Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: American politics	none	(orig. case)	21 April 2015

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

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:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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-llists.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:

Clarification request: American politics

Initiated by Casprings at 11:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

American politics 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Statement by Casprings

I am asking for clarification on what related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces means. Mainly, do these edits [2] [3] [4] [5][6][7][8] violate the topic ban. This is the subject of a current discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arzel Clarification will enable the resolution of the discussion. Thank you.

Statement by Arzel

Anthony Watts is not a politician and I have made no political arguments. My approach to the American Politics TBAN is to avoid any articles which are under those categories. There are a ton of articles in those categories, so it is pretty broad. It is a reasonable approach, which reasonable people would assume makes sense. Additionally, American Politics affects pretty much every aspect of your life through regulations, specific legislation, political talking points. It is almost impossible to find something which someone somewhere would not be able to find some tangential connection. I was TBAN'd partially for supposedly not assuming good faith, I do find it ironic that no good faith has been afforded me by JPS, CaSprings, and others.

JPS, Do you know that I was TBAN'd by editors like Casprings for supposed incivility and battleground behavior? Your actions hear are far worse than anything I have done in the past. Where is your civility or assumption of good faith, the pile of unfounded attacks against me are growing quite fast. Same goes for you Casprings. Your claim to want to work collaboratively in the future has now rang false twice. You were not involved in this issue yet you apparently found time to come attacking me personally. Arzel (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:, @Dougweller:, @Salvio giuliano:, Regarding "Hand's up, don't shoot". As I stated in the AE, I don't see it as American Politics. The saying started as a result of the shooting of Michael Brown, and I felt then and feel now that it is a police/race relations issue. That some politicians later co-opted it does not seem relevant. It wasn't tagged as an American Politics article (my main metric). However, that said, if you want to consider it American Politics, fine. I don't care. I made one edit a month ago, completely unrelated to anything political, noting that editors were failing to discuss and edit war over a known fact with RS. I haven't edited it since, and hadn't planned on editing it again. If you all feel it is clearly related to American Politics, then go add an American Politics category to the article, simple, no harm done. Arzel (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: here is the thing about HUDS. I had no belief that it was related. I have asked a few times what exactly makes some people think that it clearly is, but have yet to receive a response as to what they think makes this the case. And if it clearly is (in their minds) then it clearly should have this as a category. I don't think it is a unreasonable expectation. If you are going to TBAN someone from something, then they have to be able to know what is included in that group. Since I honestly did not think it was related, I had no reason to even ask. Now this is largely academic since I have not commented on it since and have had no intention to comment further. Arzel (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:, Well I think I am now starting to understand why some call it political. Local law municipalities are (universally from my experience) non-political elections in the US. Most elections in at the local level in the US are non-partisan affairs, and this was not a government official that was being protested, but a police officer. That was not a (IMO) political protest. Like I say though, I have no intention to edit that article further, and I will concede the point. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cardamon: I suggest you take a look at the American Politics categories. There is a lot contained within those pages. The whole point of categories are to group like things together. I find it highly interesting that now people are saying that they really don't include things which are related. Seriously, why even have them? Arzel (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Where did I "deny" Watts article as being scientific? The groups Political and Scientific together do not equal everything, so it is possible to be neither. I would ask that you kindly retract that statement. I find it interesting that you use the word "deny" which means to not believe a known truth. The assumption is that you are saying that the article is both political and scientific as a matter of fact. How about you provide some evidence that it is a political article. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• General notes: Please stop calling me a climate change denier. I find it highly insulting and damaging to the scientific process. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: I am confused by what you think was problematic about the Judith Curry article link. I was linking to an article showing problems with the AR3 predictions as related to global warming. I said that JPS wouldn't like it because he already had a predisposition regarding Curry. Furthermore, if that is "problematic" given my history, what about the history of JPS? I feel like you are holding me to a much higher bar there. Not to mention that I was called an idiot by Guy. I have remained civil throughout this process and have not been treated in kind and yet my behavior is problematic? Arzel (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by jps

I never understood how topic bans were supposed to work and here is an excellent example of the problem. Arzel is taking a political stand on a biographical article that is basically arguing that global warming denial is 1) a misnomer and 2) not political. You all found fit to ban him from political articles, so now we in the WP:FRINGE-editing community get to deal with his advocacy on articles related to global warming as he and apparently a good number of good faith admins see fit to say that this is not within the remit of his topic ban because there aren't any specific edits about American politicians, for example. Is such an outcome really the intention of the committee when they enact this kind of topic ban?

I think it's fairly obvious that Arzel is here to support an agenda that is related, broadly, to an American conservative political stance. There's nothing at all wrong with that except that the committee had deemed it fit to sanction him at least in part with a topic ban from American politics. It's clear to me that he will continue to support this particular agenda in any way he sees that he can, even if that means skirting the edges of this ban as long as the community allows him. Why ban in the first place if this is so unenforceable?

My opinion? Just lift the ban.

jps (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to plead astonishment that the committee would enact a topic ban "broadly construed" and then turn around and say that when someone makes edits in a "gray area" the topic ban doesn't apply. Like it or not, it is only the scientific consensus on global warming that is apolitical. Opposition to that consensus is necessarily political. Arzel's WP:FRINGE opinion that the science is not "settled" with regards to the fact that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere due to human action is not the main cause of the warming trend seen today is a political not a scientific stance. It's much the same way as if he had gone into some page and declared that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer or DDT didn't decimate bird populations or any of a number of other political opinions that masquerade as scientific claims. jps (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Dear Arbitrators: Would it be possible for the committee to make a definitive consensus statement that would clarify what exactly the committee means by "broadly construed" in relation to topic bans? I would suggest that by analogy to normal discretionary sanctions, a single "uninvolved" administrator who thinks a topic banned user's toe has crossed the line should be enough, but the fact that admins are afraid to take action without this clarification being made maybe means the committee hasn't been clear enough in this.

jps (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

@AGK: Uhm, it is at AE, that's why it's here now. What exactly do you mean? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz

I have not followed the US politics ArbCom cases, but I have to agree with jps above that climate change denial is indeed very much a political and nearly exclusively a US political topic. While science is a process, and while climate change is a complex topic, the basics of anthropogenic global warming are well understood and there is a strong scientific consensus. Three recent independent studies with different methodologies have all found agreement to the basic science to be around 97-98% of qualified scientists. In most of the world, this is accepted by parties throughout the political spectrum, with very few exceptions, most of them very much on the political fringe. The dissent is nearly exclusively driven by conservative "think tanks", which have managed to make this into a divisive political issue in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Two Kinds of Pork

Climate change denial is a world-wide phenomenon. In context of the edits made to the BLP, one would have to construe very broadly indeed to make that about US politics. Like bent over backwards broadly. As to "Hands up", when the Justice Department get's involved in a controversial subject, it's always political. Even though he shouldn't have made it, Arzel's claim of canvassing has merit, however seeking scalps is unseemly.

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

It would avoid a lot of confusion and frustration if the committee simply struck the "broadly construed" qualifier. Some of the admins at AE are (in good faith) expressing the view that only "edits to add or remove mention of US politics" or "workings of US governments and interactions with those governments" fall under the ban. It would be hard to imagine more narrowly construed interpretations. Others (including myself) take the "broadly construed" qualifier more, well, "broadly." When language causes so much confusion amongst well-meaning people it's best simply to strike it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit

Agree with the point made by SBHS above.
While CC may not be inherently political, the attempt to dismiss a peer-reviewed book published by an academic press and authored by a renowned scientist because the statements he makes in the book have political implications that the Wikipedia editor doesn't like would seem to breach the "broadly construed" qualifier.
The discussion and material at issue do not directly relate to science, but to FRINGE positions and analysis presented by a blog that is documented as being funded by petro-chemical, etc., CO2-generating industries that are intent on discrediting the science supporting the scientific consensus and preempting government efforts to regulate the offending industries. The fact that there are obvious political issues implicated in the edits related to attempts to dismiss the Mann book and the characterization of "denialist", etc. with respect to the WUWT blog seems to call for attention if not considered to fall under "broadly construed".

In response to the misleading post below, I'm pasting one of Arzel's comments[9] (referenced in the now archived AE case) in its entirety below.

"The change to the lead is really going against discussion. There is no consensus for this change and looks like edit warring. In addition the new lead has some serious logical issues.

*The argument put forth is that "Denial" must be included for NPOV and that MOS doesn't matter, even though MOS says "Denial" is a NPOV word to avoid. I don't see how that can be justified. Also, it clearly fails MOS because it is not "widely" used.

*The other argument is that skeptic [equals] denier. This is simply not true. The two words have different meanings in a literal sense. Those that are strong proponents of climate change have stated effort to say that they are the same in order to label a skeptic as a denier.

*This leads to the logical problem. If they are the same, then why is there such a concerted effort to use the word "denier"? I would like a response from Manul and Ubikwit as why "denier" must be in the lead for NPOV reasons if the word "skeptic" is [equal] to "denier" It does not make sense other than to further promote the effort by climate change proponents to label skeptics as deniers even if that term is not widely used. I would call it OR if not for a couple of source which make the connection, but it is certainly not main stream as there are few that say they are the same.

*Also, this is not a science article, so the continued refrain of "peer reviewed" has no place. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)"

Statement by DHeyward

The primary statement by skeptics is that the science is wrong or lacking. The fact that their disagreement interferes with another persons political objective is secondary. Watts doesn't make a political argument. Rather he states that the science others are basing their politics on is faulty. There is no evidence that he holds a political opinion as he makes personal choices that would make him a green party member (i.e. his home is solar powered). The people that most vociferously oppose Watts' blog have political positions that he jeopardizes but scientists without stated political objectives are not particularly critical. ---DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Anthony Watts is an American political figure. While climate change may be a global issue, climate change denial is unquestionably an issue of American politics, much more so than any other country, and the fact that Watts has received funding for his blog from the Heartland Institute, an American political think-tank, clearly establishes that the blog and its author are American political figures.

It is the funding from and links with the Heartland Institute, more than anyhting else, that places this within the realm of US politics.

This edit removes a significant chunk of relevant text that establishes the political context of Watts' blog. Again, the attempt to portray climate denial as a legitimate scientific debate is at the heart of the American-dominated, politically-motivated climate denial culture.

Making contentious edits to a biography of an American climate denialist funded by an American political lobby group associated with climate denial, and whose work is cited by American climate denialist politicians, puts this into the realm of editing in the area of American politics, IMO.

The comment by jps above nails it. If Arzel is banned form American politics broadly construed, then he is banned from making these edits to this article. If the Committee thinks he should be allowed to make these edits to this article then they need to vacate the ban. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cardamon

@Arzel: Saying that a page is not related to American politics unless it is in the category “American politics” seems to be construing your topic ban narrowly, rather than broadly. Cardamon (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

Some parts of Anthony Watts (blogger) are obviously political as diff 4 in the opening post easily demonstrates. That edit

• removed the RS "'Climategate': paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis" (source Environmental Values journal
• inserted the RS "Image Politics of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations"

This edit touches on politics, broadly defined (duh). In my view its so blatant I'm not going to bother arguing the same point on the basis of the article text that was changed.

That said, even though I disagree with Arzel's opinion on the underlying matter I think the AE complaint against him is a fine example of a misguided "gotcha" complaint. The goal of sanctions should be prevention, for the sake of better articles. "Gotcha" complaints are really truly disruptive, and this is that kind. Many editors at the underlying battlefield are displaying problem behaviors, but I don't think Arzel is one of them.

In sum

1. Yes, its politcal
2. No, Arzel's edits at Anthony Watts (blogger) do not require further sanctions
3. Yes-OMG-Yes, other editors at that article are edit warring with opinions and VAGUEWAVEs and disruption but little evidence of seeking meaningful compromise

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zad68

I'm an uninvolved administrator commenting here because I had seen the request at AE, reviewed the discussion, dug into the several pages of ArbCom history, and was looking to close. The clarification of the scope of this topic ban from (as stated) "the politics of the United States, broadly construed" must be made in the context of why the topic ban was applied to the individual editor Arzel in the first place. In short the topic ban was placed because Arzel has had a long history of treating Wikipedia as a political ideological battleground and personalizing content disputes. Previous sanctions that tried to get Arzel away from that behavior hadn't worked, and ArbCom determined that Arzel was essentially incapable of avoiding that behavior when it came to American political topics--that was the reason for the topic ban.

So, evaluating this request at AE, I'm not working so hard trying to determine where a hard edge of "politics of the United States, broadly construed" might be drawn (as if that were possible), but rather I am looking to see whether Arzel's history of politicizing and personalizing content disputes is cropping up here.

Based on this, Arzel's edit I am most concerned about isn't any of the above, it's actually this one, where Arzel links to the blog site of Judith Curry, which describes itself as for "discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface," and Curry is active in American politics related to climate change. In this edit, I see Arzel personalizing the content dispute by titling the link "Something you won't like," and referring to Arzel's own expertise (unprovable on Wikipedia of course). This edit takes place inside a long article Talk page discussion here, where Arzel repeatedly knocks the conversation off-track from identifying the best-quality reliable sources and representing them accurately (the job Wikipedia editors are supposed to be doing), as others in the thread were trying to focus on.

I'd like to emphasize that many of Arzel's other comments on the Talk page are fine, grounded in WP:PAG and avoid bad behavior. Even considering the above, Arzel's behavior at the Talk page isn't all that, and it's the kind of stuff that goes on every day on Talk pages of many contentious topics and usually isn't a problem worth a sanction. But the history of this particular editor makes it problematic and needing some kind of action.

So my view is that Yes Arzel's involvement at this article Talk page should be viewed as in the area of the topic ban, and if ArbCom agrees I'll probably go back to AE and close the request with a short block. Zad68 14:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding: I looked at the "Hands up" edit, I don't understand either the original Talk page comment from the IP that Arzel is responding to, or Arzel's response, and so it isn't a factor either way here. Zad68 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if these things get "closed" but discussion from the Arbs has petered out and the general consensus appears to be that the Hands Up edit was certainly in the area of the topic ban, and the Watts edits weren't. I will act on this at AE tomorrow, unless there's significant new argumentation here or this is closed by the Arbs in a different direction. Zad68 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

There is a clear problem here, which has recurred many times. The form of words "broadly construed" was introduced to prevent wiki-lawyering, gamesmanship and fuzzy edges. It does no such thing, of course, it merely makes the boundary of the problem wider and more ill defined.

The fact that people are repeatedly coming back to the Committee for clarification of this term shows that it is not working. And taking the matter to AE to define the edges is worse - it often results in sanctions for matters that do not impinge on the original issues.

I would suggest a speedy ad-hoc, non-punitive but binding, resolution of "boundary disputes". It is pretty much clear I think that if there is a boundary dispute we are away from the causus belli - spending resource on disputes over the detail of something that was supposed to resolve disputes throws the whole system into disrepute.

It should, after all, be fairly easy to delineate any reasonable restriction, since it would be contrary to natural justice to impose a restriction without clear definition - indeed it opens the way for abuse of the restriction in terrorem, as we have not infrequently seen.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Flying Jazz

I haven't been involved with Arzel to the best of my memory. I'm here to write about whether the article under consideration would fall within the purview of American Politics. Arzel's edit at [10] cites Jason Samenow's description of Watts's blog as a conservative/skeptic blog, and I share that view. The connection of the "Anthony Watts (blogger)" article to "the politics of the United States, broadly construed" follows directly from that view. My statement is not intended to reflect on Arzel or on other aspects of his edits. He may or may not have been "caught" somehow doing something that people on the other side of a battle think is "wrong." I don't know and have no interest in that matter. I'm here only to make a statement about whether encyclopedia article A falls within the purview of topic B which I regard as simply a matter of the logical analysis of plain text. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

Two clarifications. Ubikwit says Arzel attempted to dismiss use of Mann's book because of "political implications" -- actually the objection was about using Mann for calling Watts and his blog denier / denialist, and it was initiated by me not Arzel, who took the milder line that "[Mann] can state his opinion on the issue, but it cannot be stated in WP voice" etc. JzG says Watts "received funding for his blog from the Heartland Institute" -- I see no evidence for that, it appears rather that Heartland helped raise money for a study of surface stations, as the article says. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

The committee appears inclined to regard climate-change denial as not inherently political and thus not part of "America politics, broadly construed." In contrast, the committee recently held that comedian Lena Dunham’s biography was clearly part of "gender-related controversies, broadly construed," and that "Campus Rape" also was a "gender-related controversy, broadly construed."

I’m afraid you find yourselves in a tight place. You want to believe that climate change denial can be separated from politics, while campus rape cannot be separated from gender. Your critics will say that this shows a view of politics and of gender that lacks nuance. They may be more blunt. Yet the unfortunate administrators cannot indulge in nuance and must find some heuristic with which to make swift judgements in the face of heated argument.

How are they to guess what you intend? And how will journalists interpret that intent? One heuristic that explains the results here is, "do what the US Republican party and Movement Conservatism would do." That’s certainly consistent, but it's likely not the framing you'd prefer.

Your recent decisions are expansive in banning feminist editors, while taking a narrow view in banning conservative editors. There is doubtless a sound intellectual basis for your decisions, but you have not stated it or shown how to apply it in the general case. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2015 (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 case request or provide additional information.

American politics: Clerk notes

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

American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

• This should probably go to AE. AGK [•] 14:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Apologies, I missed the link at the bottom of your statement. My colleagues appear to have since covered the relevant points here, so I have no further comment to make. AGK [•] 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Having looked through the edits in question, I don't see the climate change edits to touch on its intersection with politics. Climate change intersects with politics, but it is not inherently political. Arzel would, of course, be topic banned from editing in relation to the interaction between climate change and American politics. Also, the area of climate change is itself covered by discretionary sanctions, so if Arzel's participation in that area outside its political aspects are disruptive, Arzel could be restricted under the ARBCC DS just like anyone else. The "Hands up, don't shoot" article is a different story. That is a slogan used by American citizens to protest the actions of American public officials. It is therefore unquestionably related to American politics, and that edit clearly violated the topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In reply to a couple of comments. To Arzel, as several people have noted here, the line between climate change and the politics surrounding it is often blurry and would be easy for you to step over. If you continue editing in this area, I advise you do so very carefully indeed, and stay away from anything that could be construed as touching on the political aspects of climate change. Tiptoeing around the edge of a topic ban inevitably leads to stepping over that line at some point; the idea is to stay well clear. Also, you are topic banned from any edits having to do with American politics anywhere at all, and there is no requirement for any category to be present for that to apply. If you're unsure whether something would relate to that, you're certainly welcome to ask for clarification here, but please do so before you start editing it. To Zad68, the final outcome would indeed be up to the admins at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Arzel: I explained why in my first statement. "Hands up, don't shoot" was a slogan used by a group protesting an action by a public official. Discussing and protesting the actions of public or government officials is a political action, especially when it is coordinated. It happened in America. Therefore, it is related to American politics. Not everything you are prohibited from editing will have a particular category on it, so no, I'm afraid that's not a reasonable expectation or a way to keep yourself out of trouble in the future. Please read WP:TBAN, if you've not done so, for detailed information on how topic bans are interpreted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Basically agree with Seraphimblade. If Arzel starts discussing American politics in relationship to CC, that would be a breach. And the "Hands up" edit violated the tb. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with SB and DW. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• While there are non-political aspects of climate change denial, in the US they are massively overwhelmed by the parts that are political - JzG and Ubiwikt explain this well above. I also see that Arzel is denying that the Watts article is a scientific article, and denying that it is a political article, which seems to be trying to have it both ways to suit the point de jour - a blogger, paid by a political think tank, blogging about the science of climate change is both scientific and political. In short I do see the climate change edits as violating the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed that the edit to Talk:Hands up, don't shoot violates the topic ban. The edits to the Watts article fall more in a grey area, but I'm not inclined to say they fall under the scope of the topic ban, even broadly construed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• I hate coming late to these things and having to just say, "per so-and-so", but: per Seraphimblade and AGK. The Hands Up, Don't Shoot edit would appear to be a topic ban violation and should go to AE, the Watts edits, not so much. Watts is undeniably figure of political influence, but Arzel's edits did not address his politics nor the impact of his work on politics; I wouldn't regard them as a TBAN violation. Yunshui ^雲_水 21:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

---