Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cameron11598 (talk | contribs) at 05:15, 17 July 2018 (→‎Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion: Enacted per clerks-l). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Use of single and primary sources in Sri Lankan Civil War articles   29 April 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal Motion none 1 July 2018
Clarification request: Return of access levels none none 14 July 2018

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 19:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Ban appeal restrictions
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Community consultation: User:Crouch, Swale ban appeal
  2. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 12#Crouch, Swale ban appeal (December 2017)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Callanecc Euryalus Nilfanion

Information about amendment request
  • Links at the top
  • RM new page and moves/discussion editing restrictions (from myself)
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  • State the desired modification

Statement by Crouch, Swale

Can I have my editing restriction of page creation and discussion of NC and moves please. I have waited 6 months and edited as instructed. I have not had any problems with my moves on Commons and know that I need to follow consensus and propose potentially controversial moves. With creations I have to some extent reached an agreement with Nilfanion. I will mainly be creating pages for missing civil parishes and I will likely discuss with Nilfanion if I intend to create a large number of other topics. Note that I might not be around much next week but I hope that doesn't cause too many problems with this. I have never been blocked on Commons or had editing restrictions there, however if there is concern about my contributions which shouldn't happen, I will voluntary agree to restrictions, for example I have to discuss all moves I make.

(reply to Beyond My Ken) - I haven't contributed over there for years, and they were only realy blocked because of the blocks here, I didn't get any behavioral blocks there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2018
  • My appeal was nearly 2 hours late, I though you knew that I would want to appeal. I have tried to follow your requests and I did expand some articles. There are around 750 missing (current) civil parishes. Creating a B-Class for all of those would be extremely difficult. Creating things other than CPs could be discussed with Nilfanion later.
  • In the case of Ireland I wanted to leave it open for longer and leave a message at WP but the restrictions wouldn't have allowed that. I had taken it to CFD and I only closed it then due to this comment in response to my comment here. It wasn't obvious that the other things like the link and subsequent moves should be carried out after the move. When the suggestions were made I did so. I would have proposed the move of Shetland first here but the restrictions wouldn't allow that. UKPLACE can apply to any place located in the UK, not just settlements, in fact it even gives Jura, Scotland as an example. The hyphens are not used in other sources. I haven't contributed to any RM discussions to simplify things as I would be quite easy to be considered to violate the restrictions if a RM affects geographical locations, say if some are listed on the DAB page. I am not formerly banned from the RM or NC in general, that's just something I voluntary suggested.
  • I therefore think only removing the discussions is inappropriate as I have no restrictions on Commons and haven't had recent warnings there. I think a WP:1RR, applying in particular to moves would be more appropriate. I would also need to work out a consensus on topics that is not a CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Beyond My Ken) And that was over the accounts here, not behavior there. My point was that Nilfanion didn't think that I would immediately appeal.
  • (Rob) If I had have participated in RM discussions Nilfanion would probably have made a comment similar to this and threaten to add those discussions to the ban. I have waited and waited for change to finish creating articles and I think its inappropriate to still now allow it. How about using my contributions on Commons where I haven't been banned. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 months is a very long time, it might have been a bit different if it had only been 1 month or so.
  • You are often the only one who cares about conventions, I attempted to draw up guidelines and get the wider community involved on Commons.
  • My main focus is often getting a specific category of topics but yes a topic might be deemed notable if it meets GNG.
  • But at least I don't have any restrictions there and few of my creations have been deleted and few of my moves have been reverted.
  • This, this, this and this don't involve geographical NC and the middle 2 are similar to AFD/merge discussions here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 months is a long time so why should I want to wait any longer? I have improved other articles as well, Revelstoke, Devon for example.
  • I really don't think I should be expected to wait any longer. Haven't I had enough bans. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that I have been forced to make appeal after appeal, and still not succeeded, why am I expected to have restrictions which are similar to a site ban. I had waited precisely for the 1 of July (a whole 6 months) to be able to do the things I wanted to but it seems I have been let down yet again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also suggest that if this is declined which it looks like it will then I should not be expected to wait another 6 months but rather than when the disputes have been resolved. I think that this is otherwise like a prison sentence WP is not supposed to be so restrictive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the time frame doesn't matter that much then can I appeal further anytime, as long as I have done what it needed, meaningful NC discussion and significant content creation, rather than having to wait until the 31st of December? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Beyond My Ken

Can I ask what this is about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet block is a behavioral block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"My appeal was nearly 2 hours late" Do you say this because you believe it showed patience on your part, that you waited almost an entire 120 minutes (7,200 seconds) after the precise minute you were allowed to appeal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: - If there's some question about whether CS's sanctions allow them to participate in RMs of articles, this appeal could return an explicit statement that they're allowed to do that, so that the Committee can get the information needed to evaluate whether to lift the sanction on page moves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nilfanion

I'm not sure I'm a party to this, but clearly I'm interested. I'd urge ArbCom to read this discussion on my talk page. I'm surprised that he immediately came here at the 6 month (though I shouldn't be). My intentions were (and still are) to try and support him over the coming weeks/months to prove he can write good articles, and demonstrate he now has the key skills he lacked in the past and would likely produce new articles in a non-disruptive manner. If he had done so, at that point I'd have been inclined to approach ArbCom on his behalf to urge the restrictions were withdrawn.

The behaviour that triggered his initial block was generated by the mass creation of stubs on minor geographic places (leading to work at AFD, effort in merging into sensible parent articles, pointless templates being created etc). When he didn't stop that quickly death spiralled into socking. His comments, both during the discussion on my talk page and in his statement here, trouble me:

  1. I have urged him to aim to create articles which are much more substantial than minimal stubs, and his replies show he has no interest in doing so. By doing the research and creating longer articles, not only is the immediate reader experience better - but he would amply demonstrate each article meets the GNG by providing a good number of sources.
  2. By creating very small cookie-cutter stubs - he gives himself the potential to create a lot of articles in a short space of time.
  3. His understanding of notability guidance is questionable. Instead of properly assessing individual cases on their merits (ie by finding if there are enough suitable sources to meet GNG), he just looks at broad classes. One he has a decision on a broad class he will follow it. His immediate interest of Civil Parishes (Lowest tier of administrative areas in England) are highly likely to be notable, but his future endeavours are bound to result in stub creation on much minor places. Instead of expansion of a suitable parent article (ie likely to be the relevant parish).

All of these points suggest to me the potential for future disruption identical to what triggered the initial block.

Recent activity on Commons at CFD (the closest analog to WP:RM) may be of interest to ArbCom, as it shows other aspects of his behaviour: This show him closing a very high impact case, with minimal involvement from others. He did not initially care about fixing the consequences. He frets about "correctness" a lot, especially with following the one true source, and makes a lot of moves as a result. If he was allowed, he is bound to do the same on Wikipedia. His understanding definitely varies from Wikipedia norms. Some examples of moves: [1] is at variance with an old WP discussion. [2] quotes WP:UKPLACE incorrectly (it applies to settlements, not natural features). [3] to remove hyphens (not used by his preferred source, but used by other sources).

Based on the evidence above, at this time I oppose removal of the restrictions on article creation and removal of the restrictions on page moving. The other restrictions (no involvement in RM, or in discussions about naming conventions) could be removed - that would give Crouch, Swale to the ability to demonstrate on Wikipedia that the page move restrictions could be safely relaxed in future.

@BU Rob13: Crouch, Swale hasn't contributed to any requested moves since he was unblocked, because his current restrictions prevent him from doing so. See my comment above about Commons, for similar activity on that project.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I expected an appeal, but not one instantaneously. You approached me on June 22 and asked me to review some stuff you had done, which was reasonable on your part. I then expected you to have worked with me over a period of time, and at the conclusion of that been you could have been in the place for a strong appeal leading to a full removal of your sanctions. Not basically tell me to go away, and immediately appeal when you hit the 6 month mark.
You need to be engaging with the community-at-large, not single editors. You do that via taking part in discussions on article talk pages, project pages (like those for naming conventions or WP:UKGEO) not an user's talk page. And if you stay on topic, instead of going on a tangent with a slew of new questions you might find your original question gets answered. Its not right that you discussion with me what classes of subject should have an article. You shouldn't even be thinking about classes of subject, but individual subjects.
I'm not necessarily expecting all new articles to be high standard. But I do want to see you are able and willing to create one reasonable quality article. If you can't do that even once, I have little confidence you will ever do anything other than create stubs. And you need to move past that if you ever want to create new articles on Wikipedia. Edits like the ones to Theydon Mount are an important step in the right direction, but it needs to be sustained and not a one-off. If you do what I suggested and work on a single subject building a high-standard article its much easier for me (or anyone else) to give you meaningful feedback and allow you to create future articles in confidence.
My point with respect to the Commons examples is that your decision-making in all of them is questionable, and not clearly in line with WP norms, I'm not going to debate them here. Therefore letting you loose on Wikipedia at this time is high risk.
@Euryalus: The restriction on RM stems from the topic ban on geographic naming conventions. You can't meaningfully participate in most RMs without relying on some aspect of the naming conventions, and he is clearly only interested in geography, that is a major limitation on such discussions. A bright line is easier to enforce instead of quibbling about whether a specific comment is about the NCs. @ArbCom generally: I'm think setting a date for a new appeal will get an immediate response, regardless of whether the circumstances justify a change. This editor will keep on pushing and pushing and it is time consuming for all involved (including him). It would be better for it to be come back "when you are ready" not "in at least x months" (which will be exactly x months). Perhaps a criteria that reads "when you can demonstrate positive involvement in several RMs over an period of time, then an appeal will be considered"?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6 months is a substantial period of time, which means means the difference an extra day makes is minimal. You would be well advised to demonstrate solid evidence of improvement on the lines of "hey look at this article I improved, and this one, and this one" next time you come back here, not "its 6 months since last time, and I haven't been blocked". And finally, note this is Wikipedia, not Commons, different rules apply - for a start the community is more active.
@Euryalus: That makes sense to me. Maybe break it down into two parts to reflect the restrictions: Create dispute-free & meaningful content on notable subjects = remove creation ban. Meaningful involvement in RMs and related discussions without disruption = remove ban on moves.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Concur with Nilfanion. The very recent thread at [4] indicates insufficient cluefullness (still, somehow). Given the previous track-record of grossly disruptive socking and endless creation of pointless one-liners, a desire to keep creating micro-stubs after all this is a big red-flag. I agree with Nilfanion's WP:ROPE idea of easing some other restrictions, but there should be no hesitation in re-imposing the RM/move ban should more trouble arise in that area. We already have too high of a noise:signal and heat:light ratio in that sector.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur with BU Rob13 here; it's not really possible to do much at RM without referring to the naming conventions and their applicability/non-applicability to the case at hand. If you can't do those things, you'd be reduced to WP:JUSTAVOTE in many cases, and that is discouraged.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Miniapolis isn't a party – she just did the paperwork. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Crouch, Swale: Have you taken any pages through the requested moves process since you were unblocked? If so, please link that. If not, why not? ~ Rob13Talk 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m open to rescinding one sanction on a probationary basis, but not multiple at once. If that goes well, you could come back to discuss others. My preferred one to rescind is the one on page moves, since I think it’s easiest to monitor. My problem there is the lack of RM activity. I don’t see requested moves of main space pages as being likely to violate your topic ban, which just forbids you discussing our meta naming conventions from my understanding. My initial thought would be to decline this appeal, allowing another appeal of only the moving restriction after one month of participation at RM. I would appreciate feedback on this both from Crouch and from the community. ~ Rob13Talk 04:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could consider loosening the naming conventions restriction to exclude mention of naming conventions in RM discussions, specifically to allow participation in that area. That would quickly show us whether this is a productive exercise or not. While I respect the Commons contributions, they aren't a factor in my decision here. I care about the ability to interact on enwiki, not Commons, which is a very different project. ~ Rob13Talk 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • May as well start by actually thanking Crouch, Swale for their obvious interest in adding to Wikipedia, despite some fairly tough sanctions. Most people in similar circumstances would just give up and do something else with their time. So, congrats for that at least. I might be missing something, is the restriction in participation in RM a consequence of the restriction on taking part in discussions on geographic naming conventions? If so then I'd support a repeal of this specific restriction, with the qualifier that it can be reinstated in short order by the Committee if RM involvement becomes needlessly disruptive. After reviewing the edit history and the various talkpage conversations, I would oppose lifting the other restrictions for at least another six months. One aim of the restrictions was to encourage content contributions outside of single-paragraph stubs, but the contribution history hasn't moved that much beyond that, with the recent exception of Theydon Mount. A few more articles like this, and we would be in a better position to consider lifting the page creation ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nilfanion: Thanks re the clarification on the RM ban. You also have a good point re times to next appeal, but I reckon there is still merit in it, otherwise (as a generic comment) we open the door to appeals seeking a date for appeals. Perhaps the answer is a combined wording: a minimum appeal date and advice that a successful appeal will require a record of dispute-free and meaningful content creation on notable subjects. In passing, thanks for your informal mentoring, as evidenced by the lengthy discussions on your talk page. —- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support removing the topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions to better allow Crouch, Swale to contribute to RMs in order to provide an opportunity for him to show that the prohibition on moving or renaming pages is no longer necessary. I also agree that giving Crouch, Swale a better idea of what he needs to show when appealing is a good idea, in additional to the usual time period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ok with removing the geographic naming conventions topic ban with the proviso we can reinstate it. Thus I believe I'm in agreement with Callanecc and Euryalus here. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Nilfanion. Mkdw talk 20:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion

The topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unblock conditions in January 2018 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Crouch, Swale fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. Crouch, Swale's remaining restrictions continue in force.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Per the discussion above, dropping the topic ban is the next logical step in removing the unblock conditions. I'd also echo Nilfanion's comments above that appealing restrictions is more than just x time has passed, the appealing editor needs to show that the restriction is no longer needed because they won't repeat the conduct which lead to the restriction being imposed. In this case, Crouch needs to show that they can write meaningful and substantial content on notable topics without becoming involved in disputes and they they are able to be involved in RMs in a constructive and collegial way, with arguments based in policy. The other restrictions won't be lifted without clear and substantial evidence of this, regardless how long it takes to show. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Echo Callanecc's comments. Crouch's emphasis on the exact timing of their appeal worries me, and he needs to keep in mind that it isn't the time passed that's important, it's the behavioral change. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Callanecc and Nilfanion. Mkdw talk 06:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As worded. Alex Shih (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Also agreeing with Callanecc and Nilfanion about the circumstances needed for a further appeal. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per below. ~ Rob13Talk 17:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Hesitant support. I’m not convinced this will end well, but I’d be very glad to be proved wrong. I’m okay with either version of the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
  • @Callanecc: Can we tack on the probation language we’ve used recently? (Any admin can restore the sanction if disruption occurs, permanently lifted after six months if no new issues.) I think that’s rather important here. ~ Rob13Talk 06:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was considering it, but comments above indicated more that they'd rather it be the Committee who reinstated it. Happy to add/for it to be added though. @Mkdw and Premeditated Chaos: Thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with either wording. I suppose it has somewhat more "teeth" if we reinstate it, but letting any admin reinstate it makes it more expedient. Both have benefits. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • We could always let any admin restore the sanction but require they simultaneously file an ARCA for us to review the situation. I imagine in most cases that would end with us endorsing their restoration of the sanction, but we would still have our review on it. I think that would satisfy everyone? ~ Rob13Talk 07:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does add bureaucracy though, they might as well just file an amendment request asking us to do it. If we're going to do it, we might as well just add the probation. @Alex Shih: Can I just clarify if you're opposing the probation we're discussing here? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Support probation on that the topic ban can be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crouch, Swale: regarding your comment about time frames, you will need to wait until at least 6 months to show that you have meaningful, substantial and sustained participation and experience in these areas. An appeal from you won't succeed if it's merely one or two examples of good conduct in each area. You will need to show that you have evidence of this over a number of months; not just amount but also consistency. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Return of access levels

Initiated by Guy Macon at 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[5]

(Please let me know if I should post a notice on the talk pages of the participants at the noticeboard) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

Per the discussions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Why not just ask Arbcom?, I would like to request clarification/guidance concerning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels? and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions

In particular, some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...

"Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions."

...from restoration of permissions, arguing that if at the time of the resignation there did not exist an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that had a reasonable chance of leading to sanctions or desysopping, restoration should be automatic.

On the other hand some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...

"Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy."

...from return of access levels, arguing that if there have been significant complaints that may have, if not for the discussion being shut down by the resignation, led to an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that may have lead to sanctions or desysopping, an new RfA should be required.

The Bureaucrats were split 4 to 6 on this with one 'crat saying...

"So I'd err on resysopping someone who may or may not be or been have desysopping by arbcom and let arbcom deal with desysopping if they so choose."

...while another wrote...

"Obviously the community does not allow us to stand in for ArbCom and stand in judgment over resigned administrators. But I don't think that means our job is just to return the tools absent evidence of the worst kind of misconduct. The community has authorized us only to return the tools in uncontroversial circumstances. So I'd err the other way. If not relatively uncontroversial, I think RfA is the way to go."

Pretty much everyone, editors and 'crats, agreed with the opinion, expressed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy, that "My honest and unprejudiced reading of the evidence presented is that it clearly does not cross a bright line. Yet I find many honest and unprejudiced Wikipedians who I respect disagree with me. I take from this that our policy isn't clear enough."

This may result in an RfC, but even if it does, I think that some clarification from Arbcom concerning the return of access levels section of the Scientology case would help to avoid the participants in the RfC simply repeating the same confusion regarding policy.

I will post a link to this on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

I would suggest that the intent behind the policy is to prevent resignation being used to duck out of a behavioral inquiry and then being able to just pick up the tools again a couple of months later. I believe that would be captured by wording similar to:

An administrator who resigned at a time when there was either an ongoing formal process which was avoided, circumvented, or minimized as a result of their resignation ie actively avoiding scrutiny or in circumstances where such a process was reasonably likely to follow if the admin did not resign ie controversial circumstances may only regain the bit via a new RfA.

Although it may be more proper to suggest wording at an RfC rather than through an ARCA. I think the Arbs may be able to further clarify their interpretation by expanding on, in a more general manner, the example provided in the case. That may be reaching beyond the scope because I do not believe there was a need to make a more general interpretation to rule on the circumstances of the case. Jbh Talk 03:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish 

A concern some of us raised over at BN is that any active (or at least "enforcing") admin always has various people upset at them and convinced they're a "badmin". Judging whether someone resigned "under a cloud" needs to be tied to whether formal process against the admin (for admin actions, or actions that could have called into question admin suitability), was under way when they resigned. It's not sufficient that the admin was criticized or had "enemies". In the case that triggered this debate, the returning ex-admin had not been subject to formal scrutiny when resigning, but did have some other editors angry at them. Taking a long wikibreak in the face of drama, short of noticeboard or ArbCom scrutiny of one's admin or adminship-affecting activities, shouldn't force a re-RfA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's "interesting" (perhaps in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse) that the Arbs can see this so differently from each other, just like the Crats did. Plus here I am (notorious for being a critic of many admins and of our adminship system in general) leaping to the defense of admins perhaps "under a slight overcast" rather than a cloud. I think there may be a fundamental philosophical difference at work, about process, about where the dividing line is between WP:Process is important and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, or how wide and diffuse the field between them is. It's also noteworthy that some in the BN discussion were convinced that the rule was essentially invented by ArbCom and then codified in rather different language in the policy, but this may have happened the other way around (would have to dig in page histories to be sure, but I suspect that's the case).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order by Iridescent

WP:Bureaucrats (including WP:RESYSOP) is not policy (or even "guideline") and never has been; the reason it has the cumbersome Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Header at the top rather than the usual {{policy}} or {{guideline}} reflects the fact that no attempt to elevate it to anything more than an informal set of notes has ever been successful. As far as I'm aware, the resysop procedures never have been formally codified, other than in a few old arb cases like Scientology. The closest thing we have to a formal policy is the relevant part of the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy, which is the rather unhelpful Administrators that did not resign in controversial circumstances and whose identity is not in question will be reinstated as per resysopping policy, which still punts it back to the 'crats to determine what constitutes "controversial circumstances". (There might be some RFCs regarding the limits of 'crat discretion from the time of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka and associated recall petition or from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 but I'm no great desire to reopen those cans of worms, and in any case that was an eternity ago in Wikipedia years and the much more recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy would have superseded any decisions reached.)  ‑ Iridescent 10:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amorymeltzer

I first want to echo everything Iridescent said above me. The Resysopping section was added in early 2010 (BN discussion) and has since been expanded to incorporate the inactive admin policy (BN discussion) and note the principle in question. While the procedures have existed in a largely similar form for years — I imagine NYB's history and institutional knowledge will be quite helpful! — to my knowledge Iri is correct that in large part they haven't been officially codified. I suppose it might be helpful for the Committee to clarify how broadly they think Scientology's circumstances of controversy should be interpreted by Bureaucrats (perhaps by noting they need not be "formal," whatever that means), but I think that's somewhat missing the point. It's not for the Committee to make policy, so if the community wishes to codify, clarify, or change policy as to how Bureaucrats interpret the proverbial cloud, we can (and should, as it seems Bureaucrats themselves would appreciate it).

To wit, I largely agree with Callanecc and Alex Shih that there isn't much for ArbCom to do here. To repeat and paraphrase my comments at BN, the process is working, even if some folks disagree with the latest outcome. That there is disagreement on a particular situation from different Bureaucrats is not prima facie evidence that the process is broken, just that Bureaucrats sometimes have hard jobs. The part that I see that could merit clarification from ArbCom is in the next line of that Principle: Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats (emphasis added). I take that vagueness to refer to cases involving special authority — ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc. — but if there is confusion as to what the Committee feels doesn't fall under 'crat purview, that could be worth clarifying. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Return of access levels: Clerk notes

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

Return of access levels: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't see much of a role for ArbCom here, it's up to the community to determine what a "controversial circumstance" is and hence develop a policy on that. If the community has done that at WP:RESYSOP ("purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions"), then that is the extant policy which should be followed. I haven't checked on the policy status of that sentence, although the notice at the top of WP:CRAT suggests it is a policy/guideline. On a procedural note, I don't think you need to notify each participant individually, the notice on BN is fine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Amorymeltzer, point about "in most cases" I think that would only apply when a group with the authority to do so (eg ArbCom) says don't restore the tools, absent that it's currently completely up to the crat's discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These cases will be infrequent enough and different enough that the crats can decide each time whether or not they think it appropriate to consult arb com, and whether to do it formally or informally,. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 14 July 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • The bureaucrats have said they don’t consider it their role to determine whether cases like these warrant refusing to return the mop, in favor of ArbCom action. I think this is at odds with our desysopping policy, but if the bureaucrats aren’t taking on that role, we need to. ~ Rob13Talk 06:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, and whose role it is is definitely something which needs to be part of the RfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We need to decide what to do in this situation, however. We can't allow a resysop which may be against policy to occur merely because no-one thinks it's their responsibility to enforce the policy. Perhaps an injunction until the community clears up the resysopping policy? ~ Rob13Talk 07:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BU Rob13: presuming this is about Ymblanter, the tools were restored 24 hours ago. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) I see Dweller has restored the mop to Ymblanter despite the controversy surrounding the request. For transparency, I want to make my position clear here. "Controversial circumstances" received no special definition in the Scientology case, so it holds its normal English meaning. If there is substantial controversy surrounding an administrator at the time of their resignation, they should have to go through an RfA prior to receiving the mop back. "Controversial circumstances" does not mean circumstances that would have led to desysopping. It is broader than that; it refers to any legitimate and substantial community inquiry into the actions or behavior of an administrator. It is important to note that intent does not matter here, nor do the words of the resigning administrator. The resignation need only have been under controversial circumstances in order for a new RfA to be required. Lastly, if there is no consensus among bureaucrats to restore the sysop flag due to a potential controversy, that itself is evidence of a controversy. Here, we had six bureaucrats supporting restoration and four opposing it. We had an additional bureaucrat (Xeno) who commented shortly before Dweller closed the discussion. He appeared to be taking a broad view of "controversial circumstances", which would have brought things to 6-5. We had at least one supporting bureaucrat explicitly uncomfortable with restoring if there wasn't a clear consensus for restoration among bureaucrats. This all paints an obvious "no consensus" result, which suggests there is controversy surrounding the resignation. While I have no doubt Dweller was acting in good faith, his restoration of the sysop flag was at best against policy. At worst, it was a bureaucratic supervote. I know I'll get flak for saying this, but I personally view it as the latter. ~ Rob13Talk 07:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there's a significant enough issue here a case request can be filed, absent that this is outside our jurisdiction to make a judgement on (and I would have opposed a temporary injunction for that reason). The issue here is that it's not clear where the bar should be (for example, is the sentence in WP:CRAT binding on crats as policy or not) and that needs to be determined by the community in an RfC, not by the Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is any need for clarification over principle 15.1.9 of the Scientology case. As it stands, the determination of "controversial circumstances" is based on the discretion of the bureaucrats. In the relatively infrequent situation where an administrator did not relinquish their privileges in a completely uncontroversial manner, a bureaucrat discussion should take place to allow consensus among the bureaucrats to emerge, which is what happened with the Ymblanter case. Alex Shih (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion on the consensus of this particular bureaucrat discussion is slightly different from BU Rob13, although I will openly admit my bias as I was in support of Ymblanter's resysop due to my interpretation of "controversial circumstances" being different for this situation. I think it's incorrect to speculate what Xeno would have voted; they concluded their comment with were there controversial circumstances? and refrained from voting. The one bureaucrat in favour of support (Deskana) had their concerns addressed after additional comments by Xaosflux, Useight and SoWhy. In their response to Deskana, the bureaucrat voted oppose (Useight) expressed that they are "okay" with resysop. This leaves us with WJBscribe and Acalamari to be the two remaining votes strongly in oppose of resysop. But despite of voting strong oppose, WJBscribe did not contest Dweller's close even though they commented in their talk page afterwards. Therefore I disagree with the assessment that Dweller acted against policy and/or participated in bureaucrat supervote. Alex Shih (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the history of ArbCom's thinking in this area as I understand it:
    • The first time this issue arose was in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano (2006). The principle adopted in that case read: Return of access levels. Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.
      • The original proposal used the phrase "under a cloud" instead of "under controversial circumstances". I was not an arbitrator then but I commented at the time that the phrase "under a cloud" was undesirable as it might be read to suggest more serious problems than a dispute on a website, and the wording was changed. The phrase "under controversial circumstances" or "under circumstances of controversy" was just a placeholder I threw in until someone could think of something better, but it seems to have stuck.
      • To the best of my knowledge, there was not previously any policy or guideline on this subject until the ArbCom adopted this principle. As I have noted before, this is one of the clearest examples I can remember of ArbCom's making policy, which is something it's not ordinarily supposed to do. Yet I don't believe anyone objected in this instance, either at the time or at any time since—probably because the policy the arbitrators crafted was in accordance with what anyone who anticipated the issue might have suggested in any event.
    • The next case that came up was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. In this case an administrator resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration, based on a series of bad blocks, was pending against him and appeared likely to be accepted. The resignation mooted the dispute (as a non-admin Philwelch wasn't going to be blocking anyone anymore), but the arbitrators seemingly felt they had to accept the case anyway to decide what would happen if Philwelch requested the tools back later. I wasn't an arbitrator yet, but on the Workshop I suggested adding a sentence to the principle from Giano, which was adopted with some modification: An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee deems otherwise, for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted.
    • ArbCom has repeated these principles in several cases in the ensuing decade and in some other cases has applied them implicitly (e.g. MZMcBride 2, Scientology, Macedonia 2, Fae, Media viewer RfC, Wifione, Andrevan). However, I can't recall a case in which an ArbCom decision has gone beyond them.
    • Based on these decisions (which are consistent with the current policy), ArbCom only has a potential role in this area if an administrator has resigned (1) while a case to which he or she is a party had already been accepted and was being considered, or (2) while a request for arbitration was pending. Ordinarily, an admin who resigns under either of these circumstances would need a new RfA to regain adminship. The "unless ArbCom decides otherwise" out was envisioned as a safety valve where the arbitrators found the RfAr request completely frivolous or there were other unusual circumstances, but I don't remember it ever being used.
    • Where the admin resigns while there is no arbitration case or request pending (even if there is a discussion underway at AN or elsewhere), under current practice and policy ArbCom has no role, and any decision on whether to grant a later request for the bit back is for the bureaucrats.
    • Whether "was this under controversial circumstances?" calls should be made when an admin resigns, or only later when the admin seeks resysopping, is a decision for the community, which as a practical matter is also delegated to the 'crats unless a policy is adopted. There are valid arguments for either practice (the best arguments for deciding at the time of resignation are that events will be fresh in everyone's mind and later disputes will be avoided; the best arguments for deciding later are to allow tensions and pressures to diffuse and to avoid debates are unnecessary because the editor will not be seeking adminship again). One data point that might be of interest is what percentage of admins who resign eventually seek readminship. If it's a relatively small percentage, which is my impression without having checked, that might weigh in favor of waiting.
    • Bottom line: I generally agree with the other arbs who have commented that under current practice this is not an ArbCom matter. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing of value to say. I will just echo my colleges above that this is not a matter for us to handle. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I could say has been very well laid out by NYB before me. I will agree that this is not a matter for Arbcom to handle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=850648652"