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	Motion	none	31 December 2018

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) and Red Meat.

• (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 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)
• (reply to SilkTork) Well I have has an entire year with the restrictions, which is plenty long enough. But if only 1 can be removed then I'd strongly favour the page creation, not the page move restriction. A missing article in my books is far more of a problem that an incorrectly titled one. I usually only take pages to RM that are controversial/disruptive (or are uncontroversial but don't know the correct target etx) so the number of unsuccessful RMs is not necessarily a good indicator. Those that aren't controversial I have been waiting to have the restrictions removed to preform myself. For example it would be possible to send 100 blatant attack pages to AFD and have all of them successfully deleted but that would be inappropriate since such pages should be speedily deleted instead. I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved. As noted I would be happy with a 1RR or 0RR with moves and/or an expectation that I revert any moves that are reasonably challenged. That restriction would be workable. So yes the number of unsuccessful RMs is not a good indicator because they are probably not moves that I would be making myself, this is because we are talking about moves that I thought were problematic/controversial/disruptive enough to go through RM V those that I didn't think were controversial. In response to "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." I actually think I have already done my most controversial move requests since its like removing a cork from a bottle under pressure, I hadn't been able to make such requests for years and suddenly could, thus I don't expect I will be making a significant number of controversial requests in the foreseeable future, although there will probably still be a few from moves that I think are too controversial to make myself. Also note that I was only formerly banned from geographical naming convention, not non geographical naming conventions. However I decided to stay away from it entirely because I wasn't happy with excluding myself from geographical ones and it would be easy to "step on the edge" of the restriction.

• So lets go to the page creation which there hasn't been much discussion here. If the move restriction continued but I could still create new pages, it would be a pain since disambiguation is often needed of existing titles and while creating, I will also find articles that are incorrectly names (when checking missing articles that are only redirects, sometimes this is because an article is named incorrectly rather than it doesn't have a standalone article). My priority is the missing civil parishes in England. Civil parishes are legally recognized census areas and thus clearly should have articles. In this case a ban that only allows me to create civil parishes (current and former and the handful of equivalent Welsh ones than need articles/redirects) may be workable since there are still a large number. The inability to create other articles would still be a bit of a roadblock but it may be the least bad option, particularly if there is a way I can create other pages such as by asking an admin that I know or through the AFC process (see User:Crouch, Swale/Risga for example). What opinion do you have on this? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• (reply to SilkTork) I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%). Its the number of controversial undiscussed moves that I preform. Making requests at RMT might be seen as evasion if I did many, see Special:Diff/837050534 for example of a user who was banned from making moves. However I did make a few (6) and all were completed. IMO that anyway suggests that there isn't a problem there and I would be more likely to make a request that I thought was marginly controversial at RMT that making it myself since RMT involves another pair of eyes. Consider for example, you're an admin doing NPP, you come across 3 articles, the 1st is a blatant attack page, you can see clearly that it meets G10 and delete it you're self and add {{Huggle/db-attack-notice}} to the author. The 2nd is an article that appears to meet A7 but you're not sure so you tag it with {{db-bio}} and add {{Db-bio-notice}} to the author for another admin to assess. The 3rd has a credible claim of significance so you do WP:BEFORE and WP:PRD it. The same applies with move requests, some are clear that you can do you're self, others may be considered controversial and some are likely (like Noss) and some are clearly. As a further point if the move but not page creation restrictions are removed then shouldn't I be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages since they fit in more along with page moves than page creation since if I move "Foo" to "Foo, Qualifier" then "Foo" needs to become a DAB page.
• Indeed I have created drafts in my user space, another one is User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish. However I thought that waiting until I can create the pages myself was more suitable as long as I created a few good ones in my user space. The new articles on civil parishes may end up clogging up AFC with many new articles that are clearly suitable. I was mainly thinking that could be used for other topics that may not meet out inclusion guidelines. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• (Reply to SMcCandlish) Well as noted the few RMT requests I did make all were done so the point about the ~30% failure rate at RM is still pretty irrelveant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Well I have produced the User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish which is an example of a CP. CPs are clearly notable and WP should have had them all created years ago, similar to municipalities. I think it is unreasonable to continue the restrictions as is. Can we at least allow creating new CPs in mainspace please with the same point as before that it can be reinstated. @Opabinia regalis: Hartwell, Buckinghamshire, Willingale, Essex and Throcking among others. I think the suggestion about AFC would be reasonable for topics other than CPs. See Talk:Pembrokeshire#Geography stubs where I have asked if there is more coverage for User:Crouch, Swale/Sheep Island, Pembrokeshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• @SilkTork, Opabinia regalis, and GorillaWarfare: Most of the "failed" RMs have been closed as non consensus, not many have been closed as "non moved". In any case this isn't much evidence for keeping the move ban. I'd say that if we were to only count those that were closed as clear consensus against, it would be more like 5%. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• @SilkTork and Opabinia regalis: I don't see how this is viable or fair, I have numerous pages to create and just taking into account the current missing civil parishes, this would mean it would take over 50 years to create them all! I have not {{subst:submit}} to my drafts since I was waiting until I could freely create them but I don't think the current restrictions specifically prevented that anyway. I deemed creating a few in my userspace as sufficient. Why at least can't we exclude civil parishes from this? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• SilkTork I understand that in the past I had many problems but I have continued and continued to change my behavior and become much more accepting and agreeing with the points made by others but unfortunately it never seems to be good enough. Doesn't the drafts that I have created and some of my other statements show that I have improved my conduct greatly since 2011. Its incredibly frustrating to still be denied after all theses appeals over all these years. Would you say that my expectations are not viable and it would be better to just get rid of me from the project altogether (and reinstate the sit-ban), rather than continuously having this that fails? I don't want to continue to push for something that isn't going to happen or will take ridiculously long. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13 and AGK: Well the drafts that I have provided in my user space are already this step or creating suitable content. I didn't ask for review at AFC because I thought that the few drafts were sufficient in this step. I even asked here prior to this about what I would do. I feel I have been hugely let down yet again. I have tried and tried to do as others have asked and it seems that its never good enough and I get denied time and time again. Why can't we except civil parishes from the article creation restriction? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:32, 14 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 SMcCandlish

Re "If the [WP:RMTR] page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area": Just for the record, contested RMTR requests are often (perhaps in the majority) contested by non-admins; anyone can contest a speedy rename, in which case it goes to full RM discussion. It's more of a consensus thing than an admin judgement thing.

As to the request, I agree that a ~30% failure rate at RM is iffy. (I don't have any particular opinion otherwise; I don't recall interacting with Crouch much, and while I'm frequently active in RM discussions, it's not often about placename disambiguation.)

I'll also add that I learned the hard way (with a three-month move ban several years ago) that returning to manual, one-editor's-judgement page moves in the same topic area in which one's moves have been deemed controversial is a poor idea. It is best to use full RM process (or RMTR when it seems very unlikely to provoke any objection from anyone) in such a case, not only for drama reduction, but to actually establish a solid consensus record for the pattern being proposed for those articles. Even if some of the opposition seems to be personal rather than fact- or policy-based.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 8 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)
• Given that around 30% of your RM have been unsuccessful, I wouldn't be comfortable lifting the restriction on page moves. I take on board that RM discussions are for potentially controversial moves, but you could use the Uncontroversial technical requests format, given that you are unable to complete the moves yourself. If the page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area.

As regards page creation - again, I'd like to see some evidence of successful page creation requests before lifting that restriction. The rules on your page creation do allow you to create articles in your own userspace, as you have done with User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. What I'd like to see, in agreement with other Committee members, is you utilising Wikipedia:Articles for creation to have these articles moved into mainspace. If we can see a period of you having a series of articles successfully transferred into mainspace that would be encouragement to lift your article creation restriction. SilkTork (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis The figure comes from Crouch, Swale: "I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", later "I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%)". SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale Re: " I don't see how this is viable or fair". That's not an encouraging statement for you to be making, as it indicates you are not yet understanding the community's concerns with your behaviour. This motion is the best chance you're going to get of having restrictions lifted, and even then it's likely to be a close call. Indeed, that very statement of yours is giving me pause for thought as generally we lift restrictions for people who show some understanding of the concerns that led to them having restrictions imposed. There is this sense in you of wanting things to be done your way, and seeing it as unfair if things are not done the way you want them to be. SilkTork (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I will not vote to lift any restrictions on this user. Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• On the positive side, no one felt the need to re-impose the topic ban during the suspension period. For page moves - I'd agree that there's been more dispute than I'd expect about some of these requests, but SilkTork, where did you get the 30% failure rate on RMs? For article creation - the draft articles in your userspace look OK to me (knowing nothing about their topics) but I don't see much substantive content editing in mainspace recently (if I'm wrong, can you point to examples?) I'd prefer to see some examples of content development on existing articles before letting you start new ones. AfC is overloaded as it is, but I could also see allowing one submission at a time to AfC, possibly with a size minimum to correct for the past issues with very short articles lacking in context and covering questionably notable topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• At the present time, I'm not comfortable with lifting the restrictions in place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm also curious where the 30% number came from, SilkTork. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It came from Crouch, Swale himself in his comments above. Crouch, Swale said: "around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", then he later clarified that to: "probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%". SilkTork (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• I see the page moving sanction as very minimal, simply requiring this editor go to WP:RM due to their demonstrably poor judgement in this area in the past. I don't see the rather high percentage of failed requested moves to be a shining endorsement that this sanction should be removed. As for the page creation sanction, I'm more open to its removal but agree with my colleagues that I would want to see a substantial history of successful drafts going through WP:AFC first. Decline from me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Right now, I don't see a compelling reason to entirely remove the restrictions, given the history. I do like OR's suggestion of one AfC submission permitted at once as a compromise between zero creations permitted and a flood of one-line place stubs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• I would also support OR's proposal for one AFC submission at a time. Mkdw ^talk 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks SilkTork, I thought you'd found some kind of cool tool :) I don't think I can judge the success rate of RM requests just based on CS's self-estimate, without knowing either how accurate it is or what the baseline rate is for other participants. In any case I'm more inclined to ease the page creation than moving restrictions - having to get your move proposals reviewed is, as Rob says, a very light sanction. In the interest of moving things along, motion below on the AfC idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

The restriction on new article creations imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:

• Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to have no more than one article at a time under consideration by AfC. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
• The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.

Support

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
2. One per seven days seems reasonable. We can always readjust if it causes problems down the line. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
3. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
4. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
5. This is a good offer, and I'd like to see Crouch, Swale take full advantage. I wouldn't be concerned at the occasional rejection by AfC, this can happen, especially as AfC are very precise in what they accept. SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
6. AGK ■ 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comment

• I was considering a motion along these lines, but with a restriction of one submission a month because the speed at which AfC moves we might be waiting for years before Crouch, Swale has enough submissions considered for us to make any kind of assessment if he's only allowed one at a time. At one a month the odds are better that in 12 months there'd be enough submissions either accepted or rejected for us to make a meaningful decision. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  That's not a bad idea. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  I'd go even more frequent than that. At least seven days between submissions does what we want (avoid a flood at AfC) while being a minimal restriction on the activity of an editor creating high-quality articles. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  Well, if the concern is about the slow rate of progress through AfC due to their long backlog, we need a balance between CS getting some articles through and not overloading the queue. There are currently 1209 articles in the queue, and I don't see stats on average-time-to-review, but it looks like the oldest ones still waiting are about 5 weeks old. So once a month is closer to steady-state, but could actually be slower than "one at a time", guesstimating from the submission-time distribution on the AfC page that most articles are reviewed by 3-4 weeks. (In looking into this, not for the first time I find myself really wishing that AfC would start categorizing drafts by topic, but never mind...) I suspect that whatever rate we specify, articles will be submitted at close to the maximum (that's what I'd do). Given that 7-14 days seems reasonable, with no prejudice against another ARCA (or a community action) in the hopefully-unlikely event that the articles do end up failing repeatedly. Edited as above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Crouch, Swale: It's important to acknowledge that these restrictions exist due to substantial disruption in the past. I understand you're trying to move past that, and I commend you for it. This isn't a permanent solution. It's a temporary one to give you an opportunity to show us that we no longer have anything to worry about. The alternative would likely be a declined appeal, since we don't really have a basis on which to remove the sanctions at this time. If all goes well for a period of time (6 months, say), I would certainly invite an appeal of this loosened restriction, at which point we could further roll this back. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Crouch, Swale: I sympathise with your frustration, but agree with BU Rob13 above. The committee is cautious when peeling back sanctions. As I said to you at the beginning of this appeal, sanctions are not terminated merely because some time has passed. Please treat this motion as an opportunity to contribute in more ways than before – rather than as a set of extra restrictions or the granting of less relief from restrictions than you requested. AGK ■ 10:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

---