Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 9 January 2019 (→‎Lightbreather: Motion: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal none none 31 December 2018
Amendment request: Lightbreather Motion (orig. case) 2 January 2019

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal

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

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
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
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 Euryalus (talk · contribs) this appeal to get advice, however unfortunately Nilfanion (talk · contribs) 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]
  • (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]
  • (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 Wikipedia: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]
  • (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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union which was closed as merge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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]
  • (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]
  • (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]
  • (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]
  • (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]
  • (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]
  • (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)[reply]
  • 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. @Opabinia regalis: 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#Geography stubs 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)[reply]

Statement by Nilfanion

Statement by Euryalus

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Question from Beyond My Ken

I would like to ask Crouch, Swale to explain their statement:

Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia.'

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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 returning 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)[reply]

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[1]) so that (i) the title classifies the place, eg Sometown → Sometown (city) and (ii) the disambiguation page takes over the bare title, eg Sometown (disambiguation) → 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 ■ 14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 ■ 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Opabinia regalis 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)[reply]
  • I will not vote to lift any restrictions on this user. Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 SilkTork, 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)[reply]
  • At the present time, I'm not comfortable with lifting the restrictions in place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Lightbreather

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket at 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Remove Iban sanction.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I was put into an I-ban with a banned user some years ago [[2]]. This ended up with the other user being site banned and to my knowledge they have not returned and will not. I'd like to take ownership for my part in escalating that case. My intentions were good, they were based on what I viewed as the best for our encyclopedia. I do with the benefit of hindsight see that while that users behavior was inappropriate in many things legitimate harassment did end up happening to her and taken on the whole it would be pretty overwhelming for anyone. I think in the end every single editor walked away being dirty and not clean even those who had nothing to do with the actions that lead to other site bans. I took a wikibreak (technically retired a while) and that did the trick of helping me completely disengage not only from that but the entire Dramah Boardz in general. I was completing a few degrees and I had reason to take a class on gender and the psychology surrounding it and I can only express my regret on my ignorance of how pervasive gender bias can be. I learned that while I do not have a hardcore sexist view I would fall into a benevolent sexism. I mention that because in self reflection I realize how big of an issue it can be and why all editors here should work to make this a gender neutral platform. I intend to support that in whatever way I can while at the same time avoiding contentious debates. I do not see much use in an active sanction anymore when I've shown that for years I can leave the site and I have well and truly dropped that stick. Many many people tried to explain to me some of the above but because of my level of engagement I didn't see that. I will voluntarily not engage that user if she should ever come back and I would also make the following commitment. Lightbreather as I understood it mostly took issue with me calling out the sockpuppetry , calling her a liar and general willingness to be call out repeatedly confront what I percieved to be problems rather then walk away even in situations I was not involved directly. I understand these actions helped make the problem worse. I will not look for that user, I will not interact with them if I suspect sockpuppetry nor file public reports (let me be clear that would be an extra-ordinary thing and would have to be in my face, on my page otherwise with little to no edit overlap I doubt I'd ever come into contact with that user again). I would send a private message to an arbitrator to have them address that situation. I don't even have plans to rehash the incident here on wiki with anyone, it's done. I wasn't perfect, I've learned and attempted to make the best out of a situation that will help me grow as a person and editor here. Lastly I apologize to those editors that may have believed I was doing this purely based on a person gender, that to me was not my intention and I will work very hard to make sure no one on this site will ever think or have reason to think differently.

@User:GRuban it would prohibit me from a fresh start and yes it can be used as a weapon too against me. I am not looking for a fresh start, my record is what it is warts and all, but if ever I should want one it would be sockpuppetry if I did and it would at least help rehabilitate my record a little. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @User:SilkTork, a few small thoughts. Lightbreather, I believe, would avoid me like the plague and she most likely has strong feelings towards anyone involved in that scenario (justifiably). Much of that would be completely reasonable due to the nature of the off wiki harrassment she received and that the anonymous nature of editing could leave her and others to speculate who was involved and how. I think one thing everyone can agree about is there was a lot of off wiki conversations about this situation. Everyone lost, every single editor and my voluntary nature to abstain is because I have waded into the gender wars and I lost badly, the cost of part of my reputation is not something I wish to go through again. People start losing their minds, same thing with the various AN, ANI, Jimbo page etc. It is my intention to avoid places like this just to avoid the stress and ensuing bullshit. My area that I am versed in somewhat is new articles patrol, deletions, recent changes and short stub creations. If I stay in those places it is much more rewarding and usually more cut and dry. My involvement with this case started on an ANI thread. The reason why I disagree with your assertion is because I actually notified large portions of that original discussion as well see [[3]]. One suggestion I could make is adopting a motion for discretionary sanctions for this case. This would allow administrators the power to use limited discretionary sanctions and provide a snap back for anyone involved including myself. It is my understanding to remove discretionary sanctions the sanctioning admin must vacate or they must be appealed to the committee and this was a little more in line with the proposed decision that arbcom be the final decision there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Banedon, i don't think the answer is nothing. I want community recognition not only that I have acknowledged my part in this but I also want to make it clear that I learned something invaluable in the process. If there is one thing I can say positive about this situation is that it did make me look at things a little more critically in terms of gender, things I had not been cognizant before. If maintaining the status quo is maintaining a cloud over my editing I'm not sure how long I should remain under that cloud and at what point I can reasonably ask for it to be lifted. I do recall an offer of mentorship for LB prior to the site ban but a portion of that decision was a gun control restriction which ultimately was a deal breaker for her. My own interests are as I laid out to SilkTork and if I was somehow sidelined from them I would find it difficult to want to come back too. I don't recall precisely the issues with her editws that lead to that, gun control is not an area I am versed in so I couldn't say if it was bad or not. You'd have to read the arbcom case and make your own educated decision. The question I asked myself prior to filing this is how long should I wait? I'm not sure there is a answer to that. I've had a beer or two so apologies if I ramnled. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather

Statement by GRuban

So we've got two possibilities: (1) Lightbreather stays away, so removing this sanction does nothing. (2) Lightbreather returns, at which point we have to ask why we removed this sanction without even asking her opinion.

Why don't we leave this up, and should L return, ask her how she feels about it? --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, folks. RFA-wise, honestly, is there that much difference in terms of black mark from "I have an IBan but the person whom it is with isn't here any more" to "I had an IBan, but it was vacated because the person whom it was with isn't here any more"? In either case the important part is "yes, I messed up, but I understand why, and I'm not doing it any more" - and frankly, sometimes that's even better than "I've never messed up", shows humanity. But I like TParis's suggestion. Suggestions; both of them, actually. I'd be happy if we were to give both HiaB and Lb a second chance, if they understood what the issues were; it has been a while. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bellezzasolo

@GRuban: I think most editors consider an IBAN as a mark against another editor's record. If Hell in a Bucket went for an RfA, this would come up as a significant black mark, and I dare say there are other venues that I can't think of. If both editors are active, then the ban can be appealed, and, if accepted, this will show up on relevant logs. Furthermore, sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. This IBAN is serving no further purpose. Admittedly, repealing it serves no effective purpose, but it may serve a purpose in the future. I don't see any reason to prevent editors from appealing IBANs when the other party has behaved in such a problematic manner that they've been sitebanned. All this means is that editors who are more likely to have been goaded into a conflict have no way to "get their record expunged". ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

I am still in contact with Lightbreather. If Arbcom is requesting a statement from her, I could ask. It might also be a good time to review her site ban as well and possible vacate it. It's been years since this case, both editors have had time away.--v/r - TP 18:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

Vacate the iban. Both parties have atrocious block logs (although most of Hell's blocks are quite old), and both of them violated the ban at least once, but the request here is eminently reasonable and seems to reflect some real introspection into why this was needed and why their own behavior was not acceptable. (I would also say that as far as I can recall I've never seen such a request where an opinion from a banned user was solicited, and whether Lightbreather's ban remains in place is an entirely seperate issue and her opinion on this is not necessary to come to a decision) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Euryalus

As a drafter of the Lightbreather case, support the proposal to vacate this iban - was necessary at the time and is redundant now. Separately, seems reasonable to review Lightbreather's siteban if it turns out that they're interested in coming back. But understandable if they have better things to do given the deeply unpleasant offwiki harassment they experienced at the time. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

No particular thoughts for or against the request, which is one that I could equally propose in relation to an old IBAN that lies against me where the other party has also gone. However, regarding the point that TParis makes, I think Lightbreather is still pursuing the same agenda off-wiki as got her into trouble on-wiki, so suggesting that her situation be revisited is probably not going to be helpful. Unless, of course, the blogs, social media etc I am thinking off are not in fact her but some sort of impersonator. I'm not linking to them so please don't ask. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Tend to agree with Euryalus and the requester. In more detail, an extant I-ban implies there is an ongoing problem to prevent, but there is not. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and all that. If a restriction no longer serves a purpose it should be vacated, since we all know these things have a Scarlet Letter effect.

I also agree with TParis's suggestion that LB should be asked directly to comment, and that whether restrictions against that editor need to be retained at this stage at all is worth examining. Remedies are supposed to be preventative not punitive. If LB were to return and re-engage in the same disruptive behaviors, then another site-ban would likely ensue on the double, so this seems very low-risk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

The Lightbreather fiasco probably marks the nadir of the recent Arbitration Committee regimes, where a committee majority actually voted at one point to direct women sexually harassed over their Wikipedia editing not to fight back.[4] One of the reasons given for site-banning Lightbreather was that she made off-wiki attempts to confirm the identity of the person who was engaging in sexually harassing her off-wiki.[5] She suspected a Wikipedia editor seh had an ongoing dispute with and was eventually proved correct. As I recall, some of the information off-wiki included a picture of the harasser he had posted himself to Wikipedia (to compare to a picture of himself the harasser had posted to his userpage on the sexsite involved in his off-wiki harassment). Lightbreather acted with considerable restraint: The harasser had posted his real-world identity to Wikipedia, and it was easy to track down information about his family , his job, and his membership in an organization quite important to him. She could easily have massively disrupted his personal life. She didn't. There appears yo be no evidence she did more than act to stop the harassment.

I'd also note that the harasser made efforts to turn up real-world identifying information about me, and implicitly tried to enlist other users to help, made off-wiki communications prompting a porn performer to make legal threats against me, then posted links to the threats on Wikipedia, and made palpably dishonest and abusive comments about me and other users, yet nothing was done to him for such behaviour -- until he went far beyond the pale in his attacks on Lightbreather. Even now, although he's been been WMF-banned, his confirmed identity as Lightbreather's principal harasser hasn't been reported here.

ArbComm ought to vacate the entire Lightbreather decision, except for the sanctions against Lightbreather's offwiki harassers, and institutionally apologize both to Lightbreather and to the community for its misguided actions. Removing a "cloud" from users tainted by aa horrifically flawed a decision as this should not be so selectively as to further demean the editor most unfairly treated by it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Banedon

As long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, this request seems pointless to me. I'd ask Hell in a Bucket this question: as long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, what is there to gain from this interaction ban revoked, or what is lost by having this interaction ban in place? If the answer is "nothing", why change the status quo? We can worry about this if and when Lightbreather is unbanned; until then this might as well stay in place. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: I don't understand I'm afraid. If you're after forgiveness, that's not something the community can decide as a whole; it must come down to each individual person. For example in this case, the six editors who've signed that message of support for Ryulong are not going to view his editing as under a cloud, even though Arbcom sanctions remain in place. If you want to publicly acknowledge your role in this, you could e.g. make a statement on your user page. I still don't see the point of this request unless Lightbreather is unbanned, and again, we can worry about lifting the interaction ban if and when that happens. Banedon (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

Semantic note only. To the arbitrators, the best word to use for “the sanction was good at the time but we’re ending it now” is probably “terminated.” Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'd like to hear from other community members, but generally I'm minded to accept this request. Self reflection is difficult but it is the best way to move forward and this comment by Hell in a Bucket ticks all the boxes that I'd like to see in this sort of appeal. WormTT(talk) 16:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I was thinking the same as WTT here. Another factor is the siteban itself on Lightbreather. Unless that was overturned, there wouldn't be any interaction with Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather. The fact they recognize the issue is admirable, and as the user in question is gone, the need for an IBAN doesn't seem as prominent. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add, if LB wished to come back, that discussion needs to be held separate from this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with vacating the restriction. AGK ■ 17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per colleagues, I would prefer to solely deal with HiaB's restriction. If Lightbreather wished to appeal their sanction (there is no indication that is the case), I'd like to deal with that separately. AGK ■ 11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems reasonable to me. I don't think we need to bother Lightbreather by dragging her back into an issue she can't respond to on equal footing; we can sort that out if and when Lightbreather appeals her own sanctions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a reasonable request: the sanction is now redundant so there's no need to keep Hell in a Bucket under a cloud. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Worm. Good to see. Katietalk 15:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect Hell in a Bucket's reflection on what occurred, and their own role in it. My qualms here are that this was a community i-ban ([6]) that ArbCom took over ([7]) to maintain some control of the situation if Lightbreather returned. So there are two aspects of this that I feel need consideration.
1) If we are thinking that this i-ban is no longer relevant, then we should create a motion to return all the Lightbreather community i-bans to the community. Either the bans are relevant to ArbCom or they are not, and if they are not, then the community should take back control and decide what to do with them. My feeling on that is the original reason for ArbCom taking over the i-bans is still in play - if Lightbreather does return, it is useful to have the restrictions in place to limit the potential for disruption to the project and the community. The time to decide if the restrictions should be lifted is after Lightbreather has returned, not before.
2) If we are thinking that this particular i-ban is different to the others because Hell in a Bucket has written to us showing understanding of what has occurred, then we need to consider the terms of the lifting of the i-ban. The wording is such that Hell in a Bucket appears to want the two-way ban lifted, but wishes to impose restrictions on himself which makes lifting the i-ban symbolic rather than actual. If we are to keep the i-ban within ArbCom, and accede to Hell in a Bucket's request, then it might be better to not lift the i-ban, but to convert it into a one-way ban (Lightbreather restricted from interacting with Hell in a Bucket) in order to minimise potential problems if Lightbreather does return.
My feeling on this, after reflection, is that we don't know if Lightbreather will return, and until she does there is no meaningful restriction in place. But if she does return, then it might be useful to keep all ArbCom restrictions in place, and remove them then, as appropriate - returning the i-bans to the community rather than lifting them. If what Hell in a Bucket wants is a symbolic lifting of the i-ban, in a sense a public acknowledgement that he has moved on, then we can note that, so the community can see and respect his new understanding, yet keep the restrictions appropriately in place. SilkTork (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts Hell in a Bucket. My hesitations are not to do with your side of things - you have shown exactly the sort of understanding of your behaviour that the community, admins, and ArbCom like to see, and which tends to result in the lifting of any sanctions. Indeed, the thoughts expressed by the Committee here reflect that. My qualms are to do with a) ArbCom's role in this, and b) the impact on the restrictions put in place by ArbCom for if Lightbreather returns. If you were asking for any individual sanctions on yourself to be lifted that were within ArbCom's remit to lift, there would be no hesitation at all. And because the i-ban actually does not impact you at all because the other party is not here to interact with, I'm hesitant to simply say yes without thinking about the implications of this. The realistic way the i-ban impacts you is in the sense that it prevents you being clearly understood as an "editor in good standing", which is why I felt a notice saying you were cleared of the negative connotation of the ban might be considered.
ArbCom's role in your i-ban (and that of the others) was simply to take over existing community bans to ensure a controlled return to Wikipedia if Lightbreather returned. As far as I can see, what has changed in that regard is a belief that Lightbreather will not return, and a space of time. If the space of time, along with people's assertions, is considered enough to indicate that Lightbreather will not return, then ALL the i-bans that ArbCom took over can be returned to the community; or, if the Committee felt bold enough, lifted. Personally I would prefer the community to lift community restrictions - I would like to see ArbCom reduce its authority as much as possible, and where the community can deal with matters then the community should. So that's my thinking on that. It's not denying your appeal, but returning it to the proper place.
The other aspect is the impact that lifting your i-ban with Lightbreather would have on Lightbreather should she return. It was considered at the time to be significant enough for ArbCom to take over the i-ban. If it is felt that Lightbreather will not return, then we are back at ArbCom returning all the i-bans to the community; but if it is felt that she might return, then giving some pause to reflect on the implications of that would useful. The implications are: if Lightbreather is to be accepted back into the community it would be after an appeal similar to yours in which she showed enough understanding of her behaviour to indicate that such i-bans wouldn't be needed. So, my preference in all this would be to return all the i-bans to the community on the understanding that enough time has passed for none of the i-bans to be appropriate to continue to be under ArbCom control. SilkTork (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support lifting the two-way IBAN per Euryalus and others. This would effectively remove it for Lightbreather as well and should she decide to return to editing, the issue can be raised then and there, and should it become a problem, the community has the ability to deal with it. ArbCom as a last resort. Mkdw talk 21:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per OR, I'm ok with vacating this restriction. I agree there's no need to drag LB into it when she's still site-banned - a bit like rubbing salt in the wound, in my opinion. I'm open to revisiting the need for the IBAN in the future if LB successfully appeals and if it's felt to be necessary again at that point, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think lifting this IBAN is reasonable. I also agree that any revisitation of Lightbreather's sanctions should be done separately, and only if we have some indication from Lightbreather that they wish to return. I don't agree with SilkTork that this should be returned to the community for consideration—partly because we took over the sanction, and partly because HiaB already took this to the community and was redirected here. I'd rather not punt him right back to the community after several days of deliberation here (with some input from the community already). GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KrakatoaKatie: I'm not voting on this because I don't currently have the time to get stuck in and figure out what's going on, but do you have any objection with using "rescinded" instead of "vacated"? "Vacated" has a flavor of the original sanction being overturned as invalid or otherwise annulled (e.g. vacated judgement) rather than the sanction being lifted as simply no longer needed. I'm probably nitpicking, but "rescinded" has a more neutral connotation, I think. ~ Rob13Talk 05:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather: Motion

The interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) and Lightbreather (talk · contribs) enacted taken over in the Lightbreather case is vacated rescinded.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. I don't feel further language is necessary, but as always, feel free to make it more elegant. Katietalk 01:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed 'vacated' to 'rescinded' per Rob's suggestion. Elegance, y'all. ;-) Katietalk 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sounds good to me. Indifferent to whether the verb is vacated, rescinded, terminated, lifted, removed, crumpled up and tossed in the bin, etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support the removal, unconcerned about the specific word used. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I do support the removal. Mildly concerned that the motion states that it was enacted in the case - it was already in place prior to the case. If someone wants to make a change regarding that, I'd support it, but my primary opinion is that the interaction ban should be removed and therefore I support the motion as it stands. WormTT(talk) 09:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. For all my quibbles I do support this. I'd like us to also consider returning the other i-bans to the community; given that we feel this one is no longer relevant, that should also apply to the others. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Note: I have replaced "enacted" with "taken over". SilkTork (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 15:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This works for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 03:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. AGK ■ 17:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Abstain
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=877613890"