Initiated by The C of E at 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

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

• The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

• The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed except in relation to sporting articles.

Statement by The C of E

This is an appeal for amendment for my Troubles restrictions. After almost 3 years under these restrictions, I have understood where I went wrong and apologise for my editing in that time. I have followed the restrictions and I am currently under a separate tban from DYK. I would like to ask if my sanction could be amended to clarify that editing sporting articles related to Ireland be permitted. The reason I ask is that I wish to be able to work mostly on underrepresented women's football in Ireland and I believe the ban as worded currently restricts me from doing so. I had previously done work in this area pre-ban in Northern Ireland Women's Football Association and a number of clubs such as Derry City Women. I no longer have DYK as an option so any work done would solely be for content creation and development of an area underrepresented and separate from politics. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to let the debate happen naturally but I believe there might have been a little misunderstanding here. @Cabayi: I was put under the restrictions I am currently under for issues relating to pushing pro-unionist content, not nationalist. If anything, creating that Derry City article before the ban (which is a nationalist majority club as well as minimising the Stroke City terms in it) shows I am capable of treating things equally and the 3 years I have stayed away has given me the time to reflect that what I did was wrong and I would like to have the chance to prove I have changed. That's why I'm asking for the amendment to clarify that editing sports articles are permissible. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cabayi: Even if the women's team has no political associations whatsoever being part of a club that founded pre-Troubles and the women's team being founded after that period but just so happens to share the contentious name of the city? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

"the multiple declines of the DYK ban which indicates that the community has not yet moved past the previous issues (though I do note there appears to be more support in the 2023 appeal)."

Putting aside the rather insulting reframing of the consensus process, that when the community has outright declined a ban appeal it is the communities fault for 'not moving past it'. It could be equally said that The C of E has not moved past the fact there is no community appetite to let them back into an area where they were extremely disruptive over an extended period of time. Also there is absolutely not more support in the 2023 appeal, given the similar level of support !votes and substantially more opposition compared to the previous appeal, indicating opposition has hardened over time, not softened. Had the closing statement accurately reflected the consensus in the 2023 appeal it should have said "There is consensus not to lift the ban" rather than "there is no consensus". The only way it could be argued there was more support is if you completely discounted any of the opposes or took some liberties with basic maths. This is 'I didnt get the answer I wanted from the community so now I am trying my luck with arbcom.' It should be declined as asked and answered. 3 years with a ban is 3 years of the community not having to deal with their crap. That is a topic ban working as intended. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

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

The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am tentatively leaning towards accepting, my main concern being the multiple declines of the DYK ban (July 2022, April 2023). which indicates that the community has not yet moved past the previous issues (though I do note there appears to be more support in the 2023 appeal). That being said, I appreciate that The C of E has taken to asking us first rather than wait for someone to call them out on it, indicating that they realise it might be controversial and thus seeking approval rather than forgiveness. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Only in death, my apologies for the wording, I did not want to say "has not forgiven The C of E for their actions" as it did not sound right to me but clearly I chose a poor choice of alternate wording. "The community is not yet ready to accept that The C of E has changed" is likely a better way to phrase it. Regarding consensus, you are also correct, and I have no good answer for that particular blunder. Primefac (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have re-evaluated per the discussion and my thoughts on it below, and agree that it should be possible to maintain separation here without needing to formally amend the written topic ban. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I'm of two minds. On the one hand, looking at the history, there was a patter of pushing boundaries right up to the limit until CofE teetered over the edge. That sort of brinkmanship does not give me hope for the future, as the community is not great at dealing with that sort of grey area. However - I'm also aware that the majority of issues were at DYK, and ask CofE points out, they are tbanned there. More, the request is very specific, regarding sports and therefore might be a good place to show the understanding that they say they now have. Finally, we are three years down the line, so that's a positive too. At the moment, I'm leaning towards accepting a limited relaxation, but I'd like to hear more from the community before we do. Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  After reviewing the other arbitrators thoughts, I would decline this request. Sport in general should not be covered to this topic ban, and I do not see the benefit of adding a tweak for sport. I would expect The C of E to ignore sections of articles related to the topic ban, which should be a small part of the articles in question. There will be some articles where it would be a large part, but given the number of sports articles (and potential sports articles) out there, I see no reason that The C of E should be focussed on them. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, the original ban was for trying to get a particular POV onto the main page through DYK, so the community not wanting to lift the DYK topic ban is material to me. One of the examples given in the appeal Derry City F.C. Women, is from the city whose (contentious) name C of E was trying to get on the main page in the AE where he was topic banned. It's not clear how well monitored the North Irish women's football topic area is, but I'd rather we not make that a test case. This topic ban came at the nexus of two issues: disruption related to The Troubles and disruption related to DYK. If the community is not willing to budge on its end (DYK ban) I do not feel comfortable undermining that consensus by weakening our end (Troubles ban). I'm not strongly opposed to loosening the sanction at some point, but doing it now, so soon after the community said no to lifting a related sanction, strikes me as imprudent to say the least. — Wug·a·po·des 01:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I note, The C of E, that you have been editing at least one sports article related to Ireland since the restriction was put in place - British & Irish Lions. The wording of the restriction doesn't appear to cover such editing, though I understand your uncertainty, and your desire for clarification moving forward. The oddity, of course, is that by making this request, you may end up losing the access to editing sports articles related to Ireland which it appears to me you currently have. Having looked at those two articles you mention, which you created, Northern Ireland Women's Football Association and Derry City F.C. Women, I feel it would be a shame that you should end up being prevented from creating more such articles not though any misbehaviour, but merely by asking if you could do it. As these sporting articles appear to me to be unrelated to the issues which caused your ban, and indeed appear to me to be unrelated to your topic ban - and as it appears to me to be inappropriate to restrict someone from editing in an area they are currently not restricted from editing, and in which they have no history of problematic editing, indeed, have made uncontroversial edits fairly recently - then I vote to accept the amendment, which I see as a clarification of an existing situation rather than an actual adjustment. SilkTork (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we be willing, along the lines suggested by Izno below, to say that The C of E is free to edit articles that relate to sport in Ireland as long as they do not relate to the exception area; and that The C of E, like every other user subject to a topic ban, should be able to assess themselves which articles they should stay away from, which includes grey areas (essentially, if you have to ask about it, then best not to edit it), and that the Committee doesn't need to make a formal amendment to the clause so this request can be closed? SilkTork (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is a statement and not an amendment, sure, if only to sate the folks who will say "all of Ireland = The Troubles" or expand "broadly construed" a little too broadly. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm thinking of a close summary along the lines: "Provided the pages do not relate to the exception area area they are not allowed to edit, The C of E is free to edit articles that relate to sport in Ireland. The C of E, like every other user subject to a topic ban, should assess themselves which pages they should stay away from, which includes grey areas such as pages related to Derry (essentially, if you have to ask about it, then best not to edit it)." If another arb agrees, then I'll close this request with that summary. No formal amendment, just a rough answer to the question. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "exception area" was the proposed exception to the TBAN which is sports, so your sentence does not make sense. Izno (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read that as "the area they are not allowed to edit" i.e. The Troubles, but I can see your point. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've adjusted the wording. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse as the admin who implemeneted the consensus of AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am a decline due to the way sport and community are linked in Northern Ireland. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we actually want to vote on this one? I see a mix of responses above. I think I'd be a decline for the requested amendment, but mostly along the lines that the user should be able to figure out which sporting articles, and which sections of articles, are inside and which outside the area covered by the ban, especially if he really has learned what went wrong to cause the topic ban. As Guerillero points out, sports were a particular issue to the Troubles, though apparently uncontroversial editing has been happening in the desired exception area as pointed out by SilkTork. Izno (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Sport is interwoven with politics in this context, or at the least, the
  stroke city issue. Do I think The C of E is able to avoid the marbling in this particular chunk of beef, or that we should give license for him to try when the current restrictions have worked well? No. Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The C of E, I cited that article as an example of the mingling of sport & politics. Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 13:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Manning naming dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Discriminatory speech by 'x'

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

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Request: On the case's summary page, replace the quoted content in brackets by a simple diff link. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I recently revisited this ten-year-old case, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the disparaging comments that are reproduced directly in the case summary and findings of fact marked "Discriminatory speech by 'x'". I don't think reproducing the borderline hate speech is necessary to get the point across that these users have exhibited sanctionable behaviour. Could this be toned down to just a link to the diff in question? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: That is correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Courcelles

I voted on that case, and looking back now, I’m kind of surprised it was done this way. Should be a simple, non-controversial fix to just retain the diff links without the quotes. Or, perhaps, better just courtesy blank everything but the remaining in force remedies? Courcelles (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I was also one of the arbitrators in the case, and have no objection to addressing this request, perhaps by substituting diffs for the quotations on the main decision page, and courtesy-blanking the other pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

I'm definitely against blanking the case page because I don't see how that is of any benefit to anyone. As for removing the quotes, I can see Ritchie333's point, but my preference leans slightly towards leaving them in. I think it's pretty clear that the quotes aren't being endorsed by arbcom, and they demonstrate exactly what arbcom found objectionable in those diffs. That's where I'm at. Still, if other users find them to be too offensive, then I'll defer to their sensibilities on the matter. I just wanted make my thoughts on this clear as genderqueer person who wasn't there at the time but has used this case as reference point. –

Much like how I don't see a need to courtesy blank the main case page, I don't see a need to blank the supplementary materials. It just would make it more difficult to find historical discussions that contributed to how we now handle the GENSEX topic area. –

☖ 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Against blanking the case page, but all in favour of replacing the quotes with just the diffs. They really do stick out. --Andreas JN466 15:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Manning naming dispute: Clerk notes

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

• Ritchie333, I have reformatted the request a bit and added a request summary; please modify (or even revert/remove entirely) in case this doesn't match your intention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused. –
  ☖ 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I see your point. While it certainly brings the issue to the forefront, preserving those quotes in the case instead of simply linking to them was an unusual move for the committee. I beleive the "
  talk) 16:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I don't see a reason to blank everything due to ongoing editor restrictions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For the avoidance of doubt, am I correct that the problematic sections are FoF 15, FoF 16, and FoF 18.1? Did I miss anything? Primefac (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not opposed to replacing the verbatim quotes with Special:Diff links. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel a courtesy blanking of the supplementary case pages (Proposed decision, etc) plus a replacement of the quotes with diffs on the main case page while keeping intact the record on the PD page would be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Verbatim quotes trimmed

Proposed:

Support

1. As proposer; a link to the diff is how we usually present such information, never mind the fact that the quotes themselves are quite graphic. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have no issue with swapping to a diff link. Izno (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. talk) 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Yes - on the main case page only (not the PD page), and I would also support a courtesy blanking of the supplementary case pages. SilkTork (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. sure --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am fine with any wordsmithing or tweaking. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the current list of arbs plus Money's abstain, majority is 6. Izno (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]