Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 17

Enacted motions from the Warsaw concentration camp case request (January 2022)

 * Original discussion

Resolution of this case request (1)

 * As amended: 20:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As amended: 20:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Enacted – Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) With half of the primary participants disengaging, and a lack of diffs that indicate where a problem lies, I just do not see any way that this particular case as requested has anywhere to go. I have no issue with a legible, rational, and well-reasoned case request being made, even if that case request is made tomorrow, but going on a snipe hunt without knowing what it even looks like is rather problematic to me. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) With thanks to NYB for drafting this in the final days of his term. See also my comments above, largely along the same lines as Primefac. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) With the other resolutions now posted, I am comfortable supporting this one. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with Primefac. While my gut says there is a problem to address, I do not see how this request translates to a case. I expect that it will be back on our doorstep sometime, though. - Donald Albury 00:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) As articulated by Primefac & Donald Albury. Accusations need to be supported by evidence, otherwise they're just personal attacks. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) While the issues presented in this case request may necessitate opening a case at some point, it is not clear to me what that would accomplish right now, especially with the number of people that appear to have withdrawn themselves from the process. Hopefully these words of advice, carefully crafted by Newyorkbrad prior to his retirement, will allow sanity to prevail. I'd like to especially stress point #6, as these disputes generally get solved by having more editors, not fewer. –  bradv 🍁  18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) The case, as presented, seems unworkable. This whole thing is a mess and this seems the best way out of it. This is not "dismissing with prejudice" and a more coherent and specific case request with better preliminary evidence could very well be accepted in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There were a lot of opinions on what this case was. Thanks to NYB for cutting through it and creating a motion. I'll vote on the modifications too - which I am making this support conditional upon. WormTT(talk) 16:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Meant to formalize this after voting on the supplementary motions. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) A full case should be opened to examine conduct in the Holocaust in Poland topic area.   Maxim (talk)   00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) At the moment it doesn't appear that the committee is going to make note of any specific misbehavior in this case beyond that of Jehochman. That behavior was definitely the worst, in my opinion, but it was not alone. And so the bst thing I can say about this motion is that the words are empty. empty. Why would anyone read this case and decide to edit in this topic area as we're asking them to? But I actually am concerned the words will not be empty. I don't think in good conscience we should urge editors with subject-matter knowledge who have not previously been active in this topic-area to do what we ask. We're urging, not just asking, urging those editors to accept potential harassment at worst and editors with battleground mentalities at minimum for the good of the encyclopedia. That is not something we should ask of anyone. We would be better of straight declining this case, and merely failing in our responsibility to the community, than to pass this motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I concur with Barkeep. Who among us believes things will improve? Multiple arbitrators have stated they believe this issue will be back before us, editors fear harassment, members of the public risk harm from BLP violations, administrators state that they are unwilling to work in this area. How is our project to function between now and whenever the perfect case request comes before us?  gives a point-by-point analysis of why this resolution will resolve nothing. In their 3 January statement,  points out how the present motions seem unlikely to resolve the underlying issues., in their 1 January statement, also points out that our motion will not do anything to actually resolve these concerns the community has brought before us. I haven't seen a statement from the community which suggests they believe this motion will help them at all.39 editors have been kind enough to opine on this case request, if we do not listen to them now why would they believe we will listen to them next time? Indeed, many editors comment on how they don't believe we listen at all, and if we lose the faith of the community our job becomes harder.  states that previous attempts at arbitration were unsuccessful due to procedural constraints and was kind enough to extensively document alleged sourcing issues which our previous case has not resolved (but like other editors, Ealdgyth states that they doubt we will look too deeply into the concerns). , a major player in this dispute, outright says he does not file arbitration requests because he does not believe we actually pay attention to the community concerns.For our focus on the mess caused by some editors, we ignore the largely helpful contributions of the community. , in their revised statement (30 December), identifies two main problems that still need resolved following the COIN thread.  articulates three potential scopes, one of which is the disruptive nature of sock pupptery allegations, another is article bias which Ealdgyth has provided evidence for. The community has considered and put forward potential scopes which can serve as the foundation for a case if only we would listen. The procedural argument for not accepting a case is that other venues have not been tried or that the identified concerns can be kicked back to AE (the present motion advocates as much), but the community is skeptical of this. In their 4 January statement, , one of our more prolific AE administrators, articulates why AE systematically fails to resolve issues relating to the APL discretionary sanctions; not simply isolated incidents, but explaining why the forum is structurally ill-equipped to handle the Icewhiz problem. For a taste of this, look at the statements by  and . Ermenrich states that they have been driven away from the topic area and that the specter of Icewhiz is used to prevent actual inquiry into misbehavior, a point echoed by Calidum who points out that sockpuppetry allegations are used to dismiss legitimate concerns (see also Powera's 2nd scope idea). Pabsoluterince, in their 26 December statement, sees sufficient evidence that DS procedures are breaking down and advises we accept a case to look at conduct concerns. And then there are the battleground concerns that go back over a decade. It was a concern in WP:EEML as evidenced by principle 5, and it continued to be a problem in WP:APL as evidenced by FoF 6. Ealdgyth points to an instance in this very case request to demonstrate that "the area is so full of battleground behavior that my statements in this request that never mentioned any editors by name have been turned into me being somehow on one side." This is an issue that two prior committees and the community over multiple years have been unable to resolve. Why should I believe it will be resolved by this motion, or worse, why should I believe the community should continue to be subjected to potential disruption? I believe  sums up the problem nicely: I think this is just exhaustion on the part of the community in trying to deal with this. To me it seems clear that there is counterproductive behavior going on here, and that the community hasn't been able to figure out how to handle it. What have we done to help them?Yes, the case was started by an administrator proxying for a globally banned user, and we have rightly admonished them, but in the two weeks since the case was started dozens of community members have come to us with broader concerns about how our previous interventions have been at best ineffective and at worst systematic failures. And these are only the public statements and evidence on this request page. The community is exhausted and losing faith in us, editors are leaving, administrators are withholding their labor, the public are writing articles on our failure, and our response is to tell the community "try harder and come back when things get worse". What would "worse" look like? I understand not wanting to vindicate Icewhiz, I said as much on the arbcom-en list a few days ago, but our first duty is to the community. Our decisions should be based on the question "What is best for the community" not "What most frustrates people expelled from our community." I believe we are smart enough to find ways around Icewhiz while still fulfilling our duty to the community. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Many words but nothing said. I don't see how this is any better than straight up declining. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I still agree with the motion in principle, but am moving to oppose as I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. WormTT(talk) 10:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Substantially in agreement with Barkeep49. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Per the well-written comments by Barkeep49 and Wugapodes, and because I did say I'd focus on harassment in my candidate statement. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * For the record, this was originally proposed by Newyorkbrad over email but word-smithing took time over the holiday period. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, big thanks to NYB for the parting gift. Both on and off-wiki, NYB continued to question what the possible scope of the case could be, and, perhaps even more compelling, where was the evidence? Where are the diffs? It would be highly unusual for the committee to accept case without a clear idea of the scope and with almost zero evidence of an ongoing, persistent problem. I'm still going over the details and possibly some other motions, but I'll probably be supporting this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot support this motion at the moment. There was behavior during this case which is outside the bounds of acceptable behavior and if we do nothing it condones that action. I am working on drafting some potential accompanying motions on the behavior of specific editors (some of which I anticipate voting against but which deserve consideration) that would enable me to support this motion in combination. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can support resolving this case by motion, but I also do not think this motion goes far enough currently. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Together with the supplemental motions, I think this is as good as we're going to do. I therefore expect to support this alongside the supplemental motions, with thanks for all who have worked on them. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that we're not passing the individual motions, I am not convinced that we're doing enough here. I am not sure if the two amendments below will get me out of the oppose range, but I'm still considering. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Barkeep, the conduct during this case request fell well below the standard we expect. I will wait on voting until some of those other motions are put up. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I expect to support the motion, but will hold off until Barkeep's accompanying motions can be considered. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Parking here while email discussion continues. I'm leaning oppose, following the same reasoning as the existing well-written opposes. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Amendment to item 4
Item 4 of is amended as follows:

Enacted - &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) With thanks to  for the idea. The community has identified problems with reporting at AE, and one problem that's hard for the community to resolve is the issue of sock puppetry biasing discussions. As Arbitrators, we have access to the checkuser tool, so we can more easily watch for and respond to this type of disruption better than many admins patrolling AE. By hearing these enforcement requests, we can hopefully use our tools to help mitigate disruption of discussions by sock puppets. As  and  point out, the AE case load in this topic area is relatively light and so I don't expect this to become a serious burden on the committee. At the very least, if we won't open a case, it highlights another avenue by which we can help the community resolve issues in the mean time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) When I first saw this I thought it would be a flood at what is often our slowest venue. Thanks to VM and Izno for looking into the numbers. This seems reasonable to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Donald Albury 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Primefac (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) While noting that ARCA is usually the slowest possible way short of a full case to get a resolution, this seems worth trying. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Judging from some of the comments here, there are a few issues that are ripe for intervention, but not much of a desire to bring them to AE. Offering ARCA as an alternative should help ArbCom stay closer to this topic area, while hopefully handling issues in more manageable chunks than this case request. –  bradv 🍁  20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Preferred to the original wording. A case remains my preferred choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) BDD (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Thought this was a good idea when it was first emailed out, and I still think so. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I would prefer issues to be tried at AE first as in item 7 and subsequently be referred if the uninvolved admins are unable to decide a specific request; despite the claim that the reason the number of AE cases is low-middling is because no-one is interested, that cannot be asserted from the numbers provided, and certainly not proven regardless (because that would be a negative). Never mind the practicalities L235 questions. But take this as mild opposition I guess, since the access to CU would be useful. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) ARCA is sometimes even slower than a full case! But I won't stand in the way. I hope people won't be bringing us routine enforcement requests. And questions remain: what standards will we be using to determine the ARCAs? Will they be resolved by motion, or will we apply AE procedures (an arbitrator takes AE action in their individual capacity)? And will sanctions imposed be appealable only to the full committee? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. However, I fully agree that ARCA is an option for anyone not willing to go to AE. WormTT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) As a practical point, yes I do quite like encouraging that intractable issues be heard at ARCA. But given that I dislike the motion writ large, I can't possibly support it. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators

Amendment to item 7
Item 7 of is amended as follows:

Enacted - &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) This amendment incentivizes administrators to begin or return to enforcing APL discretionary sanctions by giving them a clear and expedient route for escalating concerns. It helps the committee too, as issues escalated to us by a consensus of administrators are likely ripe for arbitration. The prior consideration by enforcing administrators will hopefully allow us to skip the debates around prior dispute resolution or evidentiary standards and instead focus on more productive aspects of how to help the community resolve the identified issue. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Starting to feel like we need a motion to propose a motion to amend the motion to... it's motions all the way down. Anyway, this also makes sense, as above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Donald Albury 15:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Primefac (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly support this. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, I should note that this is a new way of doing things, and if it doesn't work (say, if ARCA is just categorically worse than AE) I would vote to rescind this provision. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per my comments on item 4. Even if requests are sent to AE, administrators should be able to forward them to ARCA. –  bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  20:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I am willing to support this one. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Preferred to the original wording. A case remains my preferred choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) BDD (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Enterprisey (talk!) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Abstain
 * 1) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. However, I fully agree that ARCA is an option for anyone not willing to go to AE. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Again, this is good, I think ARCA should be hearing more matters. But given that I dislike the motion writ large, I can't possibly support it. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, this is good, I think ARCA should be hearing more matters. But given that I dislike the motion writ large, I can't possibly support it. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators

Supplemental motions
This is intended to supplement a motion declining the case and making any other general remedies, points, or reminders. For purposes of these motions reminded, warned, and admonished constitute three levels of severity from reminded (mildest) to admonished (most severe). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Jehochman
is admonished for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectations for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments and has since been desysopped at his request. 

Enacted – Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Each of these comments were out of bounds on their own and taken together would be enough for me to consider supporting desysop, even with no further issues. However, I am willing to accept the apology in combination with this admonishment as appropriate rather than considering a boomerang case. But I have zero patience for anyone who will further the harassment campaign of a globally banned editor in this way. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice (among the Jehochman motions). KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Very distant second choice to the desysop. Beeblebrox (talk)
 * 4) Per Barkeep. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Jehochman's comments and behavior helped turn this into a bonafide three ring circus. Not happy. However, Jehochman seems to realize his mistakes, and I believe this serves as an ample reminder of the responsibilities of adminship, at all times. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Barkeep. --Izno (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Barkeep. - Donald Albury 00:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Jehochman is guilty of being gullible and a busybody, which is a bad combination. If he'd been intentionally platforming Icewhiz in order to perpetuate harassment, I'd obviously be in favor of stronger sanctions, not limited to desysop. But this appears to be a blunder, and at this point the best path forward is IMO getting this whole mess off our highly visible pages and ending the distraction ultimately created by a banned user. As for Maxim's point, I think that's the right analysis for the desysop proposal, but an admonishment purely for conduct that occurred in the case request itself, which everybody reading this page could see, doesn't seem to require further inquiry. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) per Opabinia. Taking a wikibreak during a storm of his own making does not appear to me consistent with his responsibilities. I'd be happier if the admonition had more heft (recording it in the block log by way of a one minute block?) but desysopping seems too much. Support this option as the most reasonable available. Cabayi (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) With emphasis on the fact that this motion is based entirely on Jehochman's actions in this case request. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Substandard behaviour during a case request is something the committee has a duty to address, regardless of whether a full case is opened. –  bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this admonishment. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The motion effectively makes findings of fact and offers remedies without having gone through a full case structure, for a complex situation that merits a careful and measured examination.   Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) The outcome here with regard to Jehochman is settled, absent some extraordinary development, and I do not oppose it. --BDD (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has not changed however. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * That's an interesting idea. I don't know about as a one-off, but giving admonishments a little more weight as a general practice could work. On the other hand it might just make the "block log is a list of your sins" problem worse. Something to think about for sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also note this elsewhere for arb attention but I think I've made what will be a non-controversial change to this motion noting that Jeh has since given up administrator. The change is underlined above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount
is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors. This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland.

Enacted – Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) I feel a bit uneasy doing this to someone who is clearly experiencing some health issues. But those very health issues can't be used in a way I find cruel towards other editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Barkeep. --Izno (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) BDD (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Donald Albury 22:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Since Molobo seems to desire a return to editing, this is a relevant and necessary action. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Prefer full case instead of motions.   Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Not necessary, and under the circumstances, could be withdrawn without issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Confirming I still oppose both. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) A moot point, and one which I am honestly not sure needed to be made in the first place. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No longer moot, but I still see little point to this. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Moot, given their departure from the project. –  bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  18:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reconfirming my oppose here. It makes no sense to sanction a user account that no longer exists. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  23:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC) They've apparently changed their mind about leaving forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Bradv. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * The issue is moot. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC) No longer moot. Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Moot. - Donald Albury 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC) No longer moot. I need to ponder this. - Donald Albury 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Moot, not worth pursuing. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. However, this is clearly no longer moot. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with the general sentiment, but I feel that supporting this motion would be somewhat unfair. MyMoloboaccount isn't the only person in this case request to claim that other editors caused them to have health problems, but MyMoloboaccount is the only one being told not to do it again. I agree that editors should avoid those kinds of accusations, and MyMoloboaccount has certainly not shown the best conduct in this case request, but if we're going to say a certain kind of conduct is over the line, it should be over the line for everyone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I'd just point out that this user has just more or less asked for an indef block, and gotten it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Conduct during arbitration proceedings
Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.
 * Enacted - &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) This is the crux of why the supplemental motions as a group are necessary. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I support amending Motion: Resolution of this case request (1) to include this as a bulletpoint. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Certainly, regardless of where else I fall. It could also be incorporated as Barkeep suggests. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) This case request was a circus of ridiculous behavior. I think we may need to change some of our procedures to give the clerks broader authority to reign in this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Per the above. I will note that this does fit into both the tone and substance of the main proposal, so I would have no issue with merging this in as either #9 or replacing #8 with this wording. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Kevin's comment below. I'd be fine rolling this into the larger case resolution motion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Arb processes work in large part because they are structured and civil. ArbCom should not tolerate deviance from the high standard. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Primefac. --Izno (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Support this general reminder, as opposed to the editor-specific proposals. Which does not mean I endorse the behavior involved, only that I think it's best to put this whole mess to bed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA are core expectations, not optional extras. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Let's add this to the main motion as point #9. –  bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  19:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Primefac, Opabinia regalis, and Cabayi. - Donald Albury 23:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Agree with the spirit of the motion, but again, would prefer to hear a full case.   Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has not changed however. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I currently expect to support most of the supplemental motions as written. But let me expand on my thoughts a bit: there are clearly some users who have been disruptive in the underlying topic area who are not sanctioned in these motions. These motions are more narrowly tailored to conduct that happened during this case request and the accompanying COIN thread, which is an important function: the community deserves to know that we do not condone misconduct in arbitration proceedings. The motions aren't designed to sanction misconduct in the topic area more broadly. The fact that we're not sanctioning any particular person in these motions should not be considered our endorsement of their actions; admins and the community are free to enact sanctions for disruptive conduct whether or not by the users named here. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be wise for everyone, especially the editors mentioned in the motions even if they're not passed, to carefully examine their own contributions to the obvious unpleasantness in this topic area. In particular, while I opposed formal sanctions, the bludgeoning of discussions and the habits of making many individual back-and-forth replies are clearly a recurring characteristic of this dispute. I don't remember the case now, but there was a remedy awhile back along the lines of 'two comments per thread on this topic'. Maybe two is a little restrictive, but five should do it. Participants should consider giving themselves a personal five-post limit in the same conversation - beyond that point you're not persuading anyone. I understand the point made above by a couple of admins that declining the case feels like passing the buck back to AE, but I think this request is just not going to work as a jumping-off point for a structured inquiry. We didn't end up putting it formally in the motion, but IMO a case would likely be expeditiously accepted on this topic area if referred from AE. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Motion to close
Enacted – Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. I believe we can do this by net 4, as with a case, and the clerks can enact the motions and remove this request after 24 hours. –  bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  17:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) BDD (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Obviously this case is not resolving in the manner I think best. But since I am unaware of any arbs reconsidering their support of the motion to close the case and keeping this open longer is doing no one any good, I support closing it. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Everything is passing or failing. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes, time to move on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Donald Albury 15:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Primefac (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Enterprisey (talk!) 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) The final MyMoloboaccount proposal has its 8 votes. I've undone MyMoloboaccount's vanishing in light of his return. All good to wrap it up now. Cabayi (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Comments
 * Clerks, please amend the main motion as specified (without the change tracking formatting). can be added to the main motion as point #9. Any other supplemental motions that pass should be separate. –  bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  17:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that one motion (MyMoloboaccount) could still go either way. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (January 2022)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Special:Diff/934849515


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Special:Diff/934849515


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Special:Diff/934849515
 * Replace 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without AFC.

Statement by Crouch, Swale
Please replace the 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without needing to go through AFC. This will reduce the number of articles I can create a year from 52 to 12 but will mean I can create them directly however we should also consider allowing me to create a specified number of civil parishes for the parishes project, there are 407 left as well as allowing appeal every 6 months. There are also a number of other suggestions I have made here. Several editors at the last appeal said they would be happy with allowing 1 article a week with no AFC but I don't think we need to allow 1 article a week on anything, it should probably only be 1 article a month but as noted a specified number of civil parishes for the project could be specified such as 1 article a month on anything and 1 parish 1 week etc so as noted it could just be 1 article every 3 months or 1 article every 6 months as long as the AFC requirement is removed. As noted before I have had very few articles declined at AFC. Please specify which options and what creation limits you accept even if its only 1 article a year, example, 1 article a month, 1 parish a week, appeal after 6 months.
 * In the previous request several arbitrators said they would be happy with removing the need to go to AFC by allowing me to create 1 article a week, in this appeal I'm suggesting as the 1st option to reduce 1 article a week to 1 article a month.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That back in 2010 my article creations were generally poorly sourced and often contained little meaningful content while now I have produced much better articles such as population data, coordinates and history, see Shoreswood and Greenstead Green and Halstead Rural for example.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't had any articles that I've created through AFC deleted (or redirected) at all not just this year. In several of those like South Wheatley, Nottinghamshire, Uig, Duirinish and Sunds they were created in mainspace from my draft by other users and then history merged, in the case of Clarborough and Welham, North and South Wheatley and Vildbjerg they were moved into mainspace by others. With regards to the abandoned drafts yes they get deleted under G13 but might get improved or moved by others and note that I don't have any restrictions on page creation in other namespaces per the 2019 amendment, the only restriction is the amount I submit.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the other requests have failed namely last year's one that included a suggestion for 1 article a week without AFC. As said separate from the 1st request the 2nd one was for a certain number of parishes which could have been 1 a week which would mean 5 a week in total rather than 4, without AFC but 4 out of those 5 would have to be (current) parishes. I'm happy to report that another 2 parishes have been created so we're down to 401.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because my last few previous appeals have failed so this time I'm making the 1st option low to reduce the chance of it completely failing. AFC is for new users and its a bit babyish for me as an experienced editor. While I agree it may have been helpful when I first joined Wikipedia in 2009 (though I was so clueless I probably would never have had any accepted) now I have shown I can create good articles. Since the community seem still concerned about me creating NN articles which are poorly sourced 1 a month would be an OK starting point and a different throttle limit for parishes (so that we can try to get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible) since while they are agreed to be notable by most people are still concerned about the quality of the articles.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes there's a rough consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC linked by Thryduulf above and WP:GEOLAND/WP:NPLACE that legally recognized places are (with the exception of census tracts) generally presumed to be notable. Of the 10,474 parishes in England there are 406 missing which means less that 1 in 25.79 are missing which has gone down quite a bit in the last few years. If you look at other places around the world of administrative units created by Lsjbot on the other Wikipedias only England, Portugal and Wales that I've found so far (I haven't checked most places around the world) have missing articles here. If you look and the English Wikipedia and the native versions for other places you can see that they generally follow the same rules that I have suggested (and are already mostly done here) for low level municipalities namely having just 1 article if there is a settlement of the same name and separate articles if not, for example at Utzenaich and de:Utzenaich have 1 combined article for both village and municipality just like Wrington covers both village and parish but when there isn't a settlement there will be separate articles such as fr:Saline (Calvados) and Saline, Calvados and Ingatestone and Fryerning exist separately. Yes Adam is correct indeed that the English parishes have far less importance than many other similar units in different countries but they still clearly fall under being legally recognized. Regarding how quickly I can do this is being left open to the arbitrators which could be 10 parishes a day, 1 parish a day, 1 parish 1 week, 1 parish a month or 1 parish a year etc depending on how much you are prepared to allow.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the motion but I'd make it clear that the 1 article a month without AFC replaces the 1 article a week submitted to AFC since it would not be clear on this since an appeal rarely revokes something and many will probably see going from weekly to monthly as a tightening. I'd put something like "This motion also revokes his ability to submit 1 article a week to AFC". Since normally if a new rule is made in place of an old one it would need to be made clear that the new rule in some way tightens the existing rule. Secondly what about moving drafts to mainspace in accordance with this new rule? If I've created a draft in draftspace or userspace then it should be OK for me to move it to mainspace as long as I'm following the rule, presumably it would only apply to drafts I have created but if not it would still only allow me to create (directly) or move to mainspace 1 article a month.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With AFC wouldn't it just be clearer to say "He is not permitted to use AFC" since otherwise we'd be going from 1 article a week through AFC to 1 a month with AFC which wouldn't make sense. The whole point of going from weekly to monthly is to avoid AFC so it would seem clearer to just say I'm not permitted to submit any to AFC. As I asked above would you be OK with moving drafts from by userspace or draftspace into mainspace in accordance with the 1 a month rule. This avoids anyone saying at RMT "it needs to go to AFC".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a topic ban on moving pages myself apart from in my userspace and that hasn't been modified since my unblock at the end of 2017. Would something like "prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace and moving drafts to mainspace in accordance with the 1 article a month rule )". The new bit is in the ins. The benefit is that I may need to draft an article that may require work and note per WP:DRAFTOBJECT the author can object to drafting if for any reason I end up with some getting drafted which I don't expect to.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 23:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all is clear now. Regarding AFC I have given up 75%+ of my article allowance to avoid having to use AFC so it would seem rather odd for me to do so but I guess there's little point in stating I can't.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a weak/rough consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC (at least if they are created with enough content etc) which was part of the purpose of that RFC to pass that recommendation, yes there are some doubts but it seems the vast majority to agree if created appropriately but if you don't really feel that's satisfied you could recommend a low throttle limit like 1 a month. In contrast there was a rough consensus against them being created with a bot.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No there isn't anything after 2020 but what about the request to change the restriction from 1 article a week through AFC to 1 article a month (or less) without AFC?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Only really for the 2nd request (number of parishes I can create per week or month etc, namely increasing that number) probably not for the 1st request (being able to create 1 article a month on anything). For example supposing we grant the 1st request (being able to create 1 article a month on anything) and the 2nd request (number of parishes I can create) and we allow me to create 2 parishes a month (which is lower overall than my current 1 article a week at AFC) in 6 months I could ask the 2 parishes a month to be increase (say to 1 a week).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So perhaps as a way of moving forward given as you and others point out there is a lack of clear consensus for me to mass create them, how about we grant request 1 (1 article a month on anything) and we grant request 2 as something low like 2 parishes a month and we also conditionally grant 3 on the condition that there is consensus at a RFC (which given I got several "have an permanent moratorium on these England Parish RFCs") could be started instead by PamD or someone else who has interest/knowledge in this and if there is consensus to mass create I can appeal in 6 months to see if we can allow more parishes to be created per week or month etc but there is not consensus for this then I'll have to wait a whole year again.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See my reply above to Opabinia regalis, the suggestion is to revoke AFC completely meaning I can't submit any.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see that there is a consensus against creating them at all, only a consensus against having them crested with a bot and also perhaps having them created with minimal content. Is there a particular reason why the remaining 406 out of the 10,474 shouldn't exist or why England should be one of the few places in the world that we don't have complete coverage of? There is no local consensus there against creating good articles and there is more general consensus at WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE that they should exist while the only requirement for mass creation is for bots and other semi-automated creation at WP:MASSCREATE. So while 406 would be considered "large" its not going to be automated or semi-automated. Regarding the creation rate, as I've said the number of articles or parishes I can create can be anything so we could replace 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a year or even 0 articles a year which would effectively prevent me from creating any articles at all, what rate limit would you be happy with?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The combination between that GEOLAND and the rough consensus at the RFC plus the fact that over 96% do currently exist here and the fact that most other places that I have checked do have 100% coverage on the English Wikipedia suggests it is a good idea. At the 2020 appeal you can see that PamD made a suggestion for allowing 1 a day plus redirects/DAB pages but unfortunately that was a few hours after you proposed the decline motion. Regarding my history I'd point out back in November 2010 when I was given autopatroll I had very little understanding of anything on Wikipedia and most of my articles had little content other than the location while I now have been producing much better articles. Why despite that significant improvement are we not even prepared to allow me to create a large number of specified articles over a period of time? Has WP suddenly go so much stricter? Or are we basing things on what happened over a decade ago? WTT I know you aren't because in the last appeal you said you aren't but I think I'm putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Regarding the problems with my articles in the past very few have actually been deleted (ignoring those I got deleted under G7) but many of the NN hamlets were redirected to the parish they were in. As Primefac pointed out (and I then noted) none of my articles at AFC have later been deleted or even merged. Yes I understand bans can be good in that they keep the editor from getting into trouble in areas they have caused problems but in this case I have demonstrated that I can now produce acceptable articles. If you look at my category creation (which was one of the things that was pointed out back in 2017 so I ended up getting a page creation ban rather than just article creation) you can see that since the page creation ban was replaced with only an article creation ban I have produced 1,065 categories and the only ones that were deleted were Category:Villages in Aberdeen which was later restored, Category:Former communities in Gwynedd (because the former community came back) Category:Isle of Gigha which was a redirect that was later moved over, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 161.73.194.241 which was emptied because the IP socks hadn't edited for over 2 years.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're mentioning large numbers of userspace drafts now, especially given the fact my unblock conditions in December 2017 mentioned that I was not restricted on creating pages in my userspace, that is even before the February 2019 amendment that allowed me to create pages in any namespace other than mainspace.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would it be problematic to have around 400 drafts in userspace? I had wandered about doing this a while ago but I see little point especially when these are gradually being created meaning I may create drafts for articles that are later created by others. For the record we are now down to 400, and as I said a few of those 400 may not need articles anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because there is a proposal to allow me to create less articles than I currently can or none at all.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The modification to the base request of allowing me to create 1 article a month on any topic whatsoever (and the current situation where I can submit 1 article a week on any topic whatsoever) is that I would also be allowed to create a set amount (say 2 a month or 5 a week etc) on only (current) civil parishes in accordance with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes_RfC which I already suggested namely not having a separate article from the settlement of the same name. This distinction should be done because it means I am then restricted (at a higher rate) to create topics that are notable while still having some restriction to ensure I create the articles with enough content etc per the RFC. For example if it was 1 article a month and 2 parishes a week I could create 1 article on any topic whatsoever a month but I could also create 2 articles a week on only current parishes. For the record 1 has just been created so we're now down to 405.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, firstly this is a request about (current) parishes not defunct ones, secondly parishes need their own article not merely a mention in a list or other article. The lists at Category:Lists of civil parishes in England list the current ones and some of the former ones can be found at Category:Former civil parishes in England.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did notify all the county projects (or the talk page of the county) of any missing parishes, you can see Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. A few were created as a result of those notifications and I notified a few editors who had previously been involved/interested in parish/other article creation. The idea of the project and dividing it up by county is that editors who are resident or otherwise interested in a particular county can make sure that there are no missing parishes in that relevant county. Regarding the other thing about 33 years, you missed the point, the 1 article a month was to allow me to create anything (the 1st request) the 2nd request was a specified number of parishes for the project to be allowed such as 1 a week or 1 a month etc but the 3rd request was to be allowed to appeal again in 6 months (as opposed to a year) so that we can increase the number of parishes I can create if all goes well and increase again in the next 6 months until all done.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The 1 article a month is for other things, the 2nd part of the request is for the number of parishes. I don't see otherwise why you should object to a suggestion that we go from weekly to monthly but yes the other suggestion is to simply revoke it completely. And the ability to only appeal once a year is extremely onerous as it is so why would I not use it, that would be like you being entitled to be paid £1000 a month but only taking £1000 every 2 months. But yes on that note I'd quite happily give up my life savings to be able to contribute to the English Wikipedia without restriction.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We're now down to 403 but there are around 15 that may not need articles.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
There remains NPP, and anything odd is likely to be noticed there, as many of the same people work both.  DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Chess
As a somewhat experienced AfC reviewer I'll chime in to respond to. AfC is extremely cluttered. The backlog is currently at 2516 pending submissions, with the oldest submissions requiring review being 2-3 months old. This is actually relatively good, as the backlog can sometimes reach to 5 months worth of articles. It's not unusual for editors to have to wait for months to get a review at AfC. This makes it an unbearable process for a lot of people, since by the time an article actually gets reviewed many people don't care anymore. Arbs should also consider the impact on AfC from these restrictions. If the restrictions are necessary to prevent disruption (I am unfamiliar with this user), so be it, but AfC submissions do require volunteer time & effort to review above that of WP:NPP. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 01:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
Regarding consensus for parish articles, the answer seems to be that there is currently no such consensus. The most recent relevant discussions I can find are:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC from December 2020-January 2021 which didn't have that much participation and seems to have fizzled out with the general sentiment seeming to be that some but not all parishes should have articles.
 * User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes from October 2021 where only Keith D and Crouch, Swale commented. The discussion focused on infoboxes and recommended starting a wider discussion, but if that wider discussion happened I haven't found it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that requirements of last year's request have not been met, have seemingly not even been attempted to be met, and recommendations for further discussion by other users since then have also not been followed up, I'm having a hard time understanding why this appeal is being considered? Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by PamD
As someone who in 2016-17 created articles for many of the missing parishes in Cumbria (a whole batch had been deleted as the creations of a blocked editor, I think), I support the idea that every civil parish in England should be represented in Wikipedia, whether as a stand-alone article or as a clear description/section within the article on the settlement whose name it shares. Parishes have population figures available from census info on NOMIS, mostly they have a parish council or parish meeting which has a website or a mention on the county's website, their history is sometimes of interest and available from Visions of Britain, etc. But I confess that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC was just TLDR, hence my lack of input there. As for the Missing Parishes project, I chipped in at User:Crouch,_Swale/Missing_parishes_(1), and that set of lists of county-by-county missing parishes seems a useful starting point for creation of useful articles. So without commenting on the overall question of Crouch's restrictions, I support allowing at least a slightly more generous allowance for the creation of parish articles. Pam D  18:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, as blue linked parishes are removed from the "Missing parishes" lists, no-one here will notice Barton and Pooley Bridge which I created yesterday (splitting and expanding the existing Barton, Cumbria), nor Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg which was probably inspired by the same list when I created it back in October 2021. Perhaps a way forward is for there to be a bit of a blitz notifying the England county Wikiprojects about the missing parishes in their counties, in the hopes of a distributed effort polishing off this list: no bot creations, no mass input from Crouch, Swale, but a group of individual editors each picking off a few parishes in their area. Better than the 30 years calculated by . Pam  D  16:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, as I understand it the list of 400 are current parishes, so Defunct parishes in England would be a large list but wouldn't include any of them.   Pam  D  16:43, 6 January 2022 (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: Clerk notes

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



Crouch, Swale: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This appeal of restrictions, similarly to the last one you reference directly, does not appear to discuss the reasons why the restrictions exist nor why they should not exist today (or why they should be reduced). Can you clearly articulate why you think they do and why you think they should not? --Izno (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat: Can you clearly articulate why you think [your restrictions exist]? As for the second question, I am not interested in what you think the "several" arbitrators said last time. Let me try asking the question a different way to see if that helps you understand what my second question was asking: What behavior can you show or what promises can you give that the behavior which earned you the restrictions in the first place will not be repeated? Izno (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Izno and feel there remains the mismatch I identified last year between the editor's good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia and community forbearance of those efforts. See also WP:WILDFLOWERS. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat torn on this request. On the one hand there are the issues mentioned above and in previous appeals. On the other hand, sanctions are meant to keep an editor within the acceptable bounds of how an editor is expected to behave. Looking at their talk page, as well as their page creation stats, it would appear they have successfully created a large number of pages that were eventually accepted; by my count only two declined drafts this last year. As a side note, there are 59 drafts created in 2020 that were abandoned, which is a wild departure from the apparent norms, but they are old enough I do not think they mean as much as they would have a year ago.If this sanction gets lightened (either one-per-week or one-per-month with no AFC), what is the tangible outcome of that? We have one less check on someone who has so far been ~95% successful in creating acceptable drafts – even if they are stubs – with no articles subsequently deleted in the last year. To me the latter aspect is the relevant bit; having drafts accepted only to be deleted would indicate a lack of keeping with community norms, but to have zero deleted afterward indicates that AfC might not strictly be necessary in this case.So yes, I see a bit of a outlier from what would be considered "good" on Barkeep49's "excitement scale" (see last year's appeal), but at the same time I do not see a significant impact to simply dropping the AfC requirement. I will have to mull this over whilst awaiting other comments, but at the moment I am leaning slightly towards accepting some version of this request. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's kind of an odd request and I'm not at all sure I understand the point, why would only being able to submit an article once a month or even once every three months be preferable to being able to submit on a week through AFC? What is it about AFC that is so unbearable a burden? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it can't be said that you're not persistent. You have a link above to "the parishes project", but the link goes to a page in your userspace, not a wikiproject. You also say you want to get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible. Is there community consensus that these topics are all notable enough for standalone articles? If so, then I don't see much harm in the proposed changes; if someone's had consistent success through AfC we can reasonably say they're likely to continue. But it also seems like this change won't get to your stated goals any faster, so I'm not quite sure I get it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Is there community consensus that these topics are all notable enough for standalone articles? " That's an excellent question, considering that the restriction explicitly requires it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I don't read the discussion linked as even a rough consensus for much of anything, except not to do it by bot. At the risk of overstating my understanding of a topic I know nothing about, I'd say there's agreement these should be bluelinks, but not necessarily standalone articles. But so far the AfC articles are OK. In response to 's question, I'm open to it because the request seems to reduce the amount of community effort invested without much risk of harm. "12 articles a year, and you have to go back to AfC if any of them get deleted"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , in response to your last appeal we modified your restriction to specify that you "should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions." Have you done so? – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  19:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this committee is not going to decide whether you should be allowed to create all these articles. Per last January's appeal, it is up to you to ask the community for consensus to do so, and then we will consider lifting your restriction so that you can implement that consensus. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC predates your 2021 appeal, so unless you can point to something more recent, and with a clearer consensus, I am disinclined to grant this request. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  16:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , my issue with lifting any restrictions at this point is that we would be acting contrary to what we said last year, which is that you should seek consensus for these edits before asking for this. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , you are now suggesting that, if we can grant this request, you will appeal this restriction every six months in order to loosen your restriction further. You are basically asking ArbCom for permission to create these articles, when, as previously stated, you should be asking the community in the form of an RfC. I will not be voting to loosen your restrictions at this point, as I see no compelling argument for why we should overturn the previous motion. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, I can take this discussion elsewhere if it's a diversion, but I don't understand the intent of WILDFLOWERS, even though I gather you're trying to keep it somewhat open-ended. My read of it is that the editor analog, despite good intentions, has a fundamentally wrong idea (i.e., wildflowers are weeds), and irritates the community by not recognizing that they're outside the mainstream. I assume this is a bad read on my part, because the key question when assessing an editor's behavior is not "Does the community like this?" but "Are they following policies and guidelines?" --BDD (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your read is pretty close to what I was intending to say to Crouch, Swale @BDD. Policies and guidelines are always going to have some margin for interpretation; this is why, for instance, we have explanatory supplements to some policies and guidelines or why ArbCom lays out its interpretation in the principles decision of a case. WILDFLOWER suggests that there can be a good faith interpretation of policies and guidelines by an editor that falls outside of community consensus and when an editor tries to act on that good faith but outside the consensus position that it will be seen as disruptive by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my read of it was too narrow; I assumed the position "these wildflowers are weeds" to be outright wrong, but perhaps the idea was that it was a valid but not widely held position? --BDD (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Chess's comment, combined with Crouch, Swale's record over the past year, makes me think the AfC requirement is burdening the community without a clear benefit. Mea culpa, I didn't read carefully enough this year and thought the request was to go from monthly to weekly rather than vice versa. I probably misread because the actual request sounds like a step back to me. Nevertheless, I can support the first sentence of the request. The rest, I would have to think of. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * seems to be our regular January visitor, indeed, I think he's the only person we've had to actively restrict from appealing by motion. Throughout those many appeals, I've not seen evidence that Crouch, Swale is aware of the level of disruption that his mass creation has caused, and yes, we're definitely in the WP:WILDFLOWERS territory. I've also regularly said that I have no intention of relaxing his restriction. More, we're still stuck on the fact that there is not consensus for the mass creation of these articles. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes_RfC wasn't a weak consensus for the mass creation, it was an active consensus against. It accepted that articles could be created with decent content. Handwaving towards WP:GEOLAND or WP:NPLACE don't solve this specific consensus that the articles shouldn't be mass created.  However, I will say that his article writing skill appear to have improved, and I am heartened by the fact that the articles are coming out positively, and I do appreciate his request to reduce the frequency of his creations while removing the AfC requirement, a reasonable compromise, as effectively it is reducing the rate of creation. I have to say, I would be open to this change if other arbs are. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Crouch, Swale, when reading the updated motion, it was something that occurred to me. I have no issue with you creating pages for the purpose of moving them live within your restriction. However, mass creating the articles in your user-space would be problematic. You haven't done that as yet (as far as I know), and have given no indication that you intend to, so this shouldn't be a problem. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Crouch, Swale - it would be problematic for you to mass create the articles in your user space for the same reason that it would be problematic for you to mass create the articles in article space. There is no consensus for mass creation of these pages, and it's down to you to get that consensus, and combined with WP:NOTWEBHOST, it's clear that it's something you shouldn't be doing. Years down the line, you still do not appear to appreciate the disruption you caused when you were banned by the community, nor that the committee needs to be satisfied that similar disruption will not occur again. If this isn't something you're intending, then it might be best to simply end this conversation. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While I wish were a little less focused on completing his list ("so that we can try to get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible"), I'm willing to let him show how he does under the modification he proposes. - Donald Albury 18:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Fourth Annual Amendment Request" does not have a good ring to it, and fills me with a sense of foreboding for January 2023. I'm reluctant to dive into horsetrading over article numbers and whether they're reviewed at AFC or NPP, especially while there's a pool of 407 drafts in waiting. Nor do I favour letting the restrictions and appeals drag on forever, consuming reviewer time and Arbcom time unnecessarily.Would a Defunct parishes in England article recording these parishes (somewhat akin to the Areas transferred section of Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844) make a significant reduction in the list of outstanding work? Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The point to the previous question was to see if were looking at any other way of achieving your objective. Rhetorical questions - Why is it in a userpage? Why isn't it organised under WikiProject UK geography? You appear to be tackling the list in a proprietorial manner which leads inexorably to your annual amendment request. With 400+ articles to create and a projected 30 year timeline, an alternative, collaborative approach to your list is needed. This request is fiddling around the edges of the issue with minimal prospect of making any significant impact on your target, and little prospect of lifting the restriction completely (which is everybody's desired end-goal). "There's more than one way to do it" and it would be of benefit all round if you'd look for another way. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Less is more is a weird argument when the goal is to create 400+ articles. At 12 articles a year, that would take 30 years! I don't see how restricting a person, without cause, to make less content is building an encyclopedia. Absent some pressing need on your end, the status quo looks fine. Is AfC overburdened? Yes. Is one article a week going to make a monumental difference? No.
 * I agree with Cabayi and Worm that the annual amendment request is not reassuring. I suggest that the next appeal be your last, and that it seek to simply remove your restriction altogether. I don't like this horsetrading restrictions business. You should make the appeal only when you are confident that you fully understand the process, the expectations, and that your content will not require review. Otherwise, you waste your time and ours. Wait a year, two years, five even. But if I think you're appealing just for the heck of it going forward, I will not take kindly to it. Just because you can appeal in a year doesn't mean you should.
 * The last motion stated that consensus was needed for large creation of articles. As far as I see, the RfC seemed against the mass creation, or at least no consensus as Thryduulf says. So perhaps you need a new RfC, in a better location, focused more precisely on whether the articles as a batch are notable (and if so, should be created by you). I think the last one suffered from being in a low traffic area. But beyond that, its a content issue, which is outside our wheelhouse. On the bright side, now I know what a civil parish is. Ya learn something new everyday... CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got curious myself and did the math. 33 years seems a bit long. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * My thinking currently aligns with Primefac's, but I also certainly would be just fine declining this appeal. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Crouch, Swale
Enacted - Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) Weak support. I don't mind the January appeals - it's a well-known pattern by now, but it really is true that the beginning of the year is best for getting arb attention to your issue. I'm not thrilled by the approach here, essentially ignoring the consensus element of the previous motion, and showing a clear lack of perspective. But, the request is actually asking for less total community time invested. So, OK. You won't get your list done very fast at that rate, but maybe you'll discover some of the remaining entries on the list don't really need their own article, or others will decide to write some. You could always work on building up the content of existing articles on notable places. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, not really happy about the horse-trading and the lack of commitment to identifying a consensus myself, but OR is reasonable here. --Izno (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indenting until the below issue is fixed. --Izno (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As modified. --Izno (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Pragmatically, yes. I'm not happy for a number of reasons, largely because he hasn't done what has been asked, and I'm not looking forward to yet another appeal in a years time. However, as OR rightly points out, this solution is one that Crouch, Swale is requesting and involves less community disruption than the present restriction. What's more, he's not been breaching his restriction, so there does appear to be little risk in this. So, yes, I suppose so. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Supporting latest updates, but I would like to point out that mass creating 400 odd articles in his userspace would be considered disruptive. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I am weakly supporting. Philosophically I am at the point with Crouch Swale that the only appeal I want to accept is one that repeals the restrictions. The comments at the annual ARCA review show a continued lack of understanding of the core issues; the fact that it's dependably an annual event does as well. However, I recognize that this requires marginally less community time and editor time is incredibly precious so the value of trying (again) to send a message to Crouch about all this is outweighed by the ways I want to safeguard editor time. However, if I am on ArbCom in the next two years I am very unlikely to consider voting for any appeal that isn't a repeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Affirming after OR's tweak. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am getting nervous. The only reason I am supporting this motion is to save community time. If this change is going to require further clarification/discussion outside of this request, the small benefit I'm perceiving is likely to be squandered. I'll affirm a second change, and agree with OR about draftspace. But I gave serious thought to switching to oppose rather at this point given what we, apparently, don't know with this new motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Not much to add. I'm in agreement with those above. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Donald Albury 20:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Supporting with latest updates. - Donald Albury 21:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per WTT, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Supporting with OR's edits. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Supporting with latest updates. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm philosophically with Barkeep49 here, but this amendment makes for less work for others, so I can live with it.   Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   15:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Confirming my vote.  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   16:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The proposal will mean there's even less evidence to support easing restrictions at next year's inevitable appeal. However it offers a prospect of hope that collaboration will feature more heavily. Cabayi (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) While I think it would most definitely benefit Crouch, Swale when they make their inevitable appeal next year to have an actual, well-attended and clear RFC that states whether what they are doing is acceptable to the community or not, I cannot deny that they have held to their restriction and have been doing a good job of writing reasonable articles. I do not understand why they are looking for fewer articles written per year as their relaxation, but if that is what they want that is what they will apparently get. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my support with the added addendum - would hate to hobble progress in the name of pedantry. I would also like to request, as OR has done, that next year's appeal be the final one, where everything is requested to be revoked and it can be demonstrated that your editing and creations have consensus. This is just a request, though it would make all of our lives easier in the long run. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * 1) Per my comments above, I'm not inclined to grant any reprieve here without doing what we asked at previous appeals. The way this is worded there is also no restriction on submitting articles to AfC, which is not something I can support. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I get why they don't want to do AFC. I don't see the point of the rest of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) See my comments above. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Per CaptainEek's comments above. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments from arbitrators
 * I think there's been enough views aired here; time to get an up-or-down vote on this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How does being able to create one new mainspace article per month work with the restriction to submit only one article to AfC every 7 days? In other words, would this motion permit Crouch, Swale to create one mainspace article per month and send one article to AfC per week? Is there no restriction on using AfC, or is there a de-facto ban on it if the motion passes?  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was of the understanding that this was instead of, and that he should not be using the AfC process - but I can see how this new motion is not clear on that. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My support is based on that understanding as well. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This really needs to be fixed before this passes. As worded, we could end up with 400+ parish articles at AfC. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  05:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mine too. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously. What happens when something you think is obvious hits the real world... see above if that works for you. I don't see the point of banning anyone from AfC without disruption there, but if CS did submit a draft, that's his one for the month. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can use AfC if you want, you just don't have to (just like everybody else). It doesn't matter how an article gets to mainspace - you can start it in your sandbox, or in your userspace, or as a draft, and then move it to mainspace when it's finished. A lot of people do that, including me. But one per month, whatever path you take. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * good point, I'd forgotten about that. This nested set of restrictions has me convinced that the comments above have a point - your next visit to ARCA should demonstrate an extended period of successful collaborative work and should aim for a repeal.
 * Sorry for the multiple revisions, please see above. I think we want CS to have the ability to use his sandbox/userspace/etc to make sure his articles are ready for primetime. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the multiple revisions, please see above. I think we want CS to have the ability to use his sandbox/userspace/etc to make sure his articles are ready for primetime. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about precedence
Hi! In the request for GSoW's case's statement by editors and in arb comments it has been mentioned that there are two somewhat overlapping yet different topics that can be addressed within the case. I was wondering, as I am not knowledgeable about arbcom's history, what the precedent is for splitting a case into two cases or if there is none. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The only thing more !fun than an Arbcom case is two Arbcom cases at once. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's ever been done, exactly. Usually, what's done is that the committee decides what the scope of a case is, and will not consider evidence outside of that scope. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be highly unusual. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beeblebrox: It has happened, I voted to do it, and ended up being the drafting arb of one of those two cases. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 21:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been done at least once, for AP2, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Izno (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, ok then. I guess it is possible. I think I was deliberately ignoring all things arbcom around that time, right after my first term. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, ok then. I guess it is possible. I think I was deliberately ignoring all things arbcom around that time, right after my first term. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks y'all for the quick responses :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If I may ask
I am considering the possibility of resolving a matter by arbitration. If I may ask a few questions here and have answers, I will know how best to proceed. If this manner of obtaining information is inappropriate, simply remove the thread with my apologies and I'll research the answers by another means. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive, or so it's said. If there's a policy that's not been used in 10 years despite ample opportunities to do so, the best course of action almost certainly is to ask the community if it still stands behind that policy, and how it would resolve the apparent contradiction with common practice or another policy: a warmup discussion followed by an RFC, on the talk page of the policy page or at WP:VPP, I would think. Of course, you could be missing something, so it wouldn't go amiss to ask gently why the contradiction you observe exists, before going through the trouble of arbitration. Arbitration does interpret policies and sanction editors who violate them, but it's obviously not going to desysop all active admins because there's a policy nobody has followed. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, answering the questions you're asking in the abstract are hard. ArbCom can look at how admins follow policy, guidelines, and procedures. I am a believer in "practice is policy" but that also doesn't mean the only admin working an area can disregard something that maintains community acceptance. Also things often have nuance. Generally, even in the instance of Admin misconduct, there's a sense that some degree of community discussion, often at AN or ANI, should be tried first as when it works it's far less painful for everyone. I think that's about the best I can do in the abstract. You might consider if there is a veteran editor or two who you trust and who seems like they might understand ArbCom to bounce a more specific version of this off privately. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm no longer on the ArbCom, but I can share my thoughts based on my experience. In general, the community generally prefers that the ArbCom not make policy decisions. Of course, arbitration decisions do wind up defining or influencing policy at least in the operational sense ("if you do X, you will get desysopped") but not so much beyond that. In any event, even if you were able to get the Committee to decline that such-and-such is policy and will be enforced, the community could still decide to change the policy; and if the policy hasn't been enforced in ten years, it's very likely that others are not interpreting that policy to be as straightforward as you are.
 * That was written to answer your question in the abstract. I've now taken a look at your last few contributions and I believe I have a sense of what the question you are concerned with actually is. It's an expanded form of a policy issue that I have identified as an open question several times in various AN/ANI threads over the past few years. If your issue is what I think it is, the best plan might be for you to open a discussion of it somewhere and get a better sense of the community's current views on the issue&mdash;bearing into account that there are different circumstances in which it arises, and it might not be possible to anticipate all the possible circumstances and develop an ironclad policy in advance. A request for arbitration would probably not be the best location for such a discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to thank everyone who has given insight regarding these questions. In many ways, after seeing the responses, I realized that I knew some of this already, but kind of forgot. Anyway, the community at large should have an opportunity to weigh in on this first (it's quite possible it will be resolved at that level, which would be best). I think VPP will be a good place to discuss things, and see where it goes from there. Thanks to everyone again, including the replies given below. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Addendum - To clarify, I think the non-use I am speaking of is attributable to habit and perhaps ignorance of the provision and not, in and of itself, refusal or blatant disregard. It has to do with discussions closed as "no consensus" and the fact that they appear, almost universally, to be interpreted as no consensus to do the thing asked (tantamount to maintaining the status quo). Policy at WP:NOCON lists the few exceptions where no consensus actually results in a specific action where the status quo is not maintained but instead the status quo ante bellum is restored. I am hoping to see this provision of policy become the rule instead of the exception (if ever). Especially regarding discussion and review of admin actions. Some background to include the potentially rampant misunderstanding of no consensus closures can be seen in this discussion. I am offering this, for clarification, because of the abstract manner I used in posting my question. Thanks again, to all.--John Cline (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Do provisions of policy become null from non-use?
If a provision of Wikipedia policy exists and has existed for at least ten years (probably more) but has not been used at all for at least ten years where at least 1000 opportunities for use span over ten years where the provision should have been used but a contravening policy provision was used instead, directly circumventing the unused, ignored provision, can or will the ignored provision be nullified because of it's non-use?--John Cline (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably, but it's still best to seek formal clarification on it. If you'll indulge me a little metaphor: imagine you have lived with a spouse or close partner for 10+ years, and you've noticed they haven't used a specific possession of theirs in that entire time. While it's probably indeed not important to them, better to check with them first instead of just discarding it on your own. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you'll permit an observation from a (very) former arbitrator and a tiny bit of self-promotion, WP:IAR is a thing but as I note in my (very short) essay Ignore all rules is for uncommon situations it should only be used irregularly. If a rule is being ignored frequently then chances are that either the person or the rule is wrong and one should change. If just one person is ignoring a rule then it could be either that needs to change (one person may be acting out of line, or the rule may not account for a situation that editor encounters far more than most). If everybody is ignoring a rule then it is most likely that it is the rule that needs changing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Can admins be compelled to follow a policy provision they universally ignore?
Can an admin who performs a specific function that the ignored provision governs be given a choice that compels them to either follow the governing policy provision or cease in performing the function by the contravening means?--John Cline (talk)`

Is Arbcom a proper venue for this and if so by what means?
Clearly, compelling a restoration of propriety in tandem with forcing the discontinuance of an ingrained impropriety can't happen without an empowering instrument like an Arbcom resolution or some other such thing. Would Arbcom hear such a case, motion, or other similar such and if so what manner of filing would be best?--John Cline (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ArbCom may interpret policy, but it can't make (or unmake) policy. WP:VPP is probably the correct forum. My personal opinion, without knowing specifically what it is you are referring to, is that policy is supposed to reflect best practices, not dictate them, so a policy that hasn't been enforced in a decade is de facto already not a policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ArbCom may interpret policy, but it can't make (or unmake) policy. WP:VPP is probably the correct forum. My personal opinion, without knowing specifically what it is you are referring to, is that policy is supposed to reflect best practices, not dictate them, so a policy that hasn't been enforced in a decade is de facto already not a policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to arbs, consider changing the wording of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header
The current template reads I believe it should read: There are time sensitive scenarios involving oversight where one cannot wait for ArbCom to make a decision or approve a removal. This isn't really a hypothetical and ArbCom should consider altering the template to not be a total blanket ban, so that oversighters don't hesitate when this is necessary. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could potentially add in "oversighter" between "arbitrator" and "clerk". Less wordy and covers the not-a-hypothetical situation when something needs hiding. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is just tweaking the rule to be too specific; IAR certainly applies here and (other than today's case) I can't think of the last time we had to deal with an oversightable case request. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also note for the record that TNT did immediately contact ArbCom about the removal and suppression to make sure that it was above-board. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought about something like "Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator, clerk, or are performing valid oversight (and/or revision deletion?).", but adding the word oversighter also works I think. Izno (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this needs change, per GN. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The people for whom exceptions should apply, as with TNT here, know who they are and in what circumstances there is an exception. So I agree no change is necessary per GN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Avoid instruction creep, no change necessary. Actions of superclerk Bishzilla can as usual be assumed to be excepted. <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:125%;color:#0FF">bishzilla</b> <i style="color:#E0E;font-size:175%;">  ROA R R! !</i>  pocket  21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC).

IPA and AA2 narrowing of scope: what is "political"?
There could be other possible overlaps, but one thing that comes to mind would be IPA/AA2 military pages. I'm not sure "political" (or "religious") would apply to disputes which would generally involve, say, opponents/proponents arguing over inflating/deflating of military strength (for e.g., like how many this or that instrument of death does this or that IPA/AA2 country have, and so on). courtesy pings. El_C 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * To some extent the bounds of "political" will need to be fleshed out by AE "case law", of a sort. If you, in your reasonable judgment as an enforcing administrator, want to sanction something and believe that it fits within the DS authorization broadly construed, you can do so – and your action is presumed to be correct unless it's reversed by a full consensus at AE, or a full ArbCom majority. In effect, this means that if you have a reasonable argument that something is "political", you can assume DS powers. I don't have specific answers for you other than if something is "on the margin", the "broadly construed" makes it fall within the scope. Hope this answers your question; if you have any followups just ask. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Defer, defer, defer! Kevin, I guess what I'm getting at with that example are editing disputes which are emblematic of a political rivalry between those countries, but which are otherwise technically outside the domain of politics itself (even loosely defined; as an undercurrent). So, for example, in a dispute over whether an IPA/AA2 country has, say, 300 or whether it has 600 x-model tanks — could it fall under the narrower DS? And if so, what, like, in spirit? Thanks! El_C 19:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @El C can you post these comments to somewhere on A/R/M so we have consolidated discussion? Here or here could work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, just refactor wherever you think is good. I'm confused by this set up — whose allowed to comment where. El_C 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC) — I figured it out! El_C 20:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would the wars between India and Pakistan be politics in your minds. By a reasonable definition no, but there are so many issues there -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 19:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, what about when the rivalry spills over into language, both linguistics and naming disputes? El_C 20:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment on present motion relating to Waldorf Education
There is presently a motion at WP:A/R/M regarding DS on the topic of Waldorf Education. Being broadly construed, these DS clearly covers all of the article on the creator of Waldorf Education, Rudolf Steiner. A thread relating to this article began at WP:FTN on 1 January 2022. More recently, has been editing this article and has initiated a talk page discussion regarding sourcing and the use of variations on the term "pseudoscience." Following those edits, has posted DS notifications to Clean Copy (citing WP:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS, not the Waldorf case) and has also added a new subsection to the FTN discussion and initiated an AE thread on Clean Copy. In the AE thread, has noted that Clean Copy previously edited as Hgilbert and I note that there were adverse findings of fact regarding Hgilbert in the original Waldorf education case. The history of the page user:Hgilbert shows that it was made into a redirect to user:Clean Copy on 12 July 2016 as part of the renaming, so the link that Alexbrn notes between the Hgilbert and Clean Copy accounts is verified.

It may well be that allegedly problematic edits relating to Steiner's beliefs and views are adequately covered by the pseudoscience or other cases, but will the same be true of all areas caught by the Waldorf DS? I suggest that ArbCom might want to reconsider the motion when there is active discussion of one of the editors who was part of the original case. Hgilbert was found to have been advocating for Waldorf Education and it is unclear to me whether the Waldorf DS regime is entirely redundant to PS and CAM. 's statement at the motion that there have been no sanctions under Waldorf since 2014 may be unintentionally misleading if sanctions have been imposed in the area using other regimes, and so there may actually be signs of disruption (other than possibly the present Clean Copy issues) relating to the area that are less obvious as they fall into areas of overlap between DS domains. I don't know whether the Waldorf DS are still needed and I am not offering any comment on Clean Copy's recent edits; however, in light of recent events, I suggest that ArbCom reconsider the question.

As the WP:A/R/M page is semi-protected, I request that an editor copy my above comments to the "Waldorf education Community discussion" section of Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Thank you. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . :)  172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your comment in reply to mine at A/R/M... may I reply:
 * has posted to the AE thread to recommended a topic ban "from, at the least, Rudolf Steiner and anthrosophy, broadly construed." Such a ban would clearly be within the central scope of the Waldorf DS regime, no broadly construed required.  Would it also fall entirely within the discretion of the PS and / or CAM regimes?  Certainly parts of Steiner's article deals with pseudoscience, but what about other parts of it, or the article on Waldorf Education itself, or other parts of that topic area?  I agree with ArbCom's move to do away with sanctions and DS regimes which are redundant or no longer necessary in general... I am just concerned that recent events suggest that this topic area may not have become as unproblematic as it first appears.  172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ here. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)