Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Lightbreather none (orig. case) 27 February 2025
Clarification request: Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area none (orig. case) 22 March 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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
127128129130131

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 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
127128129130131

Amendment request: Lightbreather

[edit]

Initiated by Lightbreather at 23:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Gun control topic ban - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
  2. Restricted to one account - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
  3. 1RR - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
  4. Reverse topic ban - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
  5. Interaction bans - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [1] of notification Karanacs
  • [2] of notification Mike Searson
  • [3] of notification Sitush
  • [diff of notification Scalhotrod] (not possible)
Information about amendment request

Statement by Lightbreather

[edit]

I successfully appealed my site ban in September 2022. Although I would have liked to have all restrictions removed at that time, it seemed like asking for too much, so I only requested lifting the site ban. I stated at the time that I would wait at least 12 months before asking to remove the other restrictions. The appeal can be seen here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?oldid=1111600387#Lightbreather_unban_appeal, and what I wrote in "Dear community" stands: my promises and resolve since then remain unchanged.

In the two years since my site ban was lifted I have made hundreds of edits to dozens of articles, including the creation of two biographies (P. B. Young and Amy Kelly). I have abided by my restrictions and believe I have proved myself, as I promised.

Thank you for your consideration.

  • @Sdrqaz: Yes, those statements are still true. (The only situation I might revert more than once would be for vandalism, though I'd more likely report it at the vandalism noticeboard.) As for recent inactivity, I think that will probably be a pattern for me: Edit for some length of time (days, weeks, or months) and then, out of choice or necessity, be inactive when my energy is directed elsewhere.
There is one other website that I have volunteered at for nearly 14 years, without incident. If the committee wishes to know my identity there, I will be happy to email the link. Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sdrqaz: To answer your follow-up question: Some might ask, If she doesn't plan to do the things she was banned from doing, then why lift the bans? Then again, if she doesn't plan to do those things, why keep the bans? More than that, the existence of the restrictions cause me social pain, like a badge of shame. I'd like to think after nearly 10 years I could remove the badge. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know him, but appreciate the input from jps regarding what it's like to edit under restrictions. I mentioned the social pain. It's true I battled in the past (especially in the couple months prior to the start of the case against me), but I also had many positive interactions. Right now, I can't say hello or give barnstars to fellow editors. (I'm not even sure if I can click "thank" on an edit.) I can't add my name to a project's participant list. It's extremely isolating.
In addition, there are some things I can't do that might help with cleanup. For instance, I'm currently using the "Random page" feature under "Category:All articles with broken or outdated citations". Up popped a page that I think should be considered for deletion. Deleting articles is not something I'm very familiar with, so I started reading about how to do it. I thought, Aha! I think I can use this PROD thing, but I dug around in the article's history and found it had already been "prodded". The next step would then be taking the article to AFD - which I cannot do under my restrictions. There's an example of a practical reason I'd like to have my restrictions listed.
But more than anything, again, after 10 years, I'd like the chance to prove myself further - more than I have been able to since my site ban was lifted. Lightbreather (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE the claim by Chess that I am unable to join a project, contribute, and seek review, that is untrue. In Jan. 2015 I set a goal to bring "Gun show loophole" to good article status, I invited others to join me, and we did it. Links: [4], [5]
Although there have been hundreds of edits in the interim and it has since been tagged NPOV and WEASEL. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karanacs

[edit]

Statement by Mike Searson

[edit]

Statement by Sitush

[edit]
I haven't seen much of LB since her return, partly because I am less active due to health concerns and partly because she was and always will be bad news. She continued her antics off-wiki after being sent away, taking her attacks to various Wiki-critique sites etc - at least some of those should be documented. I know this will count for nothing because WP is far too forgiving but my opinion is that this is a leopard and the spots will not change. If she is doing good work in the areas to which she is currently restricted then let her continue there - we have plenty of other contributors who can edit the areas where she is restricted. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

[edit]

Before I fully refresh my memory on this case, just a note regarding the interaction bans:

This means the first three bans are largely academic and the committee should not wait for them to respond but Sitush's opinion (should they choose to epxress one) should be taken into consideration. There was a significant amount of private information around this case (when I was on the committee), which arbcom would do well to review before making a decision. Thryduulf (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

[edit]

I don't know about everything else here, but I will say that the Scalhotrod Iban can be removed; AC has the history there, and the chances of them editing again is 0. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

[edit]

LB and I have differed in the past. I'm glad she's back, water under the bridge, etc. The one request that should not be reversed in the one account rule, in my opinion. That's all a person needs. Everything else can be safely vanished, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Kenneth Kho}

[edit]

I echo Carrite's sentiment, and I tend to regard lifting 10-years-old restrictions as low risk. But I also agree with arbs, who stated her edit volume has been low, about 400 edits since 2022, out of 17600 edits since 2007. I propose lifting all sanctions if @Lightbreather agrees to voluntarily comply with current sanctions until she reached 19000 edits through substantive edits! Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

[edit]

I think I'll just offer a perspective from someone who has also struggled to get restrictions removed. Sanctions levied against me acted as a kind of "chilling effect" on my activities on Wikipedia, necessarily by design. The Catch-22 of the scenario of trying to get the restrictions lifted is that I had to simultaneously be active on-wiki or other wiki-adjacent spaces online that could serve as evidence of compliance and rehabilitation, I guess, while also abiding by editing restrictions which made me pause A LOT prior to acting. Easy peasy, say some. But I think that if you haven't labored under editing restrictions at this website, I'm not sure you really know what it is like. It's a very delicate "thread-the-needle" kind of activity.

Lightbreather indicates above that she considers these sanctions to be badges of shame, and for my part I definitely can sympathize with a feeling that I had like there was a yoke around my neck when I was trying to edit under restrictions. It is discouraging, and for me it was very demotivating for editing Wikipedia. Again, I think this is kinda the intent of sanctions, as the judgement of whatever authority that imposed them is that demotivating the person who is being problematic is a preferable outcome so as to protect the sanctity of the encyclopedia.

I say this not as a means to offer advice to anyone, but basically to offer another perspective from someone who has been subject to a variety of different kinds of sanctions. The other side of WP:ROPE is WP:TIGHTROPE.

jps (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

[edit]

I wonder if the committee should remove the Scalhotrod iban even if it's reasonable to keep everything else in place. With a WMF ban and furthered by what Moneytrees has said above, it doesn't seem there's any chance of them coming back. And I assume Lightbreather understands it's unhelpful to be talking about an editor who was WMF banned. Frankly, it seems to me that particular iban could have been lifted with the unban. I know all this does mean the iban may seem moot anyway but if it will make Lightbreather slightly happier about things, I feel it's a reasonable change. As a two-way the committee could always turn it into a one-way if they feel that's necessary.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

[edit]

Lightbreather doxxed other editors in the firearms topic area on the offwiki blog that Sitush briefly mentions. I don't think the gun control t-ban should be revoked. However, it's unclear what disruption is being prevented by the broad ban on User talk, projectspace, draftspace, filespace, specialspace, etc. I'm surprised SFR only mentions AfD as an example. Being unable to join WikiProjects, participate in good article noms/featured articles noms/etc, or talk to other users makes it difficult for Lightbreather to gain the experience necessary to reduce editing restrictions. The standard advice I give to someone looking to gain experience on Wikipedia is "find a WikiProject and start contributing to it. Eventually, seek review from others on article quality". LB is unable to do either. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

[edit]

Plenty of time has passed. The case was complex, and some of the participants are no longer here, and that is maybe a good thing. I can't remember exactly what LB's beef was with Sitush, whom I love, but I'm sure it was nasty--but, again, time has passed and I do not anticipate a return to previous behavior in regards to Simon. I support lifting all restrictions, including the gun restriction. LB will be editing under a microscope anyway and I just don't think that a. we will have problems again and b. any such problems can't be handled without another arbitration case. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2025 (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 or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • Hello, Lightbreather. I'm looking through the history of your case, but I would like to hear your response on a couple of items for now: in the 2022 appeal, you said I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor. Are this and your 2022 comments regarding edit-warring still true? Could you also please comment on your recent inactivity? Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the reply, Lightbreather. This may seem like a silly question (I can think of several plausible answers), but if the statements at the 2022 appeal are true, why do you want those restrictions lifted? To be clear, I'm referring to the first three restrictions that you've listed. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused. - Aoidh (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of history to read here, and I've looked through a lot of it so far. My initial thought is that they haven't made enough edits since being unbanned to reach extended-confirmed, so there's not much here to base our decision on. I also noted that ~50 of those edits were to User:Lightbreather/Push is a myth which points to the same issues they were initially banned for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay displays a lack of having gotten over (or at least an inability to not pick at the scabs of) their earlier on-wiki disputes and their writing it within a few days of their unban isn't great. That it makes up a little over 10 percent of their edits since being unbanned also doesn't inspire confidence. That, combined with their overall low activity and Elli's concerns makes me a decline, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to nix the Scalhotrod iban, and maybe tighten the reverse topic ban to only disallow drama boards broadly construed, or to explicitly allow AfD. The AfD example looks to the be the only concrete "sanctions preventing me from doing something constructive" example given and I can see giving a bit more rope to see if they're constructive with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to review much of the context, but also not sure how I feel about the timing of this. Coming back after half a year with no edits to immediately appeal a t-ban isn't usually what I like to see. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this is a decline at this point in time, mainly per lack of recent activity. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Elli and SFR; PERM and resysop requests will often be declined if they come immediately after a long hiatus, and in addition there has not really been enough editing with restrictions to show they have been effective. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I'll vote decline on this appeal due to the lack of activity pointed out by the other arbitrators above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm generally supportive of removing decade-old individual editing restrictions such as these for active editors, with the exception of the one account restriction. However, the qualifier there is 'active editors' — the lack of any edits by LB for the past 6 months, and very few in the past two years, make it hard to assess with any level of confidence whether it's the right decision or not to remove them. If you edit for a few months with no issues and come back here, my willingness to support will be a lot stronger. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent something more substantial here, I'd decline this request. Time is a great healer, and I can imagine that I would support this request in the future, however, we just don't have enough evidence of good quality editing. There was an initial flurry after being unbanned, but outside that first 6 months, and prior to this request, there are less than 50 edits in 2 years. WormTT(talk) 10:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, solely because of the lack of activity in recent months. Before I can consider lifting restrictions, I need more evidence of Lightbreather's change of behaviour, demonstrated by editing without concerns. My recommendation (speaking for myself, not the committee) is to edit articles outside of the topic restrictions, then return in six months with an appeal that outlines your positive contributions and why the restrictions are no longer needed. I think the IBANs can also remain in place, even if academic, so that everything can be considered together and in case the editors return. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be receptive to lifting the now useless iban, as well as the inverse topic ban (for the reasons Chess points out). But the rest should stay until we can have a longer track record. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. You've been active for a little over 3 weeks. The point of taking a period between appealing restrictions is that we can see you in action, not that we should see inaction. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area

[edit]

Initiated by Tashmetu at 12:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Tashmetu

[edit]

I wanted some clarification regarding the judgment made in my case, the text was as follows: "For gaming the extended confirmed restriction, the extended confirmed permission of Tashmetu is revoked. An administrator may, at their discretion, restore it following a request at PERM at which Tashmetu shows that they have made 500 substantive edits."

It does not state anywhere that I am banned from any edit on the subject, only that I don't have permission to edit protected articles. But now I have an edit here that I'm told is breaking the rules placed upon me, so I need some clarification, am I forbidden to ever edit anything in anyway related to the topic(and if so,I would have appreciate it being made clear to me) or is it just EC protected articles that I can't edit until my permission is restored?

I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense. There is such thing as a topic ban, so what is the difference between a topic ban and not having permission to edit EC protected articles specifically? Tashmetu (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)  Clerk note: moved to own section. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thanks everyone for the clarification. Is there a place where I can find what topics are EC protected or is it just Israel-Palestine I should steer away from?
Also am I supposed to do anything regarding my past edits in the area or is it just something for me to pay attention to in future edits? Tashmetu (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

[edit]

Editors who are not extended-confirmed may not edit anything related to the Palestine-Israel topic area, and this applies regardless of whether the article is EC-protected or not. It is also worth noting that this also applies more granularly than just at the article level - a non EC-editor may not edit material related to the Palestine-Israel topic area even in articles that mostly about other topics (they may edit the non PI-related parts of such articles). If you are unsure whether something is related, then it is permissible to ask but in general it is best to just assume borderline cases are related. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the judgement about which clarification is being sought is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area, not the main case judgement.
@Tashmetu: You can find a list of topics that are under an extended confirmed restriction at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Active sanctions, although this is not ideal. For starters it took me a couple of minutes to find that, and I knew where to start looking, secondly you have to read the detail of each topic area to find out whether ECR applies and thirdly it isn't clear to me whether "discretionary sanctions that mimic WP:ARBPIA" indicates ECR or not. If you keep away from all the topics listed as having sanctions though then you wont go wrong.
As for past edits in the topic areas covered, just leave them. Any edit you make would be a violation of the restriction, even if it is solely regarding one of your own edits. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

[edit]

I agree with Tashmetu that the implications of the EC-restriction can be unclear. That's why I didn't report to Arbitration Enforcement, since it didn't appear as if Tashmetu was knowingly violating the rule.

Arbitration Enforcement might benefit from a warning template that explains that the revocation of extended confirmed applies to topic areas, and not only to articles that are under extended-confirmed protection.

Statement by {other editor}

[edit]

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area: Clerk notes

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

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • Thryduulf is correct: non-ECP editors may not edit PIA topics, so it is a de facto topic ban, but one which may be lifted more easily than a true topic ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree that Thryduulf is correct. I also agree with Chess that making this information more explicit would be helpful: I would advise AE admin revoking EC to post on the user's talk page that the user should not add any information to Wikipedia in topics with a EC restriction. (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase this that can be workshopped.) Now that Tashmetu knows this, I think they would benefit from staying far away from any article that might remotely be connected to Palestine-Israel. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, PIA is under ARBECR which applies to the topic area, not just articles that are currently under WP:ECP, per WP:PIA. That said, the CTOP notice that Tashmetu received a few days after ECP was revoked, while it does link to Extended confirmed restriction, only says Additionally, you must ... have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days ... which may be confusing for someone who has 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, but is not currently extended confirmed because that user right was revoked. I think perhaps clarifying the wording of that template to specify that it is having the extended confirmed user right specifically that is required, not just having reached the 500/30 threshold, in addition to any verbiage an administrator gives when revoking ECP. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoidh, I think that's a good idea, but we should clarify that distinction when it's important (i.e. when EC is revoked) instead of putting newbies through more term-of-art bureaucratic headache. That template works fine for most people, but admins should be clear about what EC revocation means when they do it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1282068219"