Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 15

Point of order: highlighting in "Disputed Signpost article" request for arbitration
I request that either authors or clerks remove the bright yellow highlighting from their posts here. Aside from being poor from an accessibility perspective if the correct aspect ratios between text and background colours are not maintained, it would be good to avoid the situation where everyone starts highlighting things and the purpose of it is defeated. I think we, as a group, can read the posts and make our own conclusions about what is most important, or failing that, we can use formatting options such as bold and italics. --Deskana (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have removed the highlighting. – bradv  🍁  17:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Deskana (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones statement
Over 1,300 words and still not yet addressed the BLP issue. If he doesn't deign to return to trim it to a reasonable length, is there anything in 'crats power to do something about it? - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is no crat going to answer this, let alone take action on the bloated statement? At the very least the highlighted section can be unhighlighted and a message left on Smallbones' page that he needs to cut the wordcount back before one of you steps up and does it for him. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this is Arbco, no, I don't expect a WP:CRAT to address the issue ;)  but yeah,, sup?  ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an easy mistake to make. Bureaucracy of Arbitration Committee on Wikipedia is handled by Clerks, not Bureaucrats. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

's statement is now over 1,512 words - over three times the 500-word limit (and it still fails to address the BLP infraction). Do the clerks not take any action when I one is so far out of line? - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Since his initial statement, Smallbones has edited his statement five times four of which been to lengthen it. This isn't some well-intentioned newcomer who doesn't understand the processes, this is the self-appointed editor of the Signpost who has either managed to miss both the huge red box at the top of the page (not only in this case, but in every other case the Signpost has covered) and the warning he received more than a week ago, or is intentionally thumbing his nose at every other party and participant by demanding he be given three times the space anyone else is allowed. If he's not willing to shorten his statement, can someone shorten it for him? &#8209; Iridescent 17:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've left Smallbones a note at his talk page. – bradv  🍁  17:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To which he's responded by adding more to his statement. I'm getting seriously tempted to block for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. &#8209; Iridescent 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I get where you're coming from, but I'd advise against taking action. I've raised the issue on the clerks mailing list, and one of the arbs has already stated they're not concerned with the length of his statement. And the request is heading towards a decline now anyway, so it's moot. – bradv  🍁  22:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (July 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Original Ban Appeal (31 December 2017)
 * First Modification (16 July 2018)
 * Second Modification (18 January 2019)
 * Clarification (10 February 2019)


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Special:Diff/879051226


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Special:Diff/879051226
 * Replace the 1 article a week through AFC with the ability to move pages and create DAB pages and redirects.

Statement by Crouch, Swale
Can I replace the existing restrictions with the ability to move pages, create DAB page and redirects. It was suggested by that I would be expected to have a 5% (or less) failure at RM. I pointed out that RM is for controversial moves, not uncontroversial moves to aren't relevant to that. It was then suggested that I use RMT and I now have 108 edits at Requested moves/Technical requests but only 4 of these have been contested (I think) and out of those only 1 failed so I think I have passed that, see User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 49. Also at the last ARCA it was agreed to allow me to create pages outside the mainspace, given that DAB pages and redirects don't fall under article even if in the mainspace, see What is an article? I think if I'm allowed to create pages outside the mainspace, its not that different to allow DAB pages and redirects in the mainspace. I am requesting to allow the page moves and DAB pages/redirects so that I can use them for housekeeping at for the bot created articles, see Bot requests and User talk:SilkTork. Obviously if we're fine with removing the restrictions all together then that's great but this would be fine for the next 6 months while we do the bot created civil parishes since as pointed out we're taking it 1 step at a time.

The suggested changed are:
 * Allow page moves (with a 1RR or 0RR restriction) and that as with the geographical NC restriction can be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator in the next 6 months.
 * Allow the creation of DAB pages.
 * Allow the creation of redirects.
 * Remove the ability to submit articles at AFC (which is replaced by the bot articles). Note that I haven't had 1 article at AFC declined.


 * Thanks I previewed and modified several times but I couldn't work out how to format it properly.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  17:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * fully aware of the fact that lifting the creation doesn't remove the need for a bot request. However I wasn't asking to be able to create articles (manually) because for the next 6 months the bot would do that for me (but we would clarify that I am OK to have the articles created by the bot). And yes as well as the fact you pointed out that community consensus independently of the requester is required I both discussed this with one of the users who participated in my last appeal and I disclosed it in my bot request therefore I indeed don't think there's a problem here with proxying. The idea behind starting the bot request prior to my appeal was so that I could get consensus and have the code/bot ready for when I appeal, then at my appeal (here) I could then point to the consensus and say that "I have consensus to have the bot created articles, can I have my page move restrictions removed and also be allowed to create DAB pages/redirects in mainspace so that I can do the housekeeping with the bot created articles as long as we're happy with allowing the bot created articles". However we seem to be somewhat in a situation where we can't get consensus for the bot request due to the current ban and we can't get consensus on what to do with my restrictions because we don't have consensus for the bot request.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * that's fine as long as it doesn't take months (which I'm sure it won't) otherwise there's no big rush.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MASSCREATION says "It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that community input be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects." It doesn't say that it is necessarily required to notify WikiProjects, it says that it is strongly encouraged and may be required by BAG. I notified 3 relatively active projects and its not my fault that I got a lack response. The only thing MASSCREATION says is required is "approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the example is at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current) which gives notes on how the bot would do things (as noted not all of those will necessarily be used) as well as sources and this example is also linked for how the "Geography" and "Demographics" sections would be. I don't have the technical understanding of how to create the source code for this (if I did I would have presented it at the BR) but the plan should at least give some understanding for how the bot would be programmed.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the "Other ideas" contains things that could be included but aren't especially likely and if they are though of as a good idea could be added to the plan. The "Problems" section already contains possible solutions. The plan is based on what I could do at the time but others at BOTR and BAG would get clarity on how to do so however I'll link some of the ideas to the sources.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the "tunnel vision" should make it easier for other editors to see what I'm trying to do and try to find ways to avoid or mitigate problems. I have tried to solve the problems that have been raised at the bot request (as can be seen by my edits at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)). I would also note that the request to create the missing articles (which is about 727 but probably less) over 6 months would actually amount to less than 4 a day (I put 6 as an allowance for stops etc). Its quite easy for me to add the equivalent content to those new articles that I added to the articles that I have submitted through AFC.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * what are you're views on the direct restriction changed that I'm proposing here namely (1) the ability to create DAB pages and redirects in mainspace, (2) the ability to move pages (with a 1RR or 0RR restriction) and (3) removing the ability to submit at AFC.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its indeed not the job of other editors to mitigate problems, I was meaning that if editors want to stop me from doing certain things then suggestions can be made on how instead to do something with less/no problems. And if the bot request succeeds then it might be better to focus on that rather than AFC (which as noted is backlogged).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be too critical etc since I seem to have got what I was asking (that I can make the bot request without it being seen as violating my restrictions). However as I noted at the bot request "I currently have a page move/page creation ban and that would make creating DAB pages and name fixes more difficult but even if my appeal fails I still intend to go ahead with this." the move ability and DAB pages/redirect creation would still be needed for housekeeping with the request even if not essential. Considering my point about the number of successful RMTs that I have made are we comfortable with the proposed removal of the move ban with the suggested 1RR or 0RR restriction? If not are we comfortable with a greater restriction such as only 10 moves per week or an even greater one of only being able to move the bot created articles?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started a (slightly simpler) version at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)/Simple which also includes many more detailed instructions, its nearly finished and I hope that it resolves Headbomb's concerns. However as noted although the bot request could still go ahead even with the current restrictions, cleanup such as moves and the creation of redirects and DAB pages would be helpful for ensuring that all the other maintenance issues are sorted. What concerns do you have about (1) lifting the move restriction and (2) the DAB pages and redirect creation? Would the (even tighter) restrictions I proposed work for you?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it was said in the previous request that "If the page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area" for RMT which I believe I have satisfied and "If we can see a period of you having a series of articles successfully transferred into mainspace that would be encouragement to lift your article creation restriction" 100% of my submissions have been successful, how can that not be good enough? especially since I'm not even requesting the ability to create articles myself. And as was pointed out above the creation restrictions removal wouldn't be necessary for bot request its self but moves and DAB/redirects will be needed.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the general concern that can be seem from the previous request was that I might create numerous short articles and make controversial moves etc. It was also clear from multiple people that I would need to demonstrate good conduct in both areas for a while, having had a 100% success rate at AFC surely satisfies that one and the fact that only 1 of my numerous uncontroversial technical requests resulted in a "no consensus" result surely satisfies the move concern. If I have had 23 articles created over nearly 6 months then what's to say that I can't create half a dozen or so articles of the same quality a day (or improve half a dozen bot created articles a day). And the general consensus is that its frowned upon to create large numbers of short, poor quality articles, not that creating large numbers of high quality articles is a bad idea, in fact there is an essay at Make stubs. But I don't see any basis in policy or general consensus that creating large numbers of good articles is not allowed. WP:NNH gives in the "Focusing on particular processes" part the example of creating stubs (and my interest in titling etc also falls within the spirit of that). The User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes list won't be used by the bot, the articles will come from City Population, that list is simply for tracting purposes and as noted has some that probably shouldn't exist anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the "got somewhere" was to do with the 100% success rate at AFC. And yes I won't be operating a bot myself since (1) I am restricted to 1 account (leaving aside that fact that I'm not allowed to create articles myself) (2) I don't have the skills (but I like to learn them).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Spike 'em
In the BOTREQ mentioned by Crouch, Swale he has asked for 700+ articles to be created by a bot rather than by himself, which seems to me to be an attempt to outsource the creation and avoid his current ban. They have been asked to gain consensus for the BOTREQ, which he has tried to do, but not had any significant response. I note that previous discussions here have concern[s] that Crouch, Swale is mainly interested in rapidly creating hundreds of civil parish stubs which is exactly what the BOTREQ is to do. He has suggested an initial run of 6 articles per day, which is a lot more that the current 1 AfC per week restriction. All of the suggestions to his restrictions above make the assumption that the mass article creation goes ahead, so that needs to be considered here. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb
To be clear, when I wrote in "Bot requests" ""Smaller batches" is a way of having a better chance at getting support when things could potentially be contentious. It does not negate the need for prior consensus before creation, but it might make consensus easier to get. Going "I want to create 1000 articles tomorrow!" vs going "Hey, about about we have a bot create 10 articles as drafts as a subpage of WP:PLANTS, see what the feedback is on them, if they need more work, etc... so the next 10 are easier to handle, ... and then we'll see if we get to a point where we're comfortable having the remaining articles get created directly in article space" or similar. Note the it might. People may decide this is too close to violating a page creation ban for comfort. Or maybe they'd be open to such a bot creating articles in the project space if someone other than you reviews the article before moving into mainspace. Or maybe people would be comfortable with the task as proposed."

I did not mean that lifting the page creation ban would negate the need for consensus for mass WP:MASSCREATION, either through a bot or a meatbot, the distinction between the two being pointless for WP:MEATBOT purposes. I say this part for the benefits of User:Crouch, Swale, in case they thought a lift on restriction was sufficient to ensure WP:BOTREQUIRE #4.

Generally speaking, the BAG is of the opinion that making a WP:BOTREQ is not a violation of a page creation ban/restriction, since a) the request would be reviewed to ensure community consensus independently of the requester b) pages would be created by someone other than the requester c) if concerns related to using a bot to circumvent the ban existed, those would be addressed during the BRFA. I say this bit for the benefit of ARBCOM, in case they think that making a BOTREQ to have a bot create articles is (by itself) somehow nefarious behaviour. It is also the first time User:Crouch, Swale makes such a request, which may or may not matter.

I say both the above bits as a BAG member, purely for context and without prejudice against lifting, or maintaining, or expanding the ban, on which I have no opinion as I have not reviewed the current ban nor the relevant facts that led to it. Should a WP:BRFA be filed, BAG will review that the task complies with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:BOTREQUIRE (#4) and WP:MASSCREATION, as applicable at the time of review. A lift of the ban would imply fewer restrictions on the task, maintaining the ban would imply more restrictions on it, but in all cases the bot's task and mode of operation (if approved) would be subject to community consensus. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * However we seem to be somewhat in a situation where we can't get consensus for the bot request due to the current ban and we can't get consensus on what to do with my restrictions because we don't have consensus for the bot request. Maybe. But what I was getting at in that discussion was that consensus was unclear for the task because only you expressed support for it. This was meant to be an invitation to go to a Wikiproject and start a discussion there to flesh out the idea, and if there was buy in, BAG would then be in a position to evaluate if there was consensus for something. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * there is some buy-in on the general idea. What hasn't been done is fleshing out the idea and produce a mockup of the result, explaining exactly how the bot would generate things, along side what sources it would use. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current) is not a fully fleshed out example. There are several placeholders, and lists general concerns which have not been hammered out, potential ideas, a possible process, etc... This is still at the idea stage and even if a bot coder wanted to take the request, they would be at lost on exactly what it was you were asking them to implement. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

the bot request is entertained to the extent that there is a theoretical path forward. However, as of now the bot logic is so premature that no bot coder would take the task because no one knows what they are being asked to code exactly, and a village pump discussion is likely bound to fail because of the page creation restrictions combined with the ill-defined logic of the bot. These are theoretically surmountable hurdles. For instance, if there's a clear bot logic proposed, which results in articles that the community would deem appropriate. Or that a bot coder shows interest in the task and is willing to work with Crouch, Swale and with other WikiProjects to figure out how exactly to build such articles out of existing resources. But we aren't there yet. Right now, there's not even a "The bot would go to this ) is unlikely to be easy to comprehend, though.  Plain text is also fine.  A PDF is probably not so useful.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also add that, no matter the forum, complaints that are compact and concise are better-received than complaints that are long. GoldenRing (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm doing my best to make it concise. Vashti (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Threaded discussion and section headers on Arbitration talk pages (October 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 23:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Beeblebrox
In several recent cases, clerks have taken what seems to me to be a very heavy-handed approach to policing proposed decision talk pages, enforcing absolute conformity of section headers and only allowing themselves or arbs to participate in threaded discussion, absolutely banning it for us "lesser" users. When I questioned this, SilkTork directed me to Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures as the policy that supports this practice. The problem there is that it doesn't. There is no mention of any rules for talk pages. This appears to be a policy that doesn't actually exist, yet the clerks are strongly enforcing it at the apparent direction of the committee.

While I completely understand the need for controls in initial statements and evidence pages, talk pages, anywhere in project space, are used by the community to discuss the project. In this case the committee seems to be enforcing standards that were just made up out of thin air and are not documented on-wiki. Given that in this most recent case the enforcement of unknown rules based on invisible criteria was a central problem, I strongly feel this issue needs to be brought out in the open and whatever process that was used to develop it needs to be made transparent.

Failing that, the committee needs to accept that there is no such rule and instruct the clerks to stop enforcing it. Arbitration processes are complicated enough without expecting users to abide by invisible rules that apply only when the committee suddenly decides they apply on a particular page.

(The above is my initial statement, below are replies to arbitrator comments)Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"it's something that the clerk team and ArbCom has agreed upon.". And that's how new policies are made now? You guys hold a private discussion then begin enforcing a rule by adding a notice to a talk page if and when you decide it applies to that page? A rule that, again, is not in any policy I've seen. I suppose if you do things that way it is easier, you can just make up whatever rule you want and tell the community "we and the clerks agree this is a good idea, so it's now policy whenever we decide it is" but I'm pretty sure even ArbCom isn't supposed to work that way. "the fact that it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy" uh ok, is there anything else yu aren't telling us, any other secret policies in your back pocket for when you believe its convenient to spring them on the community and declare that's how it works from now on? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

C'mon Joe. You're just making up ridiculous excuses now. "The format of a talk page is not policy" is nonsense. If there's not a policy, why is it being enforced? Why are the clerks instructed to do it that way? Arbcom is responsible for establishing its own procedures, I'm not contesting that, but they should be way more transparent than this when doing so. You can't have it both ways, either you are enforcing a new policy that you all have neglected to put in your own procedures, or there is no such rule. Invisible rules that come and go at the whim of the abs is no way to run a committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious if any of the arbs have any comment on the fact that the committee also exempts itself and its clerks from this policy, making them free to engage in threaded discussion if they wish while the rest of us are absolutely verboten from doing so. If there was one way to tell the community you think you are better than them, making up a policy and then exempting yourself from it would be a good start. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. What seems weird to me is that as far as I am aware PD talk pages are the only place in all of Wikipedia where this goes on. Other arb space pages, like this one, have highly formalized structures that disallow any threaded discussion. I think that makes sense on, for example, the initial requests and statement sat the beginning of a case. If those were threaded discussions it would be near impossible for the committee to get anything done. And it works fairly ok here as well. But for some obscure reason on PD talk pages and only on PD talk pages replies are made by the "special class" of arbs and clerks wherever they please. I honestly don't know if anyone else sees it that way but that's how it felt to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda
It has been said that the practise makes it easier to read. That must be for different readers. For me, it's much easier to understand a chronological flow of arguments, than having to go not only to the section where xyz said something, but on top when that happened. It would have been easy for my section because I didn't change my mind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih

 * it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy – Isn't this exactly the definition of unknown rules based on invisible criteria? Committee may ask the clerk team to implementing procedures as they wish, but these needs to be spelled out in policy pages (as the basis for when and why the comments must be sectioned), and the committee needs to provide their rationale clearly (as you have done here, thank you), otherwise to those unfamiliar with arbitration proceedings on Wikipedia, it would simply appear as arbitrary enforcement. Community participations are crucial to these proceedings, and if the committee and the clerk team are starting to micromanage every arbitration page in a heavy handed manner (such as absolute conformity of section headers, like seriously?) without adequate communication, it discourages members of the community from participating further, and reduces the effectiveness of the committee from reaching informed decisions.

And these "rules" that are "documented prominently" are randomly put in pages where the committee decides to put with no explanations given initially, and they are not spelled out explicitly in any policy pages at the moment, which I believe is what is saying; so you may want to withdraw your "disingenuous" accusation, as that is not the example of good faith as required by WP:ARBCOND, and comes off as rather ironic as we have only recently concluded another case centered around civility. Alex Shih (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
It's a rule designed to stop people from talking to each other, or at least significantly interfere with their ability to do so. I don't know why you'd want to do that on a collaborative project. – Levivich 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As I am demonstrating here, it is now difficult for any reader who is reading this page to know whether the "I agree with Levivich" responses of other editors apply to my entire section, or just the first point above. You have to compare the damn timestamps to figure that out. This inhibits communication and understanding, not just for editors, but also for arbs.

Another problem is that we cannot create section headers for topics, to discuss different issues separately. So anyone wanting to now reply to just this second comment of mine, has to say something foolish like, "Regarding Levivich's second point", and in a few more comments, we'll have, "In response to Joe's third reply to WBG's second response to Levivich's fourth bullet point...".

If we want to get all bureaucratic about this, we can start an RfC to amend ARBPOL with "thou shalt not section talk pages", but gee it'd be better to just have a conversation with the arbs and clerks about it to find the best way forward.

Towards that end, I would ask the arbitrators: since the talk page sectioning policy procedure was implemented, how has it affected the quality and speed of decisions, compared with before the change? – Levivich 20:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
No, Levivich, there is nothing preventing me from talking to you, nor interfering with my ability to do so, from down here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Section:
 * Levivich, I just made a section, in contravention to the argument that one can't make a section. And if you really care, I am replying to your second comment but that hardly even matters, what matters is whatever substance there is to a comment or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Brad: Sure, the committee can decide they like long interminable back and forth, but it's difficult to see an advantage, including in surfacing what's important. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBGodric
Echo Levivich. Further, shall not be casting random aspersions laden with a bout of bad faith. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua
I agree with BeebleBrox, Gerda, and Levivich. The intent certainly seems to be to squash discussion. The effect is to make it almost impossible to determine what anyone is talking about. I certainly don't find the segmented approach an improvement, indeed quite the contrary. If EditorA says "Bluebells are bad:reason" I ought to be able to counter below, rather than start my own section with "Regarding EditorA's contention that bluebells are bad, above, ...." which requires anyone trying to read the page to scroll and search for text snippets endlessly. It takes easily twice as long per reply, and the effort increases exponentially with each reply. It's absurd. Regarding Joe's assertion that ArbCom and the Clerks have decided this - really? Because while I support their right to organize cases as they see fit, I do not recognize their right to abritrarily decide that talk pages in their demense should suddenly not work as all other talk pages throughout the project. Unless someone is violating Talk page guidelines, what is the issue? I fail to see any rationale here which makes any kind of sense. And as per others' statements, above - this isn't in policy, or guidelines, or anywhere the community can see. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 20:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add, regarding Levivich's third point fourth point, "In response to Joe's third reply to WBG's second response to Levivich's fourth bullet point...".  Yeah. That. Exactly what I was talking about regarding the exponential effort required to make sense of any reply based on how early in the discussion the original comment, and the reply in question, appeared. Killer Chihuahua  20:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
I believe the "sectioned discussion" rule originated awhile ago in the context of a few cases in which the parties were having difficulty in interacting civilly. The rule was created and enforced in a good-faith attempt to keep the arbitration pages useful, not to impair discussion on these pages. Nonetheless, in my opinion and experience it has sometimes had the opposite effect. In particular, in cases with substantial community interest, a page can grow to a large size. It then becomes difficult to make a new comment in a section near the top of the page noticeable, and important points can be missed, including potentially by the arbitrators. For this reason, without endorsing any of the comments (here or elsewhere) imputing intent to anyone, I would urge a reevaluation of this procedure, or at least perhaps using it only in specific instances where it proves necessary. (It may, however, also make sense to table this issue until January and let next year's Committee address it, especially since the impending Israel-Palestine review case may be one in which sectioning the discussion does make sense.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
The intended point of PD talk pages is only for individual editors (principally parties) to bring matters relating to the PD to the attention of the Committee. It isn't intended to be a space for community discussion about the case, or the background to it, or anything else. IIRC sectioned talk pages were first introduced (or at least an early use was) for a case during my tenure on the Committee (2015), where parties to the case (possibly Gamergate or Lightbreather, but I haven't checked) were seemingly incapable of sticking to the point and not carrying on the dispute that was being arbitrated. Making it hard to have conversations was part of the point and generally it worked at reducing the disruption.

If committee members were to float ideas and put early drafts of the PD in the workshop stage then most of the commentary currently on PD talk pages could go there, where the structure better allows for it. Sectioned comment on the PD talk page would therefore not be anywhere nearly as often desirable.

All that said a space for general constructive community comment on the case, that is strongly policed for on-topicness, civility, personal attacks (and attacks against the committee), and other disruption, is probably a good thing to have. The PD talk page is the wrong venue for it though - it should be a space that the committee are encouraged to read but not required to read - anything essential to the proposed decision should be concisely addressed to the committee on the PD talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

statement by WereSpielChequers
I have no strong opinions as to whether in your part of the wiki you have a different way of organising talkpages or not. But If you are going to have a non standard setup please use edit notices to inform people rather than hiding comments at the top of the page. Once a page runs to the sort of size your pages do, it is a reasonable expectation that a lot of people reading and commenting in one section won't remember some formatting comment at the top of the screen, they likely haven't even seen it. But they will see an edit notice, even if they are editing the fiftieth section on your page.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky Caldron
It helps to minimise edit conflicts and outdents. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2019 (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.

Threaded discussion and section headers on Arbitration talk pages: Clerk notes

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



Threaded discussion and section headers on Arbitration talk pages: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This isn't a unilateral action by the clerks, it's something that the clerk team and ArbCom has agreed upon. The reason we like sectioned discussion is that arbitration talk pages are supposed to be there for editors to offer input that helps arbs reach a discussion. They're not for general running commentary on the case. It doesn't stop people replying to each other (we have pings now), but it discourages long back-and-forths that have a tendency to stray off-topic and in any case are a chore to read for those of us that actually have to read them.
 * This is no different how, elsewhere on wiki, someone requesting an RfC can set the structure for that discussion, or how all sorts of other processes have their own special formats. The policy basis for clerks enforcing that structure is WP:ARBPOL, The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages. We could easily add something about sectioned discussion to the clerk procedure page if that's helpful, but the fact that it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy. Frankly I think it's disingenuous of to describe these as unknown rules based on invisible criteria: the rules are documented prominently at the top of every page we decide to apply sectioned discussion to, which I'm sure he knows. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The format of a talk page is not policy. It doesn't have any effect outside of arbitration proceedings. ArbCom is responsible for formulating its own processes and procedures under the arbitration policy. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Our policies really only go as far as saying "clerks are responsible for maintaining order at arbitration talk pages" but don't really delve into how they can or cannot go about doing this. While I do think it's within both reason and policy for arbitrators to ask how discussions in arbspace be organized (and for clerks to re-organize as needed), it sounds like it's worth discussing whether this practice ought to be used (and when). If people are finding it hard to navigate, then we should weigh its benefits as far as preventing disruption against that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but I sometimes struggle to keep up with absolutely everything said on the case talk pages. I have no problem with people discussing the issue between themselves. In fact, it is probably helpful for the community to do so. I just cannot promise I will be able to read and follow the full exchange between two editors who are going back and forth. In that way, I found the section discussion helpful at the PD in particular in the same way case request statements are segregated. If the community does not feel it is the best way for them to be engaging on cases, then I am fine with going away from editor sectioned discussion. Mkdw  talk 18:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sectioned comments were also supposed to make it easier for the committee to read comments directed at them (from the community) and then to reply directly back. If the community wants replies to their questions or comments in a separate section, I do not care as long as it is easier and makes sense. I would want to hear from others if they in fact want that as I have never heard anyone (before your comment now) suggest that receiving responses from the committee in their section was an elitist action. I actually would have assumed the community would want the committee to respond directly in their section (in a discussion format between them and the committee members), but I am not opposed to halting that practice if people do not want it. Mkdw  talk 18:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * One of the roles of clerking is ensure that discussions do not get out of hand and allows people to contribute to those discussions. One of the tools available to clerks in managing that role is the implementation of sectioned discussion - which allows easy discussion with arbitrators and less easy but still possible discussion with other parties (thanks to the ping system). It's not needed in every case, and perhaps it's been used a little too much recently - something I think the committee and clerks should be aware of going forward. WormTT(talk) 09:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do not think a formal ruling or motion is required, I take on board Beeblebrox's concerns. We should be more thoughtful about the disadvantages of the "no threads" rule.  In cases where fully restoring threaded conversation would be inappropriate, the committee should look at less obstructive formats.  For example, we might keep "no threads" but introduce the ability of seconding statements more clearly (eg with a "Users endorsing this statement" sub-section).  Or we might try having the talk page mirror the proposed decision, so that comments are more clearly associated with the text arbitrators are considering – and so that superseded discussions can be safely ignored.  While there is scope for flexibility, I am okay opposing going back to free-form talk pages if it comes down to it.   AGK  &#9632;  20:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers
Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Base, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election.


 * Enacted CodeLyoko  talk  10:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) Proposed. Standard procedure for the election. Rights will be removed after the election is certified. Katietalk 22:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Mkdw  talk  22:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) If there is a later personnel change (one happened last year), as this is drafted we will need to vote again on issuing the permissions to any new steward.   AGK  &#9632;  06:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Requests#RHaworth
Arbitration/Requests

What are we waiting for, a dual committee pile on? Govindaharihari (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The committee resolves certain logistical issues before directing that a case be opened; in this case, those logistical matters took a few days to discuss, reach consensus, and approve. The case should be opened within the next day. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detail/update Kevin. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Query on evidence limits
Could someone please provide me an example of how the evidence limits on involved parties work for the case of years-long, protracted disputes extending across many issues, editors, and pages? To what extent have word limits been relaxed in the past? Has there been a case, specifically, where involved parties have been allowed 3,000 words of evidence (example, at least 15 different issues requiring about 200 words each)? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the purpose of the evidence limits is to encourage parties to be succinct and limit themselves to the most pertinent examples and diffs. It shouldn't be necessary to submit 3000 words of evidence to reach a fair and just conclusion. Without knowing the particulars of what you are planning to submit, I would encourage you to start with the most relevant information, and if you need an extension, please ask. As far as the history goes, I found a case from 2004 which already employed the 1000 word limit, but where one of the parties submitted over 11,000 words of evidence. As you can see, it's quite unwieldy. –  bradv  🍁  18:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale Original Ban Appeal (January 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) First modification (16 July 2018)
 * 2) Second modification (18 January 2019)
 * 3) Clarification (10 February 2019)
 * 4) Fourth modification (16 July 2019)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * First modification (16 July 2018)
 * Above


 * Second modification (18 January 2019)
 * Above


 * Clarification (10 February 2019)
 * Above


 * Fourth modification (16 July 2019)
 * Above

Statement by Crouch, Swale
Replacement of the blanked article creation restriction and 1 a week at AFC with the ability to only create current (and recently abolished) civil parishes, recently meaning abolished in 2000 or after. A list of such can be found at User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes, note that it lists about 717 but some are alternative names of settlements and probably don't require separate articles from the settlements so the number would probably be less than 700 so I would be creating about 4 a day which would be plenty few enough to be able to add meaningful content to each. There is also 23 missing welsh communities (the equivalent in Wales) at User:Crouch, Swale/Communities and 3 unparished areas listed at User:Crouch, Swale/List of unparished areas that are included in this request. I also request the removal of the page move restriction but that should be with a 1RR or 0RR restriction. I also request the ability to create redirects and DAB pages. As with the geographical NC ban lift these should be lifted with a condition that if there are problems they can be reinstated in the next 6 months, in addition all the creations can be speedily deleted (providing they don't have substantial edits from others) and the moves be reverted with a bot if there are serious concerns. The reason these should be removed is that I have had a 100% success rate at AFC (one was declined but shortly after accepted when I discussed with the reviewer). I also haven't had many requests at RMT contested and have also received a barnstar for my work with disambiguating 3 digit numbers. I understand that I have had competence problems in the past but I have clearly demonstrated that these restrictions are not needed and reflect my behavior years ago rather than today. So can I please have 1 chance see if these are indeed not needed. Similarly I have been allowed to create other pages since February but not one of the categories has been deleted or even questioned out of the hundreds that I have created.

If you think something else is better I'll provide a list of options below:

With the article creation restriction:
 * A, remove completely
 * B, only allow BUASDs, civil parishes and DABs/redirects
 * C, only allow civil parishes and DABs/redirects
 * D, only allow settlement civil parishes (those are in bold on the lists)
 * E, only allow a certain number of articles (in said classes) such as 1 a day (30/31 a week, 365 a year) and DABs/redirects
 * F, only allow DABs/redirects

With the move restriction:
 * A, remove completely
 * B, remove with a 1RR (or 0RR) restriction
 * C, only allow a certain number such as 1 a day (30/31 a week, 365 a year)
 * D, only allow moves from "Foo (qualifier)" or "Foo, Qualifier" to "Foo" (in most cases this is impossible since something will be at "Foo" anyway).

I still think C with the creation restriction and B with the move restriction is best but if you think we can remove altogether that's great and if you really think tighter than proposed but still looser than current then that's better than nothing. Note that I have looked into having parishes created by bots but I haven't got anywhere with that because I have been unable to put such a suggestion in a way a bot operator can interpret. If such a bot request was successful then that would drastically reduce the number of the (around) 700 needing creating to probably more like 20. If you have any suggestions or questions please do ask/suggest rather than just declining, thanks.
 * see South Huish, Risga and Fulford, Staffordshire for example (all were in my user space).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * as I have explained these are my primary interests on WP so the editing restrictions are a huge problem for me and expecting 6 months is way more than enough time and if you don't want any more appeals you could !vote A A which would mean no more appeals would be needed. I have considrably tightened up my quality and inclusion criteria for articles. See Make stubs and WP:NNH #Focusing on particular processes. As noted if these had have been created by a bot in the early days of WP there would be no basis to delete them, if I didn't have these restrictions there would probably never be consensus to implement them today. Creating around 4 a day would surely work fine and is fully compliant with WP:STUB.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * see the contributions to the 3 digit number disambiguation as well as many other contributions to disambiguation outside UK geography. User:Iridescent civil parishes are notable per WP:GEOLAND and as noted at Talk:Castle Hill, Suffolk that unlike ward boundaries they tend to be stable for long periods of time and correspond to natural boundaries. Most CPs have parish councils so are likely to be known by people there anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * those 3 articles surely contain more than enough content and sources to be acceptable. Fulford and South Huish are about both the villages and parishes. For both cases other than "Malborough With South Huish Church Of England Primary School" all of the features are either in the villages or their parishes. This is standard and normal (take a look at municipalities accross the world or other WPs) Halvergate includes Tunstall for example. Ingatestone and Fryerning is an article about a parish containing 2 settlements, Ingatestone and Fryerning.

I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography about this, there was a previous thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 18.

There is still the move restriction (and similar) that I can appeal, any thoughts on removing that?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * of course I appeal my restrictions every 6 months, which is unfortunately the minimum amount, if we're really not prepared to lift much even after that long wait. It should be more like every 2 or 3 months.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * as noted most of them do indeed have articles and as noted I have now accepted that there are cases where the CP name is an alternative name of the settlement and thus should redirect to the settlement. We have consensus over the years about the others that do currently exist (the 93%) and WP:GEOLAND that says that they should exist which will deal with most of those that don't exist yet.
 * This would be the 2nd chance at creating articles at a faster rate than before. Wouldn't PamD's suggestion of 1 article a day be slow enough so that I can add the other relevant content (other than just the standard such as location, population and name origin). And as noted if there are significant problems I've suggested allowing all the article creations to be allowed to be speedily deleted. Isn't that enough of a precaution? And the request isn't solely about mass creating articles, its also about lifting the page move restriction, which I have suggested with a 1RR (or 0RR) restriction plus that like the article creation restriction that the moves can be mass reverted.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now created User:Crouch, Swale/Settlement parishes which lists current (and recently abolished) CPs and communities that are Ordnance Survey settlements too so failing the suggestion of creating 1 a day (or similar) for all current or recently abolished CPs we could allow only settlement CPs. So if we don't accept that CPs are automatically notable then we could try only settlement CPs, thoughts? The amount missing is 104 so that would to 0.571 articles per day over 182 days, I'm not sure how we would do that but it seems sensible.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * there are quite a few at User:Crouch, Swale/CP blacklist that are actually alternative names so the number to actually create would probably be more like 600 (so more like only 6%) and yes you're right that I don't intend to create stand separate articles when the settlement and CP have the same name (except in cases like Scotforth where the CP doesn't include the settlement) and Category:Civil parishes in Cumbria and Category:Civil parishes in Lancashire show many that aren't settlements. I've spent 2 years editing without the ability to create large numbers of articles, and User:KrakatoaKatie please read the comments made by the other 2 editors above, there is some agreement about loosening these rather than just declining.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  11:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * largely the same as Ingatestone and Fryerning, the 2 former parishes should contain info specific on them while info that relates to both (such as the current parish council) and future population figures should be in the "Abdon and Heath" article. See Nuneaton and Bedworth as an example of a district that was formed from 2 unparished areas (the areas of the former Municipal Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban District). Info that relates to the entire district is included there but things specific to either of the 2 unparished areas are included in those articles (or a more specific article still) but in some cases material can be briefly summarized in the current CP article.

Statement by Iridescent
I would also like to see some indication that the creation of ~700 new stubs in this topic area is desirable hits it on the head. In two months it will be 20 years since the founding of Nupedia, and England is not some obscure country where we just haven't got around to full coverage yet. Modern-day civil parishes are a virtually meaningless level of minor bureaucracy which the overwhelming majority of people aren't even aware exist. If you've managed to identify 717 places in England which aren't the subject of articles it's almost certainly the case that an article isn't appropriate, and if you think there's a genuine purpose in creating one article, let alone 700+, the onus is firmly on you to explain why it's necessary we do something nobody has thought worth doing for two decades. The fact that you've repeatedly failed to grasp the point that WP:BOLD isn't a blank cheque and that it's up to you to gain consensus if you want to make a significant change is the reason you keep getting into trouble—there's no indication that anyone other than you has ever thought that separate articles for parish councils is a sensible idea. &#8209; Iridescent 20:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Crouch, Swale)
I've just looked at the three example articles Crouch, Swale links to as evidence of what they are asking to be allowed to rapidly create. Risga is about an uninhabited island \which used a mix of imperial and metric units without any conversion (while a UK reader is more likely than average to be familiar with both yards and hectares we are writing for an international audience who would find this unhelpful) and is largely a series of staccato sentences rather than flowing prose. Fulford, Staffordshire appears to be a civil parish consisting of a single village (but this is not clear from the article) and so the article (also full of staccato sentences) is really about the settlement not the parish. South Huish is an article ostensibly about the village and the CP of the same name that also includes two other settlements with articles, but mostly seems to be a prose(ish) listing of things located nearish the village or which have "Huish" or "South Huish" in the name (the second sentence of the Features section is about a school in a place the first section says is adjacent to (not part of) the parish. The remainder of the article contains facts, some interesting, but I'm not sure whether any of them relate to the village, the wider parish, or just happen to be nearby? If these are examples of your best work then you need to improve your writing skills and these articles before creating any more.

Also, as noted by many other people, you need to get consensus for the mass creation of articles first before getting permission to be the one to create them. The only discussion about this I've been able to find is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 1 by user:Morwen in late 2005, which was nothing to do with you. Indeed I see only contribution to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography by you, which was a multi-posted message about bot-creating articles about listed buildings. When I found where this was actually being discussed, it seemed you didn't really engage with the feedback you were getting.

All in all I have strongly recommend that this request is declined. I would also suggest the committee consider a restriction that prevents another appeal until after Crouch, Swale has gained consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography (or in a discussion an an appropriate alternative location that was advertised to that project) that the large scale creation of articles about civil parishes is desirable, has demonstrated the ability (within the existing restriction) to write articles about civil parishes that have good quality prose and are more than stubs. Any appeal before these have been achieved should be summarily rejected by the first arb to see it without the need to waste the time of the committee and community. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Your replies show you have not understood what people are telling you at all. There is no "time served" criterion for lifting restrictions, it is entirely about whether they are still necessary and your comments here demonstrate they are as you still do not demonstrate and understanding of why they were imposed in the first place. My comments on the articles are not about the number of sources or amount of facts, they are about quality of prose. The articles are confusing and difficult to read and someone reading them should not be coming away with the sorts of questions I did - regardless of whether you answer them or not (which you actually didn't). Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Crouch, Swale already has permission to create individual articles on civil parishes, and I agree that carefully creating articles about them is a good thing - although it is debatable whether he is doing this. This request is to be allowed to mass create several hundred articles of unknown quality. He was originally blocked for disruptively mass creating hundreds of unreferenced stubs about notable and non-notable geographical topics, and then extensively socking to get around the block and continue the mass-creation of stubs. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again you've missed the point. The issue is not whether these should be blue links, everyone (I think) agrees they should be, but whether Crouch, Swale should be allowed to mass create individual articles about all of them. SoWhy's opinion means that there is clearly, at the moment, no consensus that all of them should have individual articles (rather than coverage as part of a different article) so this needs discussion before mass creation by anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * except there aren't articles about 93% of parishes - 93% of parishes are blue links. For example the Cheddar, Somerset is almost entirely about the village with a few sentences about the Parish which also includes hamlets Nyland and Bradley Cross. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes everybody deserves a second chance, but you're missing the point. This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. There is no evidence they have understood or listened to the feedback they've been given multiple times already. This request is solely to be allowed to mass create articles, but there is no evidence the community wants (or indeed does not want) the mass creation of articles about civil parishes (independently of who creates them) - it has not been discussed so this is putting the cart first before even posing the question "do we want and need a horse and cart?", let alone procuring a horse. We all want the creation of quality articles about notable topics, but the evidence presented here is that mass creation by Crouch, Swale would not achieve that aim. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with Crouch, Swale creating articles. I have a problem with them, or anyone else, mass creating articles without discussion, and I have issue with the quality of the articles created being too low. This is very much not the right venue to be discussing whether there is or is not consensus for the creation of articles about anything, and if there is what form they should take. In this case the discussion is best had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography where there is more likely to be input from those editors who are not following the discussion about this one specific editor's appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the point is that there needs to be positivie consensus for mass creation before Crouch, Swale requests permission to carry it out. (a) and (b) haven't even been discussed yet, let alone reached consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PamD
Yes, civil parishes are a significant group of entities in England, and worthy of encyclopedia articles. I systematically resolved the red links in Civil parishes in Cumbria in 2016-17 by creating many short articles such as Preston Patrick and Kirklinton Middle. A civil parish has a population recorded in the census, usually a parish council (or occasionally a share in one with adjacent parish(es)), and a list of listed buildings (sometimes there's already a separate article about that), and has significance for its current residents, and for historians studying the area. I don't know the whole background to Crouch, Swale's restrictions, but a permission to carefully create articles on this finite set of well-defined topics seems a sensible step on the route to rehabilitation. Maybe 1/day (plus associated redirects and any necessary dab page creations) for a trial period? Pam D  18:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have just found that according to civil parish there are 10,449 civil parishes in England (as of 2015), so the 700 that C,S wants to create are about 7% of the total and if his list is all that are missing we have articles already for about 93%, so that consistency suggests that these 700 should be created. I've made Aldcliffe-with-Stodday just now as it was the only red link in Civil parishes in Lancashire (it only came into existence in 2017). Pam  D  16:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You say SoWhy's opinion means that there is clearly, at the moment, no consensus that all of them should have individual articles: on the contrary, it only indicates that the consensus is not unanimous. I think the existence of articles for 93% of a group indicates a consensus that they are notable, unless you can detect some characteristic which makes the 7% different from the others. Pam  D  23:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with Cheddar, Somerset, which covers both the village and the parish (a lot about the parish council). As far as I can see Crouch is not proposing to make two separate articles where a settlement name and parish name are the same, so I don't see your point. I took "individual" to mean "about this parish rather than just including content alongside other parishes in district article or list": are you taking it to mean "about the parish separately from any settlement of the same name"? Pam D  08:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru (re Crouch, Swale)
I have watched this form the sidelines with some bemusement, and I wasn't going to get involved because it seemed a foregone conclusion. For the record though, I completely support PamD's suggestion of a trial period. I wasn't involved in the early history regarding Crouch, and there's no doubt that his behaviour back then fully justified the lengthy ban. In the two years since he's been back on-wiki though, there is nothing to suggest a return to socking or disruptive stub creation. I have mainly encountered him at RM discussions, and while we don't always agree, he knows his sources and can make a well-argued policy-based position. If the missing parish/village articles (and nobody here has actually argued that they don't meet GNG) are created along the lines of the three articles mentioned above, I think that would be a net positive for the wiki. Sure they're short, and the prose could be improved, but Nobody has suggested they should be deleted, and as Crouch says, his AFC creations are generally accepted. The proposal by Pam to allow 1 per day, with a promise to make them substantial, not just one line stubs, and see what kind of output it produces, is an excellent one. I respect you a lot, and I voted for you in the recent ArbCom elections as the kind of quality arbs we need, but I think you've got this one wrong and urge you to reconsider. Everyone deserves a second chance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So if I understand and  correctly, their objection is to Crouch creating articles on parishes where there are already village articles in place? So to take the first example on Crouch's list, which is Abdon and Heath, this is a modern parish covering two villages for which we already have articles - Abdon, Shropshire and Heath, Shropshire. Note that this parish was created in 2017 and was presumably an amalgamation of an earlier pair of parishes covering the two villages.  what would your article for this parish look like? The above examples of South Huish, Risga and Fulford aren't indicators for Abdon and Heath, as they are also villages in their own right. I think if we can establish what form the article would take and what sourcing would be used for such articles, we could make a determination on whether it's really disruptive or useful to create them.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * of course, and I don't disagree with that, but if actually we knew in advance that (a) the articles were all clearly notable and of use, and (b) that they would be of a reasonable minimum size, not just a one-line stub, then all other things being equal I don't think we should object to such a mass creation. Obviously Crouch has history, dating back to their ban in 2011 and the horrendous use of socking that led to it, so this isn't a blank slate. And this isn't my decision to make of course. But, if I were God and I was satisfied that both (a) and (b) would be met for all the articles that are proposed for creation, I would allow them to do so. I personally think it worth our while to consider if that's the case or not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2020 (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 Original Ban Appeal: Clerk notes

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



Crouch, Swale Original Ban Appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * From your past contributions, can you point to a couple of sample articles that would illustrate the format, level of detail, and quality of sourcing of the articles you are proposing? Alternatively, if requested, could you prepare one or two in your sandbox? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Crouch, Swale has provided three examples of the types of articles he wishes to create. The question is whether creation of this type of article is beneficial to the encyclopedia. A couple of very knowledgeable editors have opined that it isn't and explained why, but I'd be interested in knowing a little bit more about this issue, such as whether any of the articles Crouch, Swale has created in userspace or draftspace since the last modification of his restrictions have been accepted into mainspace. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd firmly decline this request and would seriously consider putting some sort of restriction on the frequency of Crouch, Swale's requests. He was banned in 2011 for obsessively creating and tweaking large numbers of UK settlement artiles, leading to sockpuppetry. He was unbanned on 31 December 2017, almost exactly 2 years ago, with some restrictions to slow down those behaviours. I agreed with the unban at the time. In July 2018, he came to us to remove the topic ban, which was agreed. However, things started to speed up during 2019. In January, he requested to be allowed to create and move pages. We allowed 1 per week through the AFC process. I stated my opinion a year ago there - However, I'm not willing to endorse, now or in the near future, large creations of articles by Crouch, Swale - in other words, I do not see me voting for a wholesale removal of restrictions in the next few years. @Crouch, Swale: to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby - I have not swayed from that opinion, despite the tweak in February, the further request in July, and the request at [GorillaWarfare's page last month. Basically I've seen no relent on Crouch, Swale's behaviour. He's still not listening to advice - or rather taking a blinked approach and only listening to the advice he wants to. So, despite his insistence that it's been long enough and that I should not quickly decline, I don't agree and I believe this request should be declined. [[User:Worm That Turned|Worm]]TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm note sure how "you could just lift the restrictions and then I would not have to continue appealing them" is really taking into account what has been said. The whole point of the previous restrictions was to ensure some oversight over these creations as well as ensuring that there are not too many creations as to overwhelm the review system or recreate the problems that led to the previous ban. Going from 1 draft per week to 4 per day would be an 28-fold increase. "There have been no rejections at AFC" is not a compelling argument since that might just be the case because they are forced to take your time on each draft submitted. More importantly though, the "tunnel vision" problems mentioned in the previous ARCAs apparently persist. Appealing restrictions every six months like clockwork makes it seem that Crouchm Swale believes that time elapsed and not change in behavior is the relevant factor. What said in the July 2019 ARCA discussion seems to still ring true. Regards  So  Why  18:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also noting that just pointing to WP:GEOLAND does not address either Bradv's or Iridescent's concerns. Even if one assumed that parishes fall under GEOLAND (which is imho debatable since "places" might just refer to cities, towns etc., not administrative entities thereof), notability does not automatically mean there needs to be a separate article for each subject (see WP:N). Before any restrictions can be lifted, there should be prior consensus that creating so many stand-alone articles is desirable. I have not seen any indication for that. Regards So  Why  11:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no clear consensus on the notability of parishes in general and on whether there has to be an individual article on each parish (see Iridescent's and Thryduulf's comments). As mentions, the current restrictions are in place because Crouch, Swale has a history of mass creating articles of poor quality and sometimes questionable notability without prior consultation. I'm not against granting a second chance but imho, there should first be clear consensus that these creations are desirable before lifting any restrictions. Regards  So  Why  12:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion whatsoever on those kinds of articles. I merely pointed out that there seems to be no consensus whether the creations are actually useful and thus there should be consensus first before any restrictions are lifted. Unfortunately, Crouch, Swale does not seem to understand that there are such concerns and shows no willingness to have such a discussion before asking for restrictions to be lifted or indeed have such a discussion at all. Regards So  Why  21:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline. The point of topic bans is to encourage editors to disengage from the problematic topic area completely, and to steer them toward positive contributions in other areas of the project. Highly bespoke sanctions can sometimes have an opposite effect. I could possibly be convinced to relax these restrictions on the basis of positive contributions outside the area of UK geography, but I don't see that here. I would also like to see some indication that the creation of ~700 new stubs in this topic area is desirable. – bradv  🍁  20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline per Thryduulf. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline, per WTT. Crouch, Swale, you do not appear to understand the impact your past disruption has caused (a fact I pointed out on my talk page when you instructed WTT and I that 6 months is more than enough time). You seem to be following a tight schedule in which you are trying to whittle away at your restrictions—there is plenty of editing you can be doing while staying within your restrictions, and coming to us so regularly with requests to allow you to perform some new kind of task (in this case, one that is not clearly even wanted by the community) is quickly becoming old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read all the comments here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Crouch, Swale


Enacted - CodeLyoko  talk  21:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. (wordsmithing welcome) <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I've just spent some time reviewing all this and I just don't find the appeal compelling, for all the reasons already stated above by my fellow arbitrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Thryduulf put it well when he said, This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. There is no evidence they have understood or listened to the feedback they've been given multiple times already. Crouch, Swale, you need to spend more time editing productively within your restrictions, and demonstrate that you actually understand why the sanctions were imposed. Appealing your sanction with the intention of mass-creating 700 articles without any kind of prior consensus is not a good step in that direction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) There's a whole bunch of IDHT going on here. Crouch, Swale isn't listening – not to us, not to other editors, not to anyone. There are a whole bunch of things to do within these edit restrictions, and I want to see some evidence they've heard all these concerns and understand them before we amend the conditions further. Katietalk 01:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Per my comments above. –  bradv  🍁  21:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Not convinced that ongoing concerns are being adequately considered.   Maxim (talk)  18:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree with the others. Mass-creating articles in an area in a  situation where  there have been problems is not a good idea.  DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 9)  AGK  &#9632;  19:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Is there any way for an IP to comment?
I would like to make a comment regarding the case of currently underway, but I apparently cannot do so. I believe this may be because I am not a registered user. Is it impossible for me to make a comment on this case? Many thanks. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave your comment here and a clerk will copy it across to the main page for you (assuming its relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is my comment. If anything is deemed unrelated or unacceptable I would appreciate clarification so I can fix it.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My one and only enounter with Kudpung occurred months ago. At the time I considered discussing it at ANI but I was so disgusted that I just walked away from it. Then I saw this arbitration request and thought I would add my comment. I added a refimprove template on Baked Beans here because there were a few paragraphs, sentences, and list items that were not sourced. A few minutes later Kudpung reverted with the comment, "More than adequately sourced. Possible vandalism." Less than one minute later Kudpung left me a level 4 vandalism warning followed immediately by a two-week block for vandalism. When I suggested that the revert, the warning, and the block were inappropriate, Kudpung claimed that I was making personal attacks. I stated that I would be discussing the matter at ANI and possibly with Jimbo. About a day later Kudpung unblocked me with the comment, "Pending further investigation". I'm not sure what exactly was being investigated or what the outcome of that investigation was. Thanks for considering my comments. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 75.191.40.148, I see that you have left a message to not remove the help template but has already copied your statement to the current case request and it may be seen on the page here. Do you need help with something else?
 * Ah, thanks for telling me! 75.191.40.148 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome.

Overly Long Statements
In the Request for Arbitration concerning Kudpung, it appears that several of the statements are between 800 and 1200 words long. Kudpung's own statement is, by my count, 1037 words, but I think that it is reasonable for the defendant to be allowed a longer statement. It is annoying to some of us who have carefully kept our statements to the specified 500 words to see considerably longer statements. Since it appears that the case is about to be accepted, there is no need to do anything at this time, but in the future, could clerks please instruct non-parties to trim overly long statements? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bring this up with the rest of the committee, as I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm not convinced that our current statement length limits are as effective at improving communication as they were originally intended. While overly long statements can be difficult to get through, compressed or abbreviated statements often fail to cover the subject adequately. This may be more relevant now than it used to be as issues increasingly reach arbitration at a much later stage, and are therefore more complex. I agree with the fairness aspect of your post though – if we are going to allow long statements we need to also respect the efforts of those who stay within the limits. – bradv  🍁  01:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would suggest that increasing the word limit to 1000 words for the filing party and for persons listed as parties would be appropriate.  I think that 500 words is reasonable for other persons expressing opinions on whether ArbCom should take the case.  I also note that part of the issue is that some editors reply at length to other statements.  Perhaps an additional word limit can be provided for replies, such as 150 words for replies to each other editor, but with a note that such replies will normally be ignored by the ArbCom.  (They can be allowed only to let the editors blow off steam.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are subsequent responses to other posters, or only initial statement, counted in word limit? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  09:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently everything you say is counted in the word limit, although I don't recall them being rigidly enforced at the request stage (the evidence phase is a different matter). There was a discussion a year or two back where I proposed something similar to Robert McClenon's suggestion above (although a bit more complex as I recall), but I'm wondering now whether it would be better to just replace the word limits with a requirement to be concise, with guidance that if you are writing more than about 1000 words (as someone involved) or 500 words (as someone not involved) its unlikely you are being concise. Allow the arbs and clerks to require you to trim your statement and have a prominent statement that the committee are entitled to ignore overly long statements and will ignore statements that are not reduced on request. Alternatively, instead of fixed 500/1000 words the guidance should be that you should always attempt to make each point/response in about 100 words or fewer - this would allow those who have to respond to multiple accusations the ability to do so without hitting word limits while not permitting a single novella-sized accusation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ricky81682 unblocked (January 2020)

 * Original discussion


 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Ricky was a productive editor, and I'd be happy to see them return under the terms of the standard offer. I am confident that the "complete and utter idiocy" won't be repeated. –  bradv  🍁  15:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) The request shows genuine remorse, his editing on other projects has been positive and there were no incidents here while blocked. Also, Ricky knows he is under a microscope even if this motion passes, so I don't think we need further restrictions than those proposed in the motion. Plus, there appears to be a strong consensus here that agrees that Ricky should be given a second chance. Regards  So  Why  21:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the appeal and the input from the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm satisfied with both the appeal and the community input.  Maxim (talk)  23:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) The project will benefit. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Per comments above as well as the community input below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Support unblocking per a convincing appeal, and after reviewing the community feedback. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) I have concerns, but not sufficient to stop the appeal. Ricky, please prove me wrong. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Edit wisely, Ricky. I hope and trust in your sincerity. Katietalk 13:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) We haven't made it a formal topic ban, but I think it would be a very good idea to avoid anything to do with userspace drafts. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain/recuse


 * Arbitrator comments/discussion
 * I'm inclined to support unblocking based on Ricky's appeal below, but given that he is a former administrator blocked and desysopped under a cloud, we decided to post the motion publicly to hear any community comments first. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As "one account restriction" was not defined at the link target, I updated the wording to clarify that they may not edit anonymously. Feel free to edit further. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wordsmithed a little further to avoid repetition. And I have no idea whether they would be eligible for a rename, but I wouldn't want this motion to prevent that. – bradv  🍁  15:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Community discussion
The following is the appeal sent to ArbCom by Ricky, copied here with his permission:
 * I would like to request an unblock on English Wikipedia. I was blocked in October 2016 by Arbcom pursuant to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ricky81682. At the time, I was an administrator here for almost a decade.
 * I admit that I was sockpuppeting and trolling around with various other accounts to make a point across the project. Basically, in mid-2016, I was in some very minor disputes with other individuals here and created fake accounts that added absurdity to this. It was purely a WP:POINT violation. Before that, in the years I have been involved in the project, I have NEVER done anything like that but I admit that I typically stayed away from relatively contentious editing disputes. For some reason, the issue of userspace drafts got me absorbed into complete and utter idiocy in a way nothing else ever has.
 * Of course, when caught, I first began to pretend like it was someone else editing on my devices rather than admit fault. In complete embarrassment at my childishness, I continued to try to deny my antics until I was eventually desysoped and banned.
 * I'm aware that I have no chance at ever becoming an admin again but I would like to be able to resume editing here. In the intervening years, I have focused on simple English and Commons and focusing on my core area of organizing and dealing with categories while staying away from the kind of bizarre silly disputes that got me in trouble here.
 * I hope that my years of service to this project prior to the many month-long idiocy, combined with the years of service since then, is sufficient evidence that I understand the seriousness of wasting other people's time and energy with such nonsense and will never engage in any antics like that again. Again, I'm aware the community will likely never have the confidence in me again as an admin which I only feel shame about but I would like to be able to edit here in good standing once again.
 * Thank you very much,
 * Ricky

–&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (Is this the equivalent of the "section titled 'Community discussion'" in the scary pink warning box above? If not, please move appropriately.)  Logged-out-Ricky is community-banned too (discussion), so this isn't solely arbcom's call. —Cryptic 12:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Joe Roe renamed the section for you. As I read it, that IP range was harassing Ricky, not used by Ricky. Isn’t that right? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that IP isn't listed in the SPI. Was it later linked to Ricky? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was indeed used by Ricky - he edited a DRV logged out, and I noticed before it was oversighted that his IP was in the same range as the anon harassing him. I can go looking for the right drv subpage if someone with the special OS goggles wants to confirm that, but it'll take a while.  I'd thought at the time that the overlap was coincidence - it's a very wide range - but behavorially it's pretty damning in the context of the other socks.  (Also, it was mentioned indirectly in the SPI by User:SmokeyJoe, though as an IP it was of course not commented on by the CUs.) —Cryptic 13:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Turns out it wasn't even oversighted - . —Cryptic 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Two or three ranges of IPs were trolling Ricky. Ricky was obsessed with clearing old abandoned drafts, fast.  The IPs were countering with poorly-put counter arguments.  In hindsight they read as sarcasm directed at Ricky opponents.  At the time my suspicion was that Ricky was being trolled by a family member. There was no overt malice, but was SOCK violating and attempting to ridicule debating opponents. No objection to Ricky returning, if he stays away from abandoned drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the procedural point: although ArbCom is more reluctant nowadays to decide appeals of bans placed by the community, it still has that authority under the arbitration policy. Some long-time editors might remember the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC), which was a subcommittee created by ArbCom specifically to handle appeals of community-imposed sanctions. When BASC was dissolved, ArbCom passed a motion saying it would only hear certain kinds of appeals. No opinion as to whether the community ban falls under one of those categories, but it technically could be "solely arbcom's call". Or it could reroute that decision to WP:AN. It's up to them. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When I raised this exact same point at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315, Joe Roe was pretty emphatic that they don't have this power anymore, or at least wouldn't exercise it. —Cryptic 12:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So the community banned unnamed individuals and it later came to light that some of those individuals might have been Ricky81682? Was the amorphous ban ever converted into a named ban?
 * As to the procedural question, the Policy (ratified 2011) grants responsibilities, some of which the committee chose to download back to the community by motion in 2015. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, Ricky81682 was checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry in October 2016; however, it later turned out that an earlier ban was placed by the community in January 2016 not realizing it was Ricky81682 at the time, but later found to be Ricky81682. I don't think that the amorphous ban was ever converted into a named one; at least I haven't seen such a discussion. It's a very unusual situation, and because of that, I think the best solution is to have ArbCom decide this site-block/ban appeal in its entirety; no need to get WP:AN involved.
 * The committee still has the power to decide appeals of any community-imposed ban, but in 2015 it passed a motion to limit the types of appeals it considers (it can pass a new motion at any time to expand that scope to additional types). With that being said, this appeal does fall within the post-2015 purview of ArbCom because Ricky81682 is currently subject to a checkuser block, and I'm assuming logged-out editing is a factor in the checkuser block. I think there could be an argument to hold an WP:AN discussion on top of this, but that's getting a bit too wiki-lawyer for me. Just have ArbCom do the whole thing. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was announced at AN, and the concept of them possibly having been banned while presenting anonymously was raised early in this discussion. It seems to me the fact the unblock has received support can be interpreted as support for vacating whatever portion of the 'unnamed' ban may apply to Ricky. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember Ricky being one of the good guys prior to his dramatic self-destruct, and I for one would be happy to see him back. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 12:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (assuming this is right place to comment) - Before my time, but this seems a reasonable appeal. I can't see how keeping him out would be preventative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The name Tippopotamus (see Sockpuppet investigations/Ricky81682/Archive) does sound familiar for some reason, but otherwise I remember this case very imperfectly. The appeal inspires confidence, though, and I hope the committee unblocks. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
 * As I understand it, the Tippopotamus account was a declared alternative account; it was included in the SPI for completeness. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a very self-reflective appeal. Curiously Idon't remember the case at all, but theSO has been well adhered to, and I also hope thecommittee unblocks. ——  SN  54129  13:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well before my time, but enough time has elapsed for reflection and learning, and the unblock appeal suggests that has happened - I hope the appeal is successful. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The appeal looks appealing and with one account restriction, I will support their unblocking. They clearly need to restrain themselves though. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A cautious yes if indeed there has been no socking since 2016 and there has been constructive editing on other wiki projects.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they have been contributing to Commons, I support letting them back with the proposed 1 account restriction.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was disappointing when it was discovered that Ricky was using socks. It was even more disappointing to discover that he was sockmaster behind the IP's attacking himself. I had spent considerable effort in tracking down the IP's that were involved and proposed the ban linked by Cryptic above. Nonetheless, Ricky's service to WP prior to that insanity was already well over a decade and, to me, grants him a fair amount of good will for this appeal. If anyone is interested, I still have the page I created to log down all the IP's I could find. I went back to it and most of the IP's have not edited since the end of 2015 although some edited in 2016, but nothing later than that. I would not be opposed to Ricky being unblocked Blackmane (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I remember, I was one of the primary arbs reviewing the situation that was brought to me and I proposed some form of the original motion, or at least the idea behind it. It's been 4 years since, and with over 100,000 in contribs to other places since, I would be fine with this motion passing. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He was a good admin and also a good editor. Socking was unexpected but I see no issue now. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 03:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support People can learn from their mistakes. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Everyone can make mistakes, even incredibly bad judgements such as socking. Most of our users that sock, though, do not have the giant repertoire of positive contributions that Ricky did. As such, I'm more than willing to grant this unblock request (don't think the one account restriction will be necessary after they return either, but wouldn't be a terrible idea for them to be open to random checks of their account for the first year or so). <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unblock with a provision that all edits must be done from this account – no alternate accounts or logged-out editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors involved in the discussions relating to userspace draft are well-aware of the antics that Ricky deployed to make a WP:POINT. I, for one, do not support punitive measures and would welcome their return despite their wrongdoing — however, I would prefer if they also had an indefinite restriction w.r.t. anything related to user drafts (userspace and draftspace), until we are sure they will not go down the same hole again. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 15:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Assuming you are also soliciting community consensus to unban. Sufficient time served; I wish checkusers would have a permanent green light to make sure old tricks aren't revisited. Any next socking episode would be the last, I am sure. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Ricky was a great editor and indeed a great admin and personally I don't see why they shouldn't be given a second chance. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - As I would've expected from someone with so much experience, it's an appeal done the way an appeal should be done, and seems reasonable. Like QEDK and SmokeyJoe, however, I would've liked to see a condition (or explicit voluntary commitment) to stay away from userspace drafts given the context. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I would like to see Ricky unblocked, he is an excellent contributor and I think we need to give people the chance to come back as productive members of the project. Everyone makes mistakes (said as someone who has made mistakes in the past!) and these should not hang over us for all time. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obvious this will pass, and I don't think it will be the end of the world if he comes back, and I'm well aware that humans (especially me) are imperfect. I won't pointlessly oppose to make sure I get attention (after all, this isn't RFA). I don't even know for sure why this particular unban request annoys me, but it's probably related to the fact that it's really annoying that intentional trolling, not caring one iota about wasting other people's time, and lying to everyone's face about it is now being spun by some people here as simple "mistakes". And while I'm sure the unblock request was wordsmithed quite a bit, it still has a whiff - to me, anyway, although apparently no one else - of "this crazy topic forced me do something stupid", rather than "I consciously chose to do something stupid". I would feel slightly better if he promised not to even try to be an admin again, and promised to stay away from the userspace draft issue forever, but support is so strong here that it would probably be smarter to just ignore me and say nothing at all.  Grumble grumble. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He does mention that he knows he has no chance of ever being an admin again, and I think the vast majority of the community would agree, I certainly wouldn't ever support adminship for someone who had committed such a serious breach of trust. I see your point about the word "mistakes". It is somewhat open to interpretation. These certainly weren't things he did by accident, but rather serious errors in judgement. However I do feel that the remainder of the appeal makes it clear they understand how thoughtless and infantile this all was. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Question: learn the process that ArbCom is established
Where is the best place to find the reading material? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I take it you are asking for the arbitration policy? You can read it at Arbitration/Policy. If this is not the case and you are asking to find something else, can you please clarify? All best, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for response . To clarify, I didn't refer to the policy, I refer to the history and process that creates ArbCom. In that I like to learn the discussion why it was a ArbCom not something like a Supreme Court (how it was named), and why the term was 1 year and 2 year, elected by community etc. These are all very interesting and fascinating to me as a decentralized organization / community that we at Wikipedia come into a consensus of forming such governance process. In real life I will read Journal of the Federal Convention to learn how the structure of US is set up, and in Wikipedia I like to learn how one of the most important governance tool/branch/structure, the ArbCom, was proposed and formed. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be a wonderful source of information - even about itself. So, have you tried looking at the encyclopaedia article about Arbitration Committee and checked out the 26 references there? I suspect this might well give you much of what you seek. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , You are awesome and yeah, from where you pointed me to, I found it: the email thread that creates ArbCom.  xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yay! Great stuff. Glad to be of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee recommendations
How (if at all) are Arbitration Committee recommendations communicated to the community? —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Announcements are at Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and you are told that at Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Thincat (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for pointing be in the right direction. However, the guide for arbitration does not mention the Arbitration Noticeboard in prose. It only mentions Dispute resolution noticeboard, Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, clerks' noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard, arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and administrators' incidents noticeboard (wikilinks copied from the guide page). I've tried going the other way as well. Per Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, it is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. However, these announcements are not mentioned on the guide page either. All mentions of "statements" refer to case participants' statements, not statements from AC. Section "Decision" ends with The decision will be published to the talk pages of the participants and to the Administrators' noticeboard, and any remedies (blocks, bans, article or editorial restrictions) will take effect at that time. Perhaps, Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard should be mentioned alongside Administrators' noticeboard. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I expect you're right. Thincat (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of the Arbitration noticeboard. Would adding a separate section about the "Arbitration Committee recommendations" mechanism improve the guide? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

can someone update Template:ArbComOpenTasks/ClarificationAmendment
The current clarification request re Coronovirus and Alternative medicine does not appear on the template - which says there are no current requests, but also that the template needs updating.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 00:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar
Ilhan Omar talk page says that "a portion of the article" is under remedies given by WP:A/I/PIA. The WP:A/I/PIA says that editors with less than 30/500 edits should not participate in a RfC.

There presently is a RfC on the talk-page, with editors not fulfilling the 30/500 requirement participating, see Talk:Ilhan_Omar. Should they? Huldra (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the RfC question, which is about whether to mention allegations of an affair, has nothing to do with the ARBPIA "area of conflict". If an administrator feels that requiring extendedconfirmed to participate in RfCs is warranted, they can always do so as an WP:ARBAPDS discretionay sanction. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the votes strictly follow "the usual divide" in the IP area does not support the notion that this is unrelated to the IP area, IMO. Also, as I said at the talk page to another editor: "Do you really see this as unrelated to the fact that pro-Israeli people have tried to cover her in as much dirt as possible (just like with the rest of "the squad")? I don't." Huldra (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the details, but convince an administrator and they can take all necessary steps under the ARBAPDS authorization. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, and Huldra is implying that "pro-Israel" editors are trying to push it through as if nobody else would !vote support on the RFC. Let's not forget that the RFC is about a member of Congress and an alleged relationship with someone outside of marriage, that was covered in RS. That has nothing to do with Israel-Palestinian conflict. Not everything in the article/wikipedia has to do with the conflict, and the article itself clearly says that only portions of the article that are clearly part of the IP conflict is subject to the IP conflict DS. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ..and that "alleged relationship" is one they both denied, AFAIK. What is that for WP:UNDUE? Also, when did wp cover every allegations about extra-martial affair wrt, say Boris Johnson, or Donald Trump? Why the double-standard? To answer my own question: that has obviously to do with their political opinion, IMO, Huldra (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , You're bringing in Trump? have you seen Trump and all his articles? There are articles for almost everything Trump says or does. Furthermore, this is covered in RS. As BLP says, this is explicitly the case covered in BLP. There is an alleged relationship and RS covers it and you cover the denial. It's most certainly not UNDUE considering that there was also a business relationship and she is a member of Congress. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the IP conflict. How about you visit the Trump article and visit all his sub-articles and then come back and tell me about political bias on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * let me turn this around then: do you think those adding those allegations to the Trump article(s) are supporters of his policies? That they are totally unrelated to his politics? Because that is what you are alleging here: that when editors want to put those allegations into Ihlan Omar article, then it has nothing to do with her politics...Huldra (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , why are you trying to suppress it? Any Wikipolicies? You keep pointing to other people you keep on dropping the mirror. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's naive to think that anything negative (or positive) regarding Ilhan Omar could not also be an article of interest to anyone involved in WP:A/I/PIA-articles. The inclusion or non-inclusion of allegations should be based on policies alone. Everything else shouldn't even be part of the discussion. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for recusal
I raised a query about recusal for DGG on the case page that may have been misunderstood. Please review this query; I have highlighted a portion of my original statement in case that part was overlooked. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

ARCA archives
Where does one find the ARCA archives? I would have thought there would be a prominent link on WP:ARCA. - MrX 🖋 12:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , they should be on the talk page of the respective case. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess that makes sense. It might be a good idea to post that information somewhere on WP:ARCA. I can't be the only one who has ever tried to find a previous request, intuiting that there would be an archive listing or search capability on the page where such requests are initiated. - MrX 🖋 12:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from participating in a request where I'm a party
One of the admins who would presumably be a party to the arbitration case being requested, JzG, has just blocked me from commenting on that amendment page until 28 July. I'm calling attention to this for three reasons:

1: Virtually everyone considers me a party to the case being requested, so I think I should be allowed to participate in the case, even if I'm prohibited from participating in the article itself.

2: JzG has been deeply involved in one of the two camps (the camp that's opposite mine) on both the article and the RFC, so this is an admin action undertaken against one of his opponents in this dispute, not an action by an uninvolved admin.

3: Although there's nothing I currently want to say on that page that I haven't said already, I'd like ArbCom to be aware that if they ask me any further questions there, I'll be unable to answer. 2600:1004:B156:E839:D4E0:D0A1:9817:2017 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging for comment. –  bradv  🍁  18:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , See . This user appears to have an undeclared COI, and is in any case now blocked form editing this topic. The request is not specific to the user and the community has already decided to block the user formt he topic. Guy (help!) 20:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Beyond my Ken's comment here appears to be offering an explanation for the block, although it still isn't clear why having a COI would be a reason for me to be prohibited from participating in a request where I'm a party. There are two things Beyond my Ken is saying (or quoting from other editors) that are incorrect:


 * 1: Gerhard Meisenberg is not a colleague of mine, and I never said that he was. The only time I've ever directly interacted with Meisenberg was last June, when we discussed the problems in his biography that the Wikipedia community had failed to address, and I suggested that he raise them with the WMF legal team. What I said in my comment is that several other individuals in the field of intelligence research, who are my colleagues, are aware of the role Wikipedia played in Meisenberg's firing and are afraid of the same thing possibly happening to them. This isn't an "undeclared" COI, because I've been completely open about it ever since I first became involved in the issue a year ago.


 * 2: Meisenberg is no longer a director of the Pioneer Fund; he retired from that position several years ago. The statement that he is currently a director of the fund is one of the false statements in his biography that he raised with the WMF legal team, and his message to the legal team included tax records demonstrating that he no longer holds that position. The statement in his biography that he is currently a director of the fund is cited to an article published in the New Statesman, but this part of the New Statesman article is based on outdated information.


 * The same New Statesman article also contains several other demonstrably false statements about living people, which are currently being discussed at the RS noticeboard. But even when an article contains demonstrably false and defamatory statements about living people, as in this case, it's impossible to get a consensus to stop using it as a source in biography articles, and this has real-life repercussions for the people being written about. This is one of the one of the underlying problems that I had been hoping ArbCom could address.


 * Since I'm still blocked from participating in the amendment request, could you please copy my response above to the relevant section there? 2600:1004:B156:E839:D4E0:D0A1:9817:2017 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there something I'm missing here? The block is limited to one, single article talk page. To be technical, the block as currently worded doesn't even apply to the article itself (which is highly unusual). would you clarify that the block applies to both article and article talk, and is it a PBAN (limited to the one page) or a TBAN (from the topic). I ask because a PBAN allows the editor to discuss the topic elsewhere, per: [e]ditors subject to an article ban are free to edit other related pages or discuss the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * JzG also has blocked me from Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, so I can no longer respond to the comments and questions directed at me there. That's what this discussion is about, not about the block from the article talk page. 2600:1004:B156:E839:D4E0:D0A1:9817:2017 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The block didn't apply to the article (mainspace) because that would have been redundant. The article is already semiprotected indefinitely. El_C 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, forgot about the article protection since only admin protects prevent me from editing pages nowadays.  I've found the block that the IP is talking about. It doesn't show up in the IPs block log because it's a rangeblock. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire /40 range was blocked because the IP changes with almost every edit they make. El_C 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration is my last resort (and the last resort of the people affected) to address the BLP issue I've described, so I'm counting on you to exercise good judgment about it. I know my own behavior hasn't always been helpful, so if the long-term BLP issue can be resolved, I'll accept my block from the article talk page without a complaint.

If there truly is nothing that can be done about the BLP situation, I'll (reluctantly) accept that answer as well, as long as I can at least be given a clear answer about why it isn't possible, that I could share with any researchers who raise this issue with me in the future. 2600:1004:B156:E839:D4E0:D0A1:9817:2017 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

New Pagenotice template needed for articles not fully within Arbcom Sanctions
Currently, there are pagenotices that say "this article is under Arbcom sanction, you need to be logged in and you can't edit unless you are 30/500, etc." However, the talk page notice has been updated to one where it says "PART of this talk page is under DS and you need to follow the rules, etc." when only part of the page has been placed under DS and not the whole page. Also, the current pagenotice, links to the old talkpage alerts, and other stuff. How do we go about making a new pagenotice and one for a partial pagenotice so that it's clear that any one can edit the page, only they can't edit when it's within the Arbcom sanctioned area, aligned with what the talk page notice says? See for example the talk page and pagenotice at Ain_Jalut. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * never mind, it's already there. For those wondering the option is |relatedcontent=yes parameter to the existing template. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Casenav issues
The current version of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision looks like Casenav has run into some issues. I apologize for not having the time to look into it any further, but I thought someone might want to know. There haven't been any edits to the template since September 2019, so I'm not sure what went wrong... Enterprisey (talk!) 08:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The template just calls data from Template:Casenav/data for active cases. For closed cases, the data should be added manually to the casenav template used on the case since it no longer needs to dynamically change. I'll drop an email to the clerks to fix this. Regards So  Why  08:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020
Please change X"Ashley Bratcher is an American actress and anti-abortion activist" to Y"Ashley Bratcher is an American actress." Ashley is not an activist. She is an actress with an opinion. Actresses who have been far more vocal in their "activism" are not labeled as activists, notably those who are outspokenly pro-choice: See pages for Alyssa Milano, Busy Philipps, and Michelle Williams for reference. The label is misleading, unfavorable, and biased. The aforementioned actresses are not described as activists; nor, should Ashley Bratcher be. 99.87.245.141 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Index of Principles
I generated a list of the past ~11 years of Principles. It's not curated, not topic-sorted, and quite repetitive, but I think it still might be useful. Would it make sense to move it to the project space and add it to Arbitration/Index? (Posting here because the talk page for /Index redirects here.) --Yair rand (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with you that User:Yair rand/ArbCom principles should be linked from one of the indexing pages. Just now I looked up the 'Accuracy of sourcing' item. (I was looking for 'source falsification' but it turns out that's never been made into a named principle). EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay then. ✅. --Yair rand (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ARCAs take too long
Apologies if this is not the right place to raise this. I've noticed that ARCAs seem to regularly take longer than full-blown cases to resolve. They last for months and months; and not just this year, but last year, too. I thought ARCA was supposed to be lightweight and faster than a full case? One thing I notice is that full cases have public deadlines, but ARCAs do not. Should we add a deadline to ARCAs? Like, 7 days for statements, 7 days for Arbs to weigh in? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As a participant in a current case filed last winter and still ongoing as summer approaches, I have first-hand experience with this. I agree with Levivich that this process needs to be limited to a reasonable timeframe. His simple proposal is a sound one, and I urge that it be adopted as quickly as possible. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a frequent observer of the public arbitration process due to my role, the trickiest ARCAs take a long time because they're not particularly urgent but still take a lot of time and effort to resolve. Members of the Committee have limited time and a long list of priorities that rank above ARCAs. I have been doing my best to periodically remind arbs of open proceedings but I entirely understand why there are some areas that are often backed up. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me preface my remarks by saying I agree, they do take too long. However, I don't think hard deadlines are a good solution unless we change other things in the process as well. Full cases have drafters and clerks assigned to them, they co-ordinate the case and keep it moving, or extend the deadlines if that is needed. ARCA doesn't have any of that, and I'm not at all sure how it would work if it did. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It could work like this: give arbs some period of time (two weeks?) to (1) weigh in, (2) say they're not going to weigh in, or (3) say they will weigh in but need more time. Any arb who hasn't said anything is assumed to be in category #2. Action on the ARCA can be freely delayed for anyone in category #3. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm of the mind that less "paperwork" is better. Clarification shouldn't take long - after all, we typically go there for clarification of their remedies or DS. Amendment may take longer because they may need to restructure/rewrite/modify something - not unlike when I proposed arb recognition of the DS aware template at the top of our user pages. Our tech gurus actually did the template work after the Arbs finally passed it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 01:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Fast track the DAILYMAIL issue?
In summary, I think the process of both forming and expressing the consensus of DAILYMAIL has been thoroughly tainted by totally unacceptable conduct, to such an extent that there isn't even any point in pretending this is not already a matter for the Arbitration Committee to resolve, even if that might technically be an impproper act of queue jumping.

I had a hunch that arguing the Daily Mail had not been given a fair shake by Wikipedia would be a tough road on Wikipedia, but even I was amazed to see that gaslighting and censoring was the immediate go to reaction to my efforts.

This is unacceptable. My points are perfectly valid, they deserve to be considered properly, even if they may not be entirely original, and in not doing so, specifically in the manner they are preventing it, the Wikipedia community is effectively proving my suspicions correct.

I have absolutely no confidence that if I raise the gaslighting and censoring as issues for dispute resolution at any stage lower than this Committee, that I will get anywhere at all, because the people doing it are apparently the very same people who would be passing judgement there too, namely Administrative users. I fear that I would be blocked well before I had crossed all the required bridges. I may even be blocked for this simple request, even though it affects nobody who is happy to ignore it as the ravings of a mad man, who knows.

If it is true that issues put before this Committee are the first and only time it is not just expected, but required, for people to prove their claims with evidence, if this is the first and only time where popular opinion won't come into it at all, then is it at all possible to have the issue of DAILYMAIL be considered without all the required prior steps?

Before anyone says it, perhaps as a perfectly innocent reply rather than just more of the same gaslighting, I am well aware the DAILYMAIL issue has had wide participation from Wikipedia editors. But when you're not even allowed to stand behind a true fact, even as a minority of one, such is the apparent fear it induces that pulling at that thread might make the whole thing fall down, even that doesn't mean a decision is right, much less is consensus.

Brian K Horton (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(I wrote this before I realised Newslinger had asked for me to be banned, which, if he succeeds, will rather prove my point I think). Brian K Horton (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration Committee does not settle good-faith content disputes between editors. The decision you are referring to was a community request for comment – see WP:DAILYMAIL. Editors are expected to abide by the results of community decisions, and not to cause disruption due to disagreements. – bradv  🍁  17:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding time wasting.
The current case is a perfect example of why there should be a means of short-circuiting a case without the need for the usual arbmaj. I have no idea how this could be achieved.By means of some kind of box-check plus link that has to be provided in order to save the page, perhaps? Or a mandate that no ANI link=no previous attempt at resolution, so can ne archive immediately by a clerk.Obviously, it couldn't be automatic; obviously some cases have to come straight here without stopping at Go.Maybe something akin to CSD perhaps, whereby the principle that "If you have to stop and think, it's probably contentious" applies. But cases like this are simply going to waste everyone's time. Loads of people are going to turn up and say the same thing when the result is a foregone conclusion, and X-amount of arbs are going to have to give their already limited time to this rather than, say, that thing that lasted three months. —— Serial # 11:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's probably not the most well-documented, but we already have one. The clerks can remove "frivolous, meaningless, or obviously premature cases" after confirming with an arb. See Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , heh, that'll teach to try and second guess the committee...still, I suppose that means all they need is a word from you an arb then. Thanks for the info! (Actually, I'm surprised at the dearth of short cuts on that page, considering the important points it makes, but that's irrelevant right now.) Cheers,  ——  Serial # 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (Thinking aloud, in this context, would probably work...  ——  Serial # 11:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC) )
 * I was expecting the first arb or clerk to see the request to revert. But comments from others probably made it practically impossible. So, now we have to go through the motions, counting declines. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think procedure would still allow it to be speedily declined if desired. Side point: the community should choose not to comment on frivolous matters with greater frequency—let them wither up on their own. isaacl (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightbreather Unban
There seems to be something hinky with the close statement on this. The draft notice says "Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban Lightbreather (talk · contribs) has been closed as unsuccessful. Lightbreather may file another appeal to the committee in six months' time." With (as I read it) 8-2 Support. The close statement says exactly the opposite: "Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The following remedies of the Lightbreather arbitration case are rescinded: site ban (4.3.1)". Ideas? AKAF (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Following a successful appeal ... text is the original motion that then proceeded to be discussed. When that discussion concluded, the result (Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban...) was posted. The former, see, was what was being suggested; the latter is what actually happened. (Non-arb comment, of course) All the best! ——  Serial  11:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed supplemental anti-harassment RFC outline
Regarding this request here is a more thought-out proposal for a supplement to the Anti-harassment RfC. Please let me know what you think of it.


 * Problems
 * Taxonomy of harassment issues (controversies)
 * (e.g., religious, ethnic, national, political, economic, medical, scientific, personal, etc.)
 * Manifestations of harassment on Wikipedia
 * (e.g., WP:TAGTEAM, etc.)
 * Specific instances
 * (description of harassment issues which respondents feel have not been adequately addressed or are ongoing issues affecting accuracy)
 * Solutions
 * Brainstorming constructive solutions
 * (Proposals in this section are not put forward for consideration, but only alternative proposals and constructive criticism (e.g., "yes, and....") is allowed.)
 * Example proposal: Requiring that the Terms of Service include a Code of Conduct with friendly space provisions
 * Example proposal: Petition for remedy of repeated paid advocacy: report card on enforcement progress?
 * Example proposal: WikiProject-specific academic partnerships for studies of bias
 * Example proposal: Ask Foundation to commission independent studies of bias on specific controversies which have resulted in or are resulting in substantial harassment.
 * Example proposal: Sanctions for specific behavior or patterns of behavior which perpetuate bias
 * For consideration
 * Proposal A: _____
 * Discussion, including critiques of a not necessarily constructive nature (e.g., "2nd choice," etc.)
 * [Support/Oppose/Neutral etc....]
 * Proposal B....

I hope this is what you want. If not, please let me know here. I will check back in at least a few days before I make an RFC out of it, and I encourage any arbitrator or clerk to preempt me if they want to. EllenCT (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, a lot of what you're discussing is out of scope of the RfC itself and should be brought up at alternate venues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Harassment solutions is open. EllenCT (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020
I want to complain against all the leading sexuality and lgbt related editors in english wikipedia for doing partiality in lgbt related articles and using and interpreting the policy partially in different cases. They allow homosexuality of ottomans in LGBT in Islam article but they does not allow sodom and gomorrah and lot in homosexuality article, they allow pro-LGBT view of Sigmund Freud, but they does not allow anti-LGBT view of Freud, it seems that they are deliberately advocating pro-LGBT views rather than maintaining policy and neutrality properly, wikipedia arbitration should deeply investigate this corruption. 103.67.157.117 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I realize you can't edit the main request page as an ip, but this you can still view the source and copy the format for filing a case request. If this were posted to the main request page it would speedily declined as being hopelessly vague and incomplete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: North8000

 * Original discussion

Initiated by North8000 at 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756686514#Motion_regarding_North8000


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756686514#Motion_regarding_North8000


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756686514#Motion_regarding_North8000
 * Remove all restrictions. I believe that the older case restrictions were replaced by incorporation into this, but if not, then them too.

Statement by North8000
Request for removal of older Arbcom-placed restrictions.

I have topic bans on tea party movement, gun control, the homophobia article, and post 1932 american politics and a limitation to one account. Most of my restrictions originated in the 2013 tea party movement 2014 gun control cases and the newest (american politics) was placed in 2016 as a sort of “add on” condition when I came back. All were appeal able starting in mid-2017 but I’m just first asking now. I learned and wiki-evolved an immense amount from the entire process, as well as from time and experience. The newest event that any of these were based on was over 6 years ago.

Since (2016) I’ve been active in Wikipedia in wide ranging areas with an additional 12,000+ edits (now 53,000+ total) in article creation & improvement,  GA reviews,   helping folks out,  and very active at NPP / new article curation, policy and guideline page discussions and a range of other areas which provide a diverse “proving out”. . This has all been with zero issues and zero drama of any type. This has not been due to any of the restrictions, it’s just how I roll throughout that period and now. I’m requesting that you remove of all of the restrictions to give me a clean slate. The “clean slate” aspect is more important to me than any restrictions in particular. Thanks for your consideration and of course I'd be happy to answer any questions.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

responses

 * I've treated libertarianism articles as political science, not American politics. That was not an edit war, and Davide King and I respect and compliment each other and value each other's presence and he has thanked me I'd estimate 40 times for my edits. The extraction and characterization of this as something else says much.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Black Kite and others; my view and basis then was that phobia means phobia and that anything else was a then-neologism. But I left voluntarily and never went back even when my promised 1 year was up and no longer had even a self-imposed restriction. Also I no longer want to and don't participate in high-drama debates such as that. I also don't want to ever edit the homophobia article; after all of these years (that was 8 years ago) I just want to have a clean slate. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've considered it to be a mark of impartiality when, for the sake of the article, I disagree with folks who hold the same general real-world POV as my own, and that article was one of those. Also, my view would be the opposite now compared to then due to evolution in the usage of the term over the 8 years. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare On the Libertarian article, I think I screwed up, but I was treating libertarianism articles as political science rather than politics.  Also, the main discussion is at an article that is clearly about political science topic in general but then moved a bit into the "in the US article" and I followed it there and my edit was suggesting keeping it out of there, for other reasons. In hindsight it was a blunder.  Also, I still have little experience with that whole general discretionary sanctions area which defined it.  That restriction was a proposed add on when I came back which I agreed to, easily, because I never was active on such articles and so also also had no history of issues there.  I think that having such an extremely broad restriction (from everything covered by discretionary sanctions) in an area which was just an add-on and not due to past issues supports my request being a reasonable one. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee, I've not requested anyone to weigh in here; I've not even mentioned this on my talk page. I don't know the protocol for this page. I've had 12,000+ diverse edits of pleasant interactions since 2016 and would be confident of the results to ping the last 10 or 200 editors that I've interacted with.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Xeno, IMHO the common meanings are different, and also the IMO nature of what happens to those in Wikipedia is very different. If I didn't think so I would have been coming here 3 years ago.    Nevertheless, I think that following that one political science discussion when it started spilling to that so-titled artcle was a blunder.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: RFC on source reliability at RSN noticeboard. Practically everything in the US  has some connection to US politics.  "some connection to" does not equal "IS".   The RFC wording is at the top where it should be, and that was what I was discussing, and even then just on a structural problem.  The wording indicated was not it or there. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The timing of my request is a combination of "want to move towards get a clean slate/clean start" and "not in any particular hurry" and "finally got around to asking".  I have an interest in almost everything, but regarding editing articles, I have no interest in, and actually a strong aversion to participating in drama of any type. A clean slate would be a very safe and successful move. You have my word on that, but beyond my word, this has already been proven out with very active and diverse participation since 2016 with zero drama. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee and Newyorkbrad.  Anything that auto-expires to a clean slate in 6 months or a year if all goes well I'd be happy with and IMO should reassure. Like 1RR in article space and only brief light conversations on talk for everything previously under topic bans. For clarity, the US politics would be for when the topic is clearly / specifically US politics. My concern there is that it could otherwise be interpreted to include practically everything, plus I've always been active on political science articles where we have substantial friendly discussions (= not "brief and light"). Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * However, I can assure you that a simple 100% immediate removal of all restrictions would go very well, and have proven that with zero drama while being active in the rest of wikipedia since coming back in 2016. Also note that the US politics restriction was not from any of my activities, it was an "add on" when I came back. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
The committee should reject vacating North8000's topic ban on Homophobia. Although it was eight years ago, his contributions there were entirely disruptive and wasted a great deal of editor's time. There is no reason to believe that North8000 has some unique perspective or skill that will benefit this fully developed article. The risk greatly outweighs any potential reward.

At this point, I have no opinion about whether the Tea Party topic ban should remain. Regarding gun control and post-1932 American Politics, I can only say that that topic area has settled down quite a bit in the past few years as a direct result of several editors having been topic banned and editing restrictions having beed imposed on several articles. I may have more to add later. - MrX 🖋 17:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Relatively recent edit warring on an American politics article does not help the case:
 * These six edits were violations of the gun control topic ban: ; Warning:. (To my knowledge, North8000 never responded.) - MrX 🖋 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Springee
I have only limited engagement with North8000 but I've seen no issues between them and other editors. The tbans are 8 years old, if they haven't caused trouble since I think its safe to assume they have learned better ways to deal with editorial disagreements. If problems return it's not like the tban's can't be reinstated. In cases like this we should always err on the side of assuming good faith. Springee (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Follow up comment: I'm sorry to see this request has received limited comments.  Remembering that the reason why tbans are put in place is to protect Wikipedia, not as a punishment, I'm seeing a clean block history for the last 4 years.  This certainly isn't an case where one could argue blocks are obviously needed and the bad behavior continued in other parts of Wikipedia.  At what point does a protective tban simply become punitive?  What is the risk in erring on the side of unblocking?  Worst case, bad behavior resumes and the block returns.  However, if the tban is really no longer needed, if the editor really has learned from their mistakes, then this is a punitive block.  We can never know for certain what would have happened but it's easy to reverse a tban if behavior warrants.  We can't return the time an editor was tbanned if it turns out the ban was not needed.  This isn't an editor asking just 6 months after the tban was instated.  This is 44 months later and is almost certainly more punitive than protective at this point. Springee (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Newslinger, I don't see how any of those can be considered a violation of AP2. In cases where there is some level of cross over between AP2 and another topic I think context and scope matters.  For instance, an AP2 topic ban would apply to comments about Ronald Reagan's political work/life.  It wouldn't apply to comments about his acting roles.  Fox News was being questioned in part for politics but also for things like coverage of scientific topics, environmental/climate change topics etc.  None of the cited edits are specific to Fox's political coverage.  Really, I would be far more concerned if we were seeing confrontations in new topic areas.  So far we have edits that look like they are not over the line (Fox News RfC) or over the line but mildly so (Libertarian).  These are old topic bans.  Nothing shown here is sufficient to say lifting the tbans would result in new disruptions.  That should be the standard here because anything else means this is punitive rather than protective.  Springee (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

, what about a 1RR limit on the previously restricted topic areas. That generally prevents article edit issues. I'm not sure if talk page restrictions would be needed. Allow the restrictions to expire after 6 months if there are no new issues. I admit this doesn't address talk page but it would prevent article level issues. Perhaps a strict talk page CIVIL restriction on the affected topics? Springee (talk)

Statement by Black Kite
I haven't much knowledge of the other topic-bans so I'm not going to opine about them, but I would definitely oppose lifting the topic ban on Homophobia, on which North8000's 266 talk page posts wasted vast amounts of other editors' time arguing for the article to be completely re-written to include a WP:FRINGE definition of homophobia (that using the word which includes -phobia denigrates opposition to homosexuality), and accused other editors of being "activists". He eventually exhausted everyone's patience (as an example, try this conversation. It's one article, there are 6m+ others. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Newslinger
In June 2020, North8000 made three comments criticizing the highly-attended 2020 Fox News RfC after the discussion had been active for over two weeks: Fox News, which is categorized under Category:Conservative media in the United States, is a contentious subject in the field of American politics, with active arbitration remedies on the Fox News article itself. One of the RfC questions was "Is Fox News reliable for US Politics?", and the RfC had been listed under the "Politics, government, and law" RfC category. I was not aware of this topic ban when I responded to the third comment. —  Newslinger  talk   20:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Special:Diff/964433983
 * 2) Special:Diff/964434623
 * 3) Special:Diff/964616404

Statement by Tryptofish
I genuinely believe that North means well and is clueful enough not to repeat previous mistakes. Broadly speaking, I think it would be right to lift at least some of the restrictions on a trial–WP:ROPE basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re North8000)
I would change "Unless modified by further motion, the restrictions will automatically expire at the end of the one year period." to something like "Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period." to avoid ambiguity; arbcom can always modify any restriction they placed at any time, with or without explicit provision. I'd also a clause along the lines of "Any restrictions that are reimposed may be appealed at WP:AE one year after their reimposition if no alternative time frame is specified." Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you might have misread the second part of my comment? It is about restrictions that have reimposed at AE. I'm not sure what you mean with "Do you think it's better for AE to be tapped for concerns?". Basically my suggestion is:
 * Restrictions that are not reimposed at AE: Expires 1 year after this motion passes
 * Restrictions that are reimposed at AE: Appealable at AE 1 year after reimposition (unless AE says differently). Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ah the confusion is my misreading ARCA as AE - your comment makes sense now. If you're going with ARCA then the second part isn't needed. As for the actual question of ARCA vs AE, IIRC suspensions like this usually allow an individual administrator and/or AE to reimpose the sanctions if the person ends up causing disruption during the year's probationary period. I think AE is generally preferable to ARCA for speed and efficiency in such matters, so I would argue in favour of the former. If you go down that route though then venue for appeals of reinstated sanctions should be specified, but I've got less strong feelings about that - possibly allow North8000 to choose (although hopefully nothing will need reimposing and all this will be academic). Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2020 (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.

North8000: Clerk notes

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



North8000: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting additional statements; generally amenable to lifting old restrictions if it can be demonstrated they are no longer necessary. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't political science just a subset of politics? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't see how it's possible to argue that Libertarianism in the United States is not covered under the AP discretionary sanctions as a contemporary American political topic. I'm not as worried about the NRA edits because of their age, but the March 2020 breach of the AP TBAN does concern me regardless of whether or not it's edit warring. You are not restricted from edit warring on AP topics, you are restricted from editing them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still thinking about this request. I suspect that it was inspired by a request that we granted a few days ago, in which we vacated an old remedy against a user who convinced us it was no longer needed. But that request involved a single topic-ban from 10 years ago, whereas this case involves multiple topic-bans against North8000 that culminated in a ban from the entire site. To his credit, North8000 abided by the ban for years, eventually made a successful appeal, and as far as I can tell has generally edited appropriately since. I do not see the alleged topic-ban violations as deal-breakers here, but they do show that North8000 retains his interests in areas in or adjacent to those where he has had problems in the past. I wonder if there might be an alternative path forward here that would fall somewhere between denying the request completely, which would show no recognition of the editor's improvement, and granting it completely, leaving him entirely unrestricted all at once. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your analysis. I wonder if suspending the topic bans for a year would be a viable solution. North8000 would be free to edit in areas he is presently banned from; if there are problems, a report can be made to AE and an administrator can reimpose the topic ban(s) as appropriate. If all goes well for a year, we vacate the topic bans entirely.  Maxim (talk)  22:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

North8000 restrictions: Motion
was restricted by motion in December 2016 (Motion regarding North80000). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to WP:ARCA if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period.

Enacted - Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support


 *  Maxim (talk)  16:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is a good "middle road" that can allow North8000 to show they are able to avoid the mistakes of the past while leaving a quick path back to being sanctioned should that not prove to be the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I copy-edited the motion by adding "if warranted," although I certainly hope that would have been understood anyway. I'm open-minded on whether any future issues (although I hope there won't be any) should be raised at ARCA or AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So Why  15:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With regards to question of ARCA vs AE for modifications, this seems sufficiently nuanced that ARCA felt like the best port-of-call should any concerns arise. (With thanks to for the suggestions) –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  13:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting that North8000 has stated they will stay away from the homophobia article. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose




 * Abstain




 * Discussion


 * For consideration, per suggestions of and . Tweaks invited. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I've implemented the first part. For the second part, wouldn't it need to be re-imposed at AE to be appealeable at AE? Do you think it's better for AE to be tapped for concerns? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't used AE since this is a motion, not a remedy. Would we still consider it a "remedy in a decision", and do you think AE is better than ARCA for concerns? (Essentially, there's no restrictions to violate during the suspension period except a general agreement to keep the peace, so it's a bit more nuanced and might be confusing at AE) –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

On placebos
, you are right about the impact of empathetic physicians on the psychological state of the patient, but I think you are wrong about the placebo effect. I grew up believing exactly what you say, having read Ben Goldacre and others, but the more you look at the actual studies, the more you find that the placebo effect does not have any actual objective effect. You can go right back to the study that arguably popularised the entire field of placebo studies, Henry Beecher's 1955 paper The Powerful Placebo. When you look at the data, you find that its conclusions are completely untenable (https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435697002035). Most papers pitching the placebo effect as a thing, use self-reported measures of subjective outcomes. When that's compared with objective measures, the effect is shown to be illusory. Example: "Although albuterol, but not the two placebo interventions, improved FEV1 in these patients with asthma, albuterol provided no incremental benefit with respect to the self-reported outcomes." {) As someone who has used albuterol for many years, I would say that an intervention that makes you feel as if you can breathe but doesn't actually make it so, is not a great idea.

So I am firmly on the side of Margaret McCartney (and the late Kate Grainger) in supporting both empathetic clinical interactions, and hard-line skepticism towards any medical intervention, however superficially obvious (McCartney, for example, is a critic of some screening practices, which result in many false positives, worry, and unnecessary interventions).

The problem with pseudoscience is different, though: it is the enterprise of producing sciencey-sounding research that is not designed to test whether a thing does work, but to provide marketing support for its sale. Nobody has any trouble seeing that as a problem when it's OxyContin, but when it's acupuncture they get all outraged that one is not supporting the patient's choice (a choice guided, of course, by fraudulent claims, and thus not an informed free choice in any meaningful sense). CAM is not a fad, it is a vast and extremely profitable industry, and it is quite cynically based. TCM is basically a creature of Mao, who did not have enough doctors but wanted to pretend that he had the kind of health coverage that Western nations boasted. Office of Alternative Medicine (and its successors successors leading to NCCIH) have spent several billion dollars attempting to validate alternative therapies, thus far without success. Hatch and Harkin's DSHEA deliberately tilts the playing field in favour of SCAM by preventing the FDA from even looking at a SCAM product until after it has been shown to be harmful, a reversal of the situation for reality-based medicines. I do not think there is any problem with Wikipedia coming down on the side of reality (per Jimbo's "lunatic charlatans" comment if nothing else). You could defend the lies of SCAM if it weren't for the steady stream of people who believe the hype and die of untreated cancer. The coroner's report in the case of Penelope Dingle is one of the most harrowing things I have ever read. SCAM is not a beneficial enterprise, it is commercial., Like every commercial enterprise it is there to maximise profit and markets. Some states have mandated that naturopaths, who have basically no real medical training, must be allowed to practice as primary care physicians. Same with chiropractors, who believe that all disease is a result of disturbances in the flow of innate intelligence in the spine. Same with "Lyme literate" doctors who prescribe indefinite courses of powerful antibiotics when there is no evidence of microbial infection. This is not a victimless fraud. In my view we can and should resist the introduction of claims that serve a commercial or quasi-religious agenda, when they are not objectively correct. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: 1RR requirements and enforcement (October 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Special:Permalink/820600857

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

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

 * 2018 ARCA + Motion
 * 2020 ARCA

Whilst I still have some time I figured I'd leave this with you for clarification. Over past couple months I've spoken to several admins re. DS procedures, mostly relating to my work on simplifying/cleaning up community sanction templates (speaking of, gentle query on if you've come to a decision re. my July email yet?), as I didn't want to file a dozen clarification requests. This ARCA stems from a discussion I had with El C, here. Would ask if you could read that section (& possibly see the diffs of change on the linked templates) as it provides relevant context for this question. I understand that the 2020 ARCA asked a very similar question to what I ask now, but given the confusion (ref discussion & incorrect template wording for years) I think it's appropriate to ask for a clear judgement.

In the 2018 ARCA, the Committee passed a motion stating that additional page restrictions apply to enforce 1RR. Namely, this meant that enforcing 1RR would require awareness procedures (incl alerting) to be met. The reasoning by the arbs was a strong feeling of it being inherently unfair to enforce 1RR on articles when the editor may not have been aware of this. Thus, a talk and editnotice alone are no longer sufficient.

In the 2020 ARCA, the Committee was going towards the idea of: the 1RR restriction [does not] require a formal alert in order to be enforced. After close reading of both, I can only interpret this as 1RR by case remedy doesn't require any awareness, but 1RR by DS does?

Is that a correct understanding? If yes, doesn't it also logically follow that 1RR DS enforcement may use the full, broad range of discretionary sanctions enforcement mechanisms, whilst 1RR case remedy can only use increasing-duration blocks, per ArbCom standard procedures?

My next question is, is this two-tier approach to 1RR even logical? In practice, I don't think many admins see 1RR DS as different from 1RR Case Remedy. Both types of 1RR have the same basic awareness (a large talk notice and editnotice), so it's not really accurate to think editors will be more aware of one than the other. I'd also note that it is purely admin discretion on whether an article is "within the conflict area", so 1RR case remedy is also subject to the same level of "discretion", especially for sanctions like ARBPIA and Abortion which have very broad and discretionary scopes. Thus, it seems quite illogical to treat these two 'types' of 1RR as separate. I'd imagine this two-tier approach is also likely confusing & inaccessible to many editors.
 * that I follow, which is the assumption I made in para 3. The final two paragraphs of my statement carry on from that assumption and I think those are still relevant questions to ask here, as I think they're the direct consequences of that interpretation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * so, per your comments & the first sentence of GW's comment, what is the status of non-ARBPIA4 1RR case remedies (namely GMO & abortion)? Do those require alerting to enforce, or are they the same as ARBPIA4? Also, re para4, is it correct to assume 1RR case remedies (w/o alert) can only be enforced by blocks? Would non-block enforcement actions relating to 1RR (eg topic bans, other restrictions) require an alert + DS action instead? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
DS... 🤯  - also see above. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 23:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , could the reason for lengthy AE requests possibly stem from confusing sanctions or possibly even WP:POV creep? Is it possible that an admin might be hesitant to take action against a truly disruptive editor because they are of like minds and/or have established longtime alliances in a particular topic area? NPOV is not an easy task, particularly in controversial articles. nailed it: "There is no way of avoiding a first or second advantage in all RR rules.. and DS makes the unfairness all the harder to adjust, and all the easier to perpetuate." He also made a valid point in pseudoscience that applies equally to almost all controversial topics: The "broadly construed" language though originally a good idea, is now in practice used as a device to sweep as much as possible into the same bin where arb com previously decided we need not follow NPOV, but what we think as scientists ought to be the POV. Substitute "scientists" with political party, or gamers. Behavior may be determined to be disruptive simply because it is an opposing view, keeping in mind Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Mainstream media even recognized WP's problem, and it dates back several years as evidenced in this 2008 WaPo article, a 2016 article in The Atlantic, and more recently in The Intercept, and Fox News. Why allow it to continue, and for what benefit? ArbCom has granted individual admins power that ArbCom doesn't even possess as a committee, and I'm speaking of granting irreversible unilateral actions at an admin's sole discretion. We're losing editors and are well on our way to homogenizing topic areas, which is basically what the AE Log represents to me. Maybe NPOV, V, NEWSORG and RECENTISM are what need a closer look - remove the ambiguities, tighten the policies, and enforce them. Just food for thought. Oh, and Vanamonde I want to add that I absolutely agree with your conclusion in this discussion, and along that same line, I highly commend  for his thoughtful considerations in the highly controversial AP topic areas. One last comment, aren't we glad this isn't about infoboxes? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 16:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93 (Abortion)
I was not anticipating commenting here, as the topic is somewhat outside my wheelhouse, but I'm honestly dumbfounded by 's assertion that dealing with disruptive editors from our contentious areas will be less work than managing the DS system that allows uninvolved admins to deal with them. DGG, have you looked at the AELOG lately? Most AE reports are comparable in their length to an ARCA request, and there's far more of them; not to mention the hundreds of yearly actions that individual administrators take outside of AE. ARBCOM has taken upwards of three weeks to handle one clarification request, above. How would it fare if everything currently handled under DS was thrown in its lap? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 10 September 2020 (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.

1RR requirements and enforcement: Clerk notes

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



1RR requirements and enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The 2020 ARCA was specifically in reference to the 1RR restriction in effect for the WP:ARBPIA4 topic area. In this case it is not a discretionary sanction, but a general prohibition directly authorized by ArbCom, and therefore does not require a formal alert. The 2018 ARCA, on the other hand, was about 1RR as one of the restrictions commonly enacted by administrators as part of the discretionary sanctions system. I know this is confusing, but these two discussions are about two different things. – bradv  🍁  23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To expound on this a bit further: the 1RR prohibition in effect for the ARBPIA is accompanied by a 500/30 restriction. This means that editors who do not have 500 edits and 30 days' tenure can't edit these articles at all, much less edit war on them. This makes the bar for entry to these articles high enough that we can expect people to be familiar with the restrictions in this area, and when disruption occurs it can be dealt with quickly. However, as I said at that ARCA, this rule doesn't necessitate a heavy-handed or punitive approach. A simple note that 1RR applies in this area should be all it takes to prevent a good-faith editor from inadvertently igniting an edit war, and applying 1RR to everybody, without requiring extra formalities for some, helps to keep the collaborative editing process fair and balanced. – bradv  🍁  00:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , regarding the last part of your question and your last comment, the reasons for enacting 1RR as a general prohibition for this topic area are complex, and would require a thorough reading of the related cases and amendment requests to fully understand. The simplest answer I can give is that this system is felt to be simpler and more consistent than discretionary sanctions. As I wrote above, a blanket 1RR and 500/300 restriction, together, provide a level playing field for the entire topic area, without the rules of engagement changing from article to article (as they do in, say, American Politics). While I certainly wouldn't advocate taking this same approach on every contentious topic area, there is considerable value in keeping things simple, and without evidence that this remedy is failing to work as intended I have to assume it is accomplishing its goals. It's also worth noting that the "discretion" involved here in applying these general restrictions is different from discretionary sanctions – in the case of ARBPIA articles the templates and edit notices can be applied by any editor, not just by uninvolved administrators. And the only consideration in adding the templates is that it be part of the topic area, not whether disruption has occurred or is likely to occur. – bradv  🍁  00:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ARBGMO does not require an alert for 1RR to apply, but the abortion restriction is a little more complicated (see the ARCA below). As for enforcement, blocks can technically be issued even on a first offense, but as I said previously, this is not and should not be common. Topic bans and restrictions are not enforcement actions, but are additional sanctions (a.k.a. bans), and can only be enacted under DS or as a result of a community discussion, per Banning policy. – bradv  🍁  01:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree with bradv that the 2020 ARCA was intended to address specifically the ARBPIA4 1RR, not all 1RR imposed as a result of a case. While I do think it can be reasonable to enforce the 1RR even without an explicit warning in that topic area (particularly because of the additional 500/30 restriction), I also think admins should be sure to apply common sense. As NYB and others said at the ARCA, The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Echoing what Bradv said. The topic-wide 1RR remedies imposed as a result of a case do not require the alerts that AC/DS require, but I'd expect it to be fairly rare that people are sanctioned via those 1RR without at least a quick heads up that 1RR applies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As others have noted above, it remains my strong position that an editor must never be sanctioned for violating a special rule that he or she was not aware of. Beyond that, the lack of clarity being discussed in this thread supports another strong position of mine, which is that the rules surrounding discretionary sanctions have become too complicated and confusing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no way of avoiding a first or second advantage in all RR rules.. and DS makes the unfairness all the harder to adjust, and all the easier to perpetuate. We need a new approach altogether. My idea is that the committee, which is electing to regulate conduct that ordinary admin procedures cannot handle, should do the necessary regulation of conduct rather than instruct the admins to do it a more complicated way. --It will be less work than the repeated dealing with issues such as ddressed by this request and the others requests here at the moment . Since the problems have not been solved, we are presumably doing something wrong--either we as arb com, or we at WP more generally DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the delays are because only the most complicated cases reach us. But it was not my idea that we'd take over all DS & AE requests, because with DS gone, there would be many fewer such requests--they'd be taken care of by normal admin action that didn't require arb com at all.   But I agree that a good enforcement scheme is very difficult to devise--the only aspect I am sure about is that the current one does not remotely qualify, and we need to start over.  I'm not set on my own ideas of how to replace it, though I have several; another one of them  is the rule I apply to myself in almost all disputes, that nobody contribute more than twice to the entire discussion--but this would not be applicable to friendly cooperative work, & I haven't worked out that part yet.   I recognize that almost everyone likely to come to the DR part of WP would find it quite unsettling to their usual way of working, and that would be my main argument for it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanishing
Two questions: --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can a user WP:VANISH during an open arbcom case? Should the vanishing be delayed until the case closes?
 * If a user vanishes and then continues commenting on the open Arbcom case as an IP, should they be unvanished?
 * WP:RTV is clear that the answer to both is "no":
 * It is available only to users in good standing. A user who is party to an open case or open case request is not in good standing (they are not necessarily in bad standing, and may be good in future but while it is under discussion it is not currently "good")
 * It is explicitly not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions.
 * It is only for permanent departures, "If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed." Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree that merely being a party to a case makes one unqualified for vanishing. It isn't necessarily their edits that are under scrutiny, they could be the one who brought the case to the committee and nothing more. But obviously if they vanished and then came back, as an IP or with a new username, that is an abuse of that process and they should be "unvanished". All that being said, this isn't really a committee matter, we do not control the vanishing policy in any way. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point, although I'd expect the committee to be asked whether they consider anybody listed as a party to an arbitration (request) ineligible due to current scrutiny. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally this wouldn't be allowed, but I can recall some exceptional cases where it would have been appropriate and even desirable, so I'd rather not have blanket rules on the subject. (Also, whether or not it's relevant here, please note that there's a difference between an open arbitration case and an open request for a case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In case anyone was wondering, while I was looking for a general answer to the general question, but the specific case that made me ask the question is here: --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no benefit from pursuing the infobox wars. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no benefit to ignoring them either. Probably worse actually. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG
I just came across this case in the Signpost. Regarding the question of a pattern of misconduct by JzG, Beeblebrox wrote that I feel like if there was clear evidence of a pattern of poor judgement and/or misuse of admin tools, somebody would have proffered the evidence of it during the unusually long time this request has been open.

I have some evidence of such a pattern, which I would like to contribute. It concerns an incident last month in which JzG denied the unblock request of an editor with whom he was involved in a content dispute. Since I was involved in that dispute, but not in the ones cited by MrX, I am unsure where to post this evidence. Should it be a statement in the current case, or brought to the attention of the arbitrators in some other way? Advice appreciated. Tim Smith (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Asked and answered by TonyBallioni and PaleoNeonate at User talk:Chris Langan --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think there may be a misunderstanding? I am asking where to post evidence pertinent to a pattern of misconduct by JzG, so that the arbitrators can take it into account when deciding whether to accept the current case. Tim Smith (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:RFAR, just add a new "Statement by {Uninvolved editor}". PackMecEng (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will do so. Tim Smith (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers (October 2020)

 * Original discussion

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.

Enacted - Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. This is a standard motion each year in advance of the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 20:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) –  bradv  🍁  20:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)   Maxim (talk)  20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  So  Why  08:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse


 * Arbitrator discussion


 * Community discussion