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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Community ECR request	none	(orig. case)	23 November 2022
Clarification request: Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing?	none	none	4 January 2023
Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022)	Motion	none	1 January 2023
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2	none	(orig. case)	5 January 2023

Arbitrator motions

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:
   • 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).
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

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:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Amendment request: Community ECR request

Initiated by El C at 22:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions)
2. Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions)

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

• El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification HistoryofIran

Information about amendment request

• Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions)

• Add to WP:AA2

• Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions)

• Add to WP:KURDS

Statement by El C

I realize I'm a broken record, but how record broken is this template? Anyway, there was a proposal at AN (live, permalink) which read:

Proposal: WP:ARBECR (which includes a 500edits/30days restriction) over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS articles.

That proposal has seen a unanimous 17/17 support, but the proposer (HistoryofIran) and others weren't sure how to affect that resolution. Arb L235 recommended to wait for a WP:CLOSE to do the WP:ARBEE → WP:GS/RUSUKR thing. I said that it'd be better to amend AA2 and KURDS by motion rather than create a new GS with separate logs, alerts, page notices, etc., which is what should have happened with RUSUKR (→ ARBEE).

I think most participants don't really care either way, they just want to see that community consensus affected. Personally, I'm for streamlining rather than adding further to the maze of DS/GS pages, so I'm bringing it here. Needless to say, ARCA is intimidating and has a very high access ceiling (one of the least accessible areas of the project). And I still fucked up that impossible template, but that was always a given (but it sort of displays, so there you go). Thank you for your time and attention. El_C 22:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49, yes. As stated, the proposal reads: over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS articles. El_C 22:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, writing in haste, but a few quick notes. First, I actually have no firm opinion if the mentioned (17/17) community consensus is an appropriate re/action to whatever influx it represents (long term, etc.). It probably is, but I've not reviewed the material closely, so ultimately can't say that I'm certain about it. Here, I'm mostly just serving as an informal clerk (but also the best clerk!). That said, note that the last ARCA I filed here was also about issues that concern this general region of West Asia and these two associated DSs, in particular (in 2021, I believe; I'll see if I can find it later, now that ARCAs are separately archived thanks to me and to real best clerk, Dreamy Jazz). But as I recall, there was a warning there, a forewarning, even.

But no one remembers, not even me. And, I mean, say this resolution becomes WP:GS/AAKURDS, a split GS like WP:GS/RUSUKR — in a couple of years, when ArbCom subsumes it, no one will remember, either! On a separate note: I hesitated on filing this ARCA because the ACE adds a layer to this that I (best clerk) am a bit uncomfortable with. But the ACE just takes so fuckin' long, it really can't be helped (unless whatever is being discussed coincides with the ACE concluding in, like, a week or mere days). El_C 20:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Wugapodes, no, I'm not calling to abolish all GSs. I'm calling to end parallel GSs for existing DSs (i.e. splits). Not sure what logs have to do with anything, as one is required to log at WP:GS/RUSUKR just as they would if the existing WP:ARBEE would have been amended per community consensus there.

Again, the overarching trend has been to subsume, so for example WP:GS/IPAK no longer runs in parallel to WP:ARBPAK, and so on and so forth (example example). But it doesn't really matter, I've hit a bureaucracy wall here, with reasoning I'm not really able to meaningfully understand; unless it just means 'ArbCom is too busy, do it yourself,' which I'm getting the sense is largely what's behind Izno's stance (i.e. not wanting to spare the time to examine the matter at hand substantively, which in some sense is understandable, busy-busy).

Anyway, I'm not gonna try again, at least not for a long while, so, see you all (?) again at my next ARCA in, like, a year per usual — I'd probably had forgotten by then the extent of the bureaucracy wall, only to be reminded yet again (that, subsume/split, ultimately it's a cycle with not much rhyme or reason). El_C 21:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Izno, in one breath you reject my you're-on-your-own interpretation of your stance, but then in the same breath, you go on to detail basically that very thing: 'the community should own it, not our thing, etc.' Not only that, you then try to impose additional barriers to even have the Committee look into acting on this matter (full RfARs, plural). Honestly, your original terse response, that read dismissive, was better. Better than trying to crank up the inaccessibility even further.

Thanks, though, Wugapodes, for at least trying to think outside the box, and for communicating clearly. So, not all bad; it evens out, I suppose. Maybe the Committee will be able to help after all, if not with the fundamentals (i.e. unrefined ECR), at least with the organization and presentation. Which does count for a lot. El_C 12:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I call em like I see em. And I don't need anything done, but I'm against some of you seemingly working to make the process even less accessible, when the rest of us are working towards more access. Here, and overall. The way forward is not for you to shelter yourselves from the rest of the project. El_C 16:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49, whatever you say, I'll leave you to it. El_C 17:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

These are big topic areas to place under ECP. Is there a more narrow topic area that might work better? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

ECR is pretty draconian and an extreme measure to prevent disruption.

The problem is not inherently with ECR, as I accept it may sometimes–very, very rarely–be appropriate. My concern is: no other lesser restrictions have been considered in that discussion (e.g. a topic-wide semi or ECR on a narrower topic area), no assessment of how many high-quality non-ECP user contributions the topic will lose, and no assessment of the size of administrative burden if a GS is not imposed (which should be a key factor in imposing GS, as otherwise ANI/admins can handle topic disruption as usual). I'm also unsure how this is distinct to other sockpuppeteers who are single-topic focused, we don't fight these with topic-wide ECR. Some of the comments are literally politician's fallacy (e.g. Surely something must need to be done about this disruption.)

If ArbCom is to make a motion, it should be due to substantive agreement and not just rubber-stamping. And ArbCom doesn't need to act here, the community can under the auspices of consensus. If the community wants to motion this, they should do so themselves, but I do wish these GS discussions had some more guidance to, well, guide them. With few exceptions, the fate of almost all community-authorised sanctions is that they were not necessary (see their logs for instance). The only other time the community authorised 500/30 was India-Pakistan I think, which turned out to be unnecessary and was repealed last year after several years of being nominally in force. My overarching point in this paragraph is that the community doesn't have too many tools in its toolbox to deal with this kind of disruption, which I accept is a problem, but it tends to use a hammer when it comes to GS authorisation requests. It's relatively surprising, given how conservative the community is with topical actions otherwise.

I would suggest ArbCom substantively review the issue which caused community concern, in line with WP:AA2/WP:KURDS and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction (The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.). Not to overrule the community, but to see if ArbCom can identify the locus of problem and form a better tool to deal with these kinds of issues. I think ArbCom is best placed to do this.

Barkeep49 reasons:

1. I think an ArbCom ECR has a greater chance of being enforced as-written or less chance of being forgotten. In the case of India-Pakistan's 500/30, I'm glad it wasn't enforced as-written, because it was never necessary in the first place, and it would've been detrimental to the encyclopaedia's content if it were enforced. Letting administrators maintain discretion is key, and I think that's more likely with a community GS. And IMO, remedies being forgotten is a decent signs they're no longer (if ever) necessary.
2. IMO it falls out of ArbCom's scope unless you consider the issue substantively, as the community can and did 'resolve' this. I don't feel it's WP:NOTBURO because WP:ECR prescribes no requirements, not even logging, so there is no bureaucratic overhead or procedural differences, unlike DS. Both community and ArbCom non-DS GS are listed on WP:General sanctions in the same manner. I see no blocker to a new table row being added to WP:GS and am unsure why the Committee is needed here.
3. I'm not a fan of ArbCom rubber-stamping community motions and implementing them as arbitration decisions, at least if ArbCom wouldn't have made the same decision itself. (Would you have motioned this if the AN discussion never happened and an ARCA was filed detailing the socking problem? Or would you do something else?) In paragraph 1 I outline some issues/omissions in that discussion. I dunno if you agree with any of the points I made, but if you do, I feel like you should be wary of authorising a remedy that may not be tightly fitted to the problem. The numerical vote may be there, but this is a strong restriction, and there is no equally strong discussion. I accept it'll probably be implemented anyway, but it's a community decision, the community should own it and have the ability to directly revoke it.
4. If you wished, this could be an opportunity for ArbCom to figure out how we can address these issues without ECR. I'm personally sceptical of ECR's proliferation. While I appreciate it stops some bad behaviour, I don't think it stops as much bad behaviour as it does good in most cases, and I'm concerned of you setting a precedent where we turn to properly-enforced ArbCom-authorised broad topic-wide ECR implementations in the face of (potentially transient) sockpuppetry and canvassing. I'd maybe go as far as saying ArbCom should conduct a review of the effectiveness of ECR, in particular does it remain the best tool at our disposal for this problem, and when is it actually appropriate?

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I am not familiar enough with the editing in these topic-areas to opine whether ECR, or any other restriction, is warranted, and I defer to the arbitrators, administrators, and other community members who have commented above for knowledge of the recent editing histories on the topics. I do have two short, more general observations to offer, though, paralleling ones I have made before about other geographical topic-areas:

(1) There is an enormous difference between (for example) requiring 500 edits' experience to edit "all articles about disputes between Azerbaijan and Armenia" and requiring 500 edits to edit "all articles about Azerbaijan and all articles about Armenia." The former is limited to the area of conflict; the latter takes in every article, however non-contentious, between the two countries that happen to be in conflict, and unless the situation has deteriorated to the point where most Armenian editors are unable to edit anything without mentioning Azerbaijan and vice versa, is too broad.

(2) There is also an enormous difference between "administrators, in their discretion, may impose ECR on any article in such-and-such topic-area where problems arise" as opposed to "all articles in such-and-such topic-area are now automatically subject to ECR (whether there have been any problems or not). If the Committee decides to proceed with any motions, please consider these thoughts for what they might be worth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew D.

There was recent discussion at ITN about applying such restrictions to discussion of news items such as the recent missile strike in Poland or a fire in Gaza. This seemed to be technically difficult because such discussions are bundled in dated sections rather than on separate topical pages. And establishing the scope of "broadly construed" didn't seem clear either. So, my impression is that the EC restriction already doesn't work well and so further proliferation should be resisted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs) 10:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

Over on the VP, I've just given a mixed oppose/support on the issue (I'm also not the only oppose, though certainly still close to). ECR is a very severe restriction, and AA2 is a huge scope unless you don't have much of a link to either country. In terms of the general ECR question, I'd support a restriction on the conflict, but not the individual countries (and just accept that a certain amount of gaming will have to be handled by the standard DS regime).

In terms of "should it be DS at all" - I have made abundantly clear that I oppose DS subsumption of GS without community agreement, but likewise don't really mind if the community itself would like it all under one banner. Though with all that, Izno's position is not unreasonable and has a lot to say for it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I'm undecided on the merits of the proposal itself, but I want to push back against CaptainEek's characterization of the Arab-Israeli conflict as uniquely thorny or that it goes back thousands of years (case in point: the only way to construe the A-I conflict as thousands of years old is if we include the Roman-Judaean conflict or the early Muslim conquests as part of its scope; we do not apply PIA protection to such articles). Pretty much any ethnic conflict has the propensity to motivate extremely disruptive editing: the question to be answered is whether the level of disruption on Wikipedia merits a given sanction. This should be an assessment of the quality and quantity of edits on Wikipedia alone, not an evaluation of how intractable we believe the actual nationalist conflicts to be. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

I don't have an opinion on the need or wisdom of imposing ECP in the area at the time, nor on whether arbcom should take over the community proposal or really anything in the area at this time. But an obvious question if the alts pass, does Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications apply in entirety? I'm particularly thinking of the ARCA aspect. It seems a little weird that people can appeal to arbcom, or for admins to try and get agreement from abcom before modifying sanctions when arbcom is basically saying they're not taking over this it's still only a community decision; and arbcom stopped considering appeals for community sanctions long ago. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I see this proposal is maybe somewhat dead given DS/contentious topics motion. Having skimmed through that it maybe does imply that ARCA cannot be used as I guess a community-imposed remedies where discussion is designated to take place on the AE noticeboard is still not a "contentious topic restrictions", and perhaps somewhat clearer, a community restriction even taking place on the AE noticeboard is still not "an arbitration enforcement request". However although again I only skimmed and I'm also fairly tired, it's surprisingly less explicit than I would have though. (I'm mentioning this here since I couldn't figure out any place to comment on the motion.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Paradise Chronicle

In the Kurdish-Turkish conflict area I'd expect for years to come some IP or seldomly also an editor claiming (Turkish, Syrian) Kurdistan does not exist or that some Kurdish organization is terrorist. Usually those IPs/editors don't last for long and are reverted rather quickly. Then a 17/17 support vote for the amendment from also experienced editors in the field should be seen as an alert to a problem that needs to be addressed. Maybe they aren't as experienced in ArbCom policy as the Arbs (I've noticed some hesitation in approving the amendments), but they have very likely a point. If you (the Arbs) could find a feasible amendment/measure to the problem, it would bring some calmness to the areas (also the Armenian-Turkish, in which I have less experience) in question.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I saw the AN post and then this. I've been mulling this for a while, but I'd like to propose a community or arb DS for Turkey, broadly construed.

The post about the Discord server and subreddit come as no shock as even I have noticed tons of nationalist-oriented SPAs on articles related to Turkey. This spills over into Armenia, Iran, Kurds, Eastern Europe, and Uyghurs. I once asked here if WP:ARBEE applied to Turkey in hopes of finding some tool to help with these editors. I want to go to AN and propose the community sanctions, but worry that might be out of turn if it ends up with the ARBCOM.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Statement by SilentResident

The nationalist-oriented SPAs are now spilling to articles Aegean dispute, Cyprus and Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute resulting in their indefinite blocks and to article protection level increase. It is a matter of time before SPA pressure for these border topic areas in Turkey's South West and West (Cuprus and Greece) increases, from the moment the border topic areas in Turkey's East and South East (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kurds respectively) get stricter. It came to my notice that the SPAs are appearing at a time where a growing number of international media is reporting [1][2][3][4][5] an extremely hostile domestic political rhetoric against these neighboring countries. For these reasons, Wikipedia should consider EvergreenFir's proposal to have whole of Turkey covered, or at least include Greece and Cyprus to them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

Noting I've closed the AN proposals as consensus for the sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2023 (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.

Community ECR request: Clerk notes

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

•  Clerk note: renamed as the section title cannot have wikilinks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Note: The community discussion was listed at T:CENT yesterday. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Community ECR request: Arbitrator views and discussion

• El C the ask here is to add ECR to Kurds and Kurdistan and also to Armenia-Azerbijan? Just want to make sure I understand this correctly before investigating the substance. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've thrown up a couple motions below. I'm weakly in support of both but also think the community could just enact based on the consensus of the AN thread, no action from us needed. Alternatively if the intent was always to ask us my wish would be for that to have been noted - as is it's not clear if the editors participating want this to be a community sanction, an arb sanction, or don't care. I post this more in hopes that other community members will weigh in but if nothing happens I'm inclined to support. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader broadly I agree with you on ECR and the role of arbcom and the community. But I am a bit puzzled with how you apply it in this case. The feedback you and Guerillero have given is why I didn't support the motions after proposing them - I wanted to hear from more voices. When you say If the community wants to motion this, they should do so themselves isn't that what happened at AN? So why should ArbCom spend a lot of time making its own determination rather than acknowledging that having parallel ArbCom and Community restrictions is messy and respecting community consensus by incorporating it into ours? Neither of you are opposing the community motion and so absent ArbCom passing these motions these restrictions will still come into effect at some point when someone gets around to closing it and opening the pages, so why not have the simpler method of doing it? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader if El C had filed a request an ARCA request without that community discussion I would absolutely be taking it seriously given that these remain contentious topic areas and El C actively works them. The argument that having two different sets of places to record issues is to be celebrated as evidence that the community can handle so no need for ArbCom it is not an argument that resonates with me. I'm glad you and Guillero have now opposed at the community discussion. I will continue to wait to see what others in the community have to say. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  El C it feels like you're frustrated at the committee for not doing what you want when the overwhelming agreement of the people giving feedback on "should ArbCom do this" (vs people giving feedback in the !vote on "Should the community do this") is no. I get why you're frustrated with this but also do want to call out that it's not like the Arbs are getting caught up in bureaucracy here and not listening to what people want. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Listening to the feedback of the community telling us not to do something feels like the opposite of sheltering ourselves from the rest of the project. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• My read of the discussion is that users don't care but that El C thinks it would be administratively simpler if we did it ourselves. I'm happy to support the motions; I will be copyediting them to be in line with existing ECR remedies shortly. Best KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  ProcReader and Guerillero's points here are great, and I will further consider the best path forward. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• I was going to follow up my below votes with something much shorter and simplistic but much along the same lines as ProcrastinatingReader has this afternoon, but I think his points are better framed anyway. ECR doesn't have any overhead and no fundamental complexity in implementation. Pages get protected and wherever else an unregistered or 'new' editor is editing in the topic area they can be reverted with enforcement at 3RRN. Izno (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  ArbCom is too busy, do it yourself Decidedly not. It is resolutely "the community wants it, so they should own it", as I have said already.

  We could examine it, but if that's what you want, what you actually want are AA3 and KURDS2 cases given the draconian nature of the restriction you are attempting to add committee authorization to and the lack of evidence of disruption the community cannot handle even with existing restrictions under our name (or even attempts to do so), at least as presented here. I'd be willing to entertain such cases, but certainly not in parallel with the community discussion. That discussion could serve as evidence of community discontent making a basis for a case, but I don't think it sufficiently indicates by itself (and by itself I mean in the text of the discussion, not just its existence) the necessity either for arbitration-committee-backed-ECR or any other addition to the discretionary sanctions already available here and maybe isn't even sufficient to take a case. That would be something for WP:ARC either way.

  As for the splitting of documentation and such, it looks like I'm not going to get what I personally want on the matter and arbitration and community documentation is going to fall under the new contentious topics nomenclature with its requirement for summarizing subpages and allowance for use of AE if requested by the community. (Mind you, the new subpages I liked, so I'm quipping mostly about the name and use of AE.) I imagine such subpages could or even should directly display community additions to arbitration remedies or link to the community additions elsewhere.

  So, if this amendment request had shown up literally a week or two later, I would just have said "that looks like sufficient community direction to use the same enforcement/summary mechanisms, go ahead and add it over there as a community restriction in the same area". Maybe I should have said that earlier, but I didn't know if the associated proposals were likely to pass. Izno (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I agree with Izno's reading that a community-imposed ECR restriction doesn't require logging under the cited procedures. Is your goal to eliminate the need for a GS page at all or just logging? I agree with streamlining and harmonizing these processes, but it's not clear to me how us implementing the restriction resolves that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Rosguill Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure my analogy landed in the way I wanted it to. So let me say I agree: we should be making decisions based on how disruptive something is being to Wikipedia, and so far we only have evidence that this is disruption based on a short to medium range harassment campaign. I point out the real world dimension because I simply question whether this is actually a long term problem for Wikipedia. It would be a massive waste of admin time to go through the labor of ECP'ing thousands or tens of thousands of pages...for the harassment to die down in a few months or a year, and then we've just neutered a topic area for no reason. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• As this has now been implemented by the community, can we finish up here? Worm^TT(talk) 11:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Kurds and Kurdistan ECR request

The following remedy is added to the Kurds and Kurdistan case:

Extended confirmed restriction

11) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on all edits and pages related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Support

Oppose

1. The original ECR placed on PIA was noted as draconian. If that's what the community wants in this topic area, I think the community should own these accordingly. Izno (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
2. I am sharply opposed to the proliferation of ECR. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ECR is almost universally so high a burden (to would be editors, and to our administrators) that it has not been implemented even in highly acrid areas. The exception that proves the rule is WP:PIA. PIA represents a simply different paradigm. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is the single most intractable political problem of the last century. It sharply divides dozens of countries and entire populations. It encapsulates an ethnic and religious dispute that goes back thousands of years. It was attracting editors from the entire world that made the topic an unapproachable editing wasteland. I understand that issues with Kurds and AA2 are bad, but they simply pale in comparison to PIA. I might support a narrowly targeted scope, but there isn't evidence to support such a broad scope.
   I understand the idea that if the Community wants this, ArbCom should implement it. But I think a rigid formulation of that rule is unhelpful. Also, the latest five comments at AN all oppose the idea, so I suspect we may seeing a sampling error given that this is a rather stale discussion on AN. I would also caution that the proposal in the AN thread came out of an off-Wiki harassment campaign. The users in question were blocked. We have had harassment campaigns in the past (think Muhammed images, or the vast harassment campaign against Ahmadiyya that plagued VRT a few years ago). But they passed. I do not think implementing long-term ECR across a topic area is warranted in response to a short or medium term problem. I understand the frustration with the topic area, but ArbCom (or the community) should not implement a fundamentally flawed solution just because of frustration. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion (Kurds and Kurdistan ECR request)

Armenia-Azerbaijan ECR request

The following remedy is added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case:

Extended confirmed restriction

3) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on all edits and pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed.

For administrative simplicity, the section titled "Standard discretionary sanctions" is redesignated as Remedy 4 of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case.

Support

Oppose

1. The original ECR placed on PIA was noted as draconian. If that's what the community wants in this topic area, I think the community should own these accordingly. Izno (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Refer to my vote on the first motion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion (Armenia-Azerbaijan ECR request)

Copyedited both motions. This second one is a bit messy because the case page is a bit messy and this motion redesignates the currently un-numbered remedy "Standard discretionary sanctions" with a remedy number for future ease of reference. When enacting this motion, it would be great if the clerks would also collapse all rescinded or superseded text on the case page. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Kurds and Kurdistan ECR request (alt)

The following remedy is added to the Kurds and Kurdistan case:

Extended confirmed restriction

11) The committee authorizes using the procedures of remedy 1 to administer a community-imposed extended confirmed restriction in the topic area or any sub-topic. For administrative simplicity, alerts, warnings, and sanctions regarding a community-imposed extended confirmed restriction may be given as if the Arbitration Committee had authorized an extended confirmed restriction. If the community repeals its extended confirmed restriction on this topic area, this remedy will be automatically revoked.

Support

Oppose

Arbitrator discussion (Kurds and Kurdistan ECR request alt)

• See explanation below. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan ECR request (alt)

For administrative simplicity, the section titled "Standard discretionary sanctions" is redesignated as Remedy 3 of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case.

The following remedy is added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case:

Community-maintained extended confirmed restriction

4) The committee authorizes using the procedures of remedy 3 to administer a community-imposed extended confirmed restriction in the topic area or any sub-topic. For administrative simplicity, alerts, warnings, and sanctions regarding a community-imposed extended confirmed restriction may be given as if the Arbitration Committee had authorized an extended confirmed restriction. If the community repeals its extended confirmed restriction on this topic area, this remedy will be automatically revoked.

Support

Oppose

Arbitrator discussion (Armenia-Azerbaijan ECR request alt)

• So I'm going to think outside the box here, and try to hash out a compromise. I'm incredibly sympathetic to the idea that we should reduce the maze of templates, logs, and pages required for what are essentially parallel ArbCom and community sanctions; it's bad from a maintenance perspective, from an administrative perspective, and from an editorial perspective. We should avoid duplicating work where possible. That said, I'm also sympathetic to the idea that the community should ultimately be the one to own these restrictions, and ArbCom shouldn't subsume sanctions that the community is capable of administering itself.
  The issue I see is that the community (or at least El_C who does his fair share of the DS/GS work) would like to use our infrastructure for it's sanctions, but we have no mechanism for that other than subsuming the sanctions which (like this situation) isn't always the ideal choice. We need some (new) way of allowing the community to use our infrastructure, but leave the actual maintenance of the sanction (including its repeal) up to them.
  So the two alternative motions I'm proposing are a little rough, I'd welcome copyedits, but I think the gist is there. We make clear that these are community-imposed sanctions, but we authorize the use of our (soon to be renamed) DS infrastructure for administrative simplicity; don't worry about the GS/DS distinction, if you act like the ECP is a DS no one will yell at you. The community maintains control over when to terminate the sanction, and if they do so, this whole thing becomes null without us having to do anything; we can revoke this authorization early by motion if it turns out to be a horrible idea in practice. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  This was also the direction that I've been thinking – if I can get past my current questions about whether ECR would be a Bad Thing here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think these are basically (American) mooted by the DS rework as I noted above that we posted almost simultaneously. Izno (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think so too. But this is also why I've asked for clear sample language for the community to use in such instances. One of the hang-ups for me is that there is a clear understanding by the community, when participating in the discussion and voting, what they're voting for. Given the idea of merging with ArbCom came after discussion had (at that point) died down is part of my overall reluctance in this instance. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing?

Clarification given and request closed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by IntrepidContributor at 16:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Case or decision affected If your request does not concern a case, provide a link to the arbitration decision affected. List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: IntrepidContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HAL333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request Anythingyouwant HAL333 Statement by IntrepidContributor There is a dispute on whether it is due to put the claim that Elon Musk is a "polarizing figure" in Wikivoice in the lead of his BLP, and editors in discussions on the TP and BLPN have highlighted WP:BLP and MOS:LEAD as pertinent policies. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I don't think we should put the claim in Wikipedia's voice when it is only based on a few articles that mention the term in passing, and I don't really think its due in the lead given that only one of these sources is cited in the article's main body. When I twice restored Anythingyouwant's attempt to attribute the claim [6] [7], and explained my position on the talk page [8] [9], HAL333 replied "yeah that's just your opinion man" [10], twice reverted me [11] [12] and posted an edit warring warning on my talk page threatening to also post on this noticeboard [13]. I take HAL333's warning serious since they have reported me there before [14], so I decided not to revert it a third time and request policy guidance from administrators. When I posted my guidance on WP:AN (a noticeboard for "posting information and issues of interest to administrators"), administrators Black Kite said it was the wrong venue and warned me against edit warring, while administrator Black Kite seems to have accused me of noticeboard spamming [15]. As was noted by Anythingyouwant on the TP [16] and BLPN [17], WP:BLPUNDEL indicates that the content should not have been restored till a consensus was formed. I would appreciate some policy guidance from arbitrators on whether disputed unattributed claims should remain in the lead of BLP articles while the discussions in TP and BLPN are ongoing, and may still be escalated to an RFC. I hope this is the right venue to gain a clear clarification on BLP policy (and the proper enforcement of the policy by administrators). IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC) @Barkeep49: my request very clearly asks about conduct, and not content. Perhaps I could have worded my request more succinctly, but I am asking if, as WP:BLPUNDEL indicates, disputed content should be removed from BLPs while discussions and consensus building is ongoing. By extension, I ask if administrators should enforce this policy. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by Anythingyouwant Statement by HAL333 Statement by Black Kite I think you may find it was Doug Weller, not myself, that warned you about edit-warring, whilst I merely pointed out that your behaviour could be seen as noticeboard-spamming, which ironically this filing appears to have proved. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing?: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing?: Arbitrator views and discussion @IntrepidContributor:, Wikipedia has two kinds of noticeboards: conduct noticeboards and content noticeboards. Conduct noticeboards deal with editor conduct, while content noticeboards handle content issues. This question seems to me to pretty clearly be a content issue. However, WP:AN and this board (WP:ARCA) are both conduct noticeboards. This is why these are the wrong place for your question. On the otherhand, WP:BLPN is a content noticeboard and has had discussion about this topic. That is the right place to gain further input. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC) @IntrepidContributor your question to us is I would appreciate some policy guidance from arbitrators on whether disputed unattributed claims should remain in the lead of BLP articles while the discussions in TP and BLPN are ongoing, and may still be escalated to an RFC. which is a content not conduct question. You seem to be wondering if others (or you) have edit warred. That would be conduct but this is the wrong place for it, and frankly so is AN. You might have more like at the teahouse getting some guidance like that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC) I am inclined to agree with the administrators at WP:AN. Questions should be answered either at the locations to which you have been pointed and for the reasons you have been pointed to those places, or potentially WT:BLP if you believe there is an issue with the policy (I do not think you think there is). Izno (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Yep, this is not a proper ARCA request. If you have nothing to put in the section marked "Case or decision affected", you are not in the right place. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Concur with the above. As much as I am loathe to send people on a series of "ask the other parent" missions, this does not fall into our remit. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC) I would decline the clarification request, and absent objection I will ask the clerks to close this request in 24 hours. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022)

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/1064925920

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Crouch, Swale ban appeal
2. Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017)

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

• Crouch, Swale ban appeal

• Remove or at least relax restriction

• Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017)

• Remove or at least relax restriction

Statement by Crouch, Swale

(Edit, Can I have my editing restrictions removed completely please with a probationary matter with an editing plan) I have a list of proposed motions at User:Crouch, Swale/Motions (edit, for if we don't remove completely) so please review each of them and propose a motion for each request to see if it can be relaxed please assuming the restrictions aren't removed completely. The main priority is to allow some (current) parishes to be created, regarding points about creation (1) there was consensus against prohibiting mass creation at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement from what I can see or at least not consensus (2) there is a consensus that all parishes (apart from perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes) are inherently notable (3) I will create the articles with reasonable content which even if quite a few are created a day doesn't generally fall under mass creation (4) the suggested motions for page creation include the ability for any admin to reduce or revoke the number as well as allow anyone to move unsuitable pages to draftspace (5) we already have things like NPP so any problematic pages can be seen to and all of my 12 creations last year were accepted (6) I haven't been involved in any major problems etc and most editors are happy with my work (7) I have been paying attention to feedback and requests from editors for example here about urban parishes not being notable and modified my list, a later list User:Crouch, Swale/Leicestershire which I am adding things like location, population, when abolished and infoboxes for former parishes but it would be good if I could also create the missing ones apart from as noted category 4 parishes (urban parishes). So please please can I have 1 chance to be allowed to create good articles on parishes. This can start low like say only a few a week and increase and be as well as or instead of the existing 1 article a month on anything.

• @Barkeep49: WP:GEOLAND says legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable (and parishes are definitely not similar to census tracts or irrigation districts) WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says things like municipalities are also usually kept, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC had a rough consensus to create them if created with suitable content, the exclusion of urban parishes came from here. Can you please agree to a complete removal on a probationary matter with an editing plan? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: The parishes RFC may not establish an obvious consensus for creating them but we already have a consensus at other guidelines etc that such places should have articles namely GEOLAND and PLACEOUTCOMES. We have around 96.5% of parishes in England so what is so different abot the remaining 3.5%? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: I have tried to follow consensus and I believe I have do so to the spirit and letter and as I noted above I have had almost no problems for example things that many editors have problems with like civility, edit warring etc. What is the problem with the quality or topic of content creation that I have/will been doing. SilkTork (and earlier WTT) have also said that my quality of writing has improved. I'm also as noted open to a request to only create parishes or even category 1 parishes. What do I need to do (either in conduct or content creation) that would make you feel it was appropriate to remove the restrictions? I have tried to do what people have said to me but I now don't know what else I can do? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Primefac: Yes removing completely is the first suggestion which is why I said "assuming the restrictions aren't removed completely" but I accept that was far from clear in the request. I have edited the request to make it clearer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• @CaptainEek and Beeblebrox: As already mentioned I've modified the request to make complete removal as the 1st proposal. Yes I now honestly believe I can be trusted to contribute without any restrictions and would be happy with any suggestion about quantity, quality or type of pages such as only recommending creating parishes or even only creating category 1 parishes (parishes named after a standalone settlement). What would you like from me to request/suggest/do that would make both of you happy to accept the complete removal with a probationary matter? Per WP:ROPE can we please at least have a go? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Primefac: As mentioned I modified the request to make it clear that an outright removal was the 1st choice. Yes I didn't make that clear originally but I did quickly make that clear when you pointed it out. I don't think the fact I didn't make something clear originally counts as not listening and the other proposals were necessary for anyone who may be happy lifting some but not all restrictions so I wanted to keep some eggs in that basket to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Cabayi: I have pinged the members of the relevant county's Wikiprojects which has had limited success. Yes I admit that I haven't had much collaboration with it but I don't know what else I could or should have done, I have as noted discussed missing parishes with other editors which made me modify my lists though that was for former parishes not current ones. So as far as I can see I have done what I could and now I just need to be able to get on with doing it myself as others haven't offered much input despite my efforts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• @Worm That Turned: I don't think so, I will be following what advice people give and won't be mass creating short articles. What advice would you want me to follow that would make you happy to remove the restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• @SilkTork: Why doesn't the community want the remaining ~3.5% of low level units in England created how is it in Wikipedia's interest to not cover these? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @SilkTork: I have a significant interest in when things should be crested or not and if separate articles should be created or not which is partly why I have created essays like Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate and Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements which have been written on existing conventions and consensus as well as my personal advice. You might want to have a detailed reading of both of those as they may help you understand what should be created or not. If you look at my article creation this year there is Harnhill, Oldbury, Warwickshire, Menethorpe, Blofield Heath, Tritlington, Hallington, Northumberland and Ryal, Northumberland. Most of those probably only took me half an hour of less to wright and have all been accepted without problems AFAIK. Most of those are category 1 former parishes. If I can wright these articles in around half an hour or less then why can't I produce more frequently say several (current) parishes a week or if you like several (former) category 1 parishes. What is unacceptable or not good enough about those kind of creations that would make them problematic if they were done on a larger scale. I don't understand why if these kind of pages aren't a problem we can't at least have a test run on allowing me to create a specified or unspecified number of articles to see if there are problems. Why isn't this a good idea per WP:ROPE? If there are problems the restriction can be re-imposed and/or the articles moved to draftspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• @In actu: I used the 2020 RFC as well as the already existing things like GEOLAND and PLACEOUTCOMES for it. Why on earth do I need to obtain consensus to treat the remaining ~3.5% the same as the existing 96.5%? What is so different about them that they should be shunned here? I accept they need to be created in accordance with today's standards but I can do that. Only England, Portugal and Wales that I know of have low level units missing here (though I haven't checked most countries). Look for example at France which has around 34,965 of them and from what I can see all of them exist here and the French Wikipedia. Now yes most units in other countries like France have far greater functions than in England but the units in England still have enough function to have articles here. So why why why do around 3.5% of places in England deserve to be treated differently? That's not fair or justified, that's arbitrary and ridiculous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @In actu: But there isn't generally a requirement to obtain consensus to mass create pages at least not in the way I'm wanting to. What normally happens is the same as how the other pages are/were is that they are created and the community then decides if they should exist or not. There is a consensus anyway that such places are notable (GEOLAND/PLACEOUTCOMES) even if there was a RFC that they shouldn't be mass created in a poor standard then I should be allowed to create them (slow enough and with enough content etc) just like any other use and just like any other place. What otherwise would you like to see? As I've already noted all of my articles as far as I'm aware have been deemed acceptable. What are the likely problems of allowing me to create some pages? Why wouldn't an allowance of a few a week to start with be not a good idea per WP:ROPE? What else could/should I have done? As noted all my creations seem to be acceptable so its not clear what the problem is? What is so bad about giving me a chance to create some? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Everyone as has already been mentioned all the creations seem to be acceptable and the topics are notable so why is no one happy to make changes to the restrictions here? Its not even really been made clear what I actually need to do to get a successful appeal anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

In 2020 I said:

there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. There is no evidence they have understood or listened to the feedback they've been given multiple times already.

In 2021 I said:

I am still not seeing any evidence that Crouch, Swale understands why they were placed under these restrictions and no evidence they understand why previous appeals were declined.

In 2022 I noted that the RFC cited then (and also cited again here) as consensus for creating parish articles does not demonstrate any consensus for anything (other than a general opposition to mass creation). I also noted:

Given that requirements of last year's request have not been met, have seemingly not even been attempted to be met, and recommendations for further discussion by other users since then have also not been followed up, I'm having a hard time understanding why this appeal is being considered?

It is now 2023 and despite there being twelve different proposals for removal or relaxation of the restrictions, not a single one seems to indicate any understanding of why these restrictions were first placed, and why so many years and appeals later they are still active. I'm also seeing no evidence that they've both listened to and understood the feedback from 2020, 2021 or 2022 appeals at least (I've not refreshed my memory of earlier appeals). Unfortunately I have to once again oppose removal of the restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2023 (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.

Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022): Clerk notes

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

Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022): Arbitrator views and discussion

• Crouch, Swale can you link me to where the consensus that all parishes (apart from perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes) are inherently notable was formed? Per my comments the past two years, I am uninterested in doing anything in this appeal except removing the restriction completely (or on a probationary matter where an admin could reimpose as an AE). I know several other arbs share that opinion, as does Primefac whose counsel you sought. Crouch the fact that you come to us with that request plus 12 other ideas, and not having really taken onboard the advice Primefac offered is not a good start. I feel that there are reasonable odds we are still in a WP:WILDFLOWERS situation but look forward to hearing more from Crouch Swale and from other members of the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale, after re-reading it I continue to think that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC does not establish consensus for what you're saying it does. In fact every arb who opined about the RfC in 2021, the appeal immediately after the RfC, told you the same thing. Now despite this the points you made in 3-6 in your original post are all reasonable and would support repealing the restriction. 7 is reasonable too but given what I have noted in this appeal (Primefac's advice, Arb feedback about the RfC) I have a harder time believing it. I think if you'd come in with this same text but instead of offering us 12 options - 12 options is just an unreasonable number of options to expect arbs to read through and consider - you had just asked for repeal (or probationary repeal) you'd have stood a reasonable chance of getting somewhere. At minimum you wouldn't have had the dismissal of what you wrote by two arbs. Maybe some of the arbs who haven't weighed in will be as sympathetic as Primefac is and you get a vote on a repeal with probation. If that happens maybe I hold my nose and vote to support it, despite the issues I see with 7. But if it doesn't happen I would strongly suggest you wait 2 years before trying again. If instead you come back next year, please know that I plan to offer no comment (and may not even read it at all) unless an arb offers a motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Crouch you asked Silk Tork Why doesn't the community want the remaining ~3.5% of low level units in England created how is it in Wikipedia's interest to not cover these? I'm guessing he might have his own answer but since this is something I've tried to express to you before, I want to try again now given my pledge to cut back on participation in the future. The community doesn't care about low level units in England. I put this in bold just to emphasize just how true it is that the community doesn't care one way or another. You, on the other hand, care a great deal. That's fine - there are many things that the community doesn't care about content wise but which happen because of individual editor interest. What the community does care about is your editing and general conduct. This caring about your conduct is why so many arbs have expressed a desire to stop having annual appeals from you and only to consider a full repeal. Your inability to take that feedback on board, in the way you have taken much of the feedback about problems with your editing on board, and to produce an appeal that does what we the arbs and the community more generally has asked of you is why you're being told no. The thing the community does care about (your editing and more relevantly your conduct) isn't meeting community expectations in these annual appeals and patience has (again) run out. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale I would also agree that the quality of your editing has improved. And I can appreciate how you must feel frustrated now so thanks for asking What do I need to do (either in conduct or content creation) that would make you feel it was appropriate to remove the restrictions? The answer, at least for me, is listening to the feedback you've gotten in this discussion and feedback you get before you do your next appeal. And the feedback I see is "ArbCom only wants to consider a repeal of your restriction" (given quite strongly and universally by every arb who has commented) and "We're tired of your annual appeals, so don't try another appeal for at least a couple of years" (given by a few arbs, including me). Related to that second point, getting some feedback from someone on the committee you trust before you do the appeal, like you did with Primefac, is good. The trick is you should try really hard to listen to their feedback and, ask questions if you don't understand, as you've done here with this question I'm answering, or to check that you accurately followed it (which is what you didn't do with Primefac and didn't do with the feedback the committee gave you in at least 2021 and 2022 if not even further back). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have told you, both on my talk page and in your ARCA last year, that I would support lifting your restrictions, full stop. I believe there are at least two other Arbitrators who feel the same, and I can almost guarantee every Arb that has been on the Committee more than 24 hours is tired of these convoluted and complicated appeals.
  So Crouch, Swale, I have one request: in as few words as possible, please tell me why you have opted to not make a full lifting of the restrictions your first (and some would hope only) proposal. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Two thoughts:

  • What do I need to do (either in conduct or content creation) that would make you feel it was appropriate to remove the restrictions? - stop pandering.
  • I have tried to do what people have said to me but I now don't know what else I can do? No, you have not: multiple arbs told you last year, and I said two months ago (see reply to SilkTork below), that you should just come straight out and ask for your restriction to be lifted, that you have held to them for four years and it is time to just get rid of them entirely. Instead, you ignored that advice and wrote two essays worth of haggling when half of us were ready to give you full price from the get-go. You have not tried to do what people said to you. I asked you why you did not do this in the first place, and all you did was say "but I did ask". No, you patently did not.

  When it gets to the point where I want the restrictions lifted purely so you will stop inundating us with sub-standard requests that are not based on advice you have been given, it means that you have not made a proper appeal. As much as I really want to root for you, I do not think I can. I am not going to formally oppose this at this exact point in time in whatever miniscule hope there is that you will see sense, but I am very close to doing so. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• No I can't believe we're doing this again. As I said last year, with emphasis added, the annual amendment request is not reassuring. I suggest that the next appeal be your last, and that it seek to simply remove your restriction altogether. I don't like this horsetrading restrictions business. You should make the appeal only when you are confident that you fully understand the process, the expectations, and that your content will not require review. Otherwise, you waste your time and ours. Wait a year, two years, five even. But if I think you're appealing just for the heck of it going forward, I will not take kindly to it. Just because you can appeal in a year doesn't mean you should. I don't see that you have taken this guidance to heart. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• No exactly what Eek said. This is extremely tiresome. You've blown your shot for the moment with this mess, nobody wants to discuss this minutia, either you need to be restricted or you do not. Framing the conversation in this manner does more than anything to suggest that the restriction should remain. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• We're not going to keep playing with the restriction, so the only thing I am considering here is wholesale removal. I do not believe that is beneficial to the encyclopedia, as you do not appear to have taken on feedback or the results of the RfC. In other words, if we were to remove completely, I am confident that you would mass create the articles. Long and short - No. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Last year, at "The Fourth Annual Crouch, Swale Amendment Request", in the hope of avoiding a fifth rerun of the discussion, I asked to see more collaboration on your worklist. The history of User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes shows no sign of collaboration. Can you point to some? Cabayi (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Crouch, Swale, you are a slightly uncomfortable fit on Wikipedia - like a square peg trying to squeeze into a round hole, and have been from the start. However, (albeit slowly) you do learn, and you have potential to improve further. You have been on Wikipedia since 2009, and your article writing (though at some cost in time and effort from the community in sanding down your square edges) has improved during that time, and you are now, I feel, an asset to the project. And you can get better. But this appeal is not a good one as it is written from your perspective not from Wikipedia's. You are seeking to get what you want, not what Wikipedia needs, and you have not addressed previous concerns, nor appear to have listened to previous advice. I'd like to see your restrictions lifted, and I think that is a view shared by a number of members of the Committee from reading the above comments. But I can't agree to lifting the restrictions without you writing an appeal that shows understanding of why the restrictions are in place, and some clear indications from you that you are not going to fill Wikipedia with inappropriate articles. A number of your statements even in the amended appeal give me cause for concern that you do not understand what an inappropriate article is, and you do not understand what listening to feedback actually means (it has to be all feedback, not just the feedback you select). I have to decline this appeal. My suggestion, Crouch, Swale, is that before you appeal again next year, that you draft the appeal in your user space and show it to at least one and preferably three people who are willing to look it over and give you feedback. And that you listen carefully to their feedback, think about it for a few days, and then make adjustments to your appeal as necessary. SilkTork (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  SilkTork, for what it is worth that already happened after a fashion in November (though I do admit I should have made one more reply to reaffirm my opinion on the matter). Primefac (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  
  

  Crouch, Swale, your comment "Why doesn't the community want the remaining ~3.5% of low level units in England created how is it in Wikipedia's interest to not cover these?" is an example of why you are that square peg. One of the central issues on Wikipedia right from the start has been what do we include, and what don't we include. We drew up WP:NOT as a guideline, though we do discuss and refine what we consider appropriate to include. In simple terms, Wikipedia is not the internet - we don't include everything. And when we are considering including material that may be borderline acceptable (such as "low level units in England"), then we wish people to do that slowly and carefully so we can consider it. And if someone has a history of mass creating unacceptable articles, then we wish to either oversee them when they create articles, or for them to show us that they understand why we are concerned. You wish to move from being overseen, but you are not demonstrating to us that you understand the concerns. Indeed, you are making things worse by making statements such as "Why doesn't the community want [dubious or unacceptable articles]?". What I would like to see from you in your next appeal is you demonstrating that you see things from Wikipedia's perspective not Crouch, Swales's perspective. (For example, I'd like to hear you say that you'd like the ARC AFC restriction lifted because you don't wish to continue being a burden on those who work in ARC AFC; rather than because you find going via ARC AFC childish; I'd like to hear you say that you understand the community's concerns about the creation of inappropriate articles, as demonstrated in the last six articles you have created: [example], [example], [example]; and that moving forward you will ensure that every article you create is notable and fully sourced; rather than "The main priority is to allow some (current) parishes to be created"). I don't want to see you imposing your views on Wikipedia and getting it to try and match your expectations; I'd like to see you reaching out to Wikipedia to say you understand how Wikipedia works, and that you fully intend to work within all our guidelines and policies. SilkTork (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @SilkTork I'm guessing you mean AFC above? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Barkeep49 (and I read it through twice before posting!). SilkTork (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I am extremely troubled by Crouch, Swale's use of the 2020 RfC. I do not see any agreement there that parishes are notable or the mass creation of those articles is desirable. Based on this, I decline this appeal. I do not think that relaxing Crouch, Swale's restrictions at this time is in the community's best interest. If a substantially similar appeal comes in 12 months without any learning or growth, I would support topic banning Crouch, Swale from small administrate divisions. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: Wikipedia is run by the collection of people who show up at any given discussion. The decisions made by that group are arbitrary and capricious, but they are the decisions we have. Expecting order or internal consistency between a group of decisions is folly. You asked a question about the mass creation of parish articles and the community gave a decision. Until the community gives another answer to the same, or a substantially similar question, that decision stands. As far as I can tell from it, the controlling discussion shows an overwhelming consensus against the mass creation that you would like to see. The fact that you either can't or refuse see that the community has rejected your wishes is a problem for me. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I find I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said by my fellow arbs. Izno (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Initiated by Callanecc at 23:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• The following have been notified:
  • Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [18] - AE admin participant
  • El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [19] - AE admin participant
  • Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [20] - AE admin participant
  • Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [21] - AE admin participant
  • Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [22] - AE admin participant
  • ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [23] - party in AE request
  • Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [24] - part in AE request

Information about amendment request

Consensus of admins at AE requesting at ArbCom open a new case to examine the Armenia-Azerbaijan area of conflict.

Statement by Callanecc

There is a consensus of administrators at AE to refer conflict in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area to the Arbitration Committee for you to consider opening a new case. The consensus formed out of a discussion that the issues facing this area of conflict are more complex than can be successfully resolved at AE and require a full case (with evidence and workshop) to determine what measures may help to reduce conflict and improve the editing environment. Noting the amendment request above for an extended-confirmed restriction and the community discussion about the same (which could likely be folded into this), arbitration processes are best suited to resolving the current conflict on these articles by having the full range of remedies available. Effectively AE admins are saying that this is beyond what we're capable of resolving at AE so we're referring it to you under the CT procedure. I intentionally haven't listed any other parties as I (and the rough consensus at AE) believe that identifying parties needs to be part of the initial steps of opening the case, that is the parties in the current AE request are the catalyst for us referring it to you but not the scope of the problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave the specifics to my colleagues who have more recent experience in this area but broadly the problem admins have at AE is that we're making decisions based on a limited amount of information (which is vastly different following an evidence phase), with a relatively (to a case) limited timeframe and with relatively (to a case) limited timeframe to examine the conduct of everyone rather than those who are actively reported or doing the reporting. For someone to be reported there generally needs to have been some sort of conflict with someone else which means that the scope of who we're going to be able to identify and make summary decisions about is limited short of us actively searching through a topic area. AE is great at dealing with behavioural issues that are relatively clear or can be easily explained and identified in a limited number of diffs. It isn't great looking at long-term patterns of behaviour are beyond what we would accept but aren't clearly obvious to an independent observer. That, really, is why arbitration cases have long evidence and workshop phases - so that that type of conduct can be identified, evidenced and dealt with. El C made a comment in the AE thread about the issues being ideological rather than personal - that's something that AE will always struggle to resolve in a nuanced way (other than just topic banning everyone and moving on until there's an appeal for doing exactly that) but it's what arbitration cases are designed to do. Other admins will likely have some other ideas but I think the need for a case is to look at the long-term conduct of various editors and do, for lack of a better phrase, a clean-out. Re whether contentious topics is fully implemented, it's largely irrelevant as AE admins could, by custom, always do this, CT just formalised it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: The intention is that it would be a new case. The reason it came here rather than ARC is the suggestion in the new contentious topics procedure that this is where the Committee would prefer it comes rather than as a case request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: In addition to Rosguill's comment below. There might be some scope to do an extended evidence phase and use the extended bit at the start for public & private submissions about who should be parties in the case? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

The problem that Callanecc describes regarding scope and evidence is correct. At this point, the entrenched editors of AA have been feuding for years, and it is difficult to distinguish tendentious attempts to use AE to win the conflict from legitimate frustration. The consequence is that the par for this course, when it comes to civility and impartiality on the part of AA editors, is extremely low, and editors get away with a lot of kicks below the belt because admins only feel like we can intervene when something happens that is so far beyond the pale that it clearly merits a block all by itself. The subject-area is dominated by editors with POV agendas, to a degree that outstrips almost any other subject on Wikipedia.

Additionally, in a thread that is closed but still at the top of AN which describes an off-wiki campaign to POV-push in favor of Turkish viewpoints affecting AA and other topics of interest to aggrieved Turkish nationalists. While a few editors have been blocked and broad 30/500 protections have been authorized, the elephant in the room is that ZaniGiovanni has accused various other editors active in AA of playing an active role in organizing this and other pro-Azerbaijan or pro-Turkey POV campaigns. I think an ArbCom case is necessary in order to evaluate the evidence that ZG has collected. Adjudicating AE cases for edit warring or tendentious use of sources while these accusations lay hanging across the entire topic area (and, given the AN thread, potentially others as well) feels a bit like flagging a player for being offsides while the goalposts are being stolen. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding SilkTork's second comment, I think that the primary concern right now in my mind is the resolution of the off-wiki canvassing allegations. I think it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the finding of fact with predictions about who will end up sanctioned, but the state of the topic-area as a whole may end up significantly affected in response to whichever conclusions ArbCom arrives at and may deserve re-evaluation at that time. I think it would make sense for ArbCom to take up the off-wiki canvassing issue first, and to expect a further request for clarification and amendment from us if the outcome does not significantly address the general disruption in the subject area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, beside ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl who are already named, I expect that ZaniGiovanni can best name additional parties as they are the one that has raised the allegation. My off-hand recollection is that there are a range of claims of differing levels of involvement against a few different editors (including but not limited to Abrvagl), and I don't want to risk misleading anyone by listing parties on their behalf. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I agree entirely with the issues brought up by Callanecc and Rosguill. The problems in this area have gone beyond what AE can handle by sanctioning a few bad actors. And of course, AE cannot review private evidence of off-wiki collusion as ArbCom can. Like the community (as shown by the recent ECP request), AE admins are at wits' end in dealing with this topic area.

To answer the question from SilkTork and the others, the intent here is a referral to ArbCom as laid out in the new contentious topic procedures. At this point, I don't think any of us know exactly what that even looks like, and who should be on the list of parties to the case is also not yet determined. While the immediate AE request precipitating this involved a dispute between two editors, the problems in the area go much deeper than that and involve many other editors. So I think the request is to open a new case, but also to determine what the scope and participants should be, hence why the request is here rather than just as a new case request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Brandmeister

There's one particular ongoing pattern in the AA area that I think is worth considering - the usage of sleeper accounts as has been noticed e.g. here ("gaming autoconfirmed then going into hibernation"). Such accounts may look like sockpuppets, but are often found to be unrelated to each other, consuming editors' time and efforts at WP:SPI. Perhaps implementation of what has been done in WP:GS/RUSUKR, Remedy A (opening discussions only to extended-confirmed editors, while comments by other editors can be removed) is warranted per WP:GAME. What do admins and arbitrators think of that? Brandmeister^talk 08:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by ZaniGiovanni

I've been targeted by Abrvagl for the longest time now whether in AE or otherwise; during the first month since my tban expired (15th November), my name has been involved in at least 3 reports already by ideologically opposing editors [25], [26], [27]. None of these have resulted in sanctions, neither did Abrvagl's subpar reports throughout 2022. For the longest time I wanted to comment about the Azerbaijani off-wiki meatpuppet groups but I couldn't because of WP:OUTING. Even when I got the 2 month tban during my own close challenge (when I said 8 out of 8 Oppose users were Azerbaijani or az-wiki admins), I couldn't directly provide evidence of canvassing groups because I'd had to brake outing. I hope I can speak freely here. The users I've identified canvassing through social media/off-wiki groups are Abrvagl, Solavirum (indeffed for socking), Qızılbaş and Rəcəb Yaxşı. These are the ones I intend to provide evidence for. There is broader involvement by additional accounts, but I've been unable to tie considerable off-wiki canvassing/disruption to any other editors in particular. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: Clerk notes

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have not read over the AE discussions that prompted this, but I think brief summaries answering the following would be helpful:
  • Why are the current tools available under AA2 insufficient to deal with problems in the topic area?
  • What tools can ArbCom add to the AE toolkit for AA2 to help deal with the disruption?
  • Do the referring AE admins have any specific suggestions or requests of us beyond "open a new case"?
• I recognize that the request is "open a full case to examine the issues" but I would prefer to have some idea of problems and desired outcomes up front. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Callanecc. My thoughts, now that I've had a chance to read the AE thread: when dealing with topic areas that are subject to so much real-world controversy, I think most of the value of an ArbCom case comes from the powers delegated to admins and the community (mostly DS/CT, but there's other remedies out there). ArbCom can hand out some TBANs, IBANs, or plain old sitebans, warn people, whatever, but the problem isn't with specific editors, it's with Wikipedia being a front in a wider ideological battle. You suggest that we look at the long-term conduct of various editors and do, for lack of a better phrase, a clean-out, but to me that doesn't really solve the problem. If there are editors with conduct problems, an arb case can deal with them, but that doesn't do anything about the next group of disruptive editors who wade into the topic area, and we're just setting ourselves up to have to do more of these cases. If we need to have AA3, we can have AA3, but I want to understand how this will differ from AA2 and what we can do in order to prevent us from having to do AA4.

  And when I was about ready to hit post, Rosguill came along. Thank you - that helps me see the problem a little better, and the off-wiki campaigning concerns are certainly something that is in our court. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• From the purely procedural standpoint, my impression is that we are not (quite) yet operating in the blessed land of contentious topics. L235 (as a drafter and implementer)? I remain interested in this discussion however, especially answers regarding other tools. Izno (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• The essence seems to be that "ZaniGiovanni has accused various other editors active in AA of playing an active role in organizing this [...off-wiki campaign to POV-push in favor of Turkish viewpoints affecting AA and other topics of interest to aggrieved Turkish nationalists...] and other pro-Azerbaijan or pro-Turkey POV campaigns. I think an ArbCom case is necessary in order to evaluate the evidence that ZG has collected". That seems to be an ArbCom issue as it looks involved and messy, and has off-Wiki aspects that may involve private evidence. I am, though, unclear on the procedure used - why has this come through as an amendment rather than a case request? It looks like a case request, though without a clear list of the unusual suspects. The people named are not those who we will be looking at, but those who wish to bring the case. Is the intention that we reopen the 2007 case, or start a new one? SilkTork (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responses. I've noted the wording of the new CT procedure and the discussion leading to this request - is the understanding/intention of the new procedure that case requests (not just enforcement requests) should come to ArbCom via ARCA? As we are trialling the new procedures, some feedback on this part of the procedure would be useful. My feeling is that where there is enough information for a case to be properly considered, it might make more sense to go straight to that, with appropriate evidence provided, rather than a request via ARCA to make a case request. A consensus of AE admins would still make sense, so that the request is not thrown back.

Meanwhile, where do we go from here? ECP has been agreed, so is a case to examine the allegations of off-Wiki campaigning enough? There's the suggestion that Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is not working; do we need to adjust it to prevent future campaigning so we are not playing whack-a-troll? Are we being asked to do two things? Both open a case to examine the campaigning, and refine the restrictions and procedures to help AE admins keep the topic area clean? I suspect that we need to do both, and that they may or may not be complementary. I think my preference would be to treat them separately. Open a case specifically into the allegations (not AA3, but perhaps AA off-Wiki campaigning). And hold a discussion here on ARCA with AE admins as to how AA2 can be improved. SilkTork (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC) SilkTork (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Accept I think we should open a Review of AA2 or a new case called AA3 to examine these issues. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• General Notability: I do think there is value in ArbCom's ability to do a comprehensive look at a topic area and apportion appropriate responsibility, regardless of whether there is a need for new sanctions. Also, obviously, in this case we have ARCA request above that has been sitting there from one AE admin that the committee take over the community's new ECR.
  I would be reclutant to do that as it stands, but am open to doing it as part of a case. That said Callanecc, Rosguill, El C, and Seraphimblade I'm a bit reluctant to join Guerillero is moving to accept without some idea of who the parties might be. I think of the IRANPOL case here, where we had some parties when we started the case and then added parties during the case. That's fine. But the Committee, and editors, having some sense of who the parties might be besides ZaniGiovanni feels necessary to establish what has been stated. Could other parties or AE threads be submitted at this point? Bottomline I'm inclined to say we need AA3 - knowing that this will be a hard case to untangle - but I don't think we're quite ready to do so just yet. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Callanecc (and others) the issue is that at some point ArbCom needs editors who are willing to compile evidence for a case to work. It's possible that ZaniGiovanni and the editors he named would be sufficient as parties to start a case. I admit to some trepidation here. We have a whole bunch of AE admins telling us there is a problem and so I believe that we do have a problem. But we also have a paucity of evidence beyond what Zani has put together about offwiki coordination. So if ArbCom opens a case, I worry that the outcome is going to be disappointing to those AE admins because without evidence the case will flop. So we can certainly do a longer evidence period to allow parties to be added in the case - we structured our last case like this even - but ArbCom can't do the work to gather evidence, it can only do the work to judge it. And I'd prefer to move forward with confidence that the community stands ready to do its part in an ArbCom case rather than a leap of faith. But as it stands now I feel like maybe all we can judge is ZaniGiovanni vs Abrvagl. If that's all the ArbCom case addressed would it be sufficient? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)