Initiated by TomStar81 at 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Horn of Africa 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:

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

"This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies."

As it has been some months, I would like the committee to reopen this case for the purpose of establishing whether or not a full case should be heard, and independent of that whether or not the authorized discretionary sanctions should be made permanent. I feel that it is important for the committee to take up this issue in order to avoid any apparent "cracks" as it were with which editors who have been sanctioned, blocked, or otherwise affected by the committee's previous ruling may argue that the enforcement procedures no longer apply to them. I cite Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Horn_of_Africa as proof that the community is putting these sanctions to good use, and as before I cite User:TomStar81/Horn of Africa disruption as evidence that the situation is not under control and therefore more action (such as Community Sanctions, Arbitration Committee / Arbitration Enforcement, Discretionary Sanctions, etc) is needed to allow for effective interdiction of the effected region. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I do believe a full case would be beneficial for several reasons. Aside from the obvious reason of closing a perceived loophole that could be exploited for malevolent reasons a full case would allow for a broader review of what is working and could in turn allow the committee to work in or extend to this region enforcement remedies already in place on other areas of Wikipedia which impact this one as well (for example, three or four cases generally involve the middle east, such as Arab-Israel, sanctions and remedies there could be placed here, while Kurds and Kurdistan concerns ethnic tribes and remedies there could be put to use here). This would also be useful in establishing a single, centralized heading for reporting SPI-based blocks as opposed to the current system which is run by a small group (namely me) tracking the myriad of socks. If the committee were so incline, they could take up this issue by requiring SPI cases on or related to the Horn of Africa to be reported and logged for enforcement. Community feedback on a full case could also help to establish what is or is not working at the moment, and could help show areas that could benefit from a full case. The matter of protection levels could also be definitively discussed, whether the committee would allow for permanent semi-protection or 30/500 protection for the articles could be discussed and agreed upon. This would also offer some accused accounts that were either cleared or for which evidence was lacking for action to weigh in, which could help build consensus for long term changes in this region should a full case be heard. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Floquenbeam: That's exactly why I'm bringing this back up, people forget, and then cracks form, and then before you know it we have people who suddenly start saying "wait, what?" because they were unaware of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Apaugasma: A full case would do two things. First, it would draw Wikipedia wide attention to the fact that the arbitration committee has opened a case on the matter, which in turn would in theory provide a fuller, more detailed picture of the extent of the problem, which in turn could allow ARBCOM to adjust the parameters for the case and its provisions. Second, as editors arrive to air grievances, the committee could get a better sense from the community about the kind of issues being presented in the articles. For Arab-Isreali, for example, when the third case the committee heard on the matter was accepted it was decided to specifically take the entire region, broadly construed. For other cases the committee has heard a full case for its shown the extent of nationalistic editing and has helped to shape provisions and guide discretionary sanctions when they are judged to be needed. As an exercise in psychological warfare, a full case could also be seen as a flag waving exercise to help deter would be trouble makers by making it known that arbcom has its eyes and ears on the region, which in an of itself may help help reduce the problems with the pages. A full case would also show arbcom's commitment to the community by hearing out all aspects of the issue rather than attempting to sum it in simple terms and solve it exclusively by discretionary sanctions. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Doug Weller: Part of not being able to find people is not being able to find people who respect the site. As @Kzl55: pointed out previously, editors have been encourage/recruited into editing in this area for the purpose of hijacking the articles so they say what the people behind them want them to say instead of staying neutral. To a certain extent information covered in this area is addressed by proxy by more active projects (Ethiopia's military, for example, is under the auspices of MILHIST, the countries under Wikiproject Africa, etc), but those who would be specifically knowledgeable about these things are not, as you stated, editing the area nor expressing an interest in being part of the group to reach out to an maintain the articles. Part of a full case then should be whether or not semi protection or ECP protection should be more liberally applied here, but part of a full case wold also need to look at why editors aren't contributing here in the first place. If this is a recruitment issue then its outside our ability to effect, but if its due to a toxic environment then whats needed is the Wiki-superfund to help clean it up and get it back where it needs to be for the benefit of the project as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @GeneralNotability: That furthers the argument for a full case being heard before ARBCOM, as it demonstrates opposing view points on the matter. I think more room and more evidence would help clarify this in the event a full case was heard, and I be very interested to see the evidence presented for why DS would not work for the Horn of Africa region. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: I was involved in administering discretionary sanctions?! That doesn’t sound right. —Floquenbeam (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hot war in Ethiopia right now, and various Tigray topics not directly related to the conflict have seen continual disruption on Wikipedia as well. Somalia topics have also historically seen a lot of disruption. The Discretionary Sanctions should be made permanent (at least until the next mass Discretionary Sanctions re-evaluation). I'm not sure why a full case would be needed, though - apart from imposing DS (already done) and banning users (which can be done with DS) what would be done? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must advertise the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre discussion here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the patterns of editors in the area to know whether ARBCOM would help. I feel like one difficulty of Horn of Africa DS enforcement compared to other DS regimes is that our admins tend to be much less familiar with it as a topic, and thus less confident taking action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Apaugasma and others have said that beyond the admin issue, we have a broader deficit of solid editors in this topic, which is compounded by a comparative dearth of RS material in languages commonly spoken by editors of enWiki. I wasn't an expert on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict when I first started handling related cases, but I was able to get up to speed fairly quickly thanks to there being lots of usable coverage in English and Russian and an FA-quality article about the 1989-1994 war. It feels like HoA disputes often stall over a few incommensurable claims from academic sources, and a total lack of verifiable up-to-date news sources. Anecdotally, East Africa seems to be one of the regions of the world with the lowest degree of English-language coverage or usage, a problem further compounded by the diversity of languages (and even language families) on the ground. If I were dictator of the WMF, I would consider devoting resources to recruiting and training more editors to actively edit articles about this part of the world, but that's out of scope of what we're discussing here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A related note, it seems like HoA-related disputes tend to be either "Ethiopia and Eritrea"-related or Somalia-related; I'm not aware of much overlap between these categories. Would there be any benefit to splitting the current DS regime to handle these disputes separately? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, the WP:HORN country, Ethiopia (population ~120 million people), is currently on the brink: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/07/1051940127/rebels-are-closing-in-on-ethiopias-capital-its-collapse-could-bring-regional-chaos. Which I fear might lead to an ethnic genocide that could dwarf that of Rwanda. Personally, I don't find HORN content more obscure than, say, BALKANS, where the medieval often intertwines with the modern. While for Africa, Ethiopia probably has the longest recorded history (alongside Egypt), the key history of the current conflict can much more easily be reduced to its three most recent eras:

1. The Derg and Ethiopian Civil War era (1974-1991).
2. The Tigray People's Liberation Front dominance (1991–2018) and Ethnic_federalism era.
3. And the current era of the Prosperity Party and the abandonment of Ethnic federalism, which has led to the present Tigray War.

See also: Category:Massacres_of_the_Tigray_War (116 pages), War crimes in the Tigray War, Famine in the Tigray War, Casualties of the Tigray War, Sexual violence in the Tigray War, Spillover of the Tigray War, 2018 Eritrea–Ethiopia summit (worked), and the Tigrayan peace process (didn't work). A few more pages of interest: Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present), Oromo conflict (2021), Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia § Tigray War, 2020–2021 Ethiopian–Sudanese clashes. But to actually answer your question: yes I, at least, am making use of the DS (though less than I expected), which I strongly recommend be retained, especially seeing how bleak the future may be. El_C 09:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, hopefully, Kzl55 comes back soon. I found them to have been a true asset on countless occasions, especially about anything Somalia and Somaliland. Sending positive thoughts. El_C 13:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: thanks to whomever suppressed my revdel'd edit (glad I caught it in less than 5 min). I used to think revdel was enough for nearly anything, because I trust other admins (at least with privacy matters). But recently, after the whole IcedCream RfA debacle, I admit to being much more wary. El_C 14:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability, I alone have 10 log entries in WP:AELOG/2021#Horn of Africa. By contrast, here's a list of any of them which had seen less than 5 log entries this year:

• Genetically modified organisms = 0
• German war effort = 0
• Gun control = 0
• Electronic Cigarettes = 0
• Article titles and capitalisation = 0
• Catflap08 and Hijiri88 = 0
• Climate change = 0
• September 11 conspiracy theories = 0
• Civility in infobox discussions = 0
• Infoboxes = 1
• Pseudoscience = 1 (yours truly!)
• Scientology = 1 (yours truly!)
• Abortion = 1
• Shakespeare authorship question = 2
• Macedonia = 2 (yours truly!)
• BLP issues on British politics articles = 2
• The Troubles = 3
• Motorsports = snuh!

Anyway, looking at many of these subjects, I think the chances of an influx at the HORN topic area might be higher than any of those twenty DSs. Due to reasons that are profoundly tragic. But we need to be realistic. El_C 17:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GN. To expand a bit: I think DS is helpful and a time saver wrt enforcement of editors whose disruption is more nuanced in nature, as opposed to more obvious disruption that can be better handled through normal admin action. But it's difficult to predict what ratio of which side of that continuum would appear in any given topic area at any given time.

DS also helps with somewhat extraordinary action. So, for example, upon Joe Biden assuming the presidency, I invoked AP2 to protect Jill Biden (from none to indef semi), even though nothing had happened (i.e. preemptively). Hope that makes sense. El_C 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Rosguill is pointing in the right direction when talking about our admins being less familiar with the topic and thus less confident taking action. But the real problem, as I see it, is that there are hardly any experienced editors active in the topic area. There's no one to pick up on a problem when one occurs, or to give sufficient attention to it when one is reported. Recently, a related AE enforcement request was archived without closing (this one; cf. my unanswered query here). Likely for the same reason, responses to ANI reports have also been a bit underwhelming (archived; two current ones [1] [2]).

It seems to me that we only have the capacity to deal with the most obvious of problems (e.g., extremely ducky sockmasters like this one), and that we will simply have to live with the fact that most articles in this area are going to remain in a very bad state.

I have no idea of what could be gained from opening a full case so I won't comment on that, but I will note that there has been considerable confusion over whether these DS are still active (e.g. [3] [4]), so clearing that up by a motion to make them permanent would be very helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Yamaguchi先生 and NinjaRobotPirate, who patrol a lot of these pages and protect some of them from time to time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Apaugasma is correct. We simply do not have enough decent editors in this area and I have no idea where we can get them from. I feel a bit guilty for giving up editing relevant articles because of the problems and my lack of real knowledge of the issues. I also don't know if a full case is required but it is essential that it is made clear that the DS are permanent - any confusion needs to be cleared up quickly considering the violence in the area. I'd also recommend a very liberal use of ECP. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the areas that I have worked in this topic area (dealing with the couple of sockpuppeteers active in the area, particularly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walkerdude47), I actually do not believe DS are necessary; since sockpuppetry is the problem, blocks/reverts/protection are self-justifying without applying DS. All DS would do is make my page protections harder to overturn, and I have yet to hear any concerns about them to start with. I cannot speak for the rest of the topic area, though, and if other Horn of Africa pages are seeing lots of independent ethnonationalist (wow I use that word a lot around here) editors showing up, DS might be worthwhile. For the sake of transparency, I tend to be against employing DS unless it is absolutely necessary; if a page sees a lot of fights over a DS topic then it probably merits protection anyway, and if we have someone disruptively editing in one of these topic areas it's rare that they are enough of a positive to the encyclopedia to warrant a topic ban rather than a normal block. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I'll absolutely defer to you on the need for DS, you're the one who's actually making use of them, has skin in the game, boots on the ground, whatever the metaphor is here. I just want to make sure we've stopped and asked the question "do we really need to be using DS to stop the disruption?"; that is, what is DS letting us do that we could not do with the normal admin toolkit and within normal admin discretion. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor making the WP:ARBHORN sanctions permanent. Since a full arb case is tiring, the committee might consider doing this by motion. The kind of situation where sanctions are most useful are where someone has been POV-pushing over a period but staying below the threshold of WP:3RR. In that case an admin could use the option of banning an editor from the topic of the Horn of Africa. In practice my only uses of ARBHORN so far have been to apply WP:ECP to certain articles. For example, to address reverting between 'Somaliland' and 'Somalia' by a succession of new editors. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A full case is not needed here. WP:ARBHORN should undoubtedly be made permanent, given the current precarious situation in Ethiopia. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• Recuse since I have been invited to participate in the discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @TomStar81, El C, Rosguill, GeneralNotability, EdJohnston, and Floquenbeam: as the admins who have used this DS do you have any feedback on this? Would there be any benefit, in your view, to a full case as opposed to the sanctions just being made permanent (assuming this is what you believe)? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I promise I didn't make it up Floquenbeam. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Non-arb reply moved to the its own section. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing anything that suggests a full case is warranted. But I do see reason to believe we should make the DS permanent and would support doing so by motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with confirming that the DS authorization is permanent, based on what's already been presented. We can readily do that by motion. Open-minded on accepting for a full case, but interested in more input on what that might accomplish that admins using the DS as needed would not. (I've noted TomStar81's points on this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am open to the idea of holding a full case. At the moment, however, I do not see much more than a need to make the "temporary" DS a bit more permanent. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with NYB and Primefac in that I see the benefit of another motion, not so much a full case. --BDD (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't on board with the trial, as I felt the community should be handling it. However, I'm happy this has improved things. I'd rather a motion than a full case in this scenario unless anyone spots something that needs more investigation. Worm^TT(talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not convinced for the need for a full cases. My biggest concern is that there would be no established parties to it, which is a considerable departure from other arbitration cases that involving users with some history on the project. My other concern is that without established parties, the cases would be more a workshop for laying out discretionary sanctions (or other remedies) as opposed to examining conduct of parties. While such a case could be potentially useful, I don't think it's a necessarily a case that we want for that work, but instead we ought to finish the DS reform that's stalled out somewhat from the Committee end. Maxim_(talk) 16:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone wants to request a full case outlining why a motion to make the current temporary DS permanent is not sufficient, they are welcome to do so. So far, I see mostly support for making the DS permanent which I would support. Regards SoWhy 20:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 15:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As proposer. Rescinding the previous motion so there's no confusion about a full case in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. With the addition I made to clarify that those are not new authorizations but just the old sanctions being made permanent. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Maxim_(talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Katie^talk 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 22:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. BDD (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

• If we formally rescind the previous motion, don't we also need to formally transform all current sanctions to be treated like they were issued under the new authorization? That seems complicated just for the sake of complication. After all, the current motion already includes the wording "any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies" (emphasis added), so it was always clear that making the authorization permanent via motion was a possible outcome and that outcome would be instead of a full case. So why can't we just have a motion that says "The previous motion is amended; the authorization is made permanent."? That way, we don't have to duplicate the authorization and it's clear that the current authorization just continues to exist. Regards SoWhy 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, SoWhy that was too complicated and introduced its own problem. I have revised the motion to note DS being made permanent. I do want to close the "anyone can ask for a full case" provision and so I have noted we are not opening the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: I rephrased your proposal a bit to make it clear that those are not new authorizations but just the old ones being made permanent. I think that should be uncontroversial. Regards SoWhy 20:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to avoid the word permanent but yes noting that they were already authorized does make sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have an idea for a different wording, I'm okay with that, I just used that one because it mirrors the language in the original motion ("should be made permanent"). Regards SoWhy 21:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to get too into the weeds on the matter, but "permanent" on Wikipedia is about as forever as "indefinite", so I do not see an issue with using the term. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Cabayi at 12:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

m:Special:Permalink/22396512#Phil Sandifer

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

• Cabayi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• TheresNoTime (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 1997kB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• El Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1058095090 [diff of notification Primefac]
• Special:Diff/1058095189 [diff of notification BDD]
• Special:Diff/1058095234 [diff of notification TheresNoTime]
• Special:Diff/1058095163 [diff of notification 1997kB]
• Special:Diff/1058095448 [diff of notification El Sandifer]

Clarification is requested about the policy implications of Arbcom intervention at El Sandifer's rename request.

El Sandifer has been banned since 2013 and has since transitioned. El requested a rename on the global queue.

Global rename policy requires that

The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct.

I have long read that equating blocked account with bad conduct, and a rename with obfuscating the user's talk page activity which led to the block, and thus, blocked accounts are not renamed. I have not been challenged on that interpretation until this request.

El challenged the decision at the renamers' mailbox, accusing me of an "outrageously transphobic decision." I reiterated the policy.

El then took the request to meta, and apparently to the arbcom's mailbox. Following private discussions, Primefac & BDD intervened on behalf of Arbcom stating that the block should not prevent the renaming. TheresNoTime also intervened in their capacity as a functionary. 1997kB acted on the rename as requested.

Setting aside El Sandifer's WP:NPA-level response that my original decision was transphobic, and letting their blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping slide...

What until yesterday/today was a clear policy has now been muddied.

I don't believe the renaming serves El well, as there are now >8000 signed talk page edits tying new name (attribution in the edit history) to deadname (signature in the post). I don't believe there is a need or even a legitimate purpose to rename a user who hasn't been active in 8 years. I don't believe the intervention has left the renaming policy with a clear direction.

Please explain the intervention's effect on the interaction between:

• Global renaming policy concerning the renaming of blocked users (my primary concern)
• WP:UCOC
• Deadnaming
• WP:PACT

Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Primefac for clarifying. As I noted above and in my notification to El, my principal concern is where this leaves renaming policy rather than El's renaming specifcally. Cabayi (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, David Gerard I am explicitly not denying anyone the right to be called what they want. I am requesting clarification of the situation. Perhaps global renaming policy needs to change. The current situation is unclear. Cabayi (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Worm That Turned. That is all the nuance which got lost between the Arbcom's private discussions and the intervention on the meta request. I'm happy for any clerk to close now that some clarity has been achieved. Cabayi (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this exact point in time, I have only one thing to clarify:

El then took the request to meta, and apparently to the arbcom's mailbox

While this is an understandable assumption, it was actually not El that contacted us regarding the rename. Given that's likely more than I should be saying anyway, I will leave it at that. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add beyond what my colleagues have already covered. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Cabayi's assertion that there are any "policy implications [arising from] Arbcom['s] intervention at El Sandifer's rename request.". It makes sense that the arbitration committee would clarify their position at this rename request.

Given that my role as a functionary has next to no 'weight' when compared to a statement from said committee, my comment was little more than superficial support for something which I can empathise with on a personal level.

I believe Cabayi's actions in filing this case, and how they handled the rename request, have been entirely with good intent (if somewhat ill advised).

I would urge the committee to reject this case and consider a simple addition somewhere that ArbCom is happy to be consulted in future global rename requests   --TNT (talk • she/they) 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This request itself appears to be a direct violation of m:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#2.1_–_Mutual_respect part three example three - People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns; by directly stated intent: the requestor appears to be asking Arbcom for the right to violate the UCoC. As such, this request should be rejected immediately - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, I've seen the followup email you sent, in the name of WMF. Your intent is absolutely unambiguous. If that isn't a UCoC violation as well, then the UCoC is worthless - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to @Worm That Turned: (probably rhetorical statement that I cherry-picked below): Do renames now need to consult Arbcom before declining the renaming of a block user?. I've certainly been around a while and am a global renamer as well, and can attest that globally the "local block" consideration isn't always a brightline rule; and would support a rename without unblock after a consult with the blocking admin on a project the requester had any significant contributions to where they are currently blocked. In this specific case, the block is labeled as a committee ban - so I would expect that the local committee should be consulted. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify. Is this a 'blocked editor' asking for a page move of his/her/they, etc's bio article title? GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this doesn't fall under WP:Proxying. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely staggered by the tone of the email that User:Cabayi sent to El notifying her of this arbcom request. May I have permission to repost it here? Morwen (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• I fail to see how this is a potential request for clarification and/or amendment. The cited policies are not ArbCom decisions. While a ban is indeed bad conduct, the global policy does not say "you cannot be renamed if banned or blocked", it says you cannot be renamed if you behaved badly and you want to be renamed in order to conceal that you did so. In this case, the rename request has legitimate alternative reasons and as pointed out, there is no risk of concealment or obfuscation since their old name is clearly connected to the new one. As long as the user is active on a different project and wishes to contribute there under their new name, the nature of SUL requires the rename is carried out on all projects. All ArbCom did was to confirm that as far as the ban in question, the Committee does not believe that the rename request was made in order to "conceal or obfuscate bad conduct" or will lead to that. Regards SoWhy 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The global policies are useful for the general case, and therefore appropriate for the vast majority of situations. However, in this case, we felt that our arbcom ban should not preclude a rename. We have had accepted similar requests in the past, and declined others - depending on the credibility of the reasons behind the request. In this case, El Sandifer used her real name as her username, and therefore it was reasonable for her to want to move away from her deadname - the benefit that the community gains from stopping is far less than than the benefit that El would receive, and so it was right that it should be allowed. I say this without consideration of the global policies, and simply because it is the right thing to do. Worm^TT(talk) 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting further, that now that I've checked the global renaming policy - the name change keeps the user's surname and in so doing appears to be trying to make the absolute minimum amount of change to meet her requirements (removal of her deadname), whilst staying within the "not seeking to conceal or obfuscate". This is one of those rare cases where we are talking about a real name, not a pseudonym, and we should be sympathetic to that. I don't believe that we need to change the global policy, but we need to acknowledge that sometimes we need to look at wider context. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarification purposes, I will say the following. The commmittee was contacted by a third party about the rename, with the understanding that the rename could not happen due to the Arbcom block. After a short period of discussion, we believed that the Arbcom block should not stand in the way of the rename. The global policy states "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct." - not that they cannot be renamed if blocked, or not in good standing. So, between these factors, and the fact that the rename target is very similar to the original target - the policy requirement is met.

  The Committee cannot set global policy, thank goodness, nor would we want to. Cases where this is relevant are minimal (where their username is a real name, and blocked, and have a good reason for rename)

  Should Deadnaming be an exception to the global policy? Well, maybe, in cases where the user's real name is their username - I'd certainly expect some consideration to the reason behind the rename request and would recommend a global discussion the topic. Do renames now need to consult Arbcom before declining the renaming of a block user? Certainly not. Do Arbcom want to adjust the renaming policy? No, I don't believe that's necessary. Is this a one-off decision, without precedent? Well, if the same situation came up, I'd hope more consideration would be given to the reason and I believe that Arbcom would behave in the same way.

  I believe that covers all angles I can think of. Worm^TT(talk) 13:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No action is needed on this clarification request, which should not have been filed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further discussion of this request, which I reiterate should not have been filed, is unlikely to be productive. It should be closed and archived as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Worm That Turned in the entirety and with Newyorkbrad that no action is needed on this request. Because the filer has withdrawn this request, as soon as a majority of arbs have concurred, clerks should feel free to close this request. On a procedural note, no arbitrators should be listed as a party to this request – Primefac and BDD were merely implementing the full Committee's decision and are not parties or administratively WP:INVOLVED. I'm therefore removing them as parties. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also agree this should be closed with no action. Katie^talk 19:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing more for us to do here. We were asked if we had any objection to a global rename of a user who was banned 8 years ago by ArbCom, and we responded. It is clear from the request that this name change was being requested for real-life reasons, and not to obfuscate or hide anything to do with this wiki. It's also worth mentioning to the global renamers/stewards that we appreciate being asked, as there are instances where a global rename of a banned or blocked editor could cause problems. But in this case it's a non-issue, and this ARCA can be archived by the next available clerk. – bradv^🍁 19:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on agreement with the above comments. No action needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]