Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miniapolis (talk | contribs) at 16:50, 31 December 2017 (→Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Enacting motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 14 Dec 2024 04 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Crouch, Swale ban appeal 31 December 2017

Motions

Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:

  • one account restriction
  • topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
  • prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
  • prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).

The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes.

Enacted Miniapolis 16:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Support with a note for Crouch, Swale that the aim of these restrictions are to encourage them to edit existing articles, in line with standard policies, while staying away from previous areas of contention. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Temp remove, see comment below. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mkdw talk 19:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Mkdw talk 08:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't want to swear to it, but I don't think we would consider actions on Commaons here, although I'd be interested to hear from my colleagues with a longer institutional memory. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC) As Euryalus. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am well aware of their disruptive past and yet supported fewer restrictions, but I support this. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ok, as per last alert. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with Begoon, but going back to weak support in the spirit of Christmas and fresh starts. Crouch, Swale, please don't test the boundaries of these restrictions. Instead, productively edit existing articles in areas unrelated to your previous disputes. @Nilfanion: the restrictions should stay in place until there's confidence they're no longer needed. Six months of no editing, followed by an appeal, wouldn't provide that confidence (and would look a lot like wikilawyering). -- Euryalus (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I hadn't seen the latest update from CS till now, but given that they say they'll work within the restrictions, sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ok, given the clarification and the season, I'm also giving weak support with the restrictions agreed. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In light of the clarification. I'm a little worried about how eager Crouch, Swale is to return to the areas that were problematic in the past, but hopefully he will abide by the restrictions and we can move forward from there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Doug Weller, could you please clarify what you mean by 'restrictions'? Opposing here would mean that the siteban would continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Too many mentions of restrictions stuck in my mine. I meant to say that I didn't think the restrictions would work so the site ban neeeds to continue. Particularly in the light of the comments Callanecc mentions in the discussion section. I'll add that I think it's too late for him to change his mind convincingly. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
I should have read my alerts first. He says he would comply with the restrictions. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
@Nilfanion: Thanks for raising these points. For avoidance of doubt, I'd consider an RM for any geographic feature (including human settlements) a likely breach of #2. No particular view on what he does on Commons. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nilfanion, lots of unlikely contingencies can happen. We cannot foresee how unexpected of clever someone might be. We cannot detect all the possible loophole in a remedy. If we try to take care of the unlikely in advance, we end up with something so intricate that nobody can figure out how to follow it or enforce it. We need to assume admins will enforce the restrictions reasonably, but we cannot imagine all the unreasonable things they can do, or the things that appear reasonable and turn out otherwise. The time to deal with unpredictable events in the future is when they happens. We're not writing instructions for bots, or for early models of robots with limited artificial intelligence. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We restored Crouch, Swale's talkpage access so they could contribute to this conversation. Their comments are here, and suggest they're not interested in editing with these restrictions. This contradicts earlier comments made by them via email. Removing my support vote until this is resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments

  • I'm a little concerned about the enforcement provisions. I understand that they are "standard", but, given the scale of previous disruption, by the time a fifth block under these conditions is reached, I imagine a great deal of community time and effort would have been wasted. I do wonder if some quicker, less "onerous" enforcement might be better in the event of a return to prior problematic behaviour? -- Begoon 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm personally fine with that. I have a feeling enforcement is going to be fairly easy at this stage since the Committee is now seised of the dispute, rather than needing to go through ANI.
      And honestly, I'm not so sure the previous disruption was of a particularly severe scale. The sockpuppetry, of course, was on a large scale, but even that was over relatively quickly; it doesn't look like C,S was engaged in it past 2012, and even then it seems the scale of it had tapered off pretty quickly.
      I mean, I get what you're concerned about. We're extending C,S the opportunity to come back despite what would otherwise be a life sentence; you'd hope C,S would take advantage of that opportunity and avoid any risky edits. But, if we're really honest, people make mistakes sometimes. And recently unbanned editors tend to work under a microscope. I'm comfortable with the additional checks against a return to misconduct being balanced by some leeway instead of the first sign of a problem resulting in the death penalty. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The points Mendaliv made at the end are pretty much why I went with five blocks. Also keep in mind that the fifth block is the maximum, there's nothing stopping an editor from filing an ARCA request after the first, second, etc block if they don't believe that these conditions are working. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your last point about ARCA is fair, and if the recidivism was severe enough even the first block could be up to a month, to allow that ARCA time to be processed, I suppose. That largely deals with my concerns, thanks. -- Begoon 04:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple scenarios worry me slightly. One is if Crouch, Swale starts a bunch of RMs "I'm not allowed to move it myself, but it should be moved because of X". Would that be a violation of condition 2, as the reasoning is likely to be based on interpretation of naming conventions? I think spelling that out would make things clearer both for Crouch, Swale and the community.
The second is if he is re-blocked, he will likely switch his activity to Commons. That will undermine blocks in the event of recidivism, as it won't force a behavioural change but simply change where the "bad" edits happen. Of course Arbcom can't enforce a sanction on Commons, but should any Commons activity that would violate the conditions (if it had occurred on Wikipedia) be considered at an ARCA?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus:, @DGG: For what its worth I think both situations I mention to be likely. Crouch's message implies he desires to move / create pages. "Leaving work to others" on the former implies opening RMs, and a contested RM is invariably tied to discussion of naming conventions. I agree with Euryalus' take on that, and think that having that spelled out explicitly may prevent any grief (I don't want Crouch blocked for a violation there). Given his history, a switch back to Commons in the event of a block is likely. However as that involves a number of conditional factors, I agree with DGG that there's no real need to fret about it.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Arbcom grants this motion, and for 6 months he complies by not editing, would Arbcom consider letting the restrictions lapse? I'm now convinced that all Crouch, Swale cares about is creating awful micro-stubs about a myriad places of dubious notability. That was exactly the behaviour that led to the initial block and if that's what he ends up doing, I'd lobby for a re-ban.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, I'd need to see 6 months of good editing. If there are no edits at all, I wouldn't be in a position to determine whether or not the sanctions could be removed/suspended. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Crouch's various comments, I'm starting to agree with Nilfanion that their only real intention is to get back to the point where they can recommence mass additions of dubious stubs. If the committee believes it's worth a try to unblock with these restrictions, then fair enough, nothing will be set on fire, and reblocks are, as is often pointed out, cheap - but I confess to becoming increasingly pessimistic about the real benefits and long-term outcome. -- Begoon 01:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've been a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I'm happy with the comments from the committee and think it is worth giving him the chance. His suggestions are reasonable starting points, and its possible he will get the confidence to make more substantial contributions from there. If and when we get to the point that the restrictions are relaxed, that's the point at which I may be concerned.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=817961869"