Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/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

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: Catflap08 and Hijiri88	none	(orig. case)	26 February 2016
Amendment request: American politics	none	(orig. case)	6 March 2016

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hijiri88: Topic ban (II) 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:

• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Hijiri88

My TBAN is from the area of "Japanese culture". I have taken this to mean that I am banned from editing or discussing all topics related to "Japan" anywhere on English Wikipedia, but there is a slight grey area, in that I live in Japan and virtually all the sources I have access to are Japanese ones. I assumed that the ban was on the "topic" of Japanese culture, and usage of particular sources and casually mentioning of my editing circumstances while editing in topics completely unrelated to Japan would be acceptable. But it was recently implied that the phrase "pages related to" in the TBANs resulting from this case is not meant to be interpreted narrowly, though.

So I have a few questions:

• Since TBANs also cover brief mentions of the topic on talk pages, does this mean I am not allowed mention that I live in Japan?
• Does it include citing of Japanese-language sources (and non-Japanese sources written by Japanese people or published in Japan) in articles on non-Japanese topics?
• If citing of Japanese-language sources for factual claims is acceptable, am I still forbidden from attributing claims to Scholar X inline, if Scholar X is a Japanese citizen?
• If naming Scholar X inline is acceptable, is it still unacceptable to refer to him/her inline as "Japanese scholar X"?
• Even if the answer to all of the above is "no", am I not allowed to discuss my sources, the language they were written in, their country of origin or who wrote them on the talk page (or on RSN) if they are challenged?

A little while ago another user explicitly mentioned the Japanese nature of one of my sources, and I wasn't sure what I was allowed say in my response. Should I email users who say these things and explain my situation, and politely ask that they not mention Japan when they are discussing non-Japanese topics with me on a talk page?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Thanks for telling me. :-) For what it's worth the drafting Arb previously defined the wording here as designed to cover other areas (outside my dispute with the other user named in the case) where "disruption had occurred" (such as the disruption on Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture). I don't know how this affects my questions, so I didn't mention it initially, but then you reminded me that in the two months since the case closed ArbCom elections took place and not everyone remembers all the details. Sorry about that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: @Gamaliel: Thank you for clarifying, but should I wait for more Arbitrators' opinions before freely engaging in the activities mentioned above? Also, "saying that [I] live in Japan" is the least grey of the above situations (I wrote them in ascending order). Can I verify that it's okay to say on a talk page or on RSN "I think a Japanese encyclopedia article is an acceptable source for this statement about a classical Chinese poetry anthology since it is written by Professor Japaneseperson who teaches classical Chinese literature at JapaneseUniversity and is considered to be one of the foremost experts on Chinese poetry in Japan, where classical Chinese poetry is almost as widely studied and appreciated as in China itself, and far more than in most western countries"? Or would it be better to steer clear of that last point? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 29 February 2016 (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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

• This case was before my time, and I didn't follow it while it was open, so no comment till I give it a look. Posting here just to note we've seen your request, because this section looks kind of empty :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Having looked over the original case, I don't see that the topic ban can reasonably be considered to extend to things as trivial as saying that you live in Japan. The examples you give seem acceptable to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Hijiri88: I see no problems with that example, as long as the topic you're using the source for is not related to Japanese culture, but I'd like to hear GorillaWarfare's thoughts, since she is the local expert in this dispute :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Topic bans are supposed to be broad, but not quite this broad. My initial take is that all of the examples you proffered are acceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Your topic ban restricts you from editing "all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" (see WP:TBAN). Your TBAN is not so broad that it restricts you from any of the examples you give. You are not restricted from mentioning Japan entirely, simply from editing articles and entering discussions on that topic area. The comment of mine that you mention was an explanation of why I suggested "Japanese culture" rather than something narrower in scope—I did not mean to imply that you may not edit topics that do not fall within the topic ban scope we settled on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Gamaliel and Gorilla Warfare. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with all above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: American politics

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 13:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. six month topic ban from Bernie Sanders

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

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

Information about amendment request

• six month topic ban from Bernie Sanders

• removal of topic ban

Statement by Sir Joseph

I was given a one week topic ban from the Bernie Sanders article.I then filed an appeal.during the appeal one admin decided that because I mentioned that I found it troubling and perhaps anti-Semitic that out of 535 members of Congress we focus on the Jew he thinks I should be topic banned for longer. Bishonen claimed in the ban statement that it's not for filling an appeal but it's for a battlefield mentality and to protect the page. Have you seen the page? I'm not the one who is bullying others. And it's still a battleground. I'm not the one using wikilawyering. Go to eb.con and see their article. Their claim that in the future I will be disruptive is not true either. I have been nothing. Look at my history. I've not edited the page until I've reached consensus. I've taken the one week ban but the six month ban is just a bunch of administrators acting inappropriate. I never accused others of being anti-Semitic. I said it is a perception of anti-Semitism when you single out the Jew. Coffee is also making up facts with regards to the timeline. He changed the ban after Spartaz blocked me because coffee had banned me incorrectly. All you have to do is look at the timestamps. So now an admin is lying to cover his tracks, besides covering his bad block. Regardless, discussion about the ban is allowed, it says so right on the ban. So which is it? Are we not allowed to question or are we? I've yet to have one good reason why I am being singled out and banned for six months.

after coffee modified his faulty ban, I did not edit the talk page. So I still don't see the issue. Spartaz saw that edit and blocked me based on the initial ban and undid the block when it was pointed out to him that the ban was clarified that bans usually mean talk pages as well. As for my comment on my talk page, that's not a personal attack at all, and the receiver has said and gotten away with far worse.

• A ban is supposed to be preventative not punitive. The statements that I am edit warring on the page is just not true. If you look at the page, you will not see my warring. I have made comments. There are tons of comments on the page. Look at the main page and I believe I have made only a few edits to that page. On the talk page I have made quite a few edits and none of them are edit warring edits. Other than the one edit that got me the one week suspension, I don't think I edited in violation of any policy. I didn't Wikilawyer, I didn't pull facts out of my butt or make up wikipolicy or change the Wiki article from the way it was for the past 9 years, or the Encyclopedia Britannica mention of his religion, etc. What changed two months ago? I posted my opinions and commented. I really don't know why I should be banned from continuing to do so. If you want, I will try harder to not be contentious but it is a two way street. And it does take two to tango. As you saw in many posts, here, on my talk page and on the article's talk page, and as Gamaliel pointed out: "It is inappropriate and offensive for us to judge how Jewish he has to be before he gets to be Jewish."
• Coffee has once again shown himself to be a really, really bad admin. He really needs to be admonished. If he needs to remove content from my page, he should be contacting another admin to do it, he should not be doing it himself. He is too heavily invested in this.
• Doug_Weller, might I remind you of the MFD I brought about a userbox supporting terror groups and that was allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Nableezy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nableezy, yet a fairly benign statement is an attack? Is that the way it is? I brought that MFD and I got attacked at the MFD and elsewhere. And then when I say I feel sometimes "uncomfortable", I then get warned that I'm going to get banned. Don't you think that's a bit of a double standard? To continue, that MFD was closed by DRMIES and the userbox in question linked to a Hezbollah Userbox. Is linking to a Hezbollah Userbox not WP:POLEMIC?
• Regardless of all these issues, I think a six month ban is unnecessary. I have not edit warred on the article or on the talk page and I will not edit war on the article or on the talk page so I don't see the necessity of the ban. Furthermore, as it is written, Bishonen wrote it that I can't say anywhere on Wikipedia that "Bernie Sanders is Jewish." Is that fair? Is that really necessary?

Statement by administrator Coffee

For full clarity, I was the imposing administrator of the original 1 week Arbitration Enforcement topic ban on Sir Joseph (but per WP:UNINVOLVED, in relevance to this extended ban I am uninvovled). That ban was upheld at WP:AE by multiple other administrators, and then closed by EdJohnston with the note that a 6 month ban could be put in place if seen fit. As I noted at WP:AE, after the continuous refusal by Sir Joseph to WP:DROPTHESTICK and his continuous battle ground mentality in dealing with this matter (including the egregious behavior of accusing other editors of being antisemitic, which is what pushed me to ban Sir Joseph from all pages relating to topic, not just the article space - as noted at Sir Joseph's talk page), I felt that my 1 week ban was indeed not enough - as had been noted by several other admins. I felt originally that my action would be enough to deter Sir Joseph from continuing his behavior in relation to that highly visible page, but after watching his reaction that idea went out the window. I now fully support the actions of Bishonen here, in the extension of my original ban, as I think it is the only reasonable way to prevent furthered disruption to the Bernie Sanders article moving forward. That's all I'll comment on this matter at this time, you can see the rest of my earlier comments at the AE appeal, etc. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• The comment above by Sir Joseph that I "changed the ban after Spartaz blocked me because coffee had banned me incorrectly", and am "lying to cover [my] tracks" is so deliberately a false accusation, I almost choked. At 16:58, 29 February 2016‎, I initially placed the topic ban on Sir Joseph; at 19:39, 29 February 2016‎ I clarified the ban due to noted confusion by others (I also explained the need for this clarification); then over 3 hours later at 22:45, 29 February 2016 Spartaz mistakenly put the block in place (an understandable action considering the original confusion, and the lack of clarity on when the ban was changed). The claim that I'm "making up facts regarding the timeline" is so obviously a lie to anyone looking at the actual facts of this case it's ludicrous. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've now had to impose a 24 hour block on Sir Joseph for this personal attack directed at the admin who placed the Arbitration Enforcement action, this attack coming after a series of previous unacceptable and borderline blockable comments being made by Sir Joseph in relation to calling other users antisemitic (and per his previous blocks for making personal attacks against other editors before). This is really getting out of hand. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Legal threat notification - Just so ArbCom is aware, I've now had to block Sir Joseph for making a legal threat. (block notification) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • He has, after discussing the matter, removed the threat to go to the ADL. Therefore, I have reduced his block to the previous 24 hour NPA block. Let's hope things get better from here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• User:Spartaz: I have a lot to say about your own failure to properly review the situation before rushing to hit the block button, but I`ll hold back from doing so as it would be off topic since your actions aren't what's being reviewed here. Likewise, unlike what you seem to think here, my actions are not in review here... Bishonen is the banning administrator, and therefore it is her action that is being reviewed by this request. My purpose of commenting here is simply to provide further context for ArbCom, and to endorse Bishonen's action. Any actions I made in regards to the legal threat are separate from AE actions, and we're done in accordance with policy (e.g. Doug Weller below also qualified the action by Joseph as a legal threat). As to my actions with the previous AE sanction, that was already reviewed at WP:AE and endorsed by several administrators. So, other than the fact that I could have indeed made it clearer in my clarification of the first ban (which did not include the talk space as I hoped Sir Joseph would be able to abide by policy in discussing possible changes, which we later found out he could not... giving reason to change the ban... which was noted at the AE discussion if you had spent the time to read it) passing administrator to not rush to block the user in haste, there is no actual issues with policy adherence here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken

Please find the OP's PA on the TB-ing admin here – Unless this is a slip of the tongue, being angered over being TBd, quickly removed, I suppose this should come with a sanction, one-week block or something of that order. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: below a suggestion in the first arbitrator comment is "I suggest you rewrite your statement to focus on why you think your topic bans were inappropriate and not on why everyone else is terrible." At your talk page I see you are engaged in trying to find ways to beef up your case that "everyone else is terrible", contrary to that arbitrator suggestion. Why don't you give up on that aspect, and start preparing the suggested rewrite on your user talk page? I'm sure that would have a bigger chance at mollifying arbitrator stances as expressed below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Suggesting that Sir Joseph's Topic Ban would be reset as a six months period starting from 12:10, 8 March 2016 for this unnecessary mentioning of B. Sanders --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Note: I attempted to discuss this on Sir Joseph's talk page because he is blocked and cannot reply here. I moved my comment here after Sir Joseph removed it from his talk page (which of course he is free to do).[1]

I would like to expand on what I said at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement:

Regarding Sir Joseph's various and sundry accusations of antisemitism towards me, my only interest in the Bernie Sanders page is to bring it into compliance with the consensus atTemplate talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. I don't particularly like being called antisemetic for attempting to implement the consensus from infobox RfCs. I choose to edit using my real name and that's the sort of false accusation that tends to follow you around.

As my extensive edit history clearly shows, I have no particular interest in religion articles or political articles. Contrast this with Sir Joseph's edit history, which shows that his primary interest is articles related to Jews and Judaism. His recent edits include Western Wall, Zionism, Jerusalem, Katamon, Purim, List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2016, Mohamed Hadid, and of course Bernie Sanders, and his first ten edits back in 2005 included Tisha B'Av, Niddah, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Rabbi, and Four species. There is nothing wrong with having a primary interest (my primary interest is electronics and software engineering) but there is something wrong with someone who's primary interest is articles related to Jews and Judaism calling me antisemitic when it is an easily-verified fact that I have little or no interest in the subject.

I would also like to comment on Sir Joseph's unsupported assertion "The claim that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish is the one that is dangerous and is a BLP violation."[2] made during his AE topic ban appeal. That comment is indicative of the problem that the other editors on the Sander page are facing when dealing with Sir Joseph. Leaving aside for a moment that it is a bald-faced lie -- not one single editor has ever claimed that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish and Sir Joseph has been told this by at least a dozen editors -- it also shows a determination to Right Great Wrongs by hijacking a discussion that should be about removing his topic ban and turning it into a discussion about Bernie Sanders being a Jew -- itself a violation of the topic ban.

In my opinion, the best interests of the encyclopedia would be served by an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to Jews of Judaism, broadly construed, with the standard offer that if Sir Joseph shows that he can edit constructively in other areas for six months there is a high probability that a request that the topic ban be lifted will be granted. ^{Material removed by request of uninvolved admin.[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)}

Note: some of the entries in the discretionary sanctions log are under the previous username Yossiea~enwiki. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Refactored 01:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And now Sir Joseph has "As per Guy Macon policy, I declare myself to be Jewish" at the top of his talk page. I think that it is pretty clear that he intends to make this a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC) ^{Material referenced was removed by an uninvolved admin.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)}

Statement by Spartaz

Coffee is quote correct that my block of Sir Joseph was a result of my personal failure to realise that the original sanction had been amended. This wasn't clear in the notice so I assumed that what it said at the time of the block was covered why the notice on Sir Joseph's page. It would have been less confusing if Coffee had struck out the original notice and inserted a new one. I voted to extend and confirm the topic ban at AE and the outcome reflects the consensus of admin opinion expressed. On that basis this clarification has no basis. The outcome is not manifestly perverse but there was some poor judgement at times - i.e. why an article block and not talk page? That's just stupid as 95% of AE reported problems have a talk page element.

And that takes me to my real concern. I personally strongly disagree with any admin whose actions are being reviewed at ARCA taking an opportunity to block the appealing editor. This strikes me as very poor judgement - especially when followed by an indef for a legal threat that I personally cannot see. My response to seeing that was real-life head shaking and jaw dropping. There has been some very poor judgement in this case by Coffee and its perfectly understandable that Sir Joseph finds the outcome so hard to accept when the process and decision-making has a hint of half-arsedness about it. I don't think the committee can, in fairness, dismiss this appeal without considering whether Coffee's poor judgement has undermined the credibility of the AE process and whether they have good enough judgement to be working in this area. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

ArbCom should use the current ARCA request, or some other pretext, to put the kibosh on any and all "Is ______ Jewish?" controversies, in info boxes and elsewhere, for a year.

The underlying content issue is complicated. It’s also ancient: passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy are dedicated to it. Whole books have been written on the parable of the four children, which addresses just one aspect of it. In modern times, it was the subject of the Jacob Gordon’s great Konig Lir, it was (alas) extensively litigated by the Nazis, and it's a controversial touchpoint in contemporary Israeli politics, where determining “Who Is A Jew?” determines immigration policy.

No good can come of this topic. In the current political environment, the topic can and will attract kooks and zealots, along with misled teenagers of all ages with a Bright Idea.

The data value of the "religion" field in the info box is marginal to all save the fascist fringe of the American right. No one’s research will be greatly impeded by removing it for the coming months, or by freezing it. I would also suggest that the freeze be proactively extended to questions of who is or is not Chicano, Puertorriqueño, etc.

Simply remove the infobox line for the time being, or freeze them and topic ban the entire project from further discussion for the rest of the year. At the cost of muddying the encyclopedia on these rather narrow matters for a few months, we gain freedom from constant vexatious dispute. More important, we may avoid having one of these vexatious disputes blow up into international headlines, to the projects lasting (and perhaps irretrievable) discredit. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

I would add that it appears Coffee is a bit too involved if he is blocking based on a statement of informing the ADL. That is not a threat, let alone a legal threat. Coffee needs to withdraw a bit. --DHeyward (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

@MarkBernstein: A sound suggestion which, sadly, the rules are going to preclude here. Something needs to be done about this dispute, though, or it's going to end up with arbcom doing something about it in pretty short order. The level of battleground and idht evident in the various RfCs around it is pretty depressing. For a dispute that boils down to the question, "When someone says, 'I am Jewish,' does he mean he has a Jewish mother, he identifies with Jewish culture or he holds to some version of Jewish belief as a religion? And is this worth mentioning in an infobox?" the number of characters spilled into pixels is truly staggering. GoldenRing (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (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.

American politics: Clerk notes

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

American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

• It is commendable that you have not edit warred against consensus, but accusing people of lying and throwing our "perceptions" of anti-Semitism is even more disruptive behavior. I suggest you rewrite your statement to focus on why you think your topic bans were inappropriate and not on why everyone else is terrible. Gamaliel (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that it isn't too late for that. At the moment I can see no reason to relax the ban. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to add that I have no reason at all to think that either the ban or the block has anything to do with the editor's being Jewish. I tried to save this post before his threat to go to the ADL, but the save failed (happened on another page, kept getting preview when pressing save) Doug Weller talk 18:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Sir Joseph - If Coffee hadn't removed the unacceptable material I would have. You should be glad, it's just more evidence that the ban was correct. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• I see no reasonable justification to relax the topic ban at this time. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• I see no reason for us to intervene here at the moment. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• I appreciate the frustration involved here, but I can see no reason to change the topic ban at this point. Given the nature of the dispute, I find Guy Macon's "Jews, Jews, and more Jews" comment to come off poorly and would encourage a refactoring. I also am not convinced that threatening to contact the ADL is equivalent to a legal threat, but it looks like that matter is settled in any event. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I do see that as a threat intended to intimidate, though not a legal threat. I'm glad it was withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur. Ill advised, but hardly a legal threat. Gamaliel (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Decline --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• I find no merit in the appeal, uphold sanction. Courcelles (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Uphold the sanction. I also would encourage Sir Joseph to follow Gamaliel's advice above, should he decide to appeal sanctions in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---