Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by Bohemian Baltimore at 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

"You are indefinitely topic banned from the self-identification or citizenship of living or recently deceased people, broadly construed."

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

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

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

Information about amendment request

• User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
  • "You are indefinitely topic banned from the self-identification or citizenship of living or recently deceased people Indigenous to the Americas, broadly construed."
  • State the desired modification

   Bohemian Baltimore's statement contains 481 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I was banned from topic of self-ID/citizenship of BLPs (living or recently deceased). This prevents me from adding basics such as "Dutch musician", "French architect" to uncontroversial BLPs. It prevents me from creating uncontroversial BLPs for figures such as priests, as "Roman Catholic" is a form of ID. The intent of topic ban was to keep me away from subject of whether a person is Native or pretendian; I have complied with topic ban by strictly staying away from such BLPs citizenship. I mistakenly believed I was banned from all BLPs, but now see it only says "recently deceased". But as example of intent to adhere to topic ban, I created articles like Joseph Rytmann without mentioning he was French, Edward Temple without mentioning he was American. Preventing me from adding uncontroversial info is overly broad, prevents me from creating more BLPs. This is unnecessary to preserve intent of ban, which is to prevent me from editing BLPs related to pretendianism. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. It was my understanding that the pretendian issue was the primary reason for my topic ban, and that the general BLP prohibition was due to other incidents like using terms like "racist" to describe others' editing, and was done through an abundance of caution, as I was told "broadly construed" was to prevent any ambiguity or possible abuse. I have demonstrated my cooperation by not editing those BLPs and not using terms like racist/bigoted to describe editing.
• 2. I am aware that titles like "Priest" or "Rabbi" are roles and not self-IDs, but they inherently imply self-IDs. Yes, I try to use an abundance of caution because, no, I cannot assume what any admin interprets as a violation and I must be careful. That's an attempt at cooperation.
• 3. I see that the word "marginalized" is not in the formal language of the topic ban itself, but the word was used by admins when they instituted the ban, so that is why I inquired if the ban only related to marginalized people. It has been clarified that it applies to any self-ID.
• 4. Per admin ScottishFinnishR, an "appeal for a lessening or removal of the sanctions due to lessons learned and behaviors changed are normally looked upon favorably after at least six months have passed...In your case, with three months of adherence to the topic ban I wouldn't be surprised if you could get the sanction scaled back to only applying to self-identification". Per instruction, I waited over 6 months; I requested what I thought was a narrower leniency than SFR suggested, as I didn't request the ability to edit Native BLP citizenship. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 5. @User:CaptainEek BLPs for long deceased people are not subject to the topic ban. As for why I didn't appeal sooner; because SFR explicitly said I'd be "looked upon poorly" if I moved too quickly to appeal. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   ScottishFinnishRadish's statement contains 50 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

At the AE report that led to these sanctions their behavior around LGBT and Jewish and other minority/marginalized people was also raised as an issue, which directly led to the broader topic ban. Diffs such as this demonstrate that the issues were broader than identification of indigenous people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   SarekOfVulcan's statement contains 39 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

BB's omission in the amendment request of the other things that led to the broader sanction suggest to me that the request may be premature. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: - bad example. :) Welsh poet? Scottish poet? Northern Irish poet? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Barkeep49's statement contains 88 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Building off the comments of SFR and Sarek, I want to note that while initial discussion was about Native Americans, other BLP issues emerged during the course of the discssion, with comments by Hemiauchenia/Andre and a list of issues by theleekycauldron which convinced me to change in support from a Native American scope to a wider topic ban. Even still I also think the AE admins attempted to create a narrow enough sanction that BB could continue doing other valued work, including with Native Americans. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   theleekycauldron's statement contains 241 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'll recuse here out of an abundance of caution. I think the topic ban could be narrowed a bit to accommodate labels that are obviously applicable and uncontroversial, like "British poet" – something like: "Bohemian Baltimore's topic ban does not apply to a BLP's undisputed citizenship status as it relates to a widely-recognized country, narrowly construed." Still topic-banned from tribal citizenship, subnational citizenship, or citizenship of maybe-countries; from discussions about whether or not a BLP is a citizen of country X; and from identification with respect to gender, sexuality, religion, and otherwise. But if they want to write a BLP about someone who's uncontroversially a citizen of a certain country, they can mention that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hah! fair point, Sarek :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a procedural note, the ARCA review guidelines on CTOP actions (linked by House below) lay out a few narrow circumstances in which ARCA will "overturn" an AE action. None of those circumstances really seem to apply here, and BB doesn't seem to be asking for an overturn in the strict sense, just a narrowing on a no-longer-necessary basis. If the guidelines do apply even though BB isn't asking for an overturn, the Committee should decline this request as out of scope, because it doesn't meet the guidelines. If they don't apply, there wouldn't be anything stopping the Committee from considering this on the merits, but either way, this is probably something we should clarify. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I'm prohibited from BLPs related to "marginalized" groups, that means that I'm permitted to state someone is Christian? The topic ban does not include the word "marginalized" and I cannot see anybody suggesting that the ban only applies to marginalized groups. I do not see how this is unclear.

I do not think that the ban currently prohibits BB from creating articles on e.g. living rabbis so long as they do not discuss the subject's self-identification as Jewish. Being a rabbi is not a matter of self-identification; one is generally ordained as a rabbi. Other editors can always add information about the subject's religious self-identification later.

re. theleekycauldron's proposed amendment, if BB is confused by whether being a rabbi or a priest is a matter of self-identification I do not think making their tban less clear-cut is a good idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support overturning this topic ban since Bohemian Baltimore has complied and has been reasonable and respectful throughout the entire process. As the quote about the ban being related to "marginalized" groups shows, this ban is arbitrary. Bohemian Baltimore has made significant and sustained contributions to topics about Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which is an area Wikipedia desperately needs informed editors. Bohemian Baltimore's contributions to articles about citizens of federally recognized tribes articles have not been remotely controversial. If anything Bohemian Baltimore does need reversion or further discussion, then that can happen as it does for every other Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia is poorer for this topic ban, and it should be lifted. Yuchitown (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Bohemian Baltimore's work in the area of Indigenous peoples of North America. The majority of their work was useful due to their knowledge and expertise of issues regarding tribal citizenship and tribal recognition, sovereign nationhood, and federal recognition. I also want to say that I believe their mistakes in the past were because they working too quickly, and perhaps did not check all available Indigenous newspaper sources in advance. I think this sense of urgency may have factored into the problems that resulted in the ArbCom ban. However, I do not think their edits leading to the ban were made in bad faith, and I do believe they are a trustworthy person of integrity. I think their overly quick edits were due to legitimate concerns about fraud which is a real thing that has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. They should have started more talk page discussions rather than moving ahead so quickly. There were times when the tone and bluntness of their communications could have been adjusted. To my mind, they were and are a highly valuable and knowledgeable editor and I hope that ArbCom will consider loosening the restrictions. WP:IPNA needs knowledgeable editors like BB who have expertise in the subject matter. Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a reference above to "non controversial" nationality, e.g. identifying someone as a British musician. However, I'd question whether it's workable to craft a sanction against non-controversial edits in this area. For example, it's routine for articles to identify someone as a British musician based on assumptions about their home location, place of birth, name, and other details in the absence of any source that states they are a British citizen. I have long avoided inserting this info into articles where there is not a source for it, which has led to conflict in the past. I don't have a position on whether the topic ban should be lifted, but I don't think theleekycauldron's suggestion is workable. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• @Daniel: The "arbitration enforcement appeal referral" is for AE admins who are exercising their authority to refer AE threads to the entire committee, and is even wrapped in {{if admin}}. The "click here to file an amendment request" button also states it should be used for an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction.

  As a procedural note, this appeal is being heard according to the Arbitration Committee review standard. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted, apologies - I've struck that. Checking the prefill for the one that is "meant" to be used, it feels like a bit of a square peg in a round hole for appealing an AE action (rather than a case or motion by the Committee), as the party subset is very different - but we can discuss that offline away from this. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bohemian Baltimore: the Arbitration Committee makes use of sectioned discussion (like WP:AE). Please only leave comments in your own section. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bohemian Baltimore: your statement is now over the 500 word limit; please request an extension or shorten a part of your statement not responded to before adding more. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This should have been filed using the "Arbitration enforcement appeal referral" prefill. The Administrator who placed the sanction is a party and must be notified (which is something that using the "Arbitration enforcement appeal referral" prefill would have captured). Daniel (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving past the procedural issues, on the merits this appeal seems significantly lacking. There is no demonstration of understanding as to how the conduct that caused the initial topic ban to be placed was unacceptable, and by logical extension there is no commitment to cease that kind of unacceptable conduct. I think this topic ban was correctly implemented per the discussion at AE, and appears to still be serving a useful purpose at this time. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The restriction seems warranted as-is. It isn't as broad as a blanket BLP topic ban, but appears to be just broad enough to cover the behavior that was identified as an issue, is which more than simply "to prevent me from editing BLPs related to pretendian allegations" as others have mentioned. - Aoidh (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand slightly on SarekOfVulcan's response to leek, some editors have very strong opinions on calling a BLP subject British, and it is not quite so uncontroversial. Whether to use British or Welsh is often determined by considering how the article's subject self-identifies. @Bohemian Baltimore: changing the topic ban to You are indefinitely topic banned from the self-identification or citizenship of living or recently deceased people Indigenous to the Americas, broadly construed does not address the issues that led to the topic ban. Also to be clear, unless you have received an additional restriction that I cannot find record of, you are not prohibited from BLPs related to "marginalized" groups. - Aoidh (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline per the above comment. For future reference, my comment above was in response to Special:Diff/1296386413, which was removed after it had been responded to. - Aoidh (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unconvinced by the appeal; the interpretation and execution of avoidance of the topic ban is problematic and (I admit somewhat cynically) seems to be more of a pretence for having the restriction removed. That being said, I do appreciate that the appeal has been followed, even if somewhat excessively. However, one can write an article (for example) on a baker from Germany without needing to explicitly say they are a "German baker", which neatly avoids the topic ban. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No A few points. First, this restriction was imposed 7 months ago, so I'm not sure why clarification wasn't sought sooner. Second, I'm still seeing that BB is making extensive categorization edits around nationality and occupation,which seems like a violation of the topic ban to me.Third, we have a pretty high standard to overturn or amend AE actions. AE acted within their discretion to try to solve a problem; they had to weigh the complexity and enforceability of the sanction against its impact, and I think they made a reasoned decision, even if we might have worded it differently ourselves. Lastly, if this is to be treated as an appeal, then "meh". I'm not convinced that BB understands what they did wrong and that it won't happen again. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ArbCom can only overturn an AE action if it was out of process or unreasonable. It plainly wasn't either. The argument that the restriction inhibits routine uncontroversial editing has some merit but that's not something ArbCom can rule on. I would suggest that a conversation between the sanctioned party and the sanctioning administrator would be more productive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]