Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal	none	none	31 December 2018
Amendment request: Lightbreather	none	(orig. case)	2 January 2019

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

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

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal

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

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/850648652

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.

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

• Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Nilfanion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Euryalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/876179926
• Special:Diff/876180033

Information about amendment request

• The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.

• Remove page creation and page move restrictions.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

Can I have my page creation and page move restrictions removed please. I have made more improvements to article as was pointed out in the previous review. I have expanded User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and also created User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. I realize that it is important to create articles which are notable and have a good amount of content. At User:Crouch, Swale/To do I have identified pages that need creating, although not all have been identified as being notable, thus I won't necessarily be creating them all. I therefore suggest that as I have had these restrictions for a year now, I should have them removed with the same conditions as the July removals (per WP:ROPE), that they can be reinstated if needed, although I don't think that will be needed. I have discussed with Euryalus (talk · contribs) this appeal to get advice, however unfortunately Nilfanion (talk · contribs) hasn't been active here since July. My priority is to finish of creating the missing civil parishes in England, of which I should (at least for the villages) be able to add location, distance, population, Domesday Book, name origin, surrounding parishes and church. I have contributed sensibly to naming discussions, although I have had a few disagreements, I haven't received any warnings about it and the main purpose of RM is to discuss controversial (or at least reasonably likely to be controversial moves). I have also contributed (and initiated) some non-geographical moves such as Talk:Attention Seeker (EP)#Requested move 2 August 2018 and Talk:Red Meat (comic strip)#Requested move 4 December 2018.

• (reply to AGK) Yes I frequently make move requests to move an article and DAB, usually this involves moving "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo" and "Foo" to "Foo, Location" (example). Moves to move to "Foo (city)" are less common. I don't understand what the point about my question of the existence of a place is, my existing restrictions don't relate to that. Obviously some of the RMs have involved disputes since that's the main purpose of RM (as noted above) If I was making RM proposals that were always being closed as clear consensus to move, then that would be a sign that I should be boldly making those moves myself, not using RM. In response to the last comment, I would quite happily have a 1RR or 0RR with page moves, although I have never edit warred over moves anyway and wouldn't have a problem with such restrictions on any edits, but I don't have restrictions elsewhere so that's unnecessary anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• (reply to AGK) If I am questioning the existence of a place then isn't that a good sign, people have often complained about the lack of sources and notability in my articles. Most of the time the DAB page is at the base name, see WP:DABNAME. Talk:Rothesay#Requested move 6 November 2018 is an example of a move the other way round and the Noss move is moving to a different name (in this case calling is "Isle of Noss" rather than "Noss") The usual rule of WP:BRD would apply to moves I make, if a move is objected to and there is no agreement with me and the other person, then I revert the move and start a formal WP:RM discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• (reply to Swarm) Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia. I removed the PROD with the reason that it should be merged. A prod can be removed by anyone, even without explanation, but I always either explain or improve the article if removing. It is not a case of you are prohibited from removing unless you immediately resolve the issues (see WP:DEPROD). You're reason "Not remotely notable enough for a standalone article and full of indiscriminate miscellany. The short paragraph at University of the West of England, Bristol is more than sufficient." in its self indicates it should be merged and not deleted. Since the content was already covered at the proposed target then converting it to a redirect (to target the short paragraph) would have been entirely appropriate. I then made an !vote to merge and a reply to the fact that I had removed the PROD, hardly stonewalling. In any case the article couldn't have been deleted via PROD anyway since it was unanimously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UWE Students' Union, even though that was a long time ago (2007). Per WP:BEFOREC4 merging as suggested would have been better since it had been around for more than a dozen years, its quite likely that it would break external links, linking to it, which a redirect would take care of. If you'd asked me on my talk page to list it at proposed merges or help with the merge, I would have done so, I understand that I maybe didn't make it entirely clear what I was doing but I think opposing to removing the restrictions is inappropriate. I shows that I understand that there are alternatives to deletion (and creating standalone articles). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was saying that the title should be redirected (instead of deleted completely), thus merged, the opposite of a spinnoff. I don't know enough about the notability guidelines in that area to say if the articles was notable enough to have a standalone article, but I do know that assuming it isn't appropriate to have a separate article it should be merged, not deleted. Also linked from the 2007 AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union which was closed as merge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was not intending on keeping it as a separate article, just that it should be merged assuming its not notable. Usually WP:Notability is only about standalone articles, not topics that are merged into another. In other words I was saying that while I don't object to Swarm's point that there shouldn't be an article, I do object to deletion (completely), since merging/redirection is available/reasonable in this case. We would probably only delete if the parent article (University of the West of England, Bristol) shouldn't contain the content per WP:V/WP:NOT. As long as content on "The Students' Union at UWE" exists at University of the West of England, Bristol its a valid merge candidate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• (Reply to Beyond My Ken/Swarm) Yes I hadn't made a distinction between "merge" and "redirect", but as pointed out if the appropriate content is already covered in the target article (and the other content at the source article is unsuitable) then the source article can just be changed into a redirect. I think that appeared to be the source of the confusion here, where I was arguing that the source article should be redirected to the target article, but the relevant content was already there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• (reply to Swarm) Well I have made reasonable efforts to explain to you why I did what I did and removing a PROD as noted can be done by anyone, it is not a you must immediately resolve the issue. No indication that I should remain topic banned from creating pages (and I've never been banned from removing PRODs anyway). My conduct was well within the spirit and letter of our PROD (anyone may contest) and deletion policy (merge/redirection should be used if possible). Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• (reply to Swarm) The principal of BRD applies more with deletion that other actions (since deletion can't simply be "reverted" by anyone, stricter conditions are generally in place for getting a page deleted than making a change to a page). In this case you boldly suggested deletion of the article, I removed that suggestion with a "watered down" suggestion that it be merged/redirected. This would likewise apply to page moves and creation. If I preform a move that is opposed it can be reverted and then discussed and that I should take on that feedback for similar cases. Likewise if I create unsuitable articles then I should take the feedback that I should not create similar pages without discussion with the user who questions them. In the PROD case you have feedback that such cases where a merge/redirect is useful, it should be done instead of deletion. Anyway my suggestion of 1RR or 0RR would surely address the potentially controversial moves. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

I have serious concerns about this user's level of competence, clue and ability to communicate reasonably based on recent interactions, so I'd advise against lifting the restrictions based on that. The user has needlessly and irrationally obstructed reasonable, uncontentious editing on my part. I had PRODed The Students' Union at UWE with the rationale that the subject was not notable and was already sufficiently covered in the parent article. This was, by all accounts, an uncontentious situation, but the user stonewalled attempts to have the article deleted anyway, first via PROD, when they apparently wanted a merge but failed to state any rationale or follow the proposed merge process, and then subsequently at AfD, where they continued repeatedly insisting on a merge, yet failed to, in any way, to present any argument against, or understanding of, my assessment that a merge was unnecessary due to the relevant content already being in the parent article. As an admin I often encounter this kind of obstructionism in users with problems with collaboration or OWNership, and this kind of conduct thoroughly discourages users, and if I were just some random newbie just trying to contribute to the project in good faith, and then encountered this kind of bizarre obstructionism from someone who won't even acknowledge my arguments, I'd probably be thoroughly disillusioned. My experience suggests a lack of ability to communicate and/or resolve disputes reasonably and effectively, and those are essential in the areas the user is asking to be unrestricted from. Regards,  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Having reviewed CS’s replies to both myself and BMK, I’m simply stunned at the surreal detachment from simple editing concepts.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  05:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm still wholly unsatisfied with the "word soup" the user's spouting, which shows no reasonable understanding of why their conduct was disruptive and unreasonable. I have even less faith then I initially did that the user can effectively understand and communicate during simple incidents of contention and/or dispute.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  07:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• The user's defense has fallen on the procedural point that anyone can contest a PROD for any reason, showing no indication of clue as to how they impeded uncontroversial bold editing, which is encouraged as a matter of policy. The user admits that they simply wanted the title to be redirected to the parent article, which makes their insistence on obstructing an uncontroversial deletion in favor of a non-needed "merge" all the more bizarre. I'm going to stop responding, so as to avoid derailing this request, but I think it's quite clear that this user struggles with straightforward editing concepts, procedures, and acceptable practices. This lack of competence is unacceptable from a user who's requesting to be allowed to perform potentially-controversial actions such as page moves. Frankly I'd be more inclined to argue in favor of a tightening of restrictions.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

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

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

It would seem to me that if it's already adequately covered in a parent article, there is no necessity for a spin-off article, and if there is a modicum of additional information, it can be added to the parent article. The only situation I can see is if there is a great deal of relevant information to add, at which point the subsidiary subject is in danger of unbalancing the parent article. Under those circumstances, a spin-off article would be appropriate but only if the subject of the new article is notable. Being part of a parent article does not automatically confer notability on the subsidiary subjects within the article.

In any case, I would like additional explication from Crouch, Swale concerning their statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, just an irrelevant side comment: even though I know that "Crouch, Swale" is the name of a place (because I looked it up), every time I see the username, my first thought is that it refers to a law firm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for the explanation, that wasn't at all clear to me from your prior statement.

I would note that a merge an d a redirect are not quite the same thing. In a merge, the material from the subsidiary article is added to the primary article, and then the subsidiary article is replaced with a redirect; no (or little) information is lost in the process. In the case of a redirect without merge, the subsidiary article is simply blanked and replaced with a redirect; any information in the subsidiary article which is not already in the primary article is lost. Thus arguing for a merge is not the same as arguing for a redirect. In the argument for a merge, reasons have to be brought up for saving the information that would be lost in a redirect, and also for the merging not unbalancing the primary article with too much information about a subsidiary topic.

As for you claim about not being familiar with notability guidelines in the area of discussion: how can you argue the notability of the subsidiary article, or the need to save the information in it, if you don't know what is and is not considered notable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

• You contribute to Wikipedia predominately on articles about "places".  Accuracy and oversight in this topic area is low, and I would not grant an appeal unless it was free of risk that you would not need your contributions heavily monitored.

• You frequently request moves (eg Noss[1]) so that (i) the title classifies the place, eg Sometown → Sometown (city) and (ii) the disambiguation page takes over the bare title, eg Sometown (disambiguation) → Sometown.  These requests are governed by extensive rules (cf WP:PLACE) because each case is unique.
• You also make editorial judgments about whether places exist or do not (eg Gluibuil, Shetland), which are important to get right. Wikipedia has had "places" articles that are wildly divergent from reality, eg location, or indeed document places that simply don't exist.

Your passion for this area is clear, and I note you have patiently borne these restrictions for a year.  I also sympathise with your comment in late 2017 that your singular interests make these restrictions taxing.  However, I would not loosen the restrictions simply because another year has gone.  And I am not moved to agreement by your submission here.  Your edits are large in quantity, but seem to generate more dispute than I'd like to see. How can we be sure it's safe to permit you the ability of moving place-related pages?  AGK ■ 14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

point about my question of the existence of a place is – I think it helps us to understand the quality of your judgment as an editor in this topic area.

Thank you; but I understand what contributions you are making (eg renaming articles so that the place is disambiguated in the title). The point is that, so far as I can see, these contributions are not always helpful. Granting your amendment request would involve giving licence to do more of that. Would you please comment on this? AGK ■ 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• In order to minimise potential problems, I think if we are to lift restrictions we should follow the example of the previous appeal, and lift just one of the restrictions to see how that goes. As the restriction previously lifted was involvement in page move discussions, it seems appropriate that the restriction we should consider this time would be making page moves. In order to help us decide if this is the right time to be lifting this restriction could you give us the figure of how many page move requests you have started in the past six months, and the percentage (or number) of those that have been successful and unsuccessful. As you note above, it is to be expected that a number of those would be unsuccessful, but if that number is too high that would be worrisome because those would be moves that with page move restriction lifted you'd be doing yourself with, as AGK points out, little oversight because of the low interest in place articles and in page moves. The problem with making inappropriate page moves is that they can set a precedent - users tend to follow what is already there, so one inappropriate move can result in a number of new articles with inappropriate names. Now, the exact percentage of unsuccessful move requests you have made that individual Committee members may find acceptable is going to vary, though in my mind I have a figure of less than 5%. It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests. SilkTork (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Lightbreather

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

Case or decision affected

Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)

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

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff

Information about amendment request

• Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)

• Remove Iban sanction.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

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

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

Statement by GRuban

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

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

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

Statement by User:Bellezzasolo

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

Statement by TParis

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

Statement by Beeblebrox

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

Statement by Euryalus

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

Statement by Sitush

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

• I've cleaned up some formatting issues with this request --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'd like to hear from other community members, but generally I'm minded to accept this request. Self reflection is difficult but it is the best way to move forward and this comment by Hell in a Bucket ticks all the boxes that I'd like to see in this sort of appeal. Worm^TT(talk) 16:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) I was thinking the same as WTT here. Another factor is the siteban itself on Lightbreather. Unless that was overturned, there wouldn't be any interaction with Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather. The fact they recognize the issue is admirable, and as the user in question is gone, the need for an IBAN doesn't seem as prominent. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Just to add, if LB wished to come back, that discussion needs to be held separate from this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am fine with vacating the restriction. AGK ■ 17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Per colleagues, I would prefer to solely deal with HiaB's restriction. If Lightbreather wished to appeal their sanction (there is no indication that is the case), I'd like to deal with that separately. AGK ■ 11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• This seems reasonable to me. I don't think we need to bother Lightbreather by dragging her back into an issue she can't respond to on equal footing; we can sort that out if and when Lightbreather appeals her own sanctions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• It's a reasonable request: the sanction is now redundant so there's no need to keep Hell in a Bucket under a cloud. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

---