Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Maghreb (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 07 Apr 2026 21 Apr 2026
SchroCat (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 15 Apr 2026 29 Apr 2026
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Pbsouthwood 19 March 2026
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 8 April 2026
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing none (orig. case) 12 April 2026
Motion name Date posted
Standard enforcement provision reform 8 April 2026
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page 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).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  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
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134135

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and 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.
  • 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:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134135

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

[edit]

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. [1]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • [2]
    • Appealing topic ban

Statement by Makeandtoss

[edit]
Makeandtoss's statement contains 524 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

I’m here to appeal my topic ban enacted as part of the ARBPIA case last year.

Initially, I took some time away from the topic area, to create, expand and make DYKs of Jordanian articles: King Faisal Street (Amman), Grand Husseini Mosque, Seil Amman, Roman baths (Amman), Amman railway station, Ten Arches Bridge, List of Byzantine churches in Amman, and most proud work of Philadelphia (Amman) (collectively 112k views[1]).

But then, I realized I needed time away from WP; and to my surprise, this gave me space I hadn’t realized I needed to focus on my own life, including mentally. And what a year that was…

Personal stories aside, I can now see how my editing in that area was disruptive, including slow-motion edit warring, which contributed to increased conflict in a contentious area and made collaboration harder for other fellow editors. I was given a final warning, but I did not appropriately adjust my behavior at the time.

Sure, I may not fully agree with every characterization in the case, but I understand how my editing (specifically how I handled discussions and engaged in disruptive reverting) was seen as non-neutral and unconstructive, and why it led to being topic banned.

I have reflected on my past behavior, and I apologize and accept responsibility for it. I understand the importance of engaging constructively on talk pages and not pushing a POV when consensus is against me.

If I’m unbanned, I’ll be applying these learnt lessons to work constructively with other editors, strictly abiding by 1RR, avoiding disruption such as slow motion edit-warring, stepping back when discussion becomes unproductive, using talk pages before reverting, and accepting consensus even when I disagree. I’d like to come back and contribute constructively to the topic area, as I have for a decade, but now without causing problems as I fully understand the consequences of past behavior.

Thanks for considering. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate feedback and understand any reservations. Eventually, what's within my control is only my own editing behavior, and I'll be abiding by all guidelines including NPOV.
That said, topic area is broad, it covers many areas of my interest, which are Jordan, Palestine and Levant. Even for Jordanian articles, there are gaps in my editing, as I couldn't, for example:
1- source content about pro-Palestinian protests at Grand Husseini Mosque.
2- add footage of Jordanian troops passing through King Faisal Street in 1948.
3- mention how 1948/1967 war migration led to drying up of Seil Amman.
And I can't edit many articles relating to Jordanian history like Black September and Battle of Karameh or parts of King Hussein, which I led to GA status. Several historical topics are out of reach, like Arab Orthodox Movement, Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites, Al-Asma'i (magazine), History of Palestinian journalism, which I created and expanded; and editing elsewhere (e.g.: Miss Jordan or Al-Maghtas) is risky.
I think that the proposed roadmap idea is considerate and would be willing to follow a clear process to demonstrate sustained, policy-compliant editing. Having a clear path forward is important for me to stay motivated and continue contributing constructively. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

Statement by Wafflefrites

[edit]
  • Support: I support accepting the amendment request. I have worked with Makeandtoss on several articles in the I-P area. He usually tries to make articles more organized, especially if they are articles that he has created. He is knowledgeable about Jordanian history and current Jordan events. He is also helpful in finding citations for Jordanian articles (for example, he helped add several citations to Wasfi Tal and helped clear up confusion around source discrepancies about Tal’s birthplace and birth year). He also verbally assumed good faith of my contributions that I was doing my best trying to follow the sources and policies in my edits, even if I made mistakes or misread the policy. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    + This is in response to SFR’s comment in the other thread about the topic still being hot. When I voiced my support, I was/am behind on current events and wasn’t aware there’s an ongoing conflict between Israel-Lebanon in addition to the conflict with Israel -US-Iran, but I think Makeandtoss would bring a net positive to Jordanian -related topics specifically in the IP area. In case there’s any misinformation about Jordan, it’s political parties related to the conflict, etc. Makeandtoss would be knowledgeable enough about those topics to correct any misinformation.Wafflefrites (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why the Committee should or should not accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • I really appreciate this self-reflective appeal, and I am glad to see you have done some excellent content work. I'll give it some time for comments—though, as always, I ask that editors consider whether they have something important to say or believe it is important to say something—but I'm inclined to lift the ban. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am skeptical of the wisdom of letting people back into our most charged topic area after only a year and some change in the penalty box. Particularly coupled with a statement that is easy to parse as "POV pushing is okay if the majority of people in the discussion agree with me" --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have similar reservations to Guerillero—the conflict, and therefore the topic area, is still on fire—but I wouldn't rule out an unban completely. I'm potentially open to a gradual loosening of restrictions as part of a road map because this is quite a good appeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps that could come in the form of a balanced editing restriction? In addition to the, well, balanced editing part, it comes with an actual topic ban outside of the content namespaces. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time, I opposed the ban because I preferred a version that made it more clear that Makeandtoss would be allowed to edit about Jordanian topics. But their content output in the last year has been pretty Jordan heavy, so I'm not seeing an issue there. Unless there is some Jordanian topic that Makeandtoss feels like they can't write about, I'm not inclined to lift the ban while the topic is so hot. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to below, but without the off-wiki coordination concerns. I don't think now is the time to be loosening these restrictions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: PIA Canvassing

[edit]

Initiated by EytanMelech at 00:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
PIA Canvassing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1203810971#EytanMelech_topic_ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by EytanMelech

[edit]
EytanMelech's statement contains 727 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Hello.

During one of the ARBPIA case reviews on Wikipedia, I was one of the users banned by ArbCom for edits made to Wikipedia pages and votes cast on talk pages that violated Wikipedia rules. I was both topicbaned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and had an entire block on my account so that I was not able to edit any page, including my own user pages. This went into effect in January 2024. After months of reflection and consideration of my actions, past and future, I did a clemency appeal for my user block, which was lifted in September 2024. I did not, at that time, request a review of my Arab-Israeli topic ban, as I thought it was too soon and that I needed to show good behavior for a period of time before any consideration on that. In the following year and a half since, I have since made more than 2,600 edits on Wikipedia since my unblock and have written many articles. After fully learning what a "broadly-construed" topic ban meant, I believe that I have made improvements to the way I use Wikipedia, and that I have been a good example of someone making consistent & productive edits for the site and have been someone with overall good behavior. I would like to use this opportunity to request a review & potential removal of my topic ban on the Arab-Israel conflict.

Thank you very much.

EytanMelech (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • moved to own section, re TarnishedPath -leek I can respond to this. That was absolutely my bad. I had a mission for a while to add a Wikilink to every mention of Herbert Parmet, an article I created, and must've done this on autopilot without reading the title of the article. You're absolutely right. EytanMelech (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved to own section, re leek -leek I think my main project to highlight are the articles I've added for places of worship. The main part of that would be List of synagogues in Italy, which is an overview of the synagogues in Italy articles, which were very few before I started within the past year. I have since added 24 synagogues for various synagogues that were previously lacking in articles on enwiki. I also created the Gyor synagogue and Synagogue of Utrera, which are both outside of Italy but are in Europe and were lacking enwiki articles. In terms of churches, I've created articles for the Church of St. Andrew and St. Monica and Metropolitan Baptist Church (Philadelphia). EytanMelech (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    moved to own section, -eggroll 1. I think I came to better understand what I found important at Wikipedia. When I was blocked, I was reeling with the loss of being able to help contribute to this source of knowledge. I knew I needed some time away, not just for the punitive reasons, but also to understand what I enjoyed about Wikipedia, and it was definitely that. When I was unblocked but still topic banned, I was unable to participate in the voting and consensus-based stuff on the Arab-Israeli conflict that I was so heavily involved with prior. I found that when I was unbanned from Wikipedia, but still unable to participate in that specific type of activity, I still found fulfillment and enjoyment just from the ability to help source knowledge, and that voting and defending my opinion on the directions an article could go was not what I really wanted out of a Wikipedia experience. That being said, I would still enjoy being able to edit & write articles relating to the topic, but for the purpose of actually expanding knowledge on the subject and not trying to instill a specific tone in an article or fight over whether or not something was NPOV.
    2. I think you are referring to the 'fora' of Wikipediocracy, but am not 100% sure. Please correct me if I misunderstood this question. I have an account there, but have not been active for quite some time, as I was really just using it to follow people's opinions of my ongoing case that resulted in my user block, and also to have discussion with Nableezy and address accusations against me by some users there. The environment felt really toxic and I don't think I'd get anything out of there other than from what I used it for in 2024. EytanMelech (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

[edit]

Please see Special:Diff/1333673906 in which EytanMelech links a name in a reference parameter at the end of the following text: As president, Kennedy initiated the creation of security ties with Israel, and he was the founder of the U.S.–Israeli military alliance. Kennedy, basing his policy decision on his White House advisors, avoided the State Department with its greater interest in the Arab world. A central issue was the status of Palestinians, split among Israel, Egypt and Jordan. By 1961 there were 1.2 million Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. The Soviet Union, although it initially supported the creation of Israel, was now an opponent, and looking to the Arab world to build support. The United Nations General assembly was generally anti-Israel, but all decisions were subject to American veto power in the Security Council. According to international law, UNGA resolutions are not legally binding while UNSC resolutions are. Kennedy tried to be evenhanded, but domestic political pressures pushed him to support Israel. I wouldn't say that the linking of a name by itself is an issue; however given what is in the paragraph that the reference belongs to, this seems extremely unwise at the very least. TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why the Committee should or should not accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

PIA Canvassing: Clerk notes

[edit]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @EytanMelech: I have moved your comment to your own section. Please keep in mind to reply to arbitrator questions in your own section, as arbitration pages use sectioned discussion, rather than the standard threaded reply format. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PIA Canvassing: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • EytanMelech, are there any edits/projects you'd want to highlight in your time back? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am equally as skeptical of this appeal. There are 2 years out of PIA, instead of one, but the off wiki factors make be think that a longer vacation from our most fraught topic is needed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EytanMelech: What have you learnt from the experience of being blocked and topic banned? How can we be sure you won't be involved in canvassing/off-wiki coordination again? For example, are you still a member of fora where the content of Wikipedia articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is discussed? That's not a leading question; if you are, I'd be curious to know how you approach Wikipedia-related discussions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not too keen on letting editors back in while the topic is so hot. Additionally, our tools against off-wiki coordination is limited and iron-shod enforcement when discovered is one of the few tools we have with teeth to discourage it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not participate in the ban at the time, but I've just refreshed myself on the thread and perused the off-wiki evidence. I must agree with SFR that I am not too keen on letting editors back in while the topic is so hot, especially in this instance given the off-wiki angle. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1349104099"