Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Submissions are limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs. 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 include (a) why you need additional words and (b) what you hope to discuss in your extended submission.
You may only edit 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. (See Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration § Responding to requests.)

Clarification and Amendment (

)

1

Clarification request: Transgender healthcare and people

Consensus of commenting arbitrators is to grant a one-off exemption to allow opening this close request at AN. Daniel (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Springee at 00:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Transgender healthcare and people 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:

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

Statement by Springee

The portion of the case closing that applies to me is the following: Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. I'm asking permission to open a close review at AN. The close review is related to article content, not editor behavior. I'm opening the request here based on advice from Theleekycauldron here [1].

Izno, the close I wish to contest is this straw poll [2] that both decided we should have a particular section on the Magazine (firearms) article and, the part I'm contesting, that the proposed content should be considered consensus. (BTW, I'm limited to phone editing for at least the next day or so) Springee (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess enjoyer

Springee has participated in a closure review at least once since they were given their topic ban. We got into conflict on an unrelated issue in that discussion, but, as far as I can tell, no one had any concerns that they were breaching their ban. I also agree that it doesn't go against the spirit of the ban. I don't see why opening a close review should be any different than participating in one, as far as the ban is concerned.

I have a couple of questions for @Theleekycauldron, if she doesn't mind:

Do you think that opening a close review is different than participating in one, with respect to the ban?
You commented on that close review and at a clarification request that mentioned the close review. If your answer to #1 is that they're the same, then did this not cross your mind at the time?

Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

Noting that arbs so far have stated that they are willing to allow Springee to open the close review that they are proposing, but that the restriction does in general restrict them from posting at WP:AN at all, I would request that arbs adjust the restriction to be more in keeping with its spirit (i.e., that Springee not participate in user-conduct enforcement discussions). I think this would be in line with WP:NOTBURO and would reduce the need for any additional requests going forward. Please correct me if I've misjudged the spirit of the restriction. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I did consider that prior to my initial comment; however, by the same token, conversations on user talks or anywhere can take turns in that direction. Given my past discussions with Springee, I would consider that they have sufficient judgement to know when a discussion turns in that direction and then thus disengage. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Transgender healthcare and people: Clerk notes

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

Transgender healthcare and people: Arbitrator views and discussion

The wording of the restriction is Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. I can see why, if you take that literally, someone could conclude it forbids posting at AN in all circumstances. However, I think allowing close challenges (and other matters unrelated to user conduct) at AN is well within the spirit of the restriction, and thus should be permitted. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Contra House, I think it does forbid posting at AN in all circumstances, but I'm happy to give a go-ahead to open this particular close review. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be read as forbidding all posting to AN, but I'm content to allow an exception to request a close review where editor conduct is not the issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with allowing a close review, agree that generally posts to AN are covered by the topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, discussions at user-conduct noticeboards can often take turns in that direction even if the thread wasn't opened for that explicit purpose. I'd rather they stay away from the noticeboards and request an exemption when they'd like challenge a close as they did in this case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recused - Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more willing to make a blanket exception for close reviews, but I don't think we need to reach that question to allow Springee to post. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording of the original restriction is unfortunately worded, in that it leaves the reader to decide which venues count as 'user-conduct enforcement noticeboards'. ANI counts, obviously. Does AN? Sometimes, yes, but a lot of other stuff happens there too. Anyhoo, I'd be inclined to allow the exception, but also to caution Springee: close reviews and the like sometimes, even if they are started with the best intentions, descend into contentious discussions about people's motives. I think that to stay within the spirit of their Tban, Springee need to be careful to avoid commenting on other users' behaviour, intentions, motivations, etc. That might be difficult if other people start dragging the discussion in that direction. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Springee What close do you intend to contest? I have a guess but before I sign off on even a limited exception to the existing ban I would like to know. Izno (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, I agree that the current ban covers AN. But, I am fine with a one-off exception for this case. I expect a wider exception to have a vote. Izno (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be unpopular, I think that it both forbids posting to AN(I) and that we shouldn't make any exceptions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with at least with allowing this particular close review. If Springee requests another one of these in the future, I'd be inclined to support a general exception. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]