Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke		16 September 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal	Motion	none	1 July 2018
Clarification request: Return of access levels	none	none	14 July 2018

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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).

To file a clarification or amendment 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).
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.

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. 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:

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 19:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Ban appeal restrictions

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Community consultation: User:Crouch, Swale ban appeal
2. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 12#Crouch, Swale ban appeal (December 2017)

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

• Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Euryalus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nilfanion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Callanecc Euryalus Nilfanion

Information about amendment request

• Links at the top

• RM new page and moves/discussion editing restrictions (from myself)

• Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

• State the desired modification

Statement by Crouch, Swale

Can I have my editing restriction of page creation and discussion of NC and moves please. I have waited 6 months and edited as instructed. I have not had any problems with my moves on Commons and know that I need to follow consensus and propose potentially controversial moves. With creations I have to some extent reached an agreement with Nilfanion. I will mainly be creating pages for missing civil parishes and I will likely discuss with Nilfanion if I intend to create a large number of other topics. Note that I might not be around much next week but I hope that doesn't cause too many problems with this. I have never been blocked on Commons or had editing restrictions there, however if there is concern about my contributions which shouldn't happen, I will voluntary agree to restrictions, for example I have to discuss all moves I make.

(reply to Beyond My Ken) - I haven't contributed over there for years, and they were only realy blocked because of the blocks here, I didn't get any behavioral blocks there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2018

• My appeal was nearly 2 hours late, I though you knew that I would want to appeal. I have tried to follow your requests and I did expand some articles. There are around 750 missing (current) civil parishes. Creating a B-Class for all of those would be extremely difficult. Creating things other than CPs could be discussed with Nilfanion later.
• In the case of Ireland I wanted to leave it open for longer and leave a message at WP but the restrictions wouldn't have allowed that. I had taken it to CFD and I only closed it then due to this comment in response to my comment here. It wasn't obvious that the other things like the link and subsequent moves should be carried out after the move. When the suggestions were made I did so. I would have proposed the move of Shetland first here but the restrictions wouldn't allow that. UKPLACE can apply to any place located in the UK, not just settlements, in fact it even gives Jura, Scotland as an example. The hyphens are not used in other sources. I haven't contributed to any RM discussions to simplify things as I would be quite easy to be considered to violate the restrictions if a RM affects geographical locations, say if some are listed on the DAB page. I am not formerly banned from the RM or NC in general, that's just something I voluntary suggested.
• I therefore think only removing the discussions is inappropriate as I have no restrictions on Commons and haven't had recent warnings there. I think a WP:1RR, applying in particular to moves would be more appropriate. I would also need to work out a consensus on topics that is not a CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• (Beyond My Ken) And that was over the accounts here, not behavior there. My point was that Nilfanion didn't think that I would immediately appeal.
• (Rob) If I had have participated in RM discussions Nilfanion would probably have made a comment similar to this and threaten to add those discussions to the ban. I have waited and waited for change to finish creating articles and I think its inappropriate to still now allow it. How about using my contributions on Commons where I haven't been banned. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• 6 months is a very long time, it might have been a bit different if it had only been 1 month or so.
• You are often the only one who cares about conventions, I attempted to draw up guidelines and get the wider community involved on Commons.
• My main focus is often getting a specific category of topics but yes a topic might be deemed notable if it meets GNG.
• But at least I don't have any restrictions there and few of my creations have been deleted and few of my moves have been reverted.
• This, this, this and this don't involve geographical NC and the middle 2 are similar to AFD/merge discussions here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• 6 months is a long time so why should I want to wait any longer? I have improved other articles as well, Revelstoke, Devon for example.
• I really don't think I should be expected to wait any longer. Haven't I had enough bans. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• It seems that I have been forced to make appeal after appeal, and still not succeeded, why am I expected to have restrictions which are similar to a site ban. I had waited precisely for the 1 of July (a whole 6 months) to be able to do the things I wanted to but it seems I have been let down yet again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• I would also suggest that if this is declined which it looks like it will then I should not be expected to wait another 6 months but rather than when the disputes have been resolved. I think that this is otherwise like a prison sentence WP is not supposed to be so restrictive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Question by Beyond My Ken

Can I ask what this is about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A sockpuppet block is a behavioral block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"My appeal was nearly 2 hours late" Do you say this because you believe it showed patience on your part, that you waited almost an entire 120 minutes (7,200 seconds) after the precise minute you were allowed to appeal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: - If there's some question about whether CS's sanctions allow them to participate in RMs of articles, this appeal could return an explicit statement that they're allowed to do that, so that the Committee can get the information needed to evaluate whether to lift the sanction on page moves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nilfanion

I'm not sure I'm a party to this, but clearly I'm interested. I'd urge ArbCom to read this discussion on my talk page. I'm surprised that he immediately came here at the 6 month (though I shouldn't be). My intentions were (and still are) to try and support him over the coming weeks/months to prove he can write good articles, and demonstrate he now has the key skills he lacked in the past and would likely produce new articles in a non-disruptive manner. If he had done so, at that point I'd have been inclined to approach ArbCom on his behalf to urge the restrictions were withdrawn.

The behaviour that triggered his initial block was generated by the mass creation of stubs on minor geographic places (leading to work at AFD, effort in merging into sensible parent articles, pointless templates being created etc). When he didn't stop that quickly death spiralled into socking. His comments, both during the discussion on my talk page and in his statement here, trouble me:

1. I have urged him to aim to create articles which are much more substantial than minimal stubs, and his replies show he has no interest in doing so. By doing the research and creating longer articles, not only is the immediate reader experience better - but he would amply demonstrate each article meets the GNG by providing a good number of sources.
2. By creating very small cookie-cutter stubs - he gives himself the potential to create a lot of articles in a short space of time.
3. His understanding of notability guidance is questionable. Instead of properly assessing individual cases on their merits (ie by finding if there are enough suitable sources to meet GNG), he just looks at broad classes. One he has a decision on a broad class he will follow it. His immediate interest of Civil Parishes (Lowest tier of administrative areas in England) are highly likely to be notable, but his future endeavours are bound to result in stub creation on much minor places. Instead of expansion of a suitable parent article (ie likely to be the relevant parish).

All of these points suggest to me the potential for future disruption identical to what triggered the initial block.

Recent activity on Commons at CFD (the closest analog to WP:RM) may be of interest to ArbCom, as it shows other aspects of his behaviour: This show him closing a very high impact case, with minimal involvement from others. He did not initially care about fixing the consequences. He frets about "correctness" a lot, especially with following the one true source, and makes a lot of moves as a result. If he was allowed, he is bound to do the same on Wikipedia. His understanding definitely varies from Wikipedia norms. Some examples of moves: [1] is at variance with an old WP discussion. [2] quotes WP:UKPLACE incorrectly (it applies to settlements, not natural features). [3] to remove hyphens (not used by his preferred source, but used by other sources).

Based on the evidence above, at this time I oppose removal of the restrictions on article creation and removal of the restrictions on page moving. The other restrictions (no involvement in RM, or in discussions about naming conventions) could be removed - that would give Crouch, Swale to the ability to demonstrate on Wikipedia that the page move restrictions could be safely relaxed in future.

@BU Rob13: Crouch, Swale hasn't contributed to any requested moves since he was unblocked, because his current restrictions prevent him from doing so. See my comment above about Commons, for similar activity on that project.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course I expected an appeal, but not one instantaneously. You approached me on June 22 and asked me to review some stuff you had done, which was reasonable on your part. I then expected you to have worked with me over a period of time, and at the conclusion of that been you could have been in the place for a strong appeal leading to a full removal of your sanctions. Not basically tell me to go away, and immediately appeal when you hit the 6 month mark.

You need to be engaging with the community-at-large, not single editors. You do that via taking part in discussions on article talk pages, project pages (like those for naming conventions or WP:UKGEO) not an user's talk page. And if you stay on topic, instead of going on a tangent with a slew of new questions you might find your original question gets answered. Its not right that you discussion with me what classes of subject should have an article. You shouldn't even be thinking about classes of subject, but individual subjects.

I'm not necessarily expecting all new articles to be high standard. But I do want to see you are able and willing to create one reasonable quality article. If you can't do that even once, I have little confidence you will ever do anything other than create stubs. And you need to move past that if you ever want to create new articles on Wikipedia. Edits like the ones to Theydon Mount are an important step in the right direction, but it needs to be sustained and not a one-off. If you do what I suggested and work on a single subject building a high-standard article its much easier for me (or anyone else) to give you meaningful feedback and allow you to create future articles in confidence.

My point with respect to the Commons examples is that your decision-making in all of them is questionable, and not clearly in line with WP norms, I'm not going to debate them here. Therefore letting you loose on Wikipedia at this time is high risk.

@Euryalus: The restriction on RM stems from the topic ban on geographic naming conventions. You can't meaningfully participate in most RMs without relying on some aspect of the naming conventions, and he is clearly only interested in geography, that is a major limitation on such discussions. A bright line is easier to enforce instead of quibbling about whether a specific comment is about the NCs. @ArbCom generally: I'm think setting a date for a new appeal will get an immediate response, regardless of whether the circumstances justify a change. This editor will keep on pushing and pushing and it is time consuming for all involved (including him). It would be better for it to be come back "when you are ready" not "in at least x months" (which will be exactly x months). Perhaps a criteria that reads "when you can demonstrate positive involvement in several RMs over an period of time, then an appeal will be considered"?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

6 months is a substantial period of time, which means means the difference an extra day makes is minimal. You would be well advised to demonstrate solid evidence of improvement on the lines of "hey look at this article I improved, and this one, and this one" next time you come back here, not "its 6 months since last time, and I haven't been blocked". And finally, note this is Wikipedia, not Commons, different rules apply - for a start the community is more active.

@Euryalus: That makes sense to me. Maybe break it down into two parts to reflect the restrictions: Create dispute-free & meaningful content on notable subjects = remove creation ban. Meaningful involvement in RMs and related discussions without disruption = remove ban on moves.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Concur with Nilfanion. The very recent thread at [4] indicates insufficient cluefullness (still, somehow). Given the previous track-record of grossly disruptive socking and endless creation of pointless one-liners, a desire to keep creating micro-stubs after all this is a big red-flag. I agree with Nilfanion's WP:ROPE idea of easing some other restrictions, but there should be no hesitation in re-imposing the RM/move ban should more trouble arise in that area. We already have too high of a noise:signal and heat:light ratio in that sector.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Also concur with BU Rob13 here; it's not really possible to do much at RM without referring to the naming conventions and their applicability/non-applicability to the case at hand. If you can't do those things, you'd be reduced to WP:JUSTAVOTE in many cases, and that is discouraged.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 8 July 2018 (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.

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Clerk notes

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

• Miniapolis isn't a party – she just did the paperwork. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @Crouch, Swale: Have you taken any pages through the requested moves process since you were unblocked? If so, please link that. If not, why not? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m open to rescinding one sanction on a probationary basis, but not multiple at once. If that goes well, you could come back to discuss others. My preferred one to rescind is the one on page moves, since I think it’s easiest to monitor. My problem there is the lack of RM activity. I don’t see requested moves of main space pages as being likely to violate your topic ban, which just forbids you discussing our meta naming conventions from my understanding. My initial thought would be to decline this appeal, allowing another appeal of only the moving restriction after one month of participation at RM. I would appreciate feedback on this both from Crouch and from the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • We could consider loosening the naming conventions restriction to exclude mention of naming conventions in RM discussions, specifically to allow participation in that area. That would quickly show us whether this is a productive exercise or not. While I respect the Commons contributions, they aren't a factor in my decision here. I care about the ability to interact on enwiki, not Commons, which is a very different project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• May as well start by actually thanking Crouch, Swale for their obvious interest in adding to Wikipedia, despite some fairly tough sanctions. Most people in similar circumstances would just give up and do something else with their time. So, congrats for that at least. I might be missing something, is the restriction in participation in RM a consequence of the restriction on taking part in discussions on geographic naming conventions? If so then I'd support a repeal of this specific restriction, with the qualifier that it can be reinstated in short order by the Committee if RM involvement becomes needlessly disruptive. After reviewing the edit history and the various talkpage conversations, I would oppose lifting the other restrictions for at least another six months. One aim of the restrictions was to encourage content contributions outside of single-paragraph stubs, but the contribution history hasn't moved that much beyond that, with the recent exception of Theydon Mount. A few more articles like this, and we would be in a better position to consider lifting the page creation ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nilfanion: Thanks re the clarification on the RM ban. You also have a good point re times to next appeal, but I reckon there is still merit in it, otherwise (as a generic comment) we open the door to appeals seeking a date for appeals. Perhaps the answer is a combined wording: a minimum appeal date and advice that a successful appeal will require a record of dispute-free and meaningful content creation on notable subjects. In passing, thanks for your informal mentoring, as evidenced by the lengthy discussions on your talk page. —- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would support removing the topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions to better allow Crouch, Swale to contribute to RMs in order to provide an opportunity for him to show that the prohibition on moving or renaming pages is no longer necessary. I also agree that giving Crouch, Swale a better idea of what he needs to show when appealing is a good idea, in additional to the usual time period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm ok with removing the geographic naming conventions topic ban with the proviso we can reinstate it. Thus I believe I'm in agreement with Callanecc and Euryalus here. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Nilfanion. Mkdw ^talk 20:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion

The topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unblock conditions in January 2018 is rescinded. The remaining restrictions continue in force. Crouch, Swale is reminded that disruption occur in discussions on geographic naming conventions the Arbitration Committee may reinstate this restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

---

Clarification request: Return of access levels

Initiated by Guy Macon at 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[5]

(Please let me know if I should post a notice on the talk pages of the participants at the noticeboard) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Per the discussions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Why not just ask Arbcom?, I would like to request clarification/guidance concerning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels? and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions

In particular, some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...

"Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions."

...from restoration of permissions, arguing that if at the time of the resignation there did not exist an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that had a reasonable chance of leading to sanctions or desysopping, restoration should be automatic.

On the other hand some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...

"Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy."

...from return of access levels, arguing that if there have been significant complaints that may have, if not for the discussion being shut down by the resignation, led to an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that may have lead to sanctions or desysopping, an new RfA should be required.

The Bureaucrats were split 4 to 6 on this with one 'crat saying...

"So I'd err on resysopping someone who may or may not be or been have desysopping by arbcom and let arbcom deal with desysopping if they so choose."

...while another wrote...

"Obviously the community does not allow us to stand in for ArbCom and stand in judgment over resigned administrators. But I don't think that means our job is just to return the tools absent evidence of the worst kind of misconduct. The community has authorized us only to return the tools in uncontroversial circumstances. So I'd err the other way. If not relatively uncontroversial, I think RfA is the way to go."

Pretty much everyone, editors and 'crats, agreed with the opinion, expressed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy, that "My honest and unprejudiced reading of the evidence presented is that it clearly does not cross a bright line. Yet I find many honest and unprejudiced Wikipedians who I respect disagree with me. I take from this that our policy isn't clear enough."

This may result in an RfC, but even if it does, I think that some clarification from Arbcom concerning the return of access levels section of the Scientology case would help to avoid the participants in the RfC simply repeating the same confusion regarding policy.

I will post a link to this on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley

I would suggest that the intent behind the policy is to prevent resignation being used to duck out of a behavioral inquiry and then being able to just pick up the tools again a couple of months later. I believe that would be captured by wording similar to:

An administrator who resigned at a time when there was either an ongoing formal process which was avoided, circumvented, or minimized as a result of their resignation ie actively avoiding scrutiny or in circumstances where such a process was reasonably likely to follow if the admin did not resign ie controversial circumstances may only regain the bit via a new RfA.

Although it may be more proper to suggest wording at an RfC rather than through an ARCA. I think the Arbs may be able to further clarify their interpretation by expanding on, in a more general manner, the example provided in the case. That may be reaching beyond the scope because I do not believe there was a need to make a more general interpretation to rule on the circumstances of the case. Jbh ^Talk 03:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

A concern some of us raised over at BN is that any active (or at least "enforcing") admin always has various people upset at them and convinced they're a "badmin". Judging whether someone resigned "under a cloud" needs to be tied to whether formal process against the admin (for admin actions, or actions that could have called into question admin suitability), was under way when they resigned. It's not sufficient that the admin was criticized or had "enemies". In the case that triggered this debate, the returning ex-admin had not been subject to formal scrutiny when resigning, but did have some other editors angry at them. Taking a long wikibreak in the face of drama, short of noticeboard or ArbCom scrutiny of one's admin or adminship-affecting activities, shouldn't force a re-RfA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

Return of access levels: Clerk notes

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

---