Initiated by Noleander at 14:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Noleander arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned

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

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

Information about amendment request

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned
  • Terminate the topic ban

• Over the years, I've encountered several articles that needed some improvement, and I was ready & willing, but was not able to proceed due to the topic ban. It would be nice to be able to improve the encyclopedia in those situations.
• @CaptainEek That was a long time ago ... but I think the biggest change following the topic ban was that I began to get consensus in the Talk page of articles before making any edits. I do that as a matter of habit for all articles on contentious subjects, or articles that are monitored by passionate editors. A recent example is the mathematics article pi where I wanted to make some innocuous improvements, but I knew the article was heavily watched, so I announced my intentions in the talk page and asked for input before I began making the edits. On the other hand, if I'm contemplating a benign edit on an obscure article, I'll generally make the edit directly without first posting on the Talk page. To answer another question you all may have: No, there are no specific edits I'm intending to make within the topic ban subject area. The reason I am now asking for the topic ban to be terminated is because I recently rewrote the Margaret Sanger article and got it promoted to FA status. Shortly thereafter, I discovered that her first husband was Jewish. I panicked for a moment, but figured that it did not run afoul of the topic ban since he is barely mentioned in the article. But it would nice to not have to worry about that in the future. [PS: If my reply is supposed to be up in the "Statements" area, feel free to move it up there] Noleander (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Aoidh I agree with the decision that the Arbitration Committee made back then. I respect the encyclopedia and the processes that have been established over the years. From day one, I've respected WP policies (NPOV, UNDUE, VERIFIABILITY, etc). I've always - even back early 2000s - enjoyed working collaboratively on Talk pages to reach consensus, because every editor brings their own unique perspective to WP, and that is a good thing. I'm not a belligerent, edit-warring kind of editor. Regarding the Topic Ban, if I recall correctly, back then I'd visit some topics and notice: "This article was written by apologists and omits some important information" or "Hey, this article is overly positive" or "Why doesn't this article have a 'Criticism of' section?" My goal, when encountering such articles, was to achieve balance by, for example, adding material that shed light on negative aspects of the topic. My intention was never to flip the balance to be overly negative. Unfortunately, in spite of my respect for the NPOV and UNDUE polices, there were times that I went too far, and put in too much negative information. If I was on the ArbCom, I would have made the same decision that they did. Today, if I encountered – what I perceived to be – an unbalanced article, I would go to the Talk page first, and start a conversation on achieving balance. If a consensus could not be achieved, I'd suggest an RfC, and then go from there. Noleander (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Eluchil404 wrote "... they have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity." I'm not sure if they are trying to suggest that I've been sulking since the topic ban, and just recently resurfaced with nefarious purposes? The facts are: after the topic ban was imposed, I've made over 30,000 edits, promoted five (5) articles to FA; promoted seven (7) articles to GA; received about 20 barnstars; created about 40 new articles; and helped scores of editors by reviewing their articles. All of that work was after the topic ban was imposed. The vast majority of those achievements were in the 2010's, following the topic ban. I'm not sure how the ups and downs of my IRL obligations impact this request for lifting the topic ban. Noleander (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Aoidh I apologize if I was not clearer in my prior comments. So, let me be clear now: I am committing to not repeating the behavior that precipitated the topic ban. That means complying with all WP policies, including NPOV and UNDUE, in any edits or articles related to Judaism or Jewish peoples. Specifically: my edits will not involve material excessively or inappropriately negative related to Judaism or Jewish peoples. I hope that addresses your concerns; but if I misunderstood your concerns, let me know. Noleander (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ... a meta-comment: You guys do this topic ban stuff every day. But me: I don't have a clue what is expected here, or what information I'm supposed to provide. So, although it may look like I'm reluctantly dribbling out information, in fact, I'm being terse so I don't waste your time. I'm just feeling my way along in here, step by step.

The topic ban being appealed is Noleander is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace. which overlaps with the BLP, Arab-Israeli conflict and race and intelligence CTOP designations, and potentially overlaps with the Eastern Europe and American politics designations but is not fully covered by any of them. That said a scan of his user talk archives suggests that apart from one accidental breach of the topic ban 2012 he has fully complied with it, and I see no reason not to grant the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly reviewed Noleander's activity and noted that they have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity. Thus there is considerably less than 14 years of consistent editing activity since the topic ban. I suggest that having an explicit probationary period is reasonable in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14 years is long enough to be given another chance. Also, while, as noted, they don't have 14 years of active editing to be "proven out" they have the equivalent of 3-4 years which is a substantial amount. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 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).

• Fourteen years and the topic they were disruptive in allows CTOP enforcement? I'm willing to overlook the subpar appeal based on the time passed without, in my brief check, any other issues. If there's any concerns we could explicitly allow for any uninvolved admin to restore the topic ban for a one year probationary period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to hear a little more from Noleander about what they've learned from their topic ban and how they've improved their editing since. It may be a rather old sanction, but Noleanders brief statement still doesn't give me much to work with. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am reasonably satisfied with their response to Eek. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Couldn't find any issues on a cursory scroll either, which is impressive for 14 years on a fairly wide topic ban; I'd be in favor of lifting the topic ban, neutral on the probationary period given how much of it overlaps with CTOPs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I took a look through Noleander's recent contributions to see if there were any concerns. Noleander seems to have been recently editing articles related to the American civil rights movements of the 1950s, which contains a lot of delicate subjects of race. They have also edited in some mathematics articles, as they pointed out above with the Pi article. I did not see any major concerns in their article edits or talk page conversations, and am, at this time, leaning towards lifting the ban for a probationary period so that it can be reapplied more quickly should the need arise. I would like to give arbs and the community more time to comment before making my formal declaration. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the issues is the Noleander's editing Finding of Fact, which noted that Noleander's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on any Jewish subjects of the article. @Noleander: Would you mind commenting on this aspect of the TBAN? - Aoidh (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. I land here at the moment per my comment above. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fourteen years is a long time, and I'm willing to extend some rope. With the confluence of CTOPs I think that any issues can be quickly addressed. I will also support a motion explicitly calling for a probation period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Okay. No probation period needed from my side, but I would also support if the motion contained one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. I believe that people can change their conduct and believe in second chances. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. That they have made constructive edits outside of this topic area is consistent with their activity prior to the TBAN; they were able to edit constructively outside of this topic area, but not within it. I don't see any compelling evidence that the issues that led to the TBAN are no longer a concern other than "it's been a while". Their response does not assure me that they see this topic any differently, only a (non-binding) assurance that they'll use the talk page this time around. However, the issue isn't which namespace was used. - Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope you're not implying Noleander should have better demonstrated their topic-related editing ability by editing constructively inside the area. ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

There seems to be appetite to grant the appeal and thus rescind the topic ban, so proposing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Though for what its worth, I'm leaning against it at the moment. I'm not convinced that lifting it is necessary or wise, though I admit a 14 year old sanction is extremely old to still be carrying.) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]