Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

ToBeFree, regarding your recent removal and oversight of my statement, please provide further guidance. I am aware of no policy or other reason for the editor interaction evidenced in my statement to be suppressed (for example, clean start or right to vanish). I originally kept the evidence private because other Wikipedians had been detained in Venezuela and livelihoods were endangered, and out of concern for the safety of editors should detentions of Wikipedians in Venezuela escalate. Since engagement has continued at Commons and on es.wikipedia, that concern has diminished with the passage of time. Other than my initial concern for the safety of others, I know of no reason for the connection between the two accounts not to be considered as public evidence; please advise so I will know how or whether to reinstate any portion of my statement. Confusion about the connections between accounts has been obscured because a third account was blocked, and vague answers have impacted discussion of other bans on other noticeboards. I understand concerns for the safety of editors, but for what policy reason do we obscure plain and public on-Wikipedia evidence of overlap between accounts? Also, since I cannot see my suppressed edit, and I am in a hurried and harried place of caregiving and personal grief, I don't know what portion of my statement warranted suppression, so please feel free to email me re anything that cannot be stated publicly. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I think I can disclose that I personally currently do not support keeping the material suppressed. Please direct any questions about the action to the committee as a whole, in private, to arbcom-en@. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ToBeFree ... I don't have time to follow up this morning, but will do so as soon as I can. One concern is that understanding of the effect of the interaction between accounts impacts a related community ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, I see arb feedback now on the amendment request although email conversation stalled. The history of all accounts -- specifically with respect to image work -- has not been examined in previous cases, either publicly or privately, and it should be considered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on a reply. Takes a bit to get an email approved through the committee. Sorry for the delay. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ScottishFinnishRadish ... appreciated, because my time is so stretched, and I understand the constraints. I sent a followup before I saw this which the committee may want to view first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an informal request in regard to clarifying my topic ban under WP:ARBATC2. I have come across an RM discussion, where the opening of the RM could reasonably be considered disruptive in respect to ARBATC2, and some WP:GRAVEDANCING/personal attacks - though the editors involved are not necessarily CT aware but one editor was a party to the case. Does my ban extend to raising a case regarding such conduct? If not (noting the lack of awareness) should this be raised at ANI or at ARE. If requested, I will identify the discussion and why I consider it an issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: Which RM is it? I'll look through it and consider asking editors to focus on content, not contributors (and perhaps offer some advice here). A case request would probably be excessive. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SilverLocust, please see Talk:1925 tri-state tornado#Requested move 14 September 2025, noting the three previous RMs at Talk:1925 tri-state tornado/Archive 1 since December 2024. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also a comment made at [[1]]. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the ban exception for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution", you can ask an admin in a concise message to address attacks or gravedancing directed at you (or a small group of editors that identifiably includes you). If it continues to be an issue after that, you might ask an admin for approval to raise the issue at WP:AE or another relevant venue.

But the exception isn't so broad as to encompass complaints about an RM being brought up again after it had previously failed, as that isn't some misconduct particularized toward you (and most likely wouldn't be actionable in any event).

Also, disruptive use/overuse of ban exceptions may still be sanctioned as ban violations, so be cautious. Consider simply ignoring RMs for as long as you remain topic banned, since (1) it will improve your chances of avoiding new sanctions and of successfully appealing the ban, and (2) it's better not to focus on what you can't affect (cf. Epictetus).

I sent a message to CD. I didn't think other comments merited a similar reminder. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]