Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 123
 | This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
| Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | → | Archive 130 |
Amendment request: Iranian politics (November 2022)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Stefka Bulgaria at 09:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Appeal of topic ban
Statement by Stefka Bulgaria
I'm not familiar with these appeals; sorry if I didn't fill this correctly. It's been a year since I was topic-banned from editing articles relating to Iranian politics. My edits in other areas (since I was topic-banned) have been constructive, and I've had a good chance to reflect and learn from the issues I had with other editors back then. With everything that's been happening in Iran these last weeks, I think I could be a useful contributor in this area once again. Also, editors I had issues prior to being topic-banned have mostly been topic-banned themselves or blocked for socking, so I don't believe that I would have problems working collaboratively in this area again. Anyways, thank you for your consideration.
- Addressing comments below, last year's experience had an effect on my desire to participate in other talk/pages as a whole (and it still does); which is why I've been mainly reviewing new pages. I'm aware that if I were allowed to participate in Iranian-politics again, a misstep of any kind on my behalf would likely lead to me being indef'ed from this area. This request is for making occasional corrections in this area; nothing more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (Iranian politics)
They were topic banned because they engaged in bludgeoning, stonewalling, and degrading of discussions.
and filed verbose RfCs in an attempt to railroad preferred changes
. They've done none of that since the topic ban was imposed, but they've done almost nothing else in talk spaces either. Since the case closed they've only made 9 edits to the talk: namespace that were not just page moves or wikiproject tagging (and one of them was a copyedit to their own comment) and 0 edits to the Wikipedia talk:, Template talk:, Category talk: and File talk: namespaces. Almost all their edits in user talk: have been speedy deletion notices (most of their work has been new page patrolling). Their four edits to Draft talk: came today and all are related to moving their personal sandbox to draftspace. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by HistoryofIran
Considering the majority of Stefka Bulgaria's edits were in this topic, I don't find it surprising that their editing activity has decreased. It's hard to find another niche. The Iranian Politics area is a cesspool which suffers from POV editing (including dirty tactics such as WP:GAMING), and a lack of monitoring admins (I don't blame them), which makes it a lot more difficult to adhere to our guidelines (which is mainly why I left that area). While Stefka Bulgaria's hands may not be completely clean (then again, whose are?), I think they did a lot more good in that area than many others, and thus deserves another chance. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
Iranian politics: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Iranian politics: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I find myself somewhat on the fence. On the one hand, the issues that led to the levied sanctions have not been repeated in other venues. On the other hand, as Thryduulf mentions, there have not really been that many edits or "opportunities" (for lack of a better word) for that behaviour to show. It makes me think of an unsuccessful RfA candidate who then spends the next twelve months carefully avoiding anything that could be seen as controversial in an attempt at a second successful bid for adminship. In the interest of good faith, I do not necessarily think this is what happened; when an editor goes from averaging about 2000 edits per year to less than a tenth of that it does demonstrate that the topic area in question certainly was their primary focus, and they might not have found a new niche. I would like to hear from other editors, though. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I find myself largely agreeing with Primefac that we don't know if behavior has improved. I have noticed in several noticeboard discussions there still doesn't appear to be much admin work in this topic and so I worry if misbehavior were to happen again it would not be addressed. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think I am a decline here. Please demonstrate good work in the talk space in other areas and I expect an appeal would be successful. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Izno here. Maxim(talk) 12:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am also inclined to decline. I think you have some good feedback here, and the signs are encouraging for your next appeal if you follow it. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Izno. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the evidence of good collaboration, so I also decline. WormTT(talk) 13:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)