Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal.	none	none	26 January 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	19 January 2024
Amendment request: CTOP AN appeals	none	none	25 January 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and 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.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal.

There is a rough consensus among responding arbs to decline the appeal. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 22:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Case or decision affected Special:Diff/1064925920 Clauses to which an amendment is requested Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017) Special:Diff/1133851301 (2023 decline with advice on removing completely) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Information about amendment request Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017) Remove all restriction Special:Diff/1133851301 (2023 decline with advice on removing completely) Remove all restrictions per advice given. Statement by Crouch, Swale Can I have my editing restrictions removed completely please with a probationary motion of 6 months. I have successfully created articles at AFC from 2019-2022 (with almost no rejections) and created articles directly from 2022-2023 with none redirected, draftified, CSDed, proded or AFDed. I have suggested partly removing the restrictions or having an editing plan but users prefer to have these restrictions removed completely but if users prefer doing this that would also be fine. I know that in the past I haven't listened and got myself into trouble but that's normally because something I've been told seems to go against what Wikipedia actually says is OK or not or goes against something I've previously been told but if things are made clear and straightforward then any problems should be prevented by people being clear about if I need to stop/change something etc. Can I please have 1 chance to just have a go without restrictions. If there are serious problems which there shouldn't be the restrictions can be reinstated and/or the articles mass deleted or draftified. As previously noted I now have the ability to create good articles and its detrimental to the project to restrict the amount of articles I can create. I will work first on the current missing parishes, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes of which there are around 350. No formal monitoring of me will be needed unless the community wants that as I am confident that I can create good articles without approval or supervision however to pace things and to show the community this I will (unless the community doesn't want this) create only 2 new (current) parish articles a week along with my 1 article a month on anything for the first 2 months and if there aren't any concerns after that I will create more than that and anything. I will still be able to create redirect and DAB pages though, the only 2 parish articles will only apply to article creation. After I have finished the current parishes project I will do the former parishes, see User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes starting with creating category 1, then 2, then 3 and then a selected number of category 4 parishes as category 4 parishes may not be notable. I have been adding date to existing former parish articles and as of 9 December most category 1 parishes have such data. There is a consensus that such articles meet WP:GEOLAND however there is also a consensus that the articles shouldn't be mass created with little content so I will make sure the articles are created with a reasonable amount of content. See Windermere and Bowness for example. In terms of my page move restriction I have made hundreds of requests at WP:RMT and out of the small number that were contested I think less than 5 ended up as "not moved" demonstrating that I a was allowed to make pagemoves myself I am unlikely to make many problematic moves. At the 2023 request I was asked to (1) Make a single request showing understanding why they are in place and what I have done to alleviate Y This is the single request here, I have shown that I haven't had problems with my creations and nearly all of my RMT requests. (2) Draft the appeal and show it to several experienced editors. Y Draft started in July 2023 at User:Crouch, Swale/Appeal and I've asked around 7 editors, all but 1 are admins and 2 of them aren't/weren't on arbcom. (3) Consider carefully all the advice I have been given. Y This appeal contains the advice I have been given. (4) Be aware that even though there is understanding of frustration that there is a limit on the number of requests I can make may result in a motion not to my advantage. Y Again this request contains the advice and includes the instruction to request removing completely with understanding of previous problems. I'm not in any rush to make a decision on what motions will be made but I would like people to make sure that we can lift the restrictions even if it takes a while of discussion here. Is there any other advice or recommendations I should follow that would be useful to the project or to me to prevent any other problems not that I think there will be problems. If we think its not in either the project or my best interest to lift all or some restrictions then decline the request in whole or part but please provide a clear reason for this but as I have noted I honestly believe its not in the project or my best interest to have the restrictions, thanks. @Thryduulf: I did (though about 10 days later) add the bit about there being consensus that they are notable but that there is a consensus they should not be mass created with little content. I didn't really know how else I could word my appeal but otherwise it seems good apart from being a little bit whiny. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Mertbiol: I don't know how else I could have worded it, do you have advice on how else I should word it? Is there anything that you would like me to do if we accept this appeal that you feel would be helpful? I don't know what else I could have done for the parishes project, if I pester people or post it repeatedly to the same project/person it would probably be seen as disruptive. I did what I could have done and if people don't care then there is nothing else I can or should do other than just get on with it. As I said in my appeal there doesn't seem to have been problems with my creations that I have already done so is there any significant chance that if I was creating more there would suddenly be problems? I feel my appeal in terms of my editing plans etc is both acceptable according to our global consensus and to the best of my ability. Yes I accept that if I was creating lots of articles (as opposed to 1 a month or 1 a week with AFC) there is a higher chance of problems but I honestly believe that its unlikely there will be any significant problems. Wouldn't a suspended restriction meaning if there are any significant problems any admin (even in involved) can reimpose the restriction and mass delete the articles make you feel comfortable enough to give me a chance? and if there are problems which there shouldn't be we can just reimpose the restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Mertbiol: WP:GEOLAND says that legally recognized places are generally presumed notable (even if defunct in terms of the former parishes), there may not have been a significant amount of interest in the project but that doesn't mean there is a consensus against it. Note that GEOLAND has been tightened in the last few years to exclude things like abadi but all current parishes and all pre 1974 rural parishes has their own local government even if sometimes limited. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Mertbiol: The articles should exist (and its really strange that they don't exist) and I am able to create then with suitable content as demonstrated by my 1 a month creations and my AFC. Yes in my 2020 appeal I was advised (not required) to get consensus for creation of a large number of articles and I believe I have done what I should/could have done for that. You said this would be you're last reply but if you look at Windermere and Bowness (created a few months ago) and Shell, Worcestershire (created a few days ago) both of these for example are good and there seems no reason why I couldn't create more like that. Is there anything wrong with those pages? wrong enough that creating them or lots similar would be a problem? In terms of the other point about my efforts if I was applying to be an admin or even a template editor or bot operator and a request seemed a bit whiny then I could completely understand declining but I'm only requesting restrictions be removed and I'm not going to use a bot or similar to create I'm just going to create them normally. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Aoidh: From Special:Diff/817961869 (in 2017) one account restriction, due to the socking surrounding my problematic editing. Geographical naming conventions topic ban, due to me making lots of RM discussions that were against policy and not listening to people saying not to make requests without doing more research etc. Page move restriction, due to my obsession with naming conventions that I would make lots of page moves of which may be problematic. Page creation restriction, due to me creating many poorly sourced/short articles on topics of dubious notability. As can be seem from my talk page in 2010 there were lots of these issues, if you look at my talk page now there aren't any complaints etc, note that the headings "Careless editing continuing" and "Links to dab pages" were complaints about another editor that I was asked to look at. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Aoidh: I accept that I didn't address the point about the understanding why the restrictions are in place but I hope that about clarifies that, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @North8000: I think this is a good idea as long as we can review/appeal in another few/6 months but I'd note that at my previous appeal it was made quite clear to make a single request to remove completely. As I noted I am planning on for the first 2 months on creating 1 (current) parish in addition to my 1 article a month on anything. Is there anything on that plan you would want to tweak? In terms of notability and mass creation I'd note that I have a good understanding on England as well as Scotland and Wales and have worked a bit on Australia, Austria and Denmark. We have indeed discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) the notability of such places at at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 5#Iranian abadis it was pointed out to me about abadis not being notable despite being in censuses. So I can say that in parts of the world where I know less about the geography etc I may have less idea about what is notable so that is something I would need to be careful of. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: There haven't been any disputes AFAIK with splitting where I have been the one splitting parishes. There has been discussions about splitting districts but of the 2 that I have split myself (Corby, now defunct and Hove, defunct) these hasn't been any disputes, all the disputes like Blackpool and Worcester have been split by other users. The user who split these asked my at User talk:Crouch, Swale#Cheltenham about splitting and I suggested discussing rather than unilaterally splitting. Just because I have weakly supporting splitting a district from its settlement doesn't mean I would just go and do that myself without discussion which is what I suggested needed to happen before splitting. In terms of parishes the convention is to cover settlement and parish with the same name as settlement in a single article, see Talk:Waltham Abbey#The town is the parish. The parish article should be merged into the town article. where I pointed that out. I was in fact the one that wrote up that guidance after a RFC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Cabayi: That was the "Original discussion" link at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 123#Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022) which for some reason isn't the correct one but still shows my appeal which had the 4 instructions. I accept that I haven't done much in terms of other approaches/collaboration with others as I don't know what else I could have done but I have followed the 4 instructions given at my previous appeal. Is there anything that you would like me to do if we do remove all or some restrictions? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) @Primefac: I have done exactly what I was asked to do and that's not good enough? How on earth? I am truly horrified about how I have been treated, about how much effort I have put in and how, I have put so so much of my life and hope into fixing this and nothing good seems to happen, no matter how much success I have in creating articles, it just feels like there is no point in doing anything right as nothing will even happen. In real life many people have said about me being patient and not looking my temper etc but this project has pushed me to my limits. I can't see for the life of my why all my efforts have got me nowhere, its just like there is no point on doing anything right here as it. No matter how much I do right and follow advice, restrictions etc nothing seems ever good enough, no matter what I do its just never good enough. I have reached the end here, I don't see why I should contribute to a project that is so so unreasonable and that no matter how much I do right just is never accepted. I suggest if we're not going to lift the restrictions to just reinstate the site ban which from what I can see could be done as a motion could be made to site ban me again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC) @Z1720: There won't be another appeal in a year's time as I will be site banned. Would you like to make a motion saying "From 1 December 2024 Crouch, Swale is site banned" or should I make that suggestion nearer the time? Either way I'm not going to say here with these restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) @Z1720: Many people make small errors with text etc, even those with autopatrolled. See WP:IMPERFECT. I'd note I do usually double check facts etc when I add content but formatting is less of a problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by Thryduulf At User talk:Thryduulf#2024 appeal I was invited to give feedback on this appeal. I'm disappointed to see that, other than fixing a typo, none of the comments I gave have been acted upon and this still reads (to me) like something written by a whiny child who does not understand why what they did was wrong. I cannot recommend granting the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by Mertbiol Crouch, Swale's response (11:25, 13 January 2024) to Thryduulf's comment (10:23, 13 January 2024) says it all. They concede that their text sounds "a little bit whiny", but they have done nothing in three weeks to fix the tone. If Crouch, Swale will not act on feedback from an experienced administrator, whose views they have purposefully sought, what hope is there that they will listen to any other editor? A very clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Crouch, Swale asserts that there is consensus that the articles on their lists should be created - but this is not the case. The "What links here" function in the "Tools" menu makes this clear. The "former parishes project" has never been discussed on the talk page of any WikiProject or at any RfC. While it's true that in late 2021 and again in late 2022, they did raise the issue of "missing [current] parishes" at a number of English county WikiProjects, their requests were mostly ignored - an indication the lack of enthusiasm for their proposed new articles from the wider community. Doubtless, Crouch, Swale will claim that this RfC provides support for their wish to create hundreds of new articles - but it does nothing of the sort. All it established was that there was no appetite for creating them with a bot. If I were in Crouch, Swale's shoes, I would have proposed (in the past three months) the "missing parishes" and "former parishes" projects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. If I'd received the support of editors there, I would have used those favourable comments to bolster my appeal here at ARCA. The fact that they have not done so, suggests that they feel that one or both projects (especially the "former parishes" project) might not be supported by the wider community. My fear is that if the Arbitrators lift the restrictions, Crouch, Swale will interpret this as support for their two projects and will use this to ignore and steamroller over any objections to their mass article creation programme. Mertbiol (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Crouch, Swale: You wrote: "I don't know how else I could have worded [my appeal]" - if that is the case then you should abandon it. You wrote: "I feel my appeal in terms of my editing plans etc is... acceptable according to our global consensus" - You do not have a consensus for your parishes projects - please stop trying to pretend that you do. You asked: "I don't know what else I could have done for the parishes project..." I have already answered this above - "If I were in [your] shoes, I would have proposed (in the past three months) the "missing parishes" and "former parishes" projects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. If I'd received the support of editors there, I would have used those favourable comments to bolster my appeal here at ARCA." You wrote: "if people don't care then there is nothing else I can or should do" - exactly - you should drop both parishes projects and find another area to edit in. You wrote that you agree that appeal as it currently stands is "a little bit whiny" - if you can see the problem, why can't you address it? Why should I help you to improve your text if you have already rudely ignored an administrator's comments? Your problem is that you do not take onboard feedback. Once you are let off the leash, it would be impossible to stop you - you do not listen. Mertbiol (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Crouch, Swale: This is my last reply to you. This needs to be left to the Arbitrators now. Saying that parishes meet WP:GEOLAND is NOT the same thing as gaining a consensus for your parishes projects. Surely you can see that? Just because you can create an article for something, doesn't mean that you should. Mertbiol (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) North8000 The important consensus at GeoLand is to avoid mass creation of articles, because geoland arguably has a flaw that qualifies several million permastub entities that don't have articles. Crouch sees to view their targeted subset of those millions as "missing" articles and so they don't seem to understand the situation. I think that the current restriction (or maybe a slightly relaxed modification) is a good thing to encourage building more substantial articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Crouch, you didn't seem to get my point, the question isn't notability under geoland, it's avoiding mass creation, and geoland articles are the most vulnerable to that. The is just little-ole-me commenting, but seeing acknowledgement of this as a long term plan, and / or saying you'll only create articles with several references and substantial content would seem much more reassuring. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Barkeep, good points. Per my previous post, there is structural problem that fuels this issue. If we "just follow the SNG rules" geoland greenlights millions of new permastubs and it appears that Crouch views that as the only guiding concept. While their "transition" plan is OK in this area for it's short time period, they don't acknowledge understanding the other constraints which come into play such as avoiding mass creation and that building (only) substantial articles is a way to navigate this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2024 (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 ban appeal.: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Crouch, Swale ban appeal.: Arbitrator views and discussion @Crouch, Swale: This request doesn't really address or explain the reason why the restriction was implemented in the first place other than saying "I know that in the past I haven't listened and got myself into trouble but..." If you wouldn't mind could you elaborate on why you feel the restriction was implemented and why its no longer necessary? - Aoidh (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Decline - I don't think that this appeal adequately explains why the restriction is no longer needed, especially when taking into account the prior feedback given on this point via prior appeals and by others that they specifically asked feedback from. The only thing said about why it is no longer needed is that their talk page now has no complaints (I did quickly find a concern being raised in 2022, but that was ~17 months ago). This "clean talk page" rationale is not a sufficient reason to remove this restriction. I have no strong opinion for or against a moratorium. - Aoidh (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) I'm disappointed. This appeal does nothing to address the reasons for the restrictions nor to explain what will be different going forward. The issue is not the article-worthiness of civil parishes but how you will handle any disputes that arise and cases where your preferred outcome is not the one that has consensus. To take an example of one dispute where I've seen your name pop up in the past, I don't want to see you splitting out articles on the civil parish from an article about a large town/small city where there is nothing distinct to say about the parish and where consensus or practice has been to cover both in one article. I hoped to see an appeal that would tell me how you would deal with these edge cases and disputes that might arise from them, and how you would handle it if they went against you. Apparently the answer is ignore everything you've been told and carry on regardless. Decline and recommend a moratorium on future appeals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC) I likely won't have time to get to this substnatively for some time. Besides reading the appeal itself carefully, I'll want to revisit what I've said the last 3 years in these appeals. But no matter how lacking I find an appeal I can't imagine a scenario where I would support a moratorium on all future appeals. At most, for someone like Crouch, Swale I would support a "can appeal every 2 years" rather than every year so essentially an arb would only see an appeal once a 2-year term. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC) "The Sixth Annual Crouch, Swale Amendment Request" sounds even less appealing than the fourth & fifth did. CS, in the diffs you would like us to review you cite Special:Diff/1133851301 which is Wugapodes' opinion on opening WP:AA3??? I previously asked you to (1) consider other approaches to achieving your goal and (2) collaboration with others. Can you show evidence of either? Neither point features in your appeal. Cabayi (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) To say that I am exasperated is an understatement. I said it in 2022 and I said it in 2023, but I will say it again, in as few words as possible: Be. Brief. Your initial request here was 778 words. Out of curiosity I wrote out what I would find to be a successful appeal; it was about 100 words. To the substance of your request: I genuinely would like to see your restriction lifted, but I cannot grant this appeal solely because you keep knocking on our door asking for it. The whole point of a successful appeal is to show that you understand why you were sanctioned, that you have held to those sanctions, and that you will not return to the editing that resulted in your being sanctioned in the first place. You have done none of those, instead you are still trying to defend yourself and justify your continued editing in the topic area. Thus, I must decline. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Just to nebulously comment on some of the things that have been said: I am not looking for a perfect appeal from Crouch, or specific keywords, nor do I think their area of interest of editing is problematic; no one really cares about these articles other than a desire that they be well-written and not mass-produced (the latter usually invalidating the former). As I have indicated in prior years, Crouch has done a reasonably good job of sticking to their restrictions, indicating that it is possible to not mass-create articles of this type. I am just somewhat concerned with what will happen if we take off the reigns. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) There is in doubt that Crouch Swale's appeal leaves something to be desired. I am not surprised that it's causing my colleagues to decline his appeal. However, I can't help but wonder if the real problem is the community's ambivalence over geography based notability. It strikes me that absent a change one way or another - that is that these parish articles are desired or that they do not have notability and should only be created when there is another source of notability - that the current status quo of "they can be created but slowly" is as fair as possible to both the community and Crouch Swale and if this, rather than some set of magic set of appeal words from CS, which per Thryduulf's feedback I wonder if he's even capable of producing, is what's needed to get out of the current stalemate. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Decline This appeal does not address CS's understanding of why the block was put in place, and what will be done to avoid this mistake in the future. I am also concerned about CS's competency to write articles; I was surprised that CS sought so much feedback for this request as it was not well written. Take for example, "demonstrating that I a was allowed to make pagemoves", a simple grammar mistake that should have been fixed before the request was posted. Another example is Shell, Worcestershire, mentioned above, which had a blatant caption mistake that I just fixed. I am not expecting perfection in the prose, but the original block was placed because of the stubby, low-quality articles that were mass-created. If mistakes like the ones above are present now, I fear for the quality of the articles that are created if the article creation limitations are removed. My advice to CS: quality is just as important as quantity. Go back and improve the quality of the parish article you already created, and look at featured articles such as Brownhills or Warren County, Indiana to see what additional information can be added to parish articles. Come back in at least six months one year when you can show that the articles you created are without simple mistakes, and describe why the block was originally enacted and how you have corrected those mistakes. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Just noting that currently Crouch is only able to appeal once per year. Primefac (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Sorry about that, changed to one year. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Decline The consensus for GEOLAND on its roughest footing in 2024 of my memory. Based on the totality of appeals by CS over the years, I have zero faith that they have the internal ability to balance their desire for completeness against the political realities of a collaborative project where consensus changes. Letting Crouch, Swale make 300+ stubs without any guard rails would further destabilize an already tense situation. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Decline per the other votes to decline. I don't support a moratorium on appeals, but the same outcome of these yearly appeals, with the handful of first-time arbitrators every year coming to a similar conclusion, is very telling on its own. Maxim (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Decline per Z1720 mostly. firefly ( t · c ) 15:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction

Initiated by Selfstudier at 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

WP:ARBECR

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

• Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Anachronist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Statement by Selfstudier

Can it be clarified that the intent of WP:ARBECR is to prevent the participation of non EC editors in discussions such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Controversy regarding the number of Palestinian casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Another editor considers that a) Editors are allowed to make comments provided they are constructive and b) Non EC editors may file edit requests asking for their comments to be made. Can it be clarified that the purpose of the edit request exemption is intended to apply only to article talk pages (change X to Y).

@M.Bitton: I probably should have mentioned the most recent ARCA 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Because it is the wording of WP:ARBECR that I would like clarified.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, Barkeep, and L235: There was this discussion at L235 talk page re edit request and possible tightening up of the language. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Anachronist

Relevant discussions:

• Edit request on RFPP that brought this to my attention
• Selfstudier's talk page

These discussions speak for themselves. An edit request was made in good faith, and after careful consideration, I accepted it. I felt this was related to the fact that the WP:RFPP edit request subpage has been used multiple times in the past to make good-faith thoughtful edit requests because Talk:Israel–Hamas war is currently extended-confirmed protected.

I'll add that the "superseded" term on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions gives the impression that it's, well, superseded, and therefore not valid. I also disagree with it. I have never knowingly invoked IAR in my time on Wikipedia, but in this case my unknowing invocation of it seemed OK in hindsight.

Furthermore, if non-EC editors aren't allowed to make a comment on a discussion page, then protect the page. That would have avoided this unnecessary wikilawyering drama. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by M.Bitton

I believe that it's already clarified in this case (WP:ARBPIA4). Please see Superseded version of item B in which it states "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.... This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." M.Bitton (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: thanks, I wasn't aware of it, though I still don't see how it applies to WP:ARBPIA. M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that the "Talk:" namespace is not as clear as it ought to be. A link to WP:MAINSPACE, or to what is excluded (WP:PRJ), would probably help (I think). M.Bitton (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: thanks. A link would definitely help. M.Bitton (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

The "Wikipedia talk:" namespace is not the (article) "Talk:" namespace. The exception does not apply to pages in the "Wikipedia talk:" namespace. Thus, not even edit requests for AfD participation in the topic area are permitted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Crouch, Swale

I don't think its a good idea to "ban" new users from such discussions meaning they can end up being blocked even when they haven't caused any problems. I think its perfectly fine to say anyone may revert any questionable comments to talk pages. I agree we need certain enforcement measures to prevent disruption but I don't think sanctioning people who have personally done nothing wrong is far and its going to put good new faith editors faith editors of contributing. As said I'm fine with allowing any admin even if involved to protect the discussion etc though. Blocks, protection and edit filters are technical, bans are social, we shouldn't generally use "social" means to deal new users, if a restriction can't easily be enforced with technical measures like page protection and edit filters its probably a sign its too wide. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Sagflaps

originally made in reply to Crouch, Swale I will not formally put a statement, but as you said I had no idea this was even an issue until today, because there are no indications when editing the page that I am not allowed to do it. After reading through most of the background, it seems the spirit of this rule is to stop sockpuppeteers from inflating their perspective on Israel-Palestine discussions, so if it is the goal then it is not unreasonable to allow edit requests, and then the comment can be added to the page by someone with extended confirmed if there are no obvious problems. Sagflaps (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

ECR is crystal clear that non-EC editors may not participate in AfDs in an ECR-covered area, whether their contributions are "disruptive" or not. This rule acts to reduce one of the biggest threats to the integrity of contentious AfDs, namely vote-stacking by off-wiki canvassing. Zero^talk 00:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be good if the committee also made clear that restoring non-EC text to an AfD (or anywhere forbidden to them) after it has been correctly removed should not happen. If such restoration is allowed, edit-warriors will weaponise it by forcing in non-EC edits, thereby undermining the purpose of the rule.

To editor Sean.hoyland: Only a small fraction of the thousands of articles in ARBPIA are technically EC-protected. The difficulty of identifying the others automatically seems insurmountable. The best we can do is to allow any editor to remove forbidden edits, with an uninvolved administrator or noticeboard as backup for the (hopefully rare) cases where the removal is disputed. Zero^talk 03:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Regarding Crouch, Swale's statement "if a restriction can't easily be enforced with technical measures like page protection and edit filters its probably a sign its too wide." and given that the rule appears to be non-ECR accounts may not participate in AfDs related to articles within the topic area, is there a reason why technical measures are not being used in every case e.g. I wonder why there are AfDs for articles within the topic area without WP:30/500 protection? Is it simply that people are not requesting it because it's not frictionless? There seems to be a misalignment between the rules and the protection measures deployed. The distribution of ARBPIA related WP:30/500 protection seems rather arbitrary/incomplete and the misalignment between the rules and the protection measures is certainly being exploited by some bad actors. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

To editor Zero0000:, we might be able to do a bit more. Figuring out ways to map the misalignment between the rules and the protection measures deployed, even if only locally within parts of the fuzzy "topic area" cloud, feels like something where progress might be possible. It's hard to map the boundary of topic area but there are probably many mappable regions within it. Most of us seem to have fairly reliable heuristics to decide whether something is inside or outside the topic area, which gives me hope that it's not a completely intractable technical issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

Perhaps adding something like If reverted, edits that violate this restriction may not be reinstated. to the end of WP:ECR(D) should be considered for arbcom's next omnibus motion. Levivich (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think your first comment quoted the old language of ECR ("may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments"), which is causing Core's confusion here? Levivich (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Coretheapple

I have no opinion on the underlying issue here. I just don't know. But I do have a question that came up on one of the talk pages. Precisely what kind of participation is allowed on EC talk pges? It is commonly believed, and Barkeep49 reiterated in his comment that Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. That is what the current boilerplate notice to new editors says.

However if you go to WP:ECR, you see that it was amended in November to exclude "post constructive comments." I assume this was removed deliberately. Am I missing something? Are constructive comments permitted notwithstanding the way it was edited in November? Also, if only edit requests are permitted, must they be in the proper form or can a non-EC editor make a request in a less structured manner. Please clear up my confusion. I hope this isn't a stupid question Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Thanks very much for clarifying on the request-form issue. That precise issue came up at one point and I waffled back and forth. What about the "constructive comment" omission in November? That also puzzles me. Coretheapple (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate input from other editors and from the arbs on this point. Are "constructive comments" allowed from IP and new editors? I'm not asking out of the blue. It came up in this discussion in which a non-EC editor made a non-formal edit request. Given the visibility of these article I think it's important to get clear guidance on this. Let's say a non-EC editor or IP comes in and says "hey look guys, I have no specific request to make but I observe X, Y and Z." We have gotten that kind of input and I assume we will continue to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish I agree with you. However, Arbcom needs to clarify its rules on permitted non-EC input, because right now "constructive comments" are not specifically permitted. And since they are not specifically permitted, and in fact that safe harbor was removed in November, there are going to be objections of the kind that arose in the discussion linked above. That said, I'm glad Barkeep clarified that informal requests are OK. That helps. I interpreted the rules more stringently and told a new editor to use the form. I then had to retract that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

One last point (hey, sorry for the length of this). I just was advised that Doug Weller asked about this at the arb clerks talk page a few days ago, but so far no response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#ECP_in_the_a-i_area_and_use_of_talk_pages Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by EW (extended confirmed restriction)

When the talk page is protected, can non-extended confirmed users use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit? I would think the answer is obviously yes (and people have been continuing to do so even since November), but if we're applying the only-in-namespace-1 standard, I guess it wouldn't be allowed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Coretheapple, I know that when I see non-ec editors adding a statement about something that just happened with a reasonable source I let that slide because we can't expect everyone to understand how to make an edit request. I personally think that kind of contribution is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I know that if I saw someone drafting something that was clearly intended for an edit request I wouldn't delete it immediately, but I would remind them about ECR and urge them to make the request sooner rather than later. This also has never come up, as far as I know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Rhododendrites

I can see the argument to extend ECR to AfD. Elsewhere, the "talk space is the only exception" is also being applied to prohibit mention of the ECR topics in userspace sandboxes. It seems completely counterintuitive to me that we would prohibit someone from using their sandbox to draft material that might happen to be about an ECR topic, using their sandbox to draft an edit request, using their sandbox to experiment with wikimarkup/visual editing in a way that happens to include ECR-restricted topics, etc. I have trouble believing that was intended, so could the arbs clarify whether it was intended to apply to userspace, too? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re ECR)

Like Rhododendrites, I find it hard to believe that the intention of the restriction is to prohibit good faith non-EC editors doing anything at all, anywhere that happens to relate to an ECR topic. We shouldn't need to be relying on admins' discretion not to revert and/or delete material that is harmless and intended to benefit the encyclopaedia. All it takes is for one admin to implement the letter of the restriction and we've potentially lost a very good editor - when you've spent all day dealing with disruptive socks it can sometimes be tricky to realise that not every new editor is out to harm the project. However if the intent was to be that harsh, then I would strongly encourage the committee to rethink.

While you (arbs) are doing a good job of answering what the restriction is, you're almost completely ignoring the questions of whether edit requests on talk pages should be literally the only thing allowed and if so why other constructive and/or harmless activities are not permitted.

Whether you agree with restricting participation in XfDs or not, it is obvious why such a restriction might be in place. It is not obvious why someone should be allowed to make edit requests but not allowed to test whether their idea would be an improvement nor ensure that they have the markup correct. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. AfDs are not in talk space and AfD participation is not an edit request. Therefore non-ECR may not participate in any manner in those discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with Barkeep. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Also agree with Barkeep49. Maxim (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• @M.Bitton: everything that isn't the Talk namespace (namespace 1) is prohibited which is broader that project space. A link would be good. It also requires a motion of the committee to change which is why I'm not just jumping to do it. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Coretheapple I don't think editors need to use the official template as long as they are clearly making an edit request. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Per Barkeep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with all of Barkeep's statements. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Barrkeep49's rationale is reflective of the current wording and (what I believe to be the intentional) intent of the wording. The Talk namespace is a very specific namespace, and is not as broad as "anything that is not the article namespace". - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Per Barkeep, AfDs are not conducted on talk pages. And if the reference to talk pages is ambiguous, the wording that the exception is for edit requests only is not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Amendment request: CTOP AN appeals

Initiated by Tamzin at 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Contentious topics

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Appeals and amendments

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

• Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Appeals and amendments

• Either remove requirement to use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at AN, or make template more flexible

Statement by Tamzin

Currently, Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments says that AN appeals must use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. This is, in practice, almost never done. This search (+ this check for multiple on a page) shows that the template has been used 14 times ever. Fittingly, the appeal template is not at all adapted to AN, so when it's used, either someone needs to modify it manually, or it gives incorrect policy guidance. Indeed, because of this, Firefangledfeathers recently assumed it was the incorrect template, despite being the one called for by policy. Not a criticism of them; I feel like I must be one of the only people who's even noticed this clause. After I learned of it a while ago, I took to splitting involved from uninvolved and leaving a reminder about the "clear consensus" standard, but not forcing the template, since no one else seemed to care. In my experience, nothing bad has resulted from this departure from policy, although there are discussions I can think of where segmenting comments in the involved section might have helped things.

The way I see it, there are two potential solutions:

• I've drafted a new version of the template, which changes output if it's at AN. Specifically, it combines the whole "uninvolved editors" section into one, since admins and non-admins are equal at AN appeals, while preserving the sectioning in the involved section, so basically a compromise between the theoretically prescribed format and what's done in practice. ArbCom could give its blessing to update the template accordingly, but this would only work if people cared enough to actually enforce the rule on using the template, which historically they haven't.
• Modify the appeals section to just say that AN appeals must have separate involved/uninvolved sections, link to Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments, and quote the "clear consensus" threshold. This allows flexibility while still making sure critical procedures are followed. The proposed template change could (and probably should) still be accepted, just not made mandatory.

(P.S., the template currently says "clear and substantial", added by Extraordinary Writ, but I think that's a holdover from old wording?) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fff: It actually doesn't, because for whatever reason, the template doesn't impose any word counts on involved editors, and my change removes (in the context of AN) subsections for uninvolved editors. It probably should impose word counts on involved editors, though, both at AE and AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Just to be clear, the displayed text in the sandbox is still the AE version, because the AN version only shows up at AN. I've added a demo parameter for AN, the result of which can be seen on the testcases page. This version maintains sectioning among involved editors, but allows it among uninvolved. I did that because uninvolved sectioning clearly makes no sense at AN (since at AE it's only used for non-admins); I didn't make a change to sectioning of involved editors because there wasn't an obvious reason to, but at the same time I have no strong desire to keep it. Certainly if we want the template to match current practice, that would simply be a statement up-top, one involved section, and one uninvolved section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by EW

Responding to the ping: the recent reforms downgraded the standard for CT appeals to "clear consensus" (WP:AC/P#Contentious topics), but the standard for appeals from good old-fashioned arbitration enforcement actions under the standard provision is still "clear and substantial consensus" (WP:AC/P#Standard provision: appeals and modifications). No idea whether that was intentional or not, but that's why I made the edit I did. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Thanks T. I like the first solution. One advantage of mandating the template use is that it preserves the word limits encoded in the template. I'm assuming that's desirable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Responding to Tamzin: Yes. The status quo is too messed up to continue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The word limit situation for AE appeals is also unclear. I've been confused about it for a couple years (see the unanswered Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive_6#Do_AE_appeals_have_word_limits?). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Izno

This topic was previously discussed at the CT PD. IznoPublic (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2024 (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.

CTOP AN appeals: Clerk notes

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

CTOP AN appeals: Arbitrator views and discussion

• In practice, if there is a strong community consensus at WP:AN to overturn one administrator's contentious topic restriction, it is overturned independently of which template was used for the appeal. I'm thus fine with limiting the requirement to appeals at WP:AE; it is rather impractical for WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• I'm strong in favor of making a template that better fits in at AN. @Tamzin: did you keep the sectioning because you think it best or because you thought it more likely for us to approve a more incremental change? Because even that format is unsuual for AN and in reality uninvolved editors can, as uninvolved administrators do, just use normal/threaded discussion to discuss the outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks setting that up @Tamzin. I had misread the code and thought there was sectioning in the unvinolved section as well. Anyhow I'm in favor of adopting Tamzin's changes. I'm going to ping this on list but would also hope that this is something we could do through something closer to the normal editing process rather than a vote. But we might need to have a vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• I am also in favour of the proposed change. I don't think the change is substantive enough to absolutely require a vote; instead, provided that there are no objections after a week or so (particularly from arbitrators), it could be safely actioned. Maxim (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• I am all for making life easier for the folks doing the hard work. Like Maxim, if no one objects I see no reason not to implement. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Fully in favour per my colleagues above. firefly ( t · c ) 15:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• No objections to the proposal. - Aoidh (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• no objections --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• No objections to implementing Tamzin's draft. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm happy with Tamzin's draft. I think these discussions benefit from more structure than the average noticeboard discussion but perhaps not as much as at AE. I've always wondered why we have two different appeal mechanisms with two different standards but that's a question for another day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)