Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing?	none	none	4 January 2023
Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022)	Motion	none	10 January 2023
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2	Motion	(orig. case)	5 January 2023

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page 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).

Submitting a 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).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and 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.
• 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 request: Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing?

Clarification given and request closed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by IntrepidContributor at 16:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Case or decision affected If your request does not concern a case, provide a link to the arbitration decision affected. List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: IntrepidContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HAL333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request Anythingyouwant HAL333 Statement by IntrepidContributor There is a dispute on whether it is due to put the claim that Elon Musk is a "polarizing figure" in Wikivoice in the lead of his BLP, and editors in discussions on the TP and BLPN have highlighted WP:BLP and MOS:LEAD as pertinent policies. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I don't think we should put the claim in Wikipedia's voice when it is only based on a few articles that mention the term in passing, and I don't really think its due in the lead given that only one of these sources is cited in the article's main body. When I twice restored Anythingyouwant's attempt to attribute the claim [1] [2], and explained my position on the talk page [3] [4], HAL333 replied "yeah that's just your opinion man" [5], twice reverted me [6] [7] and posted an edit warring warning on my talk page threatening to also post on this noticeboard [8]. I take HAL333's warning serious since they have reported me there before [9], so I decided not to revert it a third time and request policy guidance from administrators. When I posted my guidance on WP:AN (a noticeboard for "posting information and issues of interest to administrators"), administrators Black Kite said it was the wrong venue and warned me against edit warring, while administrator Black Kite seems to have accused me of noticeboard spamming [10]. As was noted by Anythingyouwant on the TP [11] and BLPN [12], WP:BLPUNDEL indicates that the content should not have been restored till a consensus was formed. I would appreciate some policy guidance from arbitrators on whether disputed unattributed claims should remain in the lead of BLP articles while the discussions in TP and BLPN are ongoing, and may still be escalated to an RFC. I hope this is the right venue to gain a clear clarification on BLP policy (and the proper enforcement of the policy by administrators). IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC) @Barkeep49: my request very clearly asks about conduct, and not content. Perhaps I could have worded my request more succinctly, but I am asking if, as WP:BLPUNDEL indicates, disputed content should be removed from BLPs while discussions and consensus building is ongoing. By extension, I ask if administrators should enforce this policy. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by Anythingyouwant Statement by HAL333 Statement by Black Kite I think you may find it was Doug Weller, not myself, that warned you about edit-warring, whilst I merely pointed out that your behaviour could be seen as noticeboard-spamming, which ironically this filing appears to have proved. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing?: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing?: Arbitrator views and discussion @IntrepidContributor:, Wikipedia has two kinds of noticeboards: conduct noticeboards and content noticeboards. Conduct noticeboards deal with editor conduct, while content noticeboards handle content issues. This question seems to me to pretty clearly be a content issue. However, WP:AN and this board (WP:ARCA) are both conduct noticeboards. This is why these are the wrong place for your question. On the otherhand, WP:BLPN is a content noticeboard and has had discussion about this topic. That is the right place to gain further input. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC) @IntrepidContributor your question to us is I would appreciate some policy guidance from arbitrators on whether disputed unattributed claims should remain in the lead of BLP articles while the discussions in TP and BLPN are ongoing, and may still be escalated to an RFC. which is a content not conduct question. You seem to be wondering if others (or you) have edit warred. That would be conduct but this is the wrong place for it, and frankly so is AN. You might have more like at the teahouse getting some guidance like that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC) I am inclined to agree with the administrators at WP:AN. Questions should be answered either at the locations to which you have been pointed and for the reasons you have been pointed to those places, or potentially WT:BLP if you believe there is an issue with the policy (I do not think you think there is). Izno (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Yep, this is not a proper ARCA request. If you have nothing to put in the section marked "Case or decision affected", you are not in the right place. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Concur with the above. As much as I am loathe to send people on a series of "ask the other parent" missions, this does not fall into our remit. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC) I would decline the clarification request, and absent objection I will ask the clerks to close this request in 24 hours. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022)

Request has been denied. Crouch, Swale is advised when making next appeal to: 1) Make a single request to have editing restrictions lifted, and to show evidence that they understand why the restriction are currently in place, and what steps they will take to alleviate these concerns; 2) Draft their appeal in advance and show it to at least one and preferably several experienced users; 3) Consider very carefully all feedback and advice they have and will be given; 4) Be aware that while there exists some understanding of Crouch, Swale's frustration, and some appreciation that they have improved over the years, there is potentially a limit to how many times they can make inappropriate requests, and a future inappropriate request may result in a motion not to their advantage. SilkTork (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Case or decision affected Special:Diff/1064925920 Clauses to which an amendment is requested Crouch, Swale ban appeal Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Information about amendment request Crouch, Swale ban appeal Remove or at least relax restriction Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017) Remove or at least relax restriction Statement by Crouch, Swale (Edit, Can I have my editing restrictions removed completely please with a probationary matter with an editing plan) I have a list of proposed motions at User:Crouch, Swale/Motions (edit, for if we don't remove completely) so please review each of them and propose a motion for each request to see if it can be relaxed please assuming the restrictions aren't removed completely. The main priority is to allow some (current) parishes to be created, regarding points about creation (1) there was consensus against prohibiting mass creation at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement from what I can see or at least not consensus (2) there is a consensus that all parishes (apart from perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes) are inherently notable (3) I will create the articles with reasonable content which even if quite a few are created a day doesn't generally fall under mass creation (4) the suggested motions for page creation include the ability for any admin to reduce or revoke the number as well as allow anyone to move unsuitable pages to draftspace (5) we already have things like NPP so any problematic pages can be seen to and all of my 12 creations last year were accepted (6) I haven't been involved in any major problems etc and most editors are happy with my work (7) I have been paying attention to feedback and requests from editors for example here about urban parishes not being notable and modified my list, a later list User:Crouch, Swale/Leicestershire which I am adding things like location, population, when abolished and infoboxes for former parishes but it would be good if I could also create the missing ones apart from as noted category 4 parishes (urban parishes). So please please can I have 1 chance to be allowed to create good articles on parishes. This can start low like say only a few a week and increase and be as well as or instead of the existing 1 article a month on anything. @Barkeep49: WP:GEOLAND says legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable (and parishes are definitely not similar to census tracts or irrigation districts) WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says things like municipalities are also usually kept, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC had a rough consensus to create them if created with suitable content, the exclusion of urban parishes came from here. Can you please agree to a complete removal on a probationary matter with an editing plan? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC) @Barkeep49: The parishes RFC may not establish an obvious consensus for creating them but we already have a consensus at other guidelines etc that such places should have articles namely GEOLAND and PLACEOUTCOMES. We have around 96.5% of parishes in England so what is so different abot the remaining 3.5%? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC) @Barkeep49: I have tried to follow consensus and I believe I have do so to the spirit and letter and as I noted above I have had almost no problems for example things that many editors have problems with like civility, edit warring etc. What is the problem with the quality or topic of content creation that I have/will been doing. SilkTork (and earlier WTT) have also said that my quality of writing has improved. I'm also as noted open to a request to only create parishes or even category 1 parishes. What do I need to do (either in conduct or content creation) that would make you feel it was appropriate to remove the restrictions? I have tried to do what people have said to me but I now don't know what else I can do? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @Barkeep49: As far as I can see I have made reasonable attempts to do those things yet I have essentially been told "no" still. Is it possible to put this appeal on hold so that I can see if there is more that I can do say for a few weeks or so and then re-open if what I previously did wasn't good enough? As has been stated previously multiple people are saying they would only accept a complete repeal but I don't really understand why? If people aren't comfortable with repealing completely why wouldn't a partial repeal be a good idea. The benefits of a partial appeal would be (1) the community will have more content for the missing articles (2) the Arbitration Committee will have more evidence of me being able (or not being able) to create good articles and (3) would allow me to work towards a complete repeal. I can't really see much drawbacks other than a small amount of community time being spent reviewing a few more articles and the AC proposing a motion for this change which wouldn't be that much more difficult than simply declining. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC) @Barkeep49: How about proposing a motion to allow me to create say 2 or 3 parish articles a week (on top of my current 1 a month on anything) which shouldn't be too difficult or require too much. If everything goes well then my next appeal in 6 months or a year should them aim for a complete repeal which would mean no more annual or twice yearly appeals. Obviously this would come with the revocation/draftspace rules. So is it possible to convince the commit that this would likely be a benefit to everyone. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC) @Primefac: Yes removing completely is the first suggestion which is why I said "assuming the restrictions aren't removed completely" but I accept that was far from clear in the request. I have edited the request to make it clearer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC) @CaptainEek and Beeblebrox: As already mentioned I've modified the request to make complete removal as the 1st proposal. Yes I now honestly believe I can be trusted to contribute without any restrictions and would be happy with any suggestion about quantity, quality or type of pages such as only recommending creating parishes or even only creating category 1 parishes (parishes named after a standalone settlement). What would you like from me to request/suggest/do that would make both of you happy to accept the complete removal with a probationary matter? Per WP:ROPE can we please at least have a go? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC) @Primefac: As mentioned I modified the request to make it clear that an outright removal was the 1st choice. Yes I didn't make that clear originally but I did quickly make that clear when you pointed it out. I don't think the fact I didn't make something clear originally counts as not listening and the other proposals were necessary for anyone who may be happy lifting some but not all restrictions so I wanted to keep some eggs in that basket to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @Cabayi: I have pinged the members of the relevant county's Wikiprojects which has had limited success. Yes I admit that I haven't had much collaboration with it but I don't know what else I could or should have done, I have as noted discussed missing parishes with other editors which made me modify my lists though that was for former parishes not current ones. So as far as I can see I have done what I could and now I just need to be able to get on with doing it myself as others haven't offered much input despite my efforts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @Worm That Turned: I don't think so, I will be following what advice people give and won't be mass creating short articles. What advice would you want me to follow that would make you happy to remove the restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @SilkTork: Why doesn't the community want the remaining ~3.5% of low level units in England created how is it in Wikipedia's interest to not cover these? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @SilkTork: I have a significant interest in when things should be crested or not and if separate articles should be created or not which is partly why I have created essays like Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate and Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements which have been written on existing conventions and consensus as well as my personal advice. You might want to have a detailed reading of both of those as they may help you understand what should be created or not. If you look at my article creation this year there is Harnhill, Oldbury, Warwickshire, Menethorpe, Blofield Heath, Tritlington, Hallington, Northumberland and Ryal, Northumberland. Most of those probably only took me half an hour of less to wright and have all been accepted without problems AFAIK. Most of those are category 1 former parishes. If I can wright these articles in around half an hour or less then why can't I produce more frequently say several (current) parishes a week or if you like several (former) category 1 parishes. What is unacceptable or not good enough about those kind of creations that would make them problematic if they were done on a larger scale. I don't understand why if these kind of pages aren't a problem we can't at least have a test run on allowing me to create a specified or unspecified number of articles to see if there are problems. Why isn't this a good idea per WP:ROPE? If there are problems the restriction can be re-imposed and/or the articles moved to draftspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC) @In actu: I used the 2020 RFC as well as the already existing things like GEOLAND and PLACEOUTCOMES for it. Why on earth do I need to obtain consensus to treat the remaining ~3.5% the same as the existing 96.5%? What is so different about them that they should be shunned here? I accept they need to be created in accordance with today's standards but I can do that. Only England, Portugal and Wales that I know of have low level units missing here (though I haven't checked most countries). Look for example at France which has around 34,965 of them and from what I can see all of them exist here and the French Wikipedia. Now yes most units in other countries like France have far greater functions than in England but the units in England still have enough function to have articles here. So why why why do around 3.5% of places in England deserve to be treated differently? That's not fair or justified, that's arbitrary and ridiculous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @In actu: But there isn't generally a requirement to obtain consensus to mass create pages at least not in the way I'm wanting to. What normally happens is the same as how the other pages are/were is that they are created and the community then decides if they should exist or not. There is a consensus anyway that such places are notable (GEOLAND/PLACEOUTCOMES) even if there was a RFC that they shouldn't be mass created in a poor standard then I should be allowed to create them (slow enough and with enough content etc) just like any other use and just like any other place. What otherwise would you like to see? As I've already noted all of my articles as far as I'm aware have been deemed acceptable. What are the likely problems of allowing me to create some pages? Why wouldn't an allowance of a few a week to start with be not a good idea per WP:ROPE? What else could/should I have done? As noted all my creations seem to be acceptable so its not clear what the problem is? What is so bad about giving me a chance to create some? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC) @Everyone as has already been mentioned all the creations seem to be acceptable and the topics are notable so why is no one happy to make changes to the restrictions here? Its not even really been made clear what I actually need to do to get a successful appeal anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC) What motion would people be happy with then? Suggestions? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Thryduulf In 2020 I said: there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. There is no evidence they have understood or listened to the feedback they've been given multiple times already. In 2021 I said: I am still not seeing any evidence that Crouch, Swale understands why they were placed under these restrictions and no evidence they understand why previous appeals were declined. In 2022 I noted that the RFC cited then (and also cited again here) as consensus for creating parish articles does not demonstrate any consensus for anything (other than a general opposition to mass creation). I also noted: Given that requirements of last year's request have not been met, have seemingly not even been attempted to be met, and recommendations for further discussion by other users since then have also not been followed up, I'm having a hard time understanding why this appeal is being considered? It is now 2023 and despite there being twelve different proposals for removal or relaxation of the restrictions, not a single one seems to indicate any understanding of why these restrictions were first placed, and why so many years and appeals later they are still active. I'm also seeing no evidence that they've both listened to and understood the feedback from 2020, 2021 or 2022 appeals at least (I've not refreshed my memory of earlier appeals). Unfortunately I have to once again oppose removal of the restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022): Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022): Arbitrator views and discussion Crouch, Swale can you link me to where the consensus that all parishes (apart from perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes) are inherently notable was formed? Per my comments the past two years, I am uninterested in doing anything in this appeal except removing the restriction completely (or on a probationary matter where an admin could reimpose as an AE). I know several other arbs share that opinion, as does Primefac whose counsel you sought. Crouch the fact that you come to us with that request plus 12 other ideas, and not having really taken onboard the advice Primefac offered is not a good start. I feel that there are reasonable odds we are still in a WP:WILDFLOWERS situation but look forward to hearing more from Crouch Swale and from other members of the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC) @Crouch, Swale, after re-reading it I continue to think that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC does not establish consensus for what you're saying it does. In fact every arb who opined about the RfC in 2021, the appeal immediately after the RfC, told you the same thing. Now despite this the points you made in 3-6 in your original post are all reasonable and would support repealing the restriction. 7 is reasonable too but given what I have noted in this appeal (Primefac's advice, Arb feedback about the RfC) I have a harder time believing it. I think if you'd come in with this same text but instead of offering us 12 options - 12 options is just an unreasonable number of options to expect arbs to read through and consider - you had just asked for repeal (or probationary repeal) you'd have stood a reasonable chance of getting somewhere. At minimum you wouldn't have had the dismissal of what you wrote by two arbs. Maybe some of the arbs who haven't weighed in will be as sympathetic as Primefac is and you get a vote on a repeal with probation. If that happens maybe I hold my nose and vote to support it, despite the issues I see with 7. But if it doesn't happen I would strongly suggest you wait 2 years before trying again. If instead you come back next year, please know that I plan to offer no comment (and may not even read it at all) unless an arb offers a motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Crouch you asked Silk Tork Why doesn't the community want the remaining ~3.5% of low level units in England created how is it in Wikipedia's interest to not cover these? I'm guessing he might have his own answer but since this is something I've tried to express to you before, I want to try again now given my pledge to cut back on participation in the future. The community doesn't care about low level units in England. I put this in bold just to emphasize just how true it is that the community doesn't care one way or another. You, on the other hand, care a great deal. That's fine - there are many things that the community doesn't care about content wise but which happen because of individual editor interest. What the community does care about is your editing and general conduct. This caring about your conduct is why so many arbs have expressed a desire to stop having annual appeals from you and only to consider a full repeal. Your inability to take that feedback on board, in the way you have taken much of the feedback about problems with your editing on board, and to produce an appeal that does what we the arbs and the community more generally has asked of you is why you're being told no. The thing the community does care about (your editing and more relevantly your conduct) isn't meeting community expectations in these annual appeals and patience has (again) run out. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @Crouch, Swale I would also agree that the quality of your editing has improved. And I can appreciate how you must feel frustrated now so thanks for asking What do I need to do (either in conduct or content creation) that would make you feel it was appropriate to remove the restrictions? The answer, at least for me, is listening to the feedback you've gotten in this discussion and feedback you get before you do your next appeal. And the feedback I see is "ArbCom only wants to consider a repeal of your restriction" (given quite strongly and universally by every arb who has commented) and "We're tired of your annual appeals, so don't try another appeal for at least a couple of years" (given by a few arbs, including me). Related to that second point, getting some feedback from someone on the committee you trust before you do the appeal, like you did with Primefac, is good. The trick is you should try really hard to listen to their feedback and, ask questions if you don't understand, as you've done here with this question I'm answering, or to check that you accurately followed it (which is what you didn't do with Primefac and didn't do with the feedback the committee gave you in at least 2021 and 2022 if not even further back). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Crouch, the last sentence of your most recent reply, from my perspective, isn't correct: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Crouch, I don't think there is a single answer among arbs for why so many have indicated they want to only consider a full appeal. It is some combination of: general dislike of custom sanctions (vs a standard TBAN), a sense that the current resrictions are working well from the community's POV, so why change it?, a wariness of these annual appeals, as a sign that you can absorb feedback offered to you, and perhaps others I'm not immediately thinking of. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Crouch, it was fair, in my eyes, for you to say "I don't understand why I'm being told to only asked to repeal everything". Because it was fair I did my best to explain why. By writing Its not even really been made clear what I actually need to do to get a successful appeal anyway. when I could easily offer diffs that show otherwise and by trying to offer another way to do a partial repeal - in reply to an explanation for why you should only ask for a full repeal - you are making a future appeal less likely to be successful. Because I don't want to contribute to you digging yourself in a deeper hole, this will be my last reply to you at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC) I have told you, both on my talk page and in your ARCA last year, that I would support lifting your restrictions, full stop. I believe there are at least two other Arbitrators who feel the same, and I can almost guarantee every Arb that has been on the Committee more than 24 hours is tired of these convoluted and complicated appeals. So Crouch, Swale, I have one request: in as few words as possible, please tell me why you have opted to not make a full lifting of the restrictions your first (and some would hope only) proposal. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Two thoughts: What do I need to do (either in conduct or content creation) that would make you feel it was appropriate to remove the restrictions? - stop pandering. I have tried to do what people have said to me but I now don't know what else I can do? No, you have not: multiple arbs told you last year, and I said two months ago (see reply to SilkTork below), that you should just come straight out and ask for your restriction to be lifted, that you have held to them for four years and it is time to just get rid of them entirely. Instead, you ignored that advice and wrote two essays worth of haggling when half of us were ready to give you full price from the get-go. You have not tried to do what people said to you. I asked you why you did not do this in the first place, and all you did was say "but I did ask". No, you patently did not. When it gets to the point where I want the restrictions lifted purely so you will stop inundating us with sub-standard requests that are not based on advice you have been given, it means that you have not made a proper appeal. As much as I really want to root for you, I do not think I can. I am not going to formally oppose this at this exact point in time in whatever miniscule hope there is that you will see sense, but I am very close to doing so. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC) No I can't believe we're doing this again. As I said last year, with emphasis added, the annual amendment request is not reassuring. I suggest that the next appeal be your last, and that it seek to simply remove your restriction altogether. I don't like this horsetrading restrictions business. You should make the appeal only when you are confident that you fully understand the process, the expectations, and that your content will not require review. Otherwise, you waste your time and ours. Wait a year, two years, five even. But if I think you're appealing just for the heck of it going forward, I will not take kindly to it. Just because you can appeal in a year doesn't mean you should. I don't see that you have taken this guidance to heart. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC) No exactly what Eek said. This is extremely tiresome. You've blown your shot for the moment with this mess, nobody wants to discuss this minutia, either you need to be restricted or you do not. Framing the conversation in this manner does more than anything to suggest that the restriction should remain. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC) We're not going to keep playing with the restriction, so the only thing I am considering here is wholesale removal. I do not believe that is beneficial to the encyclopedia, as you do not appear to have taken on feedback or the results of the RfC. In other words, if we were to remove completely, I am confident that you would mass create the articles. Long and short - No. WormTT(talk) 09:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Last year, at "The Fourth Annual Crouch, Swale Amendment Request", in the hope of avoiding a fifth rerun of the discussion, I asked to see more collaboration on your worklist. The history of User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes shows no sign of collaboration. Can you point to some? Cabayi (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC) I'm not seeing a good argument for the motion. I'll explicitly place myself on the No list. Cabayi (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Crouch, Swale, you are a slightly uncomfortable fit on Wikipedia - like a square peg trying to squeeze into a round hole, and have been from the start. However, (albeit slowly) you do learn, and you have potential to improve further. You have been on Wikipedia since 2009, and your article writing (though at some cost in time and effort from the community in sanding down your square edges) has improved during that time, and you are now, I feel, an asset to the project. And you can get better. But this appeal is not a good one as it is written from your perspective not from Wikipedia's. You are seeking to get what you want, not what Wikipedia needs, and you have not addressed previous concerns, nor appear to have listened to previous advice. I'd like to see your restrictions lifted, and I think that is a view shared by a number of members of the Committee from reading the above comments. But I can't agree to lifting the restrictions without you writing an appeal that shows understanding of why the restrictions are in place, and some clear indications from you that you are not going to fill Wikipedia with inappropriate articles. A number of your statements even in the amended appeal give me cause for concern that you do not understand what an inappropriate article is, and you do not understand what listening to feedback actually means (it has to be all feedback, not just the feedback you select). I have to decline this appeal. My suggestion, Crouch, Swale, is that before you appeal again next year, that you draft the appeal in your user space and show it to at least one and preferably three people who are willing to look it over and give you feedback. And that you listen carefully to their feedback, think about it for a few days, and then make adjustments to your appeal as necessary. SilkTork (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC) SilkTork, for what it is worth that already happened after a fashion in November (though I do admit I should have made one more reply to reaffirm my opinion on the matter). Primefac (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Crouch, Swale, your comment "Why doesn't the community want the remaining ~3.5% of low level units in England created how is it in Wikipedia's interest to not cover these?" is an example of why you are that square peg. One of the central issues on Wikipedia right from the start has been what do we include, and what don't we include. We drew up WP:NOT as a guideline, though we do discuss and refine what we consider appropriate to include. In simple terms, Wikipedia is not the internet - we don't include everything. And when we are considering including material that may be borderline acceptable (such as "low level units in England"), then we wish people to do that slowly and carefully so we can consider it. And if someone has a history of mass creating unacceptable articles, then we wish to either oversee them when they create articles, or for them to show us that they understand why we are concerned. You wish to move from being overseen, but you are not demonstrating to us that you understand the concerns. Indeed, you are making things worse by making statements such as "Why doesn't the community want [dubious or unacceptable articles]?". What I would like to see from you in your next appeal is you demonstrating that you see things from Wikipedia's perspective not Crouch, Swales's perspective. (For example, I'd like to hear you say that you'd like the ARC AFC restriction lifted because you don't wish to continue being a burden on those who work in ARC AFC; rather than because you find going via ARC AFC childish; I'd like to hear you say that you understand the community's concerns about the creation of inappropriate articles, as demonstrated in the last six articles you have created: [example], [example], [example]; and that moving forward you will ensure that every article you create is notable and fully sourced; rather than "The main priority is to allow some (current) parishes to be created"). I don't want to see you imposing your views on Wikipedia and getting it to try and match your expectations; I'd like to see you reaching out to Wikipedia to say you understand how Wikipedia works, and that you fully intend to work within all our guidelines and policies. SilkTork (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @SilkTork I'm guessing you mean AFC above? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Thanks Barkeep49 (and I read it through twice before posting!). SilkTork (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC) I am extremely troubled by Crouch, Swale's use of the 2020 RfC. I do not see any agreement there that parishes are notable or the mass creation of those articles is desirable. Based on this, I decline this appeal. I do not think that relaxing Crouch, Swale's restrictions at this time is in the community's best interest. If a substantially similar appeal comes in 12 months without any learning or growth, I would support topic banning Crouch, Swale from small administrate divisions. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC) @Crouch, Swale: Wikipedia is run by the collection of people who show up at any given discussion. The decisions made by that group are arbitrary and capricious, but they are the decisions we have. Expecting order or internal consistency between a group of decisions is folly. You asked a question about the mass creation of parish articles and the community gave a decision. Until the community gives another answer to the same, or a substantially similar question, that decision stands. As far as I can tell from it, the controlling discussion shows an overwhelming consensus against the mass creation that you would like to see. The fact that you either can't or refuse see that the community has rejected your wishes is a problem for me. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC) I find I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said by my fellow arbs. Izno (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

Case or decision affected

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

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

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• The following have been notified:
  • Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [17] - AE admin participant
  • El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [18] - AE admin participant
  • Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [19] - AE admin participant
  • Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [20] - AE admin participant
  • Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [21] - AE admin participant
  • ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [22] - party in AE request
  • Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [23] - part in AE request

Information about amendment request

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

Statement by Callanecc

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

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

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

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

@Barkeep49: I think even if no one different is willing to submit evidence a case that just examines the issues with regard to ZaniGiovanni's evidence it will definitely help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: The restrictions at WP:GS/RUSUKR now apply to this topic area per this discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Generally, discretionary sanctions tend to be very good at resolving issues that can be clearly demonstrated with succinct evidence and where the conduct breaches behavioural guidelines particularly earlier on in an editor's 'career' on Wikipedia. Where an editor has a greater number of edits in a topic area, especially when there's not been serious previous issues, it is much more difficult to effectively determine what's happened, what if any policies (etc) have been breached and what if any sanctions are appropriate, and then to gain a consensus for that. This is mainly due to the amount of evidence which is, can be and really needs to be submitted to demonstrate long-term patterns of disruptive editing, particularly where that editing is tendentious (and especially when the tendentious component we're being asked to adjudicate is related to §2.6, 2.8 or 2.12). This is primarily due to the intricate nature of what needs to be presented and the knowledge needed to determine if any of those things are happening and how serious it is. On the other hand, arbitration cases are designed to allow editors the time and space to present evidence and design responses to it but also, more importantly, to give arbitrators (particularly the drafting arbs who can become more expert than an admin at AE given that's their job) the time to review the evidence in depth, challenge it, ask questions and workshop ideas. AE just isn't, and can't be, set up to do that. That's why arbs get the big bucks. Additionally, the DS/CT decisions an admin makes needs to be able to stand up to review and appeal by other similarly time-poor and non-expert admins at AE and editors at AN. Enforcing admins need to be able to individually justify their enforcement decisions whenever and wherever they're asked (a little overstated sure, but point stands). That might be satisfied by pointing to an AE thread where it's relatively simple but if the admin needs to search through piles of evidence and look for additional evidence that becomes a much more in-depth job. So the decision for an enforcing admin becomes more complex: not just is the enforcement action justified but can they justify it to a less informed group? On the other hand, the Committee points to the case (with its evidence, workshop and proposed decision) and that is the justification for the decision. This is a feature of DS and AE rather than a bug though. Discretionary sanctions, and even more so contentious topics, are designed to give administrators additional options to deal with problems robustly before they become intractable not to give admins super powers, nor to replace the Arbitration Committee. Even with DS/CT there will be times that AE admins need to refer matters to the Committee because of the complex nature of the issue. That isn't a bug of DS/CT that needs to be fixed, it's a feature. It encourages complex issues to go to the Committee rather than being dealt with summarily so that the best decision can be arrived at. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

And I just read this (from Barkeep49) which seems like a much more succinct summary of what I was trying to get at. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

Statement by Rosguill

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

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

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

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

Barkeep49, I think your summary was fine and I don't have anything to add beyond seconding Callanecc's description as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

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

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

Statement by Brandmeister

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

Thanks for heads up, Callanecc. Brandmeister^talk 10:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by ZaniGiovanni

I've been targeted by Abrvagl for the longest time now whether in AE or otherwise; during the first month since my tban expired (15th November), my name has been involved in at least 3 reports already by ideologically opposing editors [24], [25], [26]. None of these have resulted in sanctions, neither did Abrvagl's subpar reports throughout 2022. For the longest time I wanted to comment about the Azerbaijani off-wiki meatpuppet groups but I couldn't because of WP:OUTING. Even when I got the 2 month tban during my own close challenge (when I said 8 out of 8 Oppose users were Azerbaijani or az-wiki admins), I couldn't directly provide evidence of canvassing groups because I'd had to brake outing. I hope I can speak freely here. The users I've identified canvassing through social media/off-wiki groups are Abrvagl, Solavirum (indeffed for socking), Qızılbaş and Rəcəb Yaxşı. These are the ones I intend to provide evidence for. There is broader involvement by additional accounts, but I've been unable to tie considerable off-wiki canvassing/disruption to any other editors in particular. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Abrvagl, you're not in ANI anymore. When making outrageous claims like this Even here, their comment indicates that they continue to believe that it is OK to oppose RfC votes based on the editors' assumed ethnicity, despite them being Tbanned for that exact case., be sure you can prove it. The only thing my comment above indicates regarding the RFC is that it's not OK to canvass. For future reference to ArbCom/admins, this isn't the first time Abrvagl makes baseless accusations in their comments so I hope something like this doesn't pass further in here and Abrvagl finally starts being more diligent especially when making such blatant accusations with no foundation, considering my comment is literally above for everyone to read.

I don't have any comments on the canvassing allegations. I've never done any canvassing, nor do I have any off-wiki contacts with the other named editors. – I'd expect you to deny off-wiki canvassing, but I don't think it's going to help you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Am I understanding it correctly that the AA3 is still in the process of being accepted or not, and should I comment the aforementioned off-wiki evidence here or after the ArbCom vote ends? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have the off-wiki coordination evidence ready and if emailing it to Arbcom is felt to be a prerequisite for opening a case then I'm ready to do it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

These things are simpler to understand and harder to solve than most understand. There is a contest out in the real world. With Wikipedia being influential, each side works to help their side in the real world contest by tilting the Wiki article. An unacknowledged common milder form of wp:gaming / wp:wikilawyering. And if done in a sufficiently wiki-saavy way one doesn't smacked and can keep doing it. And maybe get your opponents smacked. And the articles stay contentious forever, or at least as long as the real world contest continues. Evolution of policies and guidance is probably needed more than an arbcom case. It should be "Your #1 priority should be top quality of he article" rather than the above-described stuff. If you can make a finding like this within policies and guidelines, maybe you could fix things on this topic and have a template for fixes elsewhere. Or maybe in areas of this case you see a possibility of uncovering egregious offenses not easily visible and use normal remedies. Otherwise I'd recommend not taking unless you see a clear possibility of what you may accomplish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Abrvagl

The issue that led to this situation is already clearly described in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: It's a case of long-term Tendentious and Civil POV Push editing behaviour by one of the most active editors of AA2 that cannot be correctly stated in a few diffs, and as a result, the community is facing difficulty dealing with it. The issues with civil POV pushing and tendentious editing are one of the main problems I'd like to see the committee tackle to, at the very least, prevent the toxicity that currently dominates almost every discussion going on in AA2.

ZaniGiovanni is a user who has displayed prejudice and battlefield behaviour since day one of their editing. There is also serious and extensive evidence of meat puppetry raised against ZaniGiovanni, which I believe the committee should review in conjunction with this case. ZaniGiovanni, who was warned for being uncivil (apparently only to their "ideological opponents") 2 times ([27]; [28]) this year alone, continues to demonstrate the same battlefield-like behaviour despite the numerous Warnings, Bans, and Topic-Bans. Even here, their comment indicates that they continue to believe that it is OK to oppose RfC votes based on the editors' assumed ethnicity, despite them being Tbanned for that exact case.

As far as I'm aware, there is no other editor who has received as many complaints, warnings, or bans in AA2 in such a short amount of time as ZaniGiovanni. If several editors are reporting and complaining about ZaniGiovanni, then perhaps there's a reason for that (one that goes beyond them being ideologically opposing editors). Is it not worth taking a step back and objectively evaluating the broader picture rather than victimising ZaniGiovanni based on the subjective beliefs that there is a cabal out to get rid of them?

I don't have any comments on the canvassing allegations. I've never done any canvassing, nor do I have any off-wiki contacts with the other named editors. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 10:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I have no evidence or involvement with the meatpuppetry allegations against ZaniGiovanni. The report was filed by Golden, and commented by two other editors. I only brought it up because I believed the allegations to be plausible. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

I am not currently active in the area, but I dealt a lot with the editing area, including my past experience in the Russian Wikipedia - where indeed we had to deal with off-wiki coordination, so may be my perspective could be useful to the Committee. We have two groups of users which are absolutely hostile to each other. No Armenian editor would ever voluntarily agree that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, even as a statement of fact, no Azerbaijani editor would ever voluntarily agree it is not. They are not capable of talking to each other in any constructive way, only under a threat of an immediate block and sometimes even despite this threat. They have their own sets of reliable sources which one side accepts and the opposite site does not. They would be reverting the articles to their preferred version forever, until the articles get protected or put under a severe restriction such as 0RR. It is usually not about two users which can not get along - if one of them is blocked another user would come to take their place. And nothing has changed here in the last 15 years. On the other hand, I just do not see what the ArbCom can do here - all the tools are already available, and in my opinion should be applied consistently to all editors in the topic area - topic bans, and then blocks and site bans if they do not learn. I am sceptical about what the actual content of a perspective case could be.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: Clerk notes

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

• Recused. I participated in some of the AE threads mentioned, so it's probably best I don't clerk at all for this case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni a general note of expectations while in an Arbitration Committee proceeding (including this one): parties who are in conflict with each other (like you two) are advised not to directly address each other, though providing evidence is fine. Additionally when making any statement of fact, but in particular when alleging wrongdoing by a specific editor, it is expected that this be supported by evidence in the form of diffs. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  @ZaniGiovanni the decision to accept a case or not is still being decided. A majority of arbs will have to vote to accept the case and so far 2 have done so. If you have private evidence ready, you are welcome to submit it now to the committee. By default the committee does not accept offwiki evidence and so the first decision will be whether or not this qualifies for an exception. You can also wait until the decision is made to open a case as compiling evidence can be time consuming. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Motion to open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

The Arbitration Committee agrees to open a case with the name Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The parties, drafting arb(s), timetable, and structure will be communicated to the clerks following this motion passing (see ArbCom procedures).

Support

1. Per my comments above. I suggest we add a week to the Evidence phase to allow evidence to be submitted, as we did in Conduct in deletion-related editing, about others who should be named as parties but that we start with ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl as parties. I think we'll also likely need to consider evidence of off-wiki coordination, though I expect that most evidence will be about onwiki conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Per my comment above --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

   I am not overly thrilled with the name, which to me implies that we will be looking at the topic area and not just the individuals in it, but there does seem to be enough to start a case looking into those individuals. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   Shifting to Oppose per SilkTork. Primefac (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

3. I'm willing to accept as a case of "at wit's end" at AE, though I still want people to be thinking about what ArbCom can do to keep us from getting into this situation in the first place. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
4. I'm willing to accept a case here, with the understanding that there is some evidence of off-wiki canvassing, and if there is no evidence put forward that the participants are likely to be sanctioned making such accusations without evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Keeping in mind North8000's comment, I'm slightly concerned over the current lack of parties but will accept since there appears to be enough of a case here and the input from AE admins. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
6. We should generally accept good faith referrals from administrators to whom we delegated arbitration committee authority, and this was formalized in the forthcoming contentious topic procedures. I'm inclined to believe the referring administrators when they say this is a problem their tools are poorly suited to handle, especially when the authorizing case is nearly 16 years old. For reference, the page on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has twelve sections dedicated to armed conflicts which have occurred since we last looked at this topic area systematically, and that's ignoring the Wikipedia-internal technical and social changes that have occurred over the last 16 years. The best case is we review a case older than many of our editors in order to identify and help resolve issues through a thorough and well reasoned inquiry; the worst case is we arbitrate an intractable dispute potentially involving off-wiki evidence (which is still our job even if it's not as glamorous as passing topic-wide restrictions). On the merits, I think the requesting administrators have made a sufficient showing as to why a case would be justified.
   The alternative on offer is that we resolve this by motion here through a case amendment, but quite simply I don't believe that's an actual solution. No actual solution-by-amendment has been suggested, and this board's clearance rate is so abysmal that we passed a motion a few days ago in order to sweep our 3-month-old unresolved requests under the rug once everyone's forgotten about it. In that context, I simply do not believe an unstructured "discussion" with no accountability or timeline will actually work because it almost never has. We already have an established procedure by which arbitrators and the community collect evidence and discuss potential solutions: it's called a case and it has an exceptionally better track record than this board does. Administrators who work this area have requested a case because they believe its procedures will yield the best outcomes, and given the track records of this board and cases, I'm inclined to agree with them and support opening a case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. After considering the issues I am landing here. I see three issues here. One is the allegations of off-wiki campaigning, another is the relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, and the third is the ongoing difficulties keeping the Armenia-Azerbaijan area under control. I am not opposed to looking for a solution to the problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area, including the relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, but I'm not convinced by the evidence here and in the related discussions that a case is the answer to these issues. I am unsure of the value of opening a case looking into allegations of off-wiki campaigning without some evidence. If we had been sent an email with even the smallest hint of these off-wiki campaigns, I'd be more encouraged; but we haven't. The relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl should be able to be solved by existing AE restrictions, and if not then a discussion here with Arbs and AE admins should be able to arrive at a motion to amend AA2 with a more useful set of restrictions. The third issue is even greater reason not to have a case, but rather to look for a workable solution here with the admins who are experienced in the area, and know best what solutions might work. What I am hearing is that if a case clears out the current set of trouble-makers, all that will happen is that another lot will come along, and that what is really needed is a better set of restrictions to stop that from happening. That then is not a case but an amendment to the current restrictions. I think what is needed here to best address all the related issues is for AE admins to suggest to us what sort of solutions they feel might work (or at least to point out where and why the current restrictions are failing); for us to consider those solutions, work on them through discussion, and then draft those solutions into a motion and vote them into place. I think that would be making the most effective use of the new procedures - focussing attention on finding a solution via those most experienced in the area rather than going through what promises to be a long, drawn out and possibly inconsequential case. SilkTork (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Per the above rationale. Primefac (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

1. My ArbCom energy of late has focused on DS and I haven't had the chance to review all the relevant information yet but I don't want to hold this up. I therefore abstain. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Discussion (Motion to open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3)

• The circumstances are those which would be appropriate for a case request, though with so little evidence I'm not certain that I'm ready to jump straight to a case. Could this be presented as a case request with appropriate evidence so we can consider it before actually opening a case? I'd be happy to accept email evidence. SilkTork (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  We told AE admins we would accept referrals from them - even if that technically hasn't been fully implemented - at ARCA. If we would prefer they go to ARC then we should change our guidance, but I don't think we should ask people to do more work when they followed the guidance that we had given them. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  More substantively I think we do have some evidence, namely the AE thread that led to the referral which then references a lot of the history. I think that thread, combined with the request, is sufficient to look at ZaniGiovanni/Abrvagl. For me - and I certainly understand that not all arbs look at this the same way - I take the first person accounts offered here, particularly by the AE admins, as its own set of evidence. While that wouldn't be enough for an FoF, it is enough for me to weigh the request with the expectation that actual diffs could be produced at the Evidence stage, rather than asking people to go through the rather time consuming process of gathering diffs when ArbCom might not even be willing to evaluate them. On this second piece YMMV. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Here are some recent AA topic area AE threads: Olympian (December 2022), Kheo17, Grandmaster, Dallavid (October 2022), Golden, Zenzyyx (August 2022), Armatura, ZaniGiovanni, Grandmaster (July 2022), Abrvagl (May 2022) --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• @SilkTork: The last time the committee looked at the topic area was 2007. Don't you think that after 16 years of issues that we need to do more than a motion? Your proposed discussion with AE admins seems like a perfect thing to happen in the context of a case. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 10:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we are agreed on the need to look for a solution. I think we are agreed on involving the AE admins. Where we differ is in the need for a case in order to find a solution involving the AE admins. If we can find a solution via ARCA which allows AE admins to sanction not just those who are problematic today, but those who will be problematic tomorrow without going through a case, would that be an acceptable outcome? Is it worth trying that first? SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: My worry is that ARCAs have a bad habit of stalling out when they are complex, like this seems like it will be. We also need to look at evidence of how and why the current restrictions are failing (evidence phase) and then work with AE admins on what the solutions should be (workshop phase). That seems like it would be case in a much less user and arb friendly format. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

These are good points, and I have thought about them. My thinking is that the issue of the problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area is not complex in itself, but has the appearance of being complex by the merging of the personal dispute, and the allegations of off-wiki campaigning. All three are related, but are distinct.

The problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area are ones we encounter in other areas across Wikipedia where there are real-world national or ethnic disputes, be it Northern Ireland, Palestine, India-Pakistan, etc. Very often the participants are well meaning, and from their own perspective their views are correct. From the evidence we have been given, we are aware that there is a dispute. We don't need more evidence of the dispute, we need, as you indicate, precise, targeted evidence of "how and why the current restrictions are failing". It seems to me that the exact place to fine tune or adjust existing ArbCom sanctions is ARCA. (Now, if ARCA is not the place to discuss how and why the current restrictions are failing, then perhaps we need to look into that as a failing of ARCA, and seek to resolve that. But I'm not considering or suggesting that - I think that ARCA works.) Reopening cases when the restrictions are felt not to be working may open up the dispute and possibly invite relitigation. Reopening a case would have value where there is fresh evidence that might indicate the original solutions were wrong, but where the solutions are felt to be correct (as here) but not working (as here) then going for the more focused solution of fine-tuning at ARCA seems appropriate. Whichever route we go down, it will culminate at the point where an adjustment or new solution needs to be formulated. Let's cut to the chase and simply ask AE admins (and interested others) why they think DS/CT is not working, and what suggestions they have for improvements.

On the matter of the personal dispute between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, that doesn't need an ArbCom case. The community can decide if the dispute is so disruptive it requires an interaction ban.

On the matter of allegations by ZaniGiovanni that Abrvagl and others are involved in "canvassing through social media/off-wiki groups", and allegations by Abrvagl of "serious and extensive evidence of meat puppetry raised against ZaniGiovanni"; those are serious allegations, and matters which ArbCom is fitted to investigate. But while these matters remain allegations without evidence, we can't really open a case. If User:Abrvagl and/or User:ZaniGiovanni email ArbCom with evidence, then we can consider a case. But at the moment these remain unfounded allegations by two users in a dispute.

Strip out the ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl allegations and personal dispute, and we are essentially left with a request "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)", which is the purpose of ARCA. SilkTork (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the AE admins have told us what is not working: examining the nitty gritty and figuring out who is right between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl is beyond what they're willing to do as volunteers. I think it fair for volunteers to say "I don't want to deal with disputes like this, this is why we elect an ArbCom so we can pass the buck to them." I think one of the reasons AE works is that ArbCom generally backs-up admins who work it, making the delegation of powers credible. I see accepting this dispute as another way of backing up AE admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill, @Seraphimblade, @Callanecc @Lord Roem, I realized I probably shouldn't put words in your mouthes as the referring admin. So why do you think DS/CT is not working, and what suggestions you have for improvements? Courtesy pings to @El C and @Tamzin as other admins who participated in that AE discussion but did not appear to be part of the consensus to refer to ARCA. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)