Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 38

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder closed

 * Original announcement


 * How's that for a final result! On record: the original block was inappropriate, and the subsequent desysop was inappropriate, therefore, the inappropriate desysop in response to the overturning of the inappropriate block is endorsed. What a legacy this year's group is leaving. Swarm  talk  09:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, a good block is soured by by involvement and not every inappropriate action demands a remedy. Had Maxim not come to ARC after the desysop or been as contrite, perhaps things would have been different.  To overuse my car analogy, it's okay to say speeding is illegal but not pull every single car over. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 11:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good analogy, that or, perhaps, 'straddling the lane.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that it this is dispositive, but I believe the outcome of the case is consistent with the vast majority of community opinion as expressed on the workshop. I'm not sure what remedy you are suggesting we should have impose in response to isolated missteps or differences of opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know there is a lot of behind the scenes context that goes into these final decisions, don't get me wrong, but ultimately, when we come out with remedies that are counterintuitive to the findings of fact, and the only good explanation is that you've basically parroted the community's opinion, one wonders what the point of it all is. If an admin self-unblocks, obviously that's a hugely controversial, scandalous thing, and all of the focus is going to be them. However, if you retroactively assess the original block to be illegitimate, that's actually important context in regards to everything that subsequently happened. The admins who subsequently enforced the block, and the crat who dubiously invoked IAR to usurp emergency desysopping authority in a non-emergency situation, weren't even in the right. Fred was a victim himself, even if he responded the wrong way and made everyone freak out. Not trying to beat anyone up or rehash the situation, but that is the apparent finding of fact by Arbcom, and the pursuant decision should have been objective and cautious of being influenced by a mob mentality. All three users were in the wrong, yet Fred got the guillotine, Boing got a very gentle talking to, and Maxim did not even indirectly get any sort of generalized discouragement for performing an inappropriate desysop. The final decision was not really balanced the way the blame was, and the only apparent explanation for this is that the controversy was centered on Fred. I understand Fred's unpopular, and Maxim and Boing are popular, and to a certain extent, your remedies are forced to reflect that, but come on, no disapproval over the desysop at all? Really? Also, I think it's humorous that users are trying to minimize the magnitude of actions like an INVOLVED block and an unauthorized desysop, both of which are on the same level as self-unblocking. This isn't "50% of cars are speeding and we can't pull them all over". This is more akin to "there's three drunk drivers and eleven cops, and one gets thrown in the slammer, one gets a verbal warning, and one doesn't even get pulled over". Swarm  talk  21:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I think Maxim was wrong, but I do not think Fred was anything even in the same universe of being "guillotined." Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't like my hyperbolic choice of word for the most severe penalty in the arsenal in response to misusing the mop, feel free to substitute your own. Swarm  {talk}  01:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Penalty? That seems to assume a conclusion. Of course, no removal of permissions is suppose to be a penalty/punishment.  On the other hand, many removals of permissions will draw a claim by someone that this or that particular removal is a penalty/punishment.  So, we leave that to an elected committee to decide because, we might all have different views on this or that.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're a pedantic one. Swarm  {talk}  02:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are commenting on me? At any rate, it remains when we have multiple accounts that "did wrong" in different ways, it does not follow that all have the same remedy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Why was Fred the only editor to get a "used rollback inappropriately" finding of fact? 28bytes (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because no other party did? I know I didn't, and I was the major antagonist. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to double-check that statement. 28bytes (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And you know using Twinkle to edit-war without using edit summaries is not a legitimate use of that tool, right? I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble here – I understand everyone was having a bad day, it happens to all of us – but the idea that only Fred was reverting inappropriately is, at best, revisionist history. If there's going to be a finding of fact regarding inappropriate reverts, it should not single out only one of the parties who did that. 28bytes (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I never suggested other parties were not wrong in the edit war (and I have openly accepted my failing in that), but there are no policy prohibitions on using the Twinkle tool without providing an edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked above to WP:Twinkle's "Abuse" section, in which it says Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Are you saying that because WP:Twinkle is not tagged as a policy page, we can ignore that section and use Twinkle however we like? I'm not trying to go all Fram on you, but come on, this is some pretty awful wikilawyering. If you're going to revert a good faith editor, you need to provide an edit summary. 28bytes (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not lawyer over the use of Twinkle, I am simply replying to suggestions of misuse of Rollback. Misuse of Twinkle is an entirely new issue, and you're way too late to try to introduce that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If your Twinkle interface is like mine, literally the only difference between Twinkle's rollback and non-Twinkle rollback is that the "[rollback]" links are slightly different shades of blue. We will have to agree to disagree that clicking the rollback link with the slightly lighter shade of blue while edit-warring is an "entirely new issue." 28bytes (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those three diffs were not made by a party to the case, and Arb cases typically do not make judgments on non-parties. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbs, does your understanding match BsZ's? That Fred was singled out for the inappropriate reverting finding of fact because Twinkle isn't rollback and the other rollbacker wasn't made a party? It would have been perfectly OK to limit the scope of the case to Fred's self-unblocking, but if you're going to include FoFs related to rollback misuse it's really not kosher to single out only one of the people doing that. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking just for myself, I thought the "rollback misuse" issue was a very minor part of the case, as reflected in my vote comments on the proposed decision. Also speaking for myself (although it's a moot point as to me personally if we don't get any more cases this year), input on what a case decision should contain is more useful if presented on the workshop or the proposed decision talkpage while the case is being decided, rather than on this page after the case has been closed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't something I'm just springing on everyone after the fact. I provided my input very, very early in the process. I don't understand how an objective observer could look at the page history of the locus of dispute and conclude that Fred was the only one making sketchy reverts. I see from the proposed decision page that the committee is basing the "inappropriate rollback" finding of fact on evidence from User:Jytdog. It is unfortunate that no one thought to double-check Mr. Dog's work. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with NYB. The rollback finding is a statement of fact but was largely irrelevant to the remedies. For me the desysop rested on the self-unblocking, not anything to do with rollback. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why include it? 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask the drafters. Perhaps it was meaningful to the decision-making of other arbs. From my point of view the Finding is accurate as a statement of fact; it's just "meh" in terms of relevance to the remedies. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

TBD TBH, the whole situation shouldn't have been taken to Arbcom. Emotions at the time were riding high & a cooling off period would've sufficed. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps a tricky case, but I think the four remedies are reasonable and I think ArbCom did a generally good job on this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would just note here that when I tried a few years ago to make rollback available to all autoconfirmed users by default, my primary argument was that it is the same as Twinkle. I received extremely strong pushback from some who insisted that the rollback tool was "more powerful" than Twinkle rollback. I still don't see why that is but apparently substantial portions of the community feel that way. I think this was the right decision in the end all around, but also that it could've come to the same conclusion without that particular finding. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What a lot of hoopla over nothing. And the Twinkle/rollback issue is not new.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * now that we have extended confirmed, which has effectively the same technical threshold (actually higher) as users who are granted rollback, it might make sense to combine the two, not that I think that the suggestion would make it through the community RfC process... --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * who is TBD, or what does the acronym mean here? I can't find it in WP:ALPHABETSOUP. MPS1992 (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant TBH. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Up until the removal of administrative privileges occurred, other paths could have been chosen. But once that happened, the arbitration committee was required to exercise its oversight role. isaacl (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What Issacl said, Maxim's action basically forced it into Arbcom. I've said it before, Maxim was wrong to do what they did. On the other hand, someone was going to bring a case to Arbcom to remove Fred's permissions (there was so much overwrought talk of a "bright line" by a chorus, when in actuality Fred being unblocked created no emergency, at all.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I originally posted a tongue-in-cheek response to this. But no, the poem is not about comparing anyone to Nazis:  "“First They Came,” in other words, is particularly attuned to the needs of the modern protest: It offers wisdom about the evils of the past, in an attempt to prevent more evils of the future. To use its language is to claim an understanding of history—and an understanding, too, of how readily its mistakes can be repeated by those who fall victim to the luxuries of forgetfulness. It is #neveragain, and #neverforget, with the subjects added in." .  So what, was I responding to?  We have a functionary using this community's version of a meme (I thought we didn't template regulars?) to stop conversation that is centered on free-speech: that, at the very least has a chilling effect.  "As functionaries have a high profile within the project, and are the face of Wikipedia both to its editors and to the wider world, it is damaging to the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole if these users are repeatedly embroiled in controversy."  Above and beyond that, they're trying to stop a discussion about a case they were involved in!  There are claims above that the team who asked for the job of investigating these sorts of situations did not perform their due diligence in determining that some of the principal evidence was tainted by a user who has since left the project.  A respected editor appears to have been ignored because their story did not seem to sit with the consensus reality at the time.  So, while I may have crossed a line (although Goodwin recanted) I'm not the only one.  So why was I the only one to get my edit reverted, I wonder?  In any case, here is another quote (without, I hope, any implication that any person on this project is another's property):
 * “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
 * ― James Madison"
 * All the best, Crazynast 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are making something into an issue that doesn't need to be one. Natureium (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Surprised that all the other admins that reblocked Bauder weren't desysopped for wheel-warring. It was text book wheel-warring as they rushed to redo an admin sanction. Wheel-warring isn't justified "because we were right" nor is redoing ad admin action somehow not wheel-warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Guerillero reappointed a full clerk

 * Original announcement


 * The clerk team is delighted to have back! Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 09:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome to see! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Bradv appointed trainee clerk

 * Original announcement


 * The Brad Cabal has struck again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications

 * Original announcement


 * I’m pretty sure I understand the intent of this one (see the AP2 section of WP:AELOG/2018), but I think it may have made more sense just to use names rather than modify the procedures here. Not a huge deal, but I can see circumstances where this wouldn’t be great. Anyway, not the worst thing in the world, but my attempt at constructive feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , The motion was sprung from discussion at User_talk:Doug Weller/Archive 53 and User talk:Doug Weller, so definitely related to Coffee's retirement. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. As I said, not the worst thing, and I’m hardly the type to hate on people doing a tough job where really any solution that was posted would get complaints, but making this Coffee-specific seems like it would have been better. Ex. admin X places a TBAN on editor Y. Admin X gets desysoped for inactivity two years later. Editor Y, who in this hypothetical couldn’t and shouldn’t have the TBAN lifted on appeal, admin shops for someone not familiar with the topic area and who they’ve had good interactions with in the past. TBAN lifted, more disruption occurs, and we have to deal with it for a few months with admins heming and hawing about reinstating a recently lifted sanction (because once a sanction is lifted it takes double the disruption to get a new one...)This is of course a hypothetical, but it’s also one that could easily happen, especially as we’re getting more inactivity desysops from formerly active admins. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is indeed why I thought the change should be limited to page restrictions and not TBANs/blocks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, for AP2, maybe it could work, but there are some obscure DS areas when you have stuff like indefinite full protection that’s been in place for years (don’t ask me to find them, but we have several) and where this is justified and probably shouldn’t be lifted without discussion since it’s more likely to attract comments from people who know why the sanctions exist. Unilateral lifting in these cases would also be a Bad Thing(tm).The issue we’re running into here is that one former administrator who has said he has permanently left the project imposed sanctions on basically every page somewhat related to AP2 that he came across, and some of those likely weren’t needed. The simple solution would be to apply this motion to his actions and deal with any future scenarios that are similar when they happen. Anyway, thanks to the committee for addressing this. It adds clarity even if I think a narrower solution would have been better right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify your feedback? I understand you to be suggesting better would have been to authorise the transfer of specific Coffee sanctions, but to go no further nor to provide for the next inactive administrator's actions to be taken over.   AGK  &#9632;  00:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this amendment does not do anything to inactive admins' sanctions. It does something to former admins' sanctions. While this may have spawned from Coffee's sanctions, that was more the catalyst for us to look at when it makes sense for AE actions to be revertable and when it doesn't. I imagine there will be a broader conversation about this in the future, because we likely want to consider the question of inactivity. ~ Rob 13 Talk 08:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , my point is that DS was meant to deal with the most complex and contested topic areas on-wiki. In many circumstances even if an admin has lost the bit the reasons for imposing the sanctions still stand and would benefit from the standard appeal process. I don’t want someone lifting full protection from some random Eastern European ethnic dispute without discussion just because they don’t believe in full protecting a page long-term and the admin who did it retired.To be shorter: the problem of sanctions from hypothetical desysoped admins has never and is unlikely to ever actually be a problem outside of this one particular circumstance. Crafting a generic motion to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist outside of one very specific set of circumstances opens up the door to a lot of problems. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a possible issue here regarding admin shopping. But the alternative (previously status quo) effectively removed the most straightforward and I'd argue, a lot of the time, easiest and most likely to be granted appeal option from editors through no fault of their own. That, along with the points made above about page restrictions, was mainly my impetus for changing it. If a TBAN is removed through admin shopping the editor can always be taken back to AE and the sanction added back again (or a stronger version of it given the gaming) so a little, short-term disruption might be caused but it can easily be fixed. Long-term blocks are another key area where this modification might be useful as it's less likely a block appeal will be successful if it needs to be copied to AE and the editor in question can't participate fully in the discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think my point is that the previous status quo has really only been a significant issue in one case, and trying to solve a non-existent hypothetical issue in other cases that also has the potential to create problems seems less than ideal. When you’re dealing with a bunch of hypothetical pluses and minuses, it’s best to wait to change things until a long-term problem presents itself, in my view. That being said, I get all of you have a thankless job and I don’t see this as a “the world is ending” moment. Just raising it so as to encourage thinking about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee

 * Original announcement


 * I'm assuming Mkdw's exclusion was an oversight? Kurtis (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there's always the possibility I was removed from the committee by two-thirds majority vote (joking, I hope) . Although, it would not be the first time someone was seemingly informed they were being dismissed via public announcement. Mkdw  talk  20:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an oversight, though I'm not sure anyone really wants to be welcomed to the committee. (See my talk.) ;-) Katietalk 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting that DeltaQuad is transitioning from ARBCOM member to ARBCOM clerk. Maybe this will mean that clerks will receive a raise in 2019? At least give everyone an updated "Get Out Of ANI Free" card. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's also another potential opportunity for an ex-Arb to influence the committee using the back channels to which we are not privy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They get to stay on the clerk mailing list anyway. Your conspiracies could use some work. Natureium (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No I won't, but thanks for your comment. (oh ho ho, you changed your comment!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. I don't want your conspiracies elsewhere either. Natureium (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And I don't want your tone or ill manner elsewhere, but we'll just have to put up with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think DQ being a clerk is great. As an ex-arb they are in a position to know when clerk action is needed, which has at times been a serious failing on the clerks team. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)c
 * And for the soon-to-be-ex-members, here's fun thing for you if you want it:

The bananas really make it if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * These conspiracy theories are ridiculous. As a former Arbitration Committee clerk, I can joke about DeltaQuad taking a step up from the committee to do clerk work (which is much less stressful). I'm sure she will be invaluable.
 * I don't care for the clerk team criticism, Beeblebrox, but I do love your userbox bananas! Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Clerk work is definitely a lot less stress than Arb work, especially the backend work, something I need time away from. This is a nice place to remain, and I'd still be on the clerks list regardless. And I absolutely want that. Think I may go put it on my page early!  --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We're lucky to have you on the clerk team! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's actually nice to see former arbitrators taking up clerk roles; in the past year I have gotten the impression that some members of the committee seems to think clerks are some kind of "subordinates" to be put in their place, when it really should be two teams of people supporting and complementing each other, which is the positivity that is needed. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of that in 2019. Alex Shih (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I take exception to that comment, Alex. I don't know who you are referring to, or if you're just trying to stir the pot, but many of the arbitrators have been clerks (myself included) and appreciate how important that role is. Personally, if the clerks didn't exist, I would not be sitting on the committee, and believe they are invaluable. WormTT(talk) 08:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are free to take your exceptions, Dave. The main point to take away from my comment is that I'm saying the role of clerks are equally as important as arbitrators, is that not what you are saying as well? Perhaps it's not a good practice to yet again engage in bad faith and accuse me of stirring some kind of "pot", unless if you have a good reason that you would like to share with us? If you don't share the same impression that some ArbCom members seem to treat clerks like subordinates, do feel free to disagree. But drop the "stir the pot" nonsense, please. Alex Shih (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Without any specifics, your comment was designed to create tensions between the two groups, call it "stirring the pot" or "casting aspersions" or whatever you like. Your comment was not just something to be simply disagreed with, it was out of line, as I have seen no committee member acting in the way you describe and I would call them out for it directly if I did. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "I have gotten the impression that some members of the committee seems to think clerks are some kind of "subordinates" to be put in their place" is unfair and unevidenced, and pretty much a textbook definition of . Then complaining about it being bad faith to describe your pot-stirring comment as such? Nope.  Please either retract your above slur, Alex, or substantiate it. Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  10:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was a clerk from September 2009 to February 2012, and of course am finishing my fourth year as an Arb. I know how hard the job was then and it's even harder now. There's no way that I would have failed to notice if any of us treated the clerks as some sort of subordinate - they're much needed partners and without them the whole thing would fall apart. Doug Weller  talk 10:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never been a clerk, largely because I'm sure I'd be terrible at handling all the minutiae they have to juggle. But I have been on the committee for four years in the past, and unless something changed dramatically in the year I was gone (that is, the new arbitrators were cruel, and every arbitrator I've previously worked with somehow simultaneously lost all spine to tell a colleague they were out of line), the arbitrators have never been anything but extremely grateful for the invaluable work the clerks do. I agree with Doug Weller above that I've found the clerks to be treated as partners rather than subordinates. Of course there is some amount of instruction given to the clerks from the ArbCom, such as telling them when a case is ready to be closed, but I've never seen anyone condescend to them or treat them as subordinate. As a parallel, I tell my colleagues (and superiors) at work when my code is ready for review, and it's hardly me treating them as subordinate. If you have any examples you'd like to send privately, or if a clerk is reading this and has experienced this in the past, I'd love to know, but otherwise I have to agree with WTT that this seems like a poor attempt to stir the pot. There are many things that can be criticized about the ArbCom, but its partnership with the clerk team is not one I'd choose. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sigh, and we were having such nice discussions about kicking Mkdw off the committee Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, ignore the relationship between the arbs and the clerks; it's clear the real issue here is the hostility between Katie and mkdw! Natureium (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it because I'm a cat person? <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  02:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In some of the wisest words of Edward Snowden, I think you are a cat lord. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cameron11598 appointed full clerk

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

 * Original announcement

So we've just had an ARCA because people were forever taking TRM to AE for breaching an ambiguous sanction, and the AE admins on nearly every occasion said "no foul committed".

So why, in trying to address the problem the ARCA brought to you, have you chosen to amend the old ambiguous sanction and make it more ambiguous?

When the suggestion was raised, (very late in a very very very long process, indeed after you started voting) to drop the word "general", I raised some serious concerns about this at the discussion:.

OR replied to my comment. I do not understand how her response addresses the problem I raised.

As things stand, TRM is in breach of your sanction if he so much as says to me "hey Dweller, given that you're not very good at formatting citations, I've helped and fixed them" in the FA candidate we're both working on. (He'd be right. I'm lazy.) Because that would be a reflection on my competence with formatting citations.

The result of your action is going to be gleeful rubbing of hands and bad-faith actions taken against TRM / woefully mistaken good-faith misinterpretations of the revised sanction. Take your pick, same bad outcome. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If an IP is permitted to contribute in this venue: in Dweller's example, an appropriate comment would be "hey Dweller, I've fixed the citations" without the unnecessarily personalised commentary on competence ("you're not very good at formatting citations"). Most people find it perfectly possible to provide constructive feedback without speculating about motivations or reflecting on competence.  If someone finds it impossible to edit without such speculation or reflection, perhaps they should not be editing after all.  If some trigger-happy admin blocks TRM for something that is not speculating about motivations or reflecting on competence, that admin will get short shrift when the block is reviewed. 213.205.240.136 (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or you can just log in instead.... -- KTC (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * All this confusion between constructive feedback and criticizing someone's competence, that would explain a few bosses I've had! :) "You should put a comma there" = fine. "You're apparently too stupid to know you need a comma there" = no. Obviously nobody intends to tell TRM he can't review articles or collaborate on content. In fact I think providing solicited critical feedback - input people have specifically requested or invited - would be an excellent place to refocus energy. If the hypothetical gleeful hand-rubbers do in fact materialize, you can always (yes, I know we're not speedy) file an ARCA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, your last-second amendment (removal of "general" actually during voting) has effectively stopped me from risking doing any kind of review, including the GAN reviews I was doing, the FLCs and the FACs, in fact I can't even respond to people's criticism of my own work as it could be interpreted by trigger happy admins and some other individuals as implicit observations of competence, or lack of.  From the preceding comment, it also means I won't be able to review ITNs as the nominations don't explicitly solicit my opinions, yet my comments could easily be interpreted by some as people's lack of competence.  We'll need to reconvene another clarification as soon as possible as this is simply unacceptably vague, and considerably worse than the first botched up version (which was similarly suddenly acceptable to everyone at Arbcom after an interminable delay).  Even something as straightforward as a sitting Arb not even knowing if it's allowable for me to respond to a comment on a DYK on my actual talk page, rather than simply WP:TRM is indicative that this is really a bit of a disaster. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We might as well ask TRM to stop editing here (at least, that's what the current state of the sanction broadly seems to allude to). Lourdes   10:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I know this has rumbled on for a long time already, but I really think this needs to be revisited by ArbCom immediately. The point of the ARCA was that the existing sanction was unworkable due to the vagueness of the restriction. So it was imperative that it either be removed and replaced with something workable, (which I think the topic bans on ERRORS and DYK broadly are), or redefined in such an explicit manner that there could be no further disputes about what constituted an infringement. I take your point re those two examples you mention, but there are many shades of grey in between those, and also a fundamental disagreement between admins on where the bright line is placed. The current situation is that TRM is having to turn down reviews even for those with no history of dispute with him, simply because of lack of clarity and a fear of things he says being misinterpreted. That can't be right. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't even recall a "dispute" with anyone with whom I've worked at GAN, FAC or FLC. Literally hundreds and hundreds (maybe even thousands of reviews).  And now I can't risk it.  And it's not because of the people with whom I work, it's because of the people who were always so quick to drag me to AE, where it was demonstrated that something like 85% of reports were declined.  It's those people, with whom some I've never even interacted or with whom I aim to no longer ever interact, who are going to be the ones to exploit these ambiguities, as they already did before the additional ambiguity added by this clarification.  Lourdes nailed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM doesn't have to turn down reviews. He needs to conduct reviews without commenting on editors competence, which is something he should be doing anyway. Most editors conduct reviews without making things personal; if TRM is unable to do so, that's part of the problem. If he steps over the line inadvertently, there are enough admins at AE who would support the spirit and the not the letter of the sanction. Vanamonde (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that this has made the situation more ambiguous, not more clearer as some presidents would say. It now means I don't even have to raise specific language or tone, it can just be as simple as "we don't format things like that, we use this" which can easily be construed as a comment on the competence of the nominator.  I have always reviewed material by telling people where they're going wrong, so they can do it better next time.  This "clarification" has now made it basically impossible to do that without further frivilous AE cases (and that statement just there is now blockable I guess as it's related to the "general motivations and/or competence" of those individuals who raised the 85%+ of AEs which were turned down.  Your final sentence sums the inadequacy of this "clarification" absolutely perfectly and is precisely what was not wanted to be achieved yet was voted for unanimously.  Post-funeral, and if it hasn't been done so already, I will raise another ARCA so we can try and do it properly, and even wait until a proposal stops changing before it gets voted on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM, I've just gone and had a look at your comments at a bunch of random FA/FAL/GA reviews from the past couple months or so, and they were all constructive criticism directed at the content of the article being reviewed. I didn't see a single comment from you in the ones I looked at that I would characterize as being directed at anyone's competence, even when you're strongly disagreeing with the person you're replying to. If you carry on conducting yourself at FA/FAL/GA reviews exactly as you have been (ie, focusing on the content and not commenting on the contributor), there is no reason to think you will be sanctioned for it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But, once again, the actual point here is that this very clarification was intended to stop the frivilous trips to AE. That you as on of the Arbs who held all the in camera discussions and made last-minute changes don't think what I've said is sanctionable is actually quite irrelevant, it's all the other editors, some of whom with whom I've never interacted, who will continue to exploit this committee's considerably worse wording.  What happens now is that I can be summarily blocked for two days by any trigger happy admin at who deems any of my comments anywhere relating to criticism of content as criticism of competence (because, inherently, in a lot of cases, it is because of lack of competence).  So this whole protracted debate has made things categorically worse and the way in which it was conducted (e.g. voting while the motion was being changed, off-wiki disucssions which resulted in a unanimous falling into line etc) is a terrible legacy from this committee.  It's not over, sadly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The amendment as it currently stands is so broad as to be unenforceable at best and hostile at worst. It effectively bans TRM from the areas in which he is most prolific - not just DYK but reviews in general. It effectively amounts to a site ban and telling him he's not welcome to contribute here. WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet it was unanimously approved by Arbcom. Unanimously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom, you really didn't listen to me during the ARCA. Please listen to me and others now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. To give a common example, if TRM says "this DYK hook has problems because X was missed at the QPQ stage", that clearly isn't a comment on the general competence of the editor that did the QPQ, it just means they missed something on this occasion. But with the removal of the word "general" from the restriction, that completely mild observation would now be blockable.  That can't be right, surely. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that something was "missed" is simply noting that a mistake was made. Anybody can make a mistake, so pointing one out is not a reflection on competence, at all. And clearly, given the degree of support TRM still enjoys, the chance of him actually being sanctioned for such commentary is effectively nil. Gatoclass (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the number of frivilous AE cases brought against me before this "clarification", I'd say your position is utter bollocks. Arbcom have simply acceded to the few who wanted more opportunity to discipline me.  That 90% of the AEs were dismissed has somehow become an opportunity to move the bar to ensure that 90% of the AEs now are affected.  The Rambling Man (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Utter bollocks", you say? So much for your alleged concern about being unable to offer robust criticism following the rewording of this sanction. But in response, I'm inclined to return your expletive. One could drive a truck through the word "general", as we saw in the latest AE case.
 * And no, the sanction wasn't in my view reworded to stop the frivolous trips to AE as you claimed above. It was reworded to provide the community with a degree of protection from your predilection for incivility. If the price of an effective sanction is that you might occasionally get dragged to AE on frivolous grounds, then I'm sorry, but that's the price you pay for your well established unwillingness or inability to play by the same rules the rest of us have to abide by. Gatoclass (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, and don't take this as an observation on competence, but you're missing the point. The flippant and frivolous nature of several of the AE trips meant the sanction needed to be re-visited to prevent such an issue, not to make the sanction so generalist that it becomes open to much more abuse.  There was overwhelming evidence that such trips to AE were a waste of community time and that no infringements occurred.  This "clarification" just massively increases the likelihood of further such flippant trips.  It is, by far, the least helpful "clarification" I have ever seen.  And that it was modified during voting is simply astonishing.  And voted for unanimously despite the massive rift in comprehension of this situation in the community.  Indeed, even a sitting Arb wasn't able to adequately answer my subsequent questions about the "clarification".   Now you don't need a truck to drive through the wording, you can simply apply it to even the most casual observation (e.g. "No, that's grammatically incorrect" - OBSERVATION ON EDITOR'S INABILITY TO WRITE GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCES = COMPETENCE = BLOCKWORTHY!).  Even this very post is blockworthy.  Don't you see that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The sanction was altered because as it stood it was so narrow as to be virtually unactionable. But that was not the only remedy. In addition, the length of time for which you could be blocked without recourse to ARCA was limited to a paltry two days. AFAIK, you are the only user for whom the escalating block model for incivility has effectively been vacated, an extraordinary concession. Additionally,, the admin who came under the most criticism at your AE requests, has expressed a disinclination to participate in any more requests involving you, which is another monkey off your back. And yet still you and your friends complain. Clearly you won't be satisfied unless the sanction is completely vacated&mdash;because it's impossible to word any sanction that completely precludes gaming by either party&mdash;and that's not an option. Most people in your position would be facing a siteban by now, so I think you'd be well advised to quit while you're still ahead. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, you cannot silence me. Multiple frivolous AE cases were thrown out as "no fault found" (about 85% of them actually).  And I'm not the only person who can see the last-gasp removal of "general" during voting is a complete shambles.  Indeed, this very post is blockable now under those new conditions, as it could be interpreted quite easily by some as a note relating the competence of Arbcom and those members who went along with voting for a moving target.  Perhaps that's the point, to completely silence any kind of complaint I may wish to register because now anything I write which goes against any other editor can be declared as a comment on competence or motivation.  There's little point in continuing to discuss this with you as you've already made your views known to everyone, you tried to haul me off to ANI in the past because you disagreed with my editing norms (modified as a result of your own behaviour), that was also thrown out.  Continuing this discussion with you is completely pointless I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that there is no point discussing these matters with you, as you never take any responsibility for your own behaviour, it's always the other guy's fault. But if you are incapable of accepting criticism, I can at least put my case for others to read and consider. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can and have taken criticism, even of my motivations and competence, for 13 years. You, for instance, questioned my motivations by attempting to get me sanctioned at ANI (now a blockable comment).  That, like the 85% of frivolous AEs, was a complete waste of time (now a blockable comment).  Just read some of the other comments here from those individuals with whom I have collaborated over 13 years of content creation and quality control.  Working in areas where there are substantial ownership problems is unpleasant but it has to be done (now a blockable comment).  Putting up with being called "nit picky" or a "MOS maven" goes with the territory.  But rather than "it's always the other guy's fault" perhaps you should read it as "no longer a level playing field".  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, TRM could now be blocked if he put this message on my user talk: "hey Dweller, given that you're not very good at formatting citations, I've helped and fixed them". It's ridiculous.

It's left me with the impression that ArbCom looked at all those 'no fault' AE reports and decided that the problem wasn't that TRM hadn't done anything wrong, but that the goalposts needed to be moved so that TRM could be found in the wrong in future.

It's really unacceptable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The sanction was intended to prevent TRM's chronic incivility. TRM continued to be uncivil without breaching the letter of his sanction. Therefore, the sanction was modified. That's where the difference of opinion really lies; if you believe that there's absolutely nothing wrong with his behavior, then of course you think the sanction is draconian. There's also absolutely no evidence that TRM would actually be blocked over a frivolous report. Vanamonde (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that there has been no evidence the community thinks TRM is guilty of chronic incivility (as evidenced by the complete lack of success in the frivolous reports at the various noticeboards. As it stands now you have an editor under a more restrictive standard than that called for by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL (which are inconsistantly applied by the admin corps and arbcom anyway) while doing absolutely fuck all to address the chronic quality issues that are rife within the areas TRM deals with. Good job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Addressing content issues directly is outside ARBCOM's mandate. You know that. Also, as I said at ARCA, 33 admins at AE alone have told TRM that he needed to work to be more polite, not to mention a number of others at other venues and most members of ARBCOM across two years. And most of those people are those who appreciate his work greatly. This could be solved by TRM just dialing it back a little, but he (still) hasn't recognized there may be a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly failing basic quality checks like 'Is the information sourced by a reference within the article' is an editing conduct issue - it is not asking for the content to be vetted, it is asking for an editor to abide by Wikipedia's policies on editing. And 'be more polite' is not 'you have a civility problem' when the admin corps are at the same time inconsistantly or outright refusing to enforce NPA/CIVIL depending on which editor is reported. You want to solve civility issues? Actually enforce the policies we already have and hold TRM to the same standard as everyone else, rather than an arbitary higher standard that NO OTHER EDITOR has to comply with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * <e/c>Any number of our admins are routinely impolite. If TRM had stepped out of bounds, he would have been slapped down at those AEs. I don't see why he should be held to higher standards than admins. And this new sanction imposes impossibly high standards. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM is not being held to a higher standard than admins: any admin behaving as he does would be desysopped for conduct unbecoming. TRM would be "slapped down" at AE only if admins were good at enforcing the civility policy, which we're not, especially with respect to editors with a long history of productive contributions. A person without his abilities would just be handed a broad topic-ban. That's why there's a more specific restriction; to allow TRM to continue to do what he does well, while restricting uncollegial behavior. Vanamonde (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a huge double standard problem here. On the one hand, we have the whole en:wp, where articles are supposed to be sound at the statistical level. The Trump page is supposed to be illustrated on the average with a genuine picture of the said Trump (instead of a penis, or anything else), the penis page is supposed to be illustrated on the average with various genuine penises (instead of... put here your preferred anything else), etc. There is no dead-line for these time-averages. On the other hand, we have the main page, where each and every em-dash should be furbished in order to shine under the sun for the morning review. One can discuss if a barking Editor-in-Chief is, or not, better than a not-so-barking Editor-in-Chief, but a not-so-Chief Editor-in-Chief is a recipe for failure, at least for real-life newspapers. Recognizing that the whole Timely-Main-Page process is largely understaffed, and that the decision process used there is sub-optimal (to adopt a politically correct formulation) would help greatly. Is this absolutely out of the remit of the ArbCom? Sure ! Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Question it took years to get here, a lot of hurt feelings, walls and walls of text. Why has no one thought to add a bullet to WP:NPA "Questioning the competence of another editor". Was all this work for a single individual? Does it have no application to the thousands of other people who contribute at Wikipedia? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * that's not something the Arbitration Committee can do. We can't rewrite policy, that's up to the community. I don't think it would pass. It's too vague and in fact we do discuss and block editors who are clearly incompetent to edit. Doug Weller  talk 08:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

 * Original announcement

IMHO, all editors who are currently in IBANs with any of the Site-banned editors, should have those Ibans ended. I'd even go further, and suggest that any editors (not site-banned) who are topic-banned from the 'gender topic', should have their topic-bans ended. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to your first point (although if they are removed they should be noted such that one-bay bans can be considered should the banned editor be unbanned in the future). I do oppose automatically removing topic bans from non-banned editors (regardless of the topic area), although individual bans can be be looked at individually of course. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By our rules, we'd need individual editors to appeal their sanctions to consider lifting them. This is mostly because doing otherwise would involve a community consult period of our own initiative, which these editors may not want. It also would create problems should the site-banned editors be unbanned, since a two-way IBAN may still have merit but we cannot impose an unblock condition on an editor other than the one being unblocked. I'm certainly welcome to hearing appeals from editors who face such IBANs, but I don't think we can do this wholesale. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Special:Diff/850648652


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Special:Diff/876179926
 * Special:Diff/876180033


 * Information about amendment request
 * The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.
 * Remove page creation and page move restrictions.

Statement by Crouch, Swale
Can I have my page creation and page move restrictions removed please. I have made more improvements to article as was pointed out in the previous review. I have expanded User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and also created User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. I realize that it is important to create articles which are notable and have a good amount of content. At User:Crouch, Swale/To do I have identified pages that need creating, although not all have been identified as being notable, thus I won't necessarily be creating them all. I therefore suggest that as I have had these restrictions for a year now, I should have them removed with the same conditions as the July removals (per WP:ROPE), that they can be reinstated if needed, although I don't think that will be needed. I have discussed with this appeal to get advice, however unfortunately  hasn't been active here since July. My priority is to finish of creating the missing civil parishes in England, of which I should (at least for the villages) be able to add location, distance, population, Domesday Book, name origin, surrounding parishes and church. I have contributed sensibly to naming discussions, although I have had a few disagreements, I haven't received any warnings about it and the main purpose of RM is to discuss controversial (or at least reasonably likely to be controversial moves). I have also contributed (and initiated) some non-geographical moves such as Talk:Attention Seeker (EP) and Red Meat.
 * (reply to AGK) Yes I frequently make move requests to move an article and DAB, usually this involves moving "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo" and "Foo" to "Foo, Location" (example). Moves to move to "Foo (city)" are less common. I don't understand what the point about my question of the existence of a place is, my existing restrictions don't relate to that. Obviously some of the RMs have involved disputes since that's the main purpose of RM (as noted above) If I was making RM proposals that were always being closed as clear consensus to move, then that would be a sign that I should be boldly making those moves myself, not using RM. In response to the last comment, I would quite happily have a 1RR or 0RR with page moves, although I have never edit warred over moves anyway and wouldn't have a problem with such restrictions on any edits, but I don't have restrictions elsewhere so that's unnecessary anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to AGK) If I am questioning the existence of a place then isn't that a good sign, people have often complained about the lack of sources and notability in my articles. Most of the time the DAB page is at the base name, see WP:DABNAME. Talk:Rothesay is an example of a move the other way round and the Noss move is moving to a different name (in this case calling is "Isle of Noss" rather than "Noss") The usual rule of WP:BRD would apply to moves I make, if a move is objected to and there is no agreement with me and the other person, then I revert the move and start a formal WP:RM discussion.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to Swarm) Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia. I removed the PROD with the reason that it should be merged. A prod can be removed by anyone, even without explanation, but I always either explain or improve the article if removing. It is not a case of you are prohibited from removing unless you immediately resolve the issues (see WP:DEPROD). You're reason "Not remotely notable enough for a standalone article and full of indiscriminate miscellany. The short paragraph at University of the West of England, Bristol is more than sufficient." in its self indicates it should be merged and not deleted. Since the content was already covered at the proposed target then converting it to a redirect (to target the short paragraph) would have been entirely appropriate. I then made an !vote to merge and a reply to the fact that I had removed the PROD, hardly stonewalling. In any case the article couldn't have been deleted via PROD anyway since it was unanimously kept at Articles for deletion/UWE Students' Union, even though that was a long time ago (2007). Per WP:BEFOREC4 merging as suggested would have been better since it had been around for more than a dozen years, its quite likely that it would break external links, linking to it, which a redirect would take care of. If you'd asked me on my talk page to list it at proposed merges or help with the merge, I would have done so, I understand that I maybe didn't make it entirely clear what I was doing but I think opposing to removing the restrictions is inappropriate. I shows that I understand that there are alternatives to deletion (and creating standalone articles).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was saying that the title should be redirected (instead of deleted completely), thus merged, the opposite of a spinnoff. I don't know enough about the notability guidelines in that area to say if the articles was notable enough to have a standalone article, but I do know that assuming it isn't appropriate to have a separate article it should be merged, not deleted. Also linked from the 2007 AFD is Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union which was closed as merge.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was not intending on keeping it as a separate article, just that it should be merged assuming its not notable. Usually WP:Notability is only about standalone articles, not topics that are merged into another. In other words I was saying that while I don't object to Swarm's point that there shouldn't be an article, I do object to deletion (completely), since merging/redirection is available/reasonable in this case. We would probably only delete if the parent article (University of the West of England, Bristol) shouldn't contain the content per WP:V/WP:NOT. As long as content on "The Students' Union at UWE" exists at University of the West of England, Bristol its a valid merge candidate.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Beyond My Ken/Swarm) Yes I hadn't made a distinction between "merge" and "redirect", but as pointed out if the appropriate content is already covered in the target article (and the other content at the source article is unsuitable) then the source article can just be changed into a redirect. I think that appeared to be the source of the confusion here, where I was arguing that the source article should be redirected to the target article, but the relevant content was already there.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to Swarm) Well I have made reasonable efforts to explain to you why I did what I did and removing a PROD as noted can be done by anyone, it is not a you must immediately resolve the issue. No indication that I should remain topic banned from creating pages (and I've never been banned from removing PRODs anyway). My conduct was well within the spirit and letter of our PROD (anyone may contest) and deletion policy (merge/redirection should be used if possible).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to Swarm) The principal of BRD applies more with deletion that other actions (since deletion can't simply be "reverted" by anyone, stricter conditions are generally in place for getting a page deleted than making a change to a page). In this case you boldly suggested deletion of the article, I removed that suggestion with a "watered down" suggestion that it be merged/redirected. This would likewise apply to page moves and creation. If I preform a move that is opposed it can be reverted and then discussed and that I should take on that feedback for similar cases. Likewise if I create unsuitable articles then I should take the feedback that I should not create similar pages without discussion with the user who questions them. In the PROD case you have feedback that such cases where a merge/redirect is useful, it should be done instead of deletion. Anyway my suggestion of 1RR or 0RR would surely address the potentially controversial moves.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to SilkTork) Well I have has an entire year with the restrictions, which is plenty long enough. But if only 1 can be removed then I'd strongly favour the page creation, not the page move restriction. A missing article in my books is far more of a problem that an incorrectly titled one. I usually only take pages to RM that are controversial/disruptive (or are uncontroversial but don't know the correct target etx) so the number of unsuccessful RMs is not necessarily a good indicator. Those that aren't controversial I have been waiting to have the restrictions removed to preform myself. For example it would be possible to send 100 blatant attack pages to AFD and have all of them successfully deleted but that would be inappropriate since such pages should be speedily deleted instead. I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved. As noted I would be happy with a 1RR or 0RR with moves and/or an expectation that I revert any moves that are reasonably challenged. That restriction would be workable. So yes the number of unsuccessful RMs is not a good indicator because they are probably not moves that I would be making myself, this is because we are talking about moves that I thought were problematic/controversial/disruptive enough to go through RM V those that I didn't think were controversial. In response to "It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests." I actually think I have already done my most controversial move requests since its like removing a cork from a bottle under pressure, I hadn't been able to make such requests for years and suddenly could, thus I don't expect I will be making a significant number of controversial requests in the foreseeable future, although there will probably still be a few from moves that I think are too controversial to make myself. Also note that I was only formerly banned from geographical naming convention, not non geographical naming conventions. However I decided to stay away from it entirely because I wasn't happy with excluding myself from geographical ones and it would be easy to "step on the edge" of the restriction.


 * So lets go to the page creation which there hasn't been much discussion here. If the move restriction continued but I could still create new pages, it would be a pain since disambiguation is often needed of existing titles and while creating, I will also find articles that are incorrectly names (when checking missing articles that are only redirects, sometimes this is because an article is named incorrectly rather than it doesn't have a standalone article). My priority is the missing civil parishes in England. Civil parishes are legally recognized census areas and thus clearly should have articles. In this case a ban that only allows me to create civil parishes (current and former and the handful of equivalent Welsh ones than need articles/redirects) may be workable since there are still a large number. The inability to create other articles would still be a bit of a roadblock but it may be the least bad option, particularly if there is a way I can create other pages such as by asking an admin that I know or through the AFC process (see User:Crouch, Swale/Risga for example). What opinion do you have on this?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to SilkTork) I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%). Its the number of controversial undiscussed moves that I preform. Making requests at RMT might be seen as evasion if I did many, see Special:Diff/837050534 for example of a user who was banned from making moves. However I did make a few (6) and all were completed. IMO that anyway suggests that there isn't a problem there and I would be more likely to make a request that I thought was marginly controversial at RMT that making it myself since RMT involves another pair of eyes. Consider for example, you're an admin doing NPP, you come across 3 articles, the 1st is a blatant attack page, you can see clearly that it meets G10 and delete it you're self and add Huggle/db-attack-notice to the author. The 2nd is an article that appears to meet A7 but you're not sure so you tag it with db-bio and add Db-bio-notice to the author for another admin to assess. The 3rd has a credible claim of significance so you do WP:BEFORE and WP:PRD it. The same applies with move requests, some are clear that you can do you're self, others may be considered controversial and some are likely (like Noss) and some are clearly. As a further point if the move but not page creation restrictions are removed then shouldn't I be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages since they fit in more along with page moves than page creation since if I move "Foo" to "Foo, Qualifier" then "Foo" needs to become a DAB page.
 * Indeed I have created drafts in my user space, another one is User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish. However I thought that waiting until I can create the pages myself was more suitable as long as I created a few good ones in my user space. The new articles on civil parishes may end up clogging up AFC with many new articles that are clearly suitable. I was mainly thinking that could be used for other topics that may not meet out inclusion guidelines.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Reply to SMcCandlish) Well as noted the few RMT requests I did make all were done so the point about the ~30% failure rate at RM is still pretty irrelveant.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I have produced the User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish which is an example of a CP. CPs are clearly notable and WP should have had them all created years ago, similar to municipalities. I think it is unreasonable to continue the restrictions as is. Can we at least allow creating new CPs in mainspace please with the same point as before that it can be reinstated. Hartwell, Buckinghamshire, Willingale, Essex and Throcking among others. I think the suggestion about AFC would be reasonable for topics other than CPs. See Talk:Pembrokeshire where I have asked if there is more coverage for User:Crouch, Swale/Sheep Island, Pembrokeshire.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the "failed" RMs have been closed as non consensus, not many have been closed as "non moved". In any case this isn't much evidence for keeping the move ban. I'd say that if we were to only count those that were closed as clear consensus against, it would be more like 5%.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is viable or fair, I have numerous pages to create and just taking into account the current missing civil parishes, this would mean it would take over 50 years to create them all! I have not to my drafts since I was waiting until I could freely create them but I don't think the current restrictions specifically prevented that anyway. I deemed creating a few in my userspace as sufficient. Why at least can't we exclude civil parishes from this?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that in the past I had many problems but I have continued and continued to change my behavior and become much more accepting and agreeing with the points made by others but unfortunately it never seems to be good enough. Doesn't the drafts that I have created and some of my other statements show that I have improved my conduct greatly since 2011. Its incredibly frustrating to still be denied after all theses appeals over all these years. Would you say that my expectations are not viable and it would be better to just get rid of me from the project altogether (and reinstate the sit-ban), rather than continuously having this that fails? I don't want to continue to push for something that isn't going to happen or will take ridiculously long.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the drafts that I have provided in my user space are already this step or creating suitable content. I didn't ask for review at AFC because I thought that the few drafts were sufficient in this step. I even asked here prior to this about what I would do. I feel I have been hugely let down yet again. I have tried and tried to do as others have asked and it seems that its never good enough and I get denied time and time again. Why can't we except civil parishes from the article creation restriction?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I am willing to take this step. The question however is why weren't those steps suggested after the previous appeal? Why wasn't it suggested that I should get a number of articles created that way before? Anyway wouldn't you agree that User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and User:Crouch, Swale/Risga are suitable? and demonstrate the ability to create suitable content.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any advice on the 2 drafts or my page creation in general? That was one of the points of creating those drafts. That's the kind of feedback that would be helpful in moving forward but I haven't received any since July (although some of that will probably come from AFC), if I don't have any feedback then its far more difficult in working with the community in finding a workable way of creating the missing articles without disruption.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks SilkTork, the AFC should help with that, maybe I should also ask some projects for advice, for example WikiProject Devon for South Huish and WikiProject Scottish Islands for Riaga.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started a few more drafts. Hopefully they will be accepted.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm
I have serious concerns about this user's level of competence, clue and ability to communicate reasonably based on recent interactions, so I'd advise against lifting the restrictions based on that. The user has needlessly and irrationally obstructed reasonable, uncontentious editing on my part. I had PRODed The Students' Union at UWE with the rationale that the subject was not notable and was already sufficiently covered in the parent article. This was, by all accounts, an uncontentious situation, but the user stonewalled attempts to have the article deleted anyway, first via PROD, when they apparently wanted a merge but failed to state any rationale or follow the proposed merge process, and then subsequently at AfD, where they continued repeatedly insisting on a merge, yet failed to, in any way, to present any argument against, or understanding of, my assessment that a merge was unnecessary due to the relevant content already being in the parent article. As an admin I often encounter this kind of obstructionism in users with problems with collaboration or OWNership, and this kind of conduct thoroughly discourages users, and if I were just some random newbie just trying to contribute to the project in good faith, and then encountered this kind of bizarre obstructionism from someone who won't even acknowledge my arguments, I'd probably be thoroughly disillusioned. My experience suggests a lack of ability to communicate and/or resolve disputes reasonably and effectively, and those are essential in the areas the user is asking to be unrestricted from. Regards, Swarm  {talk}  23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed CS’s replies to both myself and BMK, I’m simply stunned at the surreal detachment from simple editing concepts. Swarm  {talk}  05:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still wholly unsatisfied with the "word soup" the user's spouting, which shows no reasonable understanding of why their conduct was disruptive and unreasonable. I have even less faith then I initially did that the user can effectively understand and communicate during simple incidents of contention and/or dispute. Swarm  {talk}  07:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The user's defense has fallen on the procedural point that anyone can contest a PROD for any reason, showing no indication of clue as to how they impeded uncontroversial bold editing, which is encouraged as a matter of policy. The user admits that they simply wanted the title to be redirected to the parent article, which makes their insistence on obstructing an uncontroversial deletion in favor of a non-needed "merge" all the more bizarre. I'm going to stop responding, so as to avoid derailing this request, but I think it's quite clear that this user struggles with straightforward editing concepts, procedures, and acceptable practices. This lack of competence is unacceptable from a user who's requesting to be allowed to perform potentially-controversial actions such as page moves. Frankly I'd be more inclined to argue in favor of a tightening of restrictions. Swarm  {talk}  08:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken
I would like to ask Crouch, Swale to explain their statement: It would seem to me that if it's already adequately covered in a parent article, there is no necessity for a spin-off article, and if there is a modicum of additional information, it can be added to the parent article. The only situation I can see is if there is a great deal of relevant information to add, at which point the subsidiary subject is in danger of unbalancing the parent article. Under those circumstances, a spin-off article would be appropriate but only if the subject of the new article is notable. Being part of a parent article does not automatically confer notability on the subsidiary subjects within the article.In any case, I would like additional explication from Crouch, Swale concerning their statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia.'
 * Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia.'
 * Incidentally, just an irrelevant side comment: even though I know that "Crouch, Swale" is the name of a place (because I looked it up), every time I see the username, my first thought is that it refers to a law firm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Crouch, Swale: Thanks for the explanation, that wasn't at all clear to me from your prior statement.I would note that a merge an d a redirect are not quite the same thing. In a merge, the material from the subsidiary article is added to the primary article, and then the subsidiary article is replaced with a redirect; no (or little) information is lost in the process.  In the case of a redirect without merge, the subsidiary article is simply blanked and replaced with a redirect; any information in the subsidiary article which is not already in the primary article is lost.  Thus arguing for a merge is not the same as arguing for a redirect.  In the argument for a merge, reasons have to be brought up for saving the information that would be lost in a redirect, and also for the merging not unbalancing the primary article with too much information about a subsidiary topic.As for you claim about not being familiar with notability guidelines in the area of discussion: how can you argue the notability of the subsidiary article, or the need to save the information in it, if you don't know what is and is not considered notable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Re "If the [ WP:RMTR ] page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area": Just for the record, contested RMTR requests are often (perhaps in the majority) contested by non-admins; anyone can contest a speedy rename, in which case it goes to full RM discussion. It's more of a consensus thing than an admin judgement thing.

As to the request, I agree that a ~30% failure rate at RM is iffy. (I don't have any particular opinion otherwise; I don't recall interacting with Crouch much, and while I'm frequently active in RM discussions, it's not often about placename disambiguation.)

I'll also add that I learned the hard way (with a three-month move ban several years ago) that to manual, one-editor's-judgement page moves in the same topic area in which one's moves have been deemed controversial is a poor idea. It is best to use full RM process (or RMTR when it seems very unlikely to provoke any objection from anyone) in such a case, not only for drama reduction, but to actually establish a solid consensus record for the pattern being proposed for those articles. Even if some of the opposition seems to be personal rather than fact- or policy-based. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Clerk notes

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



Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * You contribute to Wikipedia predominately on articles about "places". Accuracy and oversight in this topic area is low, and I would not grant an appeal unless it was free of risk that you would not need your contributions heavily monitored.
 * You frequently request moves (eg Noss) so that (i) the title classifies the place, eg Sometown &rarr; Sometown (city) and (ii) the disambiguation page takes over the bare title, eg Sometown (disambiguation) &rarr; Sometown. These requests are governed by extensive rules (cf WP:PLACE) because each case is unique.
 * You also make editorial judgments about whether places exist or do not (eg Gluibuil, Shetland), which are important to get right. Wikipedia has had "places" articles that are wildly divergent from reality, eg location, or indeed document places that simply don't exist.
 * Your passion for this area is clear, and I note you have patiently borne these restrictions for a year. I also sympathise with your comment in late 2017 that your singular interests make these restrictions taxing.  However, I would not loosen the restrictions simply because another year has gone.  And I am not moved to agreement by your submission here.  Your edits are large in quantity, but seem to generate more dispute than I'd like to see.  How can we be sure it's safe to permit you the ability of moving place-related pages?   AGK  &#9632;  14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * point about my question of the existence of a place is – I think it helps us to understand the quality of your judgment as an editor in this topic area.Thank you; but I understand what contributions you are making (eg renaming articles so that the place is disambiguated in the title). The point is that, so far as I can see, these contributions are not always helpful.  Granting your amendment request would involve giving licence to do more of that.  Would you please comment on this?   AGK  &#9632;  13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In order to minimise potential problems, I think if we are to lift restrictions we should follow the example of the previous appeal, and lift just one of the restrictions to see how that goes. As the restriction previously lifted was involvement in page move discussions, it seems appropriate that the restriction we should consider this time would be making page moves. In order to help us decide if this is the right time to be lifting this restriction could you give us the figure of how many page move requests you have started in the past six months, and the percentage (or number) of those that have been successful and unsuccessful. As you note above, it is to be expected that a number of those would be unsuccessful, but if that number is too high that would be worrisome because those would be moves that with page move restriction lifted you'd be doing yourself with, as AGK points out, little oversight because of the low interest in place articles and in page moves. The problem with making inappropriate page moves is that they can set a precedent - users tend to follow what is already there, so one inappropriate move can result in a number of new articles with inappropriate names. Now, the exact percentage of unsuccessful move requests you have made that individual Committee members may find acceptable is going to vary, though in my mind I have a figure of less than 5%. It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests. SilkTork (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that around 30% of your RM have been unsuccessful, I wouldn't be comfortable lifting the restriction on page moves. I take on board that RM discussions are for potentially controversial moves, but you could use the Uncontroversial technical requests format, given that you are unable to complete the moves yourself. If the page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area.
 * As regards page creation - again, I'd like to see some evidence of successful page creation requests before lifting that restriction. The rules on your page creation do allow you to create articles in your own userspace, as you have done with User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. What I'd like to see, in agreement with other Committee members, is you utilising Articles for creation to have these articles moved into mainspace. If we can see a period of you having a series of articles successfully transferred into mainspace that would be encouragement to lift your article creation restriction. SilkTork (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The figure comes from Crouch, Swale: "I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", later "I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%)". SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: " I don't see how this is viable or fair". That's not an encouraging statement for you to be making, as it indicates you are not yet understanding the community's concerns with your behaviour. This motion is the best chance you're going to get of having restrictions lifted, and even then it's likely to be a close call. Indeed, that very statement of yours is giving me pause for thought as generally we lift restrictions for people who show some understanding of the concerns that led to them having restrictions imposed. There is this sense in you of wanting things to be done your way, and seeing it as unfair if things are not done the way you want them to be. SilkTork (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will not vote to lift any restrictions on this user. Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the positive side, no one felt the need to re-impose the topic ban during the suspension period. For page moves - I'd agree that there's been more dispute than I'd expect about some of these requests, but, where did you get the 30% failure rate on RMs? For article creation - the draft articles in your userspace look OK to me (knowing nothing about their topics) but I don't see much substantive content editing in mainspace recently (if I'm wrong, can you point to examples?) I'd prefer to see some examples of content development on existing articles before letting you start new ones. AfC is overloaded as it is, but I could also see allowing one submission at a time to AfC, possibly with a size minimum to correct for the past issues with very short articles lacking in context and covering questionably notable topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At the present time, I'm not comfortable with lifting the restrictions in place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious where the 30% number came from, SilkTork. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It came from Crouch, Swale himself in his comments above. Crouch, Swale said: "around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", then he later clarified that to: "probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%". SilkTork (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see the page moving sanction as very minimal, simply requiring this editor go to WP:RM due to their demonstrably poor judgement in this area in the past. I don't see the rather high percentage of failed requested moves to be a shining endorsement that this sanction should be removed. As for the page creation sanction, I'm more open to its removal but agree with my colleagues that I would want to see a substantial history of successful drafts going through WP:AFC first. Decline from me. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now, I don't see a compelling reason to entirely remove the restrictions, given the history. I do like OR's suggestion of one AfC submission permitted at once as a compromise between zero creations permitted and a flood of one-line place stubs. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support OR's proposal for one AFC submission at a time. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought you'd found some kind of cool tool :) I don't think I can judge the success rate of RM requests just based on CS's self-estimate, without knowing either how accurate it is or what the baseline rate is for other participants. In any case I'm more inclined to ease the page creation than moving restrictions - having to get your move proposals reviewed is, as Rob says, a very light sanction. In the interest of moving things along, motion below on the AfC idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion


Enacted -  Mini  apolis  17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One per seven days seems reasonable. We can always readjust if it causes problems down the line. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a good offer, and I'd like to see Crouch, Swale take full advantage. I wouldn't be concerned at the occasional rejection by AfC, this can happen, especially as AfC are very precise in what they accept. SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Restoring my support based on Crouch, Swale's more positive response and the new evidence provided: . SilkTork (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AGK &#9632;  10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to re-affirm my support here. I'm willing to allow Crouch, Swale the opportunity to create articles and I believe the motion is a good option of 1 per week. However, I'm not willing to endorse, now or in the near future, large creations of articles by Crouch, Swale - in other words, I do not see me voting for a wholesale removal of restrictions in the next few years. to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Letting this user back at all was a colossal mistake, one I will not vote to relax any restrictions on. Courcelles (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The recent comments by this editor have convinced me to oppose. I don't believe the attitude displayed is consistent with a return to productive editing in this area. I'm very worried that it sounds like the desired "endgame" of this editor appears to be the rapid creation of about 1,000 articles in a narrow topic area. I don't think there's a true understanding here of why past behavior was problematic and why this Committee and the community are understandably hesitant to roll back these sanctions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I too am concerned 's continued protests, particularly as the latest outbursts have come after I cautioned him regarding his attitude. I feel that BU Rob13's concern that Crouch, Swale is mainly interested in rapidly creating hundreds of civil parish stubs is correct. If we had evidence that Crouch, Swale could be relied upon to follow our inclusion criteria and find and read reliable sources appropriately and intelligently, that would ease our concerns, but he seems unwilling to do this (and a handful of draft articles and a note to a former arb are far from sufficient evidence); and I am reminded of the errors he made in  this move request, in which he was relying on a distorted search of his own invention on a user-generated website to establish notability for a page title. SilkTork (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to support based on Crouch, Swale's more encouraging positive response, and starting to provide more evidence of the work he plans to do. While the intended civil parish articles are likely to remain stubs, they do fulfil the gazetteer function of the Five pillars, and the examples provided appear to meet our inclusion criteria.  SilkTork (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like doing this would be a huge net negative for the project, and a lot more work for our already overworked AfC volunteers. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Abstain
 * The same issue arose in July 2018 where an easement process to lift sanctions in an incremental process was not willingly accepted by the individual. Editing is a privilege, not an entitlement or inherent right. When an individual's past actions have resulted in several blocks and sanctions as a result of disruptive editing, additional care and precaution must be taken to protect the project and limit the risk of further disruption. While undoubtedly frustrating for the individual, it is without question a situation of their own making. Comments like this one seem to undermine the willingness required to take responsibility for their past actions and adhere to the rules and policies that govern Wikipedia, including patience to try lighter restrictions in place of blocks and more severe sanctions. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am moving my oppose to abstain as the motion is currently held up by a procedural issue relating to the exact number of active-voting Arbitrators. Rather than waiting days for an activity measure to kick in, this will effectively allow the motion to pass by inevitable majority vote. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 15:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment


 * I was considering a motion along these lines, but with a restriction of one submission a month because the speed at which AfC moves we might be waiting for years before Crouch, Swale has enough submissions considered for us to make any kind of assessment if he's only allowed one at a time. At one a month the odds are better that in 12 months there'd be enough submissions either accepted or rejected for us to make a meaningful decision. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go even more frequent than that. At least seven days between submissions does what we want (avoid a flood at AfC) while being a minimal restriction on the activity of an editor creating high-quality articles. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if the concern is about the slow rate of progress through AfC due to their long backlog, we need a balance between CS getting some articles through and not overloading the queue. There are currently 1209 articles in the queue, and I don't see stats on average-time-to-review, but it looks like the oldest ones still waiting are about 5 weeks old. So once a month is closer to steady-state, but could actually be slower than "one at a time", guesstimating from the submission-time distribution on the AfC page that most articles are reviewed by 3-4 weeks. (In looking into this, not for the first time I find myself really wishing that AfC would start categorizing drafts by topic, but never mind...) I suspect that whatever rate we specify, articles will be submitted at close to the maximum (that's what I'd do). Given that 7-14 days seems reasonable, with no prejudice against another ARCA (or a community action) in the hopefully-unlikely event that the articles do end up failing repeatedly. Edited as above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's important to acknowledge that these restrictions exist due to substantial disruption in the past. I understand you're trying to move past that, and I commend you for it. This isn't a permanent solution. It's a temporary one to give you an opportunity to show us that we no longer have anything to worry about. The alternative would likely be a declined appeal, since we don't really have a basis on which to remove the sanctions at this time. If all goes well for a period of time (6 months, say), I would certainly invite an appeal of this loosened restriction, at which point we could further roll this back. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because passing articles through AfC isn't that extreme of a restriction and allows you to show there will not be disruption when we allow you to create articles freely. The fact that you seem unwilling to accept steps toward reducing your sanctions less than a full allowance to create as many articles as you wish is giving me pause. Your intransigent attitude here is starting to feel similar to the attitude that led to the initial ban, and I'm especially unimpressed with the victim mentality evident in your latest comment. Are you willing to try this as a step toward removing this sanction, or is this an exercise in futility? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with your frustration, but agree with BU Rob13 above. The committee is cautious when peeling back sanctions.  As I said to you at the beginning of this appeal, sanctions are not terminated merely because some time has passed.  Please treat this motion as an opportunity to contribute in more ways than before – rather than as a set of extra restrictions or the granting of less relief from restrictions than you requested.   AGK  &#9632;  10:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather like Boris Johnson just before the Brexit referendum, I am veering about in all directions like a supermarket trolley on this issue. On the one hand there is the possibility that you are just biding your time in order to unleash hundreds of civil parish stubs on Wikipedia which will need to be examined by someone to check if they are worthwhile; on the other is the possibility that you will be able to produce articles of merit rather than meaningless stubs. What is lacking here is solid evidence either way. At the previous request it was pointed out that simply waiting 6 months is not enough, that you would need to be providing evidence (such as that you understand article creation criteria and that you understand article titles). It is highly likely that you are a good faith editor who is not quite grasping what has already been asked of you, and you are truly bemused by this process. You were told last time that two examples would not be enough ("An appeal from you won't succeed if it's merely one or two examples of good conduct in each area. You will need to show that you have evidence of this over a number of months; not just amount but also consistency".) And yet that is what you are falling back on here. If you had a body of those civil parish articles in your sandbox to show us, all of which were securely cited to reliable sources and consisted of several paragraphs, then I wouldn't be hesitating. What you have to show us isn't enough, though, which is why I suggested we consider asking you to go via AfC. Given the lack of evidence it seemed a reasonable offer, but you have resisted the offer, as though we were in effect imposing more restrictions on you rather than allowing you to create an article a week. Now, my first impulse in response to your question ("Do you have any advice on the 2 drafts or my page creation in general?") was to suggest that you take them through AfC, and then I realised that by doing so you would be infringing your restriction. Which gave me pause for thought. We are caught at this point where we lack the evidence required to comfortably lift your restriction. But the reason we lack the evidence is that you haven't taken on board the advice from last time. If we do allow you to create articles via AfC, will you just submit the two you keep offering us, and then return in six months and request (or expect) your article creation restriction be lifted? Really, I'm not seeing a huge difference between allowing you to submit via AfC or you creating those articles in your sandbox, as both ways we'll end up with the evidence we need, except that by allowing you to submit via AfC you might feel more motivated, but an overworked community has to deal with your submissions. I'm still not entirely sure where I am with this because I am in favour of helping you contribute positively to the project, but hesitant about allowing you to waste the community's time. I am reflecting that by allowing this we are not allowing you to create hundreds of stubs, but giving you the motivation (and possibly enough WP:ROPE) to provide for us one way or the other enough evidence to make a more meaningful decision down the road. On the other I'm thinking this is another step towards edging off the lid of Pandora's box without you having done anything significant since your last request. My supermarket trolley is still pointing toward opposing this, but only slightly, and only with the notion that it is in your hands to provide us with the evidence we need to make a secure decision. SilkTork (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

 * Original announcement


 * sounds reasonable -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland

 * Original announcement

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih

 * Original announcement

If Alex chose to return with a new account (abandoning the Alex Shih account), would a disclosure to ArbCom be required? If any new account applied for any advanced permission, would public disclosure be required? EdChem (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The committee hasn't stated that he needs to declare a clean start account, and personally I wouldn't object to him doing so, should that be his choice. However, clean start accounts have traditionally been not allowed to hold advanced permissions on Wikipedia - I would expect public disclosure before running for RfA for example. In addition, I see that certain rights would be inaccessible to him for the next 2 years. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot but be curious about whether Alex is the first person to be struck off NDA-rolls......? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see that the Foundation finally took action. I just wish they'd been a bit faster. Doug Weller  talk 14:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He was just added to the new list on January 28, presumably after signing the new agreement while running for Steward. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Foundation have removed global and local advanced permissions from editors before and explicitly stated that they cannot re-obtain any advanced permissions Wikimedia wide for a certain length of time. That was pre-NDA days though. -- KTC (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alex moving to a new account seems reasonable to me, but without informing ArbCom strikes me as problematic. If no one knows of any such new account, surely there is a danger of non-disclosure at an RfA or further misleading statements?  I think that Alex made a lot of valuable contributions as an editor and certainly would not want a ban, and I can understand why he might clean start, but I do think disclosure to ArbCom or to at least some trusted editors (NYB, perhaps?) would be wise and desirable... and I am puzzled as to why ArbCom did not require some (private) notification of any return.  EdChem (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think he should be required to notify ArbCom. I'd prefer that to confiding with just one editor. Doug Weller  talk 16:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BADSOCK, he would not be allowed to edit project space or run for RfA without disclosing. My personal view is that he would be ineligible for a clean start under that policy as an arbitration case has been opened to scrutinize his conduct, and that is explicitly mentioned as a condition preventing valid clean starts. Namely, he’d just be socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Under current RfA standards, would it not take years of editing to seek adminship? That question seems mooted to me. <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>   (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If Alex made a sock account, he would need to edit Wikipedia like it's his full-time job for at least two years in order to pass an RfA. Judging from his previous activity levels, I think this is unlikely. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not two years, but I agree with the larger point. People were asking hypotheticals, so I pointed to the relevant policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe a year and a half if he really goes for it ;-) (And yes, I just took the opportunity to make my usual "RFA sucks@@" comment, no concerns with your interpretation of policy.) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * is correct. While I believe Alex could return as a clean start account, should Alex ever seek a position of community trust again, such as admin, he would need to disclose his other account publicly or to ArbCom:
 * The circumstances around his resignation from ArbCom, subsequent retirement, and now statement from the Wikimedia Foundation, would almost certainly influence the outcome of an RFA even if a considerable amount of time had elapsed. While I think it is possible eventually Alex could regain the sysop tools, the past would need to be addressed, and therefore the community will need an opportunity to do so with Alex. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this statement from the WMF public? Where might it be found? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Refer to this announcement by .  AGK  &#9632;  22:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks AGK. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks AGK. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * TonyBallioni is correct. For reference, the relevant policy is Clean start, which states that Any user who [...] is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee) [...] may have a clean start. Mz7 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have the slightest reason to belive Alex has any desire to start a new account, or are we just making up problems to solve here? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the latter. As a side note answering an earlier question, the WMF also de-CU'd all zhwiki CUs sometime last year. That's the most recent similar action from them, though it was not for misconduct. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not unprecedented (for example, Sam Blacketer) but probably unlikely in my opinion. --Rschen7754 05:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's unlikely. Doug Weller  talk 06:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think making up problems to solve seems to be in vogue on this page -- cf. GiantSnowman thread above. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia RM
(moved from AE) This is probably nothing, I'm just procedurally noting this here. While gnoming around requested moves I've noticed a large RM discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia. While it hasn't run its seven-day course yet, I've noticed WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 being noted with regards to WP:MOSMAC. I am not clued up enough on the situation in Macedonia or the ArbCom rulings with regards to it but several users have noted that a change in the ruling is probably necessitated by recent events, so I thought I ought to draw this to the committee's attention.  SITH   (talk)   13:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Committee passed a motion about this last year, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2: "The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion." (the motion then goes into details about how the RfC should be conducted). Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I and several others have interpreted the discussion at RM and ArbCom motion as allowing the move of Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia, but requiring an RFC for further changes. However, this has not been explicitly stated by the motion, so the issue is unclear. If the someone on the Committee could clarify, that would be appreciated. Danski454 (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a question about June 2018 Motion re Macedonia 2, please file a Clarification and Amendment request -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a regular RfC open at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia). There is also a current Requested Move discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, which risks getting into conflict with the RfC. The participants in the Requested Move should consider suspending their work, if they are hoping to meet the Arbcom requirements. Details are here:
 * The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.
 * The RfC is only a 'Draft RfC' right now and perhaps there should be an initial round to decide the format of a 'real RfC.' The RM participants could be asked to switch their interests over to the Draft RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The real life conflict over the name of what is now North Macadonia is over. We should not be extending the old conflict on Wikipedia by making it hadd to move on. Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hang on, "North Macadonia"?? Stop the press!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've been aware that the current RM on the main article runs counter to the letter of the Arbcom injunction, but the thing is, the whole process is going quite harmoniously and with far, far less conflict than the Arbs probably expected when they passed that injunction last year, so the injunction is now really a bit overkill, and as long as that's the case, I see no sense in not letting the process go ahead. There'll be a near-unanimous consensus for that page move, and it would make little sense for the arbs to stamp their foot down and make us all wait for another thirty days just because they said so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the RM has now been closed and the move performed by admin User:MSGJ. Don't desysop him ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And as for the injunction that we should all hold off further changes and keep to the existing guideline until the RfC is settled, that seems pretty illusionary at this point. We can't stem the tide. Well-meaning (and often not very experienced) people are moving pages left, right and center. It seems hardly feasible to wave the Arbcom hammer at all of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Update for anybody interested: the promised RfC has now started at Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. Good collaborative effort by a number of people in designing and preparing it, I might add. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed

 * Original announcement

5.He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin

What does this mean? Is it saying that he has to consult with another admin before warning message #6? "Advised to" sounds like it's optional, but "may not" is mandatory. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It means he may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages on a single editor's talkpage. Consulting another admin after that is merely a recommendation. The only actual restriction is that he may not place a sixth consecutive warning template or message on a single editor's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There are multiple areas that seem ambiguous here as well like "may not consecutively block an editor" - does that mean if he blocks User:A he can't block User:A again unless anyone else blocks User:A, or does he have a "1 block per editor ever" type restriction? How does this work with range blocks, which could also have supernets, subnets, or individual addresses comingled? How does this impact the manual warnings and template requirements when range blocks could be in play? —  xaosflux  Talk 01:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that ambiguous? The word "consecutive" has a very clear and unambiguous meaning. The wording is clearly not "only once ever". Warnings and templates are not given to ranges, only to individual editors. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the sequencing aspect of "consecutive" is a perspective phrase, what do you suggest would be an action that "breaks the sequence"? (e.g. If he blocks User:A - what event would need to occur before he could block User:A again?) — xaosflux  Talk 02:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He "may not consecutively block an editor" means someone else would need to block the editor before he could block them again. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Softlavender here - If GS blocks editor A, if after that block expires A does something blockworthy, then GS may not block them but any other admin can (let's say I do it). If after the second block expires A does something blockworthy again, then GS is allowed to block them, but they wouldn't then be allowed to place a fourth block. If editor B is blocked by GS, then by me, then by say AGK, GS may place a fourth block (if justified). If editor C is blocked by me, then by GS, GS may not place a third block but could place a fourth block if someone other than him placed a third block. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your post Thryduulf is hard to read and even harder to believe. GiantSnowman has had more than enough concerns and should be strongly advised to not use their tools in any other than day to day mop work. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the hard-to-read aspect, but whether it's hard to believe or not, it is my understand of what he is allowed and not allowed to do. What GS is allowed to do do and what it is advisable they do are not always the same thing - exactly as for any other editor. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * TBH, I did not find 's post hard to read; I also understood the restriction that way. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf for the reply. Seems like a rather complicated situation reading the explanatory posts here, let's hope it resolves the situation. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nyttend - you are correct in that the intention is that the "may not" aspects are mandatory and the "advised" parts are optional. So he is not allowed to place six consecutive warnings, but it is optional if he wishes to bring the matter to another admin. The intention was not to force GS to take any action that is not required of any other user. No admin is required to block or warn or notify other admins - we are, after all, volunteers. However, if he feels that a sixth warning is appropriate, he is advised to bring it the attention of another admin rather than ignore it. If the other admin feels a warning is appropriate and gives the user that warning, then GS is back at the start of his five consecutive warnings. There is plenty of leeway in this; the idea is to simply get a fresh pair of eyes on the situation. In fact, all users would do well to get a second opinion after they alone have given a user five consecutive warnings. Five, I feel, is quite generous. I was thinking of the sequence in Twinkle where there are four escalating warnings, so I thought five was acceptable in that sometimes people want to move more slowly to a sanction, but six without a second opinion was too much. SilkTork (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Xaosflux - the intention here was to use consecutive to mean "following continuously without a break"; the idea being to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the situation, but not to ban GS from blocking that user ever again. If someone else is getting involved there is more of a feel of consensus that the user is in the wrong rather than it being personal. This, in my experience, helps the user accept that they are doing something wrong; though if it's the same two admins playing block leap frog, the user could again feel victimised, so one would hope that GS would have the good sense to approach a variety of admins. The sooner a user accepts that they are not being victimised, but are genuinely in the wrong, the sooner they will stop misbehaving. SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical: GS blocks editor X for 24 h for some valid reason.  Two days later, editor X is blocked by admin Y for the same reason as GS's block, again for 24 hours.  GS thinks the length should have escalated.  Can GS change the block length and have not violated the restriction as there was an intervening action from Y?  Alternatively, could GS suggest / strongly advise Y to extend the block, and if Y does so, can GS still be the next to block X?  I hope GS would not do things like this, and I have no basis for suggesting it, but it occurred to me while reading the above comments?  EdChem (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Meta suggestion re Arbcom procedures that could lead to desyopping
Thank you for considering a third way. I would welcome Arbcom making a commitment to considering making it part of the clerks' job that whenever a Proposed remedy of desysop is considered at Proposed decision, that a version of Proposed remedy 3.3.1 is automatically considered, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Where is the appropriate forum for me to formally propose this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have moved my comments to a new subsection as I am concerned they are not being noticed, given the long discussion below them about specifics of the case. I would like to propose a change to clerk procedures for all cases where desysopping is considered. What is the most appropriate forum to make a formal proposal? All of the ones I've considered might be appropriate are quite low traffic areas. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose changes to the clerks procedures, then the clerks noticeboard is the place to do it. However, I don't think your proposal is just a change of clerks procedures. If it were to be adopted (and I don't immediately have an opinion on whether it should be) then it could be done in one of two ways - either make it a formal part of arbitration policy such that a restriction of this type must also be considered when considering a desysop; or it could just become a part of arbitration procedures which are less binding but would in practical terms achieve a similar aim. Arbitration policy has a clearly defined but (probably necessarily) very bureaucratic mechanism for changes, arbitration procedures just require a motion of the committee to change. All things considered I think a new procedure would be more appropriate for this proposal and a modification to policy - but it is not defined explicitly where proposals regarding them should be made. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Procedures redirects to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee so that page would seem to be the most logical place if it doesn't get any arbitrator input here. If this is adopted in either of the above forms then the committee will instruct the clerks to make any necessary changes to their procedures at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As for input from an arb, I'm not sure how a formal proposal for something like this would work in practice. Perhaps it might be worth looking back at previous cases where a desysop was made - are there any that no alternative was proposed? The proposal was tailored to areas spotted in the case, it would not be appropriate for every desysop case. I'm not against the idea, I just don't see how it could work. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not how userrights are typically removed from non-Admins by Admins. From what I've seen the Admin yanks the right completely and then defends their action at all cost when the user objects. The carefully structured restrictions afforded this admin, along with the lack of any admonishment of the three Admins that tried to shut down discussion of their actions, against a finding that GiantSnowman can't be trusted with access to various Admin tools kind of proves the point that Admins are more equal than other users in the amount of leeway they are afforded. I'm against enshrining the idea of restricting an Admin's actions as an alternative to tool removal into ArbComm policy unless similar process is put in place for any advanced perm removal. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That's an OTHERSTUFF argument, but can we save the arguments for when/where it's formally proposed? I don't expect the idea to be unopposed. I'd just like it aired. FWIW, I care about Wikipedians. Newbies, experienced ones, content contributors, gnomes, admins and those with advanced permissions. They are our most precious resource and I think we need to do all we can to retain them. All of them. I'd support any measure that does this and oppose vigorously the opposite, hence my strong opposition to the proposals to tighten the automatic desysop of inactive admins. They are solutions to a non-existent problem. Worse, they are making worse an existing problem. --10:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, I'd have a hard time with any kind of rigid requirement to always do X along with Y. I think flexibility is important for a group that already has a reputation for being bureaucratic and inflexible. There are other reasons not to go for this idea - for example, having a specific rule about desysoppings further reinforces the view that it's some kind of punishment or demotion or personal judgment when it doesn't really have to mean anything other than "this particular job isn't a good fit for you right now". But we don't need to get into the politics of adminship; I wouldn't want a blanket rule for bans or other user-rights removals or any other semi-common remedy either. Doesn't mean it wouldn't get considered when the context fit, but I don't like fixed rules when they aren't necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe and Macedonia

 * Original announcement