per SilkTork and Salvio. If the original decision has made some misconduct unenforceable, an amendment of the original decision should be sought. AGK [•] 11:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• I was under the impression that the admonishment was basically a warning that the community had lost its patience for the copyright violations and that if RAN carried on with them, the community may block him. I would certainly think hard about an amendment, such as the one AGK is suggesting, but as things stand I do not believe the admonishment is "enforceable". Having said that, I certainly have some sympathy for RAN in this situation, sourcing an edit which had been removed in part for being unsourced is certainly a trap I could have fallen into. If we go down the route of an amendment, I hope that it would not be too draconian. Worm^TT(talk) 11:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Having reviewed this, I think some form of amendment is needed here. What would also be useful is for examples like the one Fram pointed out to be discussed as a 'teachable moment'. Show (by editing the article) how you would correctly paraphrase the source without coming too close to (or copying) the original wording. Distinguish between facts contained in a source (as opposed to opinions) and the wording used to describe those facts. Demonstrate how you would find other sources to avoid the need to rely excessively on a single source. Acknowledge that it can be difficult to work with existing text in articles that may or may not be a copyright violation. Explain how unless you have access to all the sources, have read them all, and have carefully read through the whole article, it can be difficult to be sure that close paraphrasing and copyvios are not present in any article you may be editing. Point out that this is particularly a problem with unsourced text in articles. Fram could then encourage RAN and Commander edit and others to watch for this sort of thing and be more aware of it, both in their own editing and the editing of others. Finally, on a point of order, RAN, Fram is quite right to ask you to stop using the name Javert, that is a personal attack and needs to stop. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Argentine History

Initiated by MarshalN20 | ^Talk at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Link to relevant decision

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)

• Cambalachero is aware of this request (or should soon be due to [4])

Statement by MarshalN20

There needs to be a clarification on the Latin American history topic ban. History is a very broad topic. A prior clarification request discussion showed there was plenty of troubles with the broadness of the ban and its inherent lack of precision. Please see ([5]), where Brad writes, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." The result here was that "recent history" was excluded from the topic ban.

The topic ban's lack of precision recently caused me to get into a minor block incident over a football article (see [6]). The first block incident was caused by inaccurate interpretation of the TBAN exception's "vandalism clause".

To summarize this request into questions:

1. Was the topic ban on "Latin American history" one meant for diplomatic & military history (the classical definition of "history")?
2. Can Cambalachero and I edit articles that only peripherally deal with history (i.e., culture articles such as sports, music, economics, society, food, modern politics, etc.)?

Additional relevant evidence (from my part):

• I wrote the FA article on Pisco Sour (Latin American culture) after the arbitration committee decision.
• I helped promote the GA article on Falkland Islands, after being allowed to do so by arbitration committee (see [7]). I'll add that the expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" shows how much faith the lot of you had in me. But, hey, it did turn out better than you expected; right?
• I've also extensively edited the article on the Peru national football team article (Latin American culture & sports article).

Everything written by The_ed17 below is really beside the point and, IMO, seems very battleground-ish.

He mentions "several previous enforcement and clarification requests", but provides a list of enforcement issues (some of which, unsurprisingly, have been dealt with him) that resulted in warnings.

Lastly, my decision to edit (or not edit) Latin American topics is a personal one. At this time, I prefer to avoid the topic. However, my interests may change later, and I am requesting this clarification specifically to avoid further problems in the future.

Ultimately, the purpose of the topic ban is not to punish. The arbitration case focused on my actions in Juan Manuel de Rosas and Paraguayan War. Yet, ArbComm branded Cambalachero and me with an imprecise history ban over a huge region (Latin America). A clarification is needed not to "neuter" my ban, but to tie overtly lose ends (and prevent further headaches on this matter).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Laser brain's "brilliant" comment reflects a narrow perspective on the situation. All articles on Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) have some peripheral relation to history (even the Banana article has a history section!). WP:TBAN mentions this and provides specific exceptions on the matter (which is the reason why my block was overturned by the community). In fact, the recent AN discussion only supports the idea that there needs to be a clarification on the matter.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

1980 is actually a pretty good standard time for "recent history" in Latin America. For example, in 1980 is when the Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces in Peru ends and "democratic" administrations return to the country.

My only disagreement with Cambalachero would be in the inclusion of economics/economic history into the topic ban. Thryduulf's clarification proposal is, I think, good in the level of detail for the type of history ("geopolitical and military history of Latin America").

I honestly doubt any of the arbitrators had "football" or any other culture topic in mind when setting the topic ban. In fact, I had no enforcement issues when taking Pisco Sour to FA status or improving Peru national football team. The problems only began when users began to scrutinize my edits and used any excuse to take me to the guillotine. IMO, this reflects an abuse of the system by those users more than anything else.

Thus, this clarification request is, in part, also a plea for protection to the arbitrators. I won't point fingers, but it should be clear (by this point) that there is a group of editors bent on seeing me eternally blocked from Wikipedia.

Happy Thanksgiving.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to Sandstein, the Chile-Peru football rivalry is an ongoing event. To claim that it "is entirely about past events" is a terrible premise that dismantles the whole argument and conclusion. This is also why the unblock request was accepted by the community. Per WP:TBAN: "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." The "history" section in Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly delimited. That the article is a badly written one also does not help the case made against me.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Not even I expected that the WP:IBAN would be so blatantly broken ([8]). The comments made below clearly break the point: "editor X is not permitted to make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly." I mean, the comment doesn't even concern the clarification request...it's just a bunch of trash commentary demonstrating that the WP:STICK is far from dropped.

Nonetheless, I do appreciate the history on the_Ed17's behavior towards me. Looking at the list, it seems the more abusive.

Happy holidays, I guess.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Something that has bothered me since the start of this arbitration issue is the view that I used unreliable (or "Fascist") sources in my editing of Latin American history articles in Wikipedia. I haven't. Nobody has ever provided any evidence that I have ever done it. In fact, I never added a single source to the articles in question (Paraguayan War & Juan Manuel de Rosas), and merely interacted in their talk pages or copy-edited the articles. Having learned more about "battleground" and "tendentious" editing, I can admit to having done that and regret my actions in Paraguayan War (and I have apologized for those actions even prior to the establishment of the topic ban). Just, please, don't accuse me of something I have never done in my entire life because that severely tarnishes both my reputation here and IRL. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sandstein, I'm inclined to think that he acted in good faith in this case. He's a strict administrator and perhaps not too creative when interpreting the reason for AE sanctions, but is he really at fault for that?

I disagree with both of the blocks he gave me, the first because it was a stale matter (and I had already marked out my edits & disengaged from the topic two weeks prior to the block) and the second because its rationality was wrong (although it varies by view, it seems).

However, I can't say his actions were without any justification. As WC Monster & Cambalachero have told me, I really need to learn how to edit smarter and stop giving ammunition to those who want to see me blocked.

But this is just my opinion of Sandstein as it concerns this case. Nothing more and nothing less.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• AGK's proposal is in the right direction. I don't really understand why economics (and economic history) is getting included into the topic ban. Perhaps it could be stated that lead sections, in topics where the settled range and definition of history is not a primary topic, are not subject to restrictions. Alternatively, the topic ban could simply be specified to Argentine history (following the title of the case) and that would truly do away with most of the problem. There was absolutely no evidence ever presented to justify such a broad regional topic ban in the first place. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

The last clarification request resulted in a statement from the Committee that events in or after December 1983 are not "history" for the purposes of this topic ban. So the edit that led to the block [9] - reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 to an article that is primarily about sports - was not in any way I can conceive of covered by the topic ban.

Accordingly I would suggest that the topic ban be explicitly refined to:

• The geopolitical and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983.
• Other aspects of the history of Latin America that are directly related to geopolitical and/or military events that occurred before December 1983.

For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of History of Argentina about events in or after December 1983 would not be. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves: Everything comes from history, but that does not make every article a history topic. If the article was so clearly within the scope of the topic ban then no reasonable uninvolved editor would object to the sanction. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves and AGK: My understanding is that topic bans are dealt with on a per-section basis for articles whose primary focus is not within the scope of a topic ban but include some material that is. In this instance MarshalN20 would be in violation of his ban for editing the lead section of the Chile–Peru football rivalry article as it is directly related to military and geopolitcal events prior to December 1983. As the other sections of the article are not directly related to those events (they're about sport and sporting history) he would not, in my view, be breaching his topic ban unless he introduced material that was relevant to the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Several people have commented about narrowing the scope from Latin American history to Argentine history. I have no objection to that at all, but think that the clarification of what specifically is meant by "history" would be warranted in either case. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@AGK: per Collect and Sandstein, the coda "This restriction is to be broadly construed across all namespaces" contradicts the "directly related to" part of the restriction, this is a very Bad Thing. Better to replace the last sentence with "This restriction applies to all namespaces" or simply delete it all together (as application to all namespaces is the default anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Courcelles: The restriction itself details how this is meant to be construed - "directly related to X". "Related to X, broadly construed" is just an alternative way of saying "broadly related to X". Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17

This is yet another example of Marshal trying to neuter this topic ban, which was "broadly construed" to forestall these exact issues. There have been several previous enforcement and clarification requests that Marshal has chosen not to link. These show a clear pattern of skirting the topic ban, breaching it only in unclear gray areas:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#MarshalN20
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20 – "MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions"
• Amendment allowing Marshal to edit the Falkland Islands article
• Amendment adding a formal interaction ban,
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138#MarshalN20
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#MarshalN20 – one month block
• Unblock discussion earlier this month – "Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, ... I am lifting the block". Is this "well clear"?
• AN block review that led to this. I'm going to quote Laser brain's brilliant comments here as well, as they cut right to the heart of this situation:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote

And as a final side note, trying to litigate individual sections of articles Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. Any article that deals with the history of the region should be and is covered under the topic ban. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also tangentially related is the Wikilove Marshal has sent out to everyone who participated in the AN discussion, ex. [10] [11] [12]. But why does someone who states that he will not be editing Latin American topics until after his topic ban expires need to change that ban to allow him to edit Latin American topics? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Marshal, for reminding me that I forgot to add links to the clarification requests. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero

First of all, MarshalN20 is not requesting an amendment of the case, but a clarification on the actual limits of the case as it is. The previous block was caused precisely by a misunderstanding on the extension of it, so the clarification request is appropiate, and it is precisely meant to avoid further troubles. In fact, I suggested him to request this clarification, I thought that if the limits are clear for everybody then there will be less of those discussions, or no such discussions at all. And there's no big need to link all the previous clarifications, amendments or enforcements of this case, because all those are already included at the case's main page or subpages anyway; arbitrators know where to seek them.

First, the topics. I think that "history" means the topics that we can seriously expect to find in a book named "History of Argentina", "History of Peru", or similar. The main topics that such books talk about are warfare, in the periods when the country is at war, and politics, when the country is at peace. With both terms broadly construed: in this context politics would mean anything that is related to the governance of a country (including economy, international relations, social rights, etc.), and warfare would mean anything that is related to conflicts between military factions (including ships or military hardware, cancelled or proposed military operations, etc.). If it is clarified this way, then we can be more certain if an article about a football rivalry (or any other topic that may arise) is included in the ban or not.

And second, the frontier between current things and history. It was said during the block discussion (I forgot where or by whom) that the 1983 limit is only for Argentine history, and did not apply to other countries. That is correct: when that clarification was requested, I declined to clarify a year for the whole of latin america, because contemporary latin american history was not among my interests anyway. And 1983 was selected because it's a natural turning point in Argentina, as it was described by then; but it is meaningless for the other countries. I don't think there's such a meaningful event for the whole continent, so to keep it close to the limit that has already been decided for Argentina, we can set the limit in the begining of the 1980s (January 1, 1980). The turning of a decade should be a good universal turning point. Of course, that would leave some articles half-allowed and half-banned (such as the National Reorganization Process), but I would simply avoid such articles. Cambalachero (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein says that the article on the Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly related to the history of Latin America. Actually, it's not so clear: most other users did not think that the article is historical, which led to the unblock (and, if the article is not historical, then it was never included in the topic ban, the noticeboard never modified the extension of the ban, etc). Rather than focus in the process, it may be helpful for this discussion if Sandstein further elaborates why does he consider a football rivalry to be a history topic; and in fact proposes a scope of what is included in the realm of history and what is not. Cambalachero (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I consider that the motion is acceptable, and I have no problems with it. As for the concern of user EatsShootsAndLeaves, the key words in the proposed motion is "directly related". Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I've been notified as the administrator who made the two most recent enforcement blocks. Because I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about whether a topic ban is needed to prevent misconduct by MarshalN20, and if yes, how broad that topic ban should be. But in the cases raised in an enforcement context, as listed by The ed17, I've observed that MarshalN20 has repeatedly violated or tested the boundaries of their topic ban. It's up to the Committee to decide which if any conclusions should be drawn from this history of noncompliance.

If I were a member of the Committee, I'd be concerned that by deciding to lift the block I imposed on MarshalN20 for editing Chile-Peru football rivalry (in my view, pretty clearly an "article ...related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed" as per the terms of the topic ban), the participants in the noticeboard discussion may de facto have already modified (in the sense requested here by MarshalN20) or vacated the Committee-imposed topic ban, in violation of the principle that Arbitration Committee decisions are binding (WP:AP). This raises the question whether the procedure documented at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions requires amendment to prevent this sort of "appeal to the community" against Committee decisions (in the context of their enforcement), which is not envisioned by the community-adopted arbitration policy.  Sandstein  15:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to Cambalechero, my reasoning was the following: The topic ban concerns "articles ... related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed". History is, according to our article, "an umbrella term that relates to past events" or the study of such. The article Chile-Peru football rivalry is entirely about past events in two countries in Latin America, including events in the more distant past such as the 19th-century wars mentioned prominently in the lead (even in the article's earliest version created by MarshalN20 in 2007). Consequently, the entire article is related to (and, indeed, about) the history of Latin America (more specifically, about the cultural history of part of Latin America). Per WP:TBAN, the relevant policy, "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic". It follows that MarshalN20 violated their topic ban by editing any part of this history-related article.  Sandstein  17:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A comment to arbitrators: As an administrator working in arbitration enforcement, I'm of the view that it's your responsibility to phrase the scope of any sanction such that it reflects what you have in mind. I can only act on what you write in the remedy, not on anything else you might have had in mind. If you enact sanctions using the broadest imaginable wording (in this case, "history ... broadly construed"), then I have to assume that a very wide-ranging application is what you desired. If it isn't, then I suggest that you consider a more exact wording. If you are of the view that only certain types of edits should be prohibited (for example, edits similar to misconduct identified in the case, or limited to certain aspects of South American history), or that administrators should exercise particular discretion with respect to some aspects of the case, then you should say so, too.  Sandstein  17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As regards the motion, since I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about the scope the topic ban should have. But from an enforcement perspective, echoing Collect, it's not clear to me what the phrase "broadly construed" is supposed to refer to.  Sandstein  17:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett

Seems to me that too many administrators go around looking for excuses to block or ban other editors, and Sandstein is one of the worst of those. (Redacted) he ought to be banned from the arbitration enforcement cock pit nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment redacted. AGK [•] 20:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DrKiernan

I'm not following this discussion closely, so perhaps I have misread things, however, if Sandstein has blocked Lecen while his block of MarshallN120 is under discussion, then that doesn't appear wise. The arbitration enforcement should have been left to someone else. DrKiernan (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia

Having worked elbow-to-elbow with both MarshallN120 and Lecen, I'm happy to see someone is finally addressing Lecen, whose attitude and belligerence were quite a pain in my petusky when I was FAC delegate. I don't understand why MarshallN120 can't work on soccer articles, and my experience with Lecen indicates he's unlikely to adapt his behavior(s) with anything short of blocks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

This appears to be yet another case where Sandstein's enforcement of arbitration remedies is clearly problematic. I think the Arbs should consider that aspect of the question as well. Either bar him from enforcing arbitration remedies altogether or restrict him so that he at least cannot act unilaterally when enforcing them. He does seem to avoid some of the more egregious problems when other admins are there to rein in his excesses.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

As I stated on AN/ANI, because the lead of the soccer rivalry article clearly asserts that the important of that rivalry comes from history (not sports history). In fact, one could argue that without that importance/notability statement, this article would not necessarily exist. As it was patently obvious that this article was related to Latin American history, and thus was subject to the topic ban, even though the article was primarily about soccer. ES&L 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the proposed motion helps all that much. Let's say this passes, and Marshal goes back to the Soccer Rivalry article that led to his block and modifies the lede. Because that lede introduces the topic as related to history, will he be blocked, or is permitted because the article is about soccer? ES&L 11:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• @AGK: it's still early in the morning, and I've only had 1 coffee, but I'm looking at something like this in my mind:

"...indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the geopolitical, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and (B) any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic, or military events that occurred before December 1983. This ban also applies to individual sections of articles where although the article itself may not be about Latin American history, the section of the article edited discusses or includes such history."

• The intent is to permit the editing of sports-related (or other) articles, EXCEPT the sections of an article that distinctly refer to the areas encompassed by the topic ban ES&L 12:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

The issue is clearly how broadly "broadly construed" should be construed.

I suggest the current standard of "Six Degrees of Separation" is untenable, and that therefore the term ought to be finally deprecated.

I suggest "reasonably and directly related to the case giving rise to the restriction" is a far more logical wording. Postulate a person barred from all articles relating to "American History" -- "broadly construed" would clearly apply to "The Beatles" as referring to a "British invasion" by one using the "broadly construed" standard. And those who insist that all violations should be treated in a draconian manner (as the Queen of Hearts once said "Off with their head!") are confusing the trees with the forest. Collect (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Further comment: The proposed motion still retains "broadly construed" which conflicts with the wording "directly related" on the same motion. It is not logical to have conflicting criteria in the same sentence. The motion ought be better phrased as

the geopolitical, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to 1984, or directly related thereto, across all namespaces.

Which would avoid the "broadly construed" potential misuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

Referring to User:The ed17 above and the reference to the first month long block under this broadly construed topic ban. It would be informative to put this into context:

• User:MarshalN20 is contacted by User:Cloudaoc that User:Keysanger is reprising a dead issue at War of the Pacific [13]
• User:MarshalN20 mistakenly believes a comment is allowed under the vandalism exemption [14] and makes a comment in talk [diff]
• User:MarshalN20 is reminded by User:Wee Curry Monster of his topic ban [15],[16]
• User:MarshalN20 ceases and desists, strikes out his comments and withdraws [17]
• Nearly two weeks later User:Keysanger makes a WP:AE complaint [18]
• User:Sandstein blocks User:MarshalN20 almost immediately, with little or no discussion [19]

I note that in the case of the first block, the editor was blocked in what is effectively a punitive manner after they had already realised and acknowledged an error on their part. I don't see this block as defensible.

In the second block, which was for two months based on a presumption of recidivism following the first, User:MarshalN20 was editing the football-related article Chile–Peru football rivalry. That there is a reference to the War of the Pacific in the lede, lead to a block under the broadly construed nature of the topic ban. In this case, I have difficulty seeing a block as defensible with the application of WP:COMMON, though given the poor wording in the original topic ban perhaps it is a grey area. I am encouraged my interpretation was correct as arbcom members have indicated below that they don't consider the topic ban extended to the article that led to the second block.

Two issues are being raised here.

1. Blocks by User:Sandstein Several users have commented that the use of the block tool by User:Sandstein in WP:AE is excessive. I took the trouble to review his block enforcement log and I have to say that in the main I don't believe this is the case. I would, however, suggest to him in this particular case his use of the tool was inappropriate. The first block after the event was not defensible and the second was based on an overly broad interpretation of the topic ban. My personal suggestion is that unless it is clear that there is an ongoing issue with an editors behaviour he should seek wider community input before blocking.
2. Topic Ban Wording The wording in the current topic ban is imprecise, in particular the topic is so broad (Latin American history) and caveat broadly construed is open to being interpreted rather liberally. Per WP:COMMON, I don't consider this would apply to Chile–Peru football rivalry but several admins have acted on the basis they genuinely consider it does. There is a gulf between the intentions in imposing the topic ban and the way it is being applied. Improving the wording would be beneficial to all concerned.

I would suggest that rather than referring to Latin America in totality, the wording is revised to cover only those areas relevant to the arbcom case. I would suggest the topic ban should be revised to be specifically related to Argentine history prior to December 1980 or whatever date arbcom sees fit. I would also suggest this is contingent on all parties in the case restrict themselves to a 1RR restriction and find themselves a mentor as their behaviour has been far from optimal. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that a clarification has been offered. If possible I would suggest that the topic is less broad, given that MarshalN20 took the Falklands to FA status, he has demonstrated his ability to produce good content. If he would agree to having a mentor to improve on his interaction with other editors it would give confidence in relaxing the topic ban to simply refer to Argentine history. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker

Common sense is useful if it is informed. The suggestion that international sports rivalry, especially in the Western World, is a priori not a history topic seems uninformed (see Greek Games) -- moreover, here in an article (the one under discussion) that prominently discusses the geopolitical background. If this committee wants a narrower ban -- it is its responsibility to make it narrower. Don't blame others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Noting here that clerk action was taken to remove one of the statements as a violation of an interaction ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting any further statements before commenting. (Also in terms of timing, please note that this is a long holiday weekend for many in the US.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I am still thinking through whether and how we want to clarify the scope of this particular topic-ban, but as a general statement, the scope of a topic-ban (or of a topic in general, such as in the DS context) needs to be evaluated in light of the purpose for which the topic-ban was imposed. With respect to this particular topic ban, oversimplified slightly, the concern from the original case was that MarshalN20 was assertedly using unreliable and non-mainstream sources in articles on Latin American history.
  • It is impossible even in principle for our decisions to define topic scopes in a manner that avoids all possible ambiguity (for discussion of why this is so, please see this post by me, which I urge those interested in arbitration and AE issues to read). Thus, while bright lines are desirable when possible, there are many times when relevant background needs to be taken into account.
  • On a related matter, I note that Lecen, who was the filing party in the original arbitration case, has been blocked at AE for one month for posting a statement on this clarification request, followed by a statement at the subsequent AE request. Arguably, Lecen's posting of his statement on the clarification request violated the interaction ban between himself and MarshalN20, even though Lecen understandably had an interest in a proposed modification to the outcome of that case. However, it bears emphasis that Lecen began his statement by stating, "I asked for an interaction ban regarding Marshal and Cambalachero, but since this has direct relation to the ArbCom which we were part of I believe I'm allowed to comment. If not, let me know." Lecen has no prior AE blocks. The closing admin's rationale in the AE discussion cites Lecen's suggestion there that he be blocked for 30 days, but in context that is an expression of exasperation (warranted or otherwise) by Lecen, not a confession or a policy proposal. If Lecen were to appeal this block to us, I would give very serious consideration to such appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Reviewing situation (and withholding comment on the original issue for now), but I would quite like to know why Lecen has commented here in contravention of the current interaction ban in effect against him. AGK [•] 00:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Newyorkbrad: Lecen did violate his interaction ban, so I cannot understand why you think the ban should not have been enforced in this case. AGK [•] 20:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Speaking personally, my first thought is that Sandstein's block was a bad idea and that it was a good thing the community lifted it; granted, such a block was probably defensible, but nonetheless, I personally think it should not have been imposed: I have frequently said that ArbCom's decisions should be interpreted and enforced using commonsense (although I know there are people who disagree) and not in a mechanical fashion...

  Anyway, if, for the purposes of this restriction, we define "history" as "an umbrella term that relates to past events", we end up concluding that almost every article on Wikipedia is covered by this topic ban; in this, I agree with Marshal: even the article about the banana has a history section. And I also agree with Thryduulf that the article in question appears to be mainly about sports, even if it contains a history section, and that reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 should not have been considered a violation of Marshal's restriction.

  For these reasons, I support the proposal to tweak the wording of the restriction, so that it is more consistent with what we intended to prohibit in the first place (or, to be more precise, with what I think we wanted to prohibit when we originally imposed the topic) – and, so, pilfering Thryduulf's wording, I'd clarify that, for the purposes of this restriction, the term "history" should be interpreted as referring to a. the geopolitical, economic and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and b. any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic or military events that occurred before December 1983 (or a different date, considering we only granted the 1983 exemption wrt Argentine history).

  Finally, an editor who is banned from interacting with another may not make comments, either directly or indirectly, about him anywhere, for any reason, except to report a violation of the restriction, to ask for a clarification of or to appeal the ban. Lecen's comments, therefore, are a violation of his restriction and I'm about to ask the clerks to remove them. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

  • @AGK: not all violations require a block; this is what I meant when I said that our decision should not be enforced in a mechanical fashion. In this case, for instance, a softer, more nuanced approach might have been to remove Lecen's statement, letting him know that he was not allowed to comment on Marshal, blocking him only in the event of a revert... Alternatively, even a short block could have been ok, but a month is overkill, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Argentine History (MarshalN20)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

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

For reference, the relevant remedy relating to MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) is:

2) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.

Passed 10 to 0, 04:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Amended by motion, 06:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed:

In remedy 2 of Argentine History, the following text:

"the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces"

Is replaced by:

"(A) the geopolitical, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and (B) any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic, or military events that occurred before December 1983. This restriction applies across all namespaces."

Support

1. Proposed in order to implement Salvio giuliano's suggestion (itself taken from Thryduulf's idea). AGK [•] 11:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

   Dropped "broadly construed" as it conflicts with the preceding limits of the ban. Revert if you object, Salvio and WTT. AGK [•] 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Happy with this change. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
4. This clarification is acceptable. I expect it to be interpreted by all concerned in a reasonable fashion. (I might add that I am still displeased by the situation involving Lecen.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Without more guidance as to how to construe this (absent the broad language) I think this leads to more hair splitting and problems than it solves. Courcelles 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

1. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
2. As I was inactive on the underlying case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• @EatsShootsAndLeaves: I'm not sure how else to loosen the restriction without just scrapping it. Would something like "all articles with (A) the geopolitical, economic [etc.] and (B) any other aspect [etc.] as its primary subject" work? AGK [•] 12:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

---