Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 131

Archive 125

←

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/817961869

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Special:Diff/817961869

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

• Special:Diff/817961869

• Restore site ban.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

A week from now could you please site ban me either permanently or temporarily. I don't think I should be on here anymore. Please note that this is not an appeal rather the opposeite to reinstate the site ban.

@CaptainEek: We've banned other users like User:Lugnuts who created many new articles but weren't of good quality and User:BrownHairedGirl who has made many contributions but had civility issues. If I want to be banned I don't see why that can't be done. Additionally I'm not asking for any negotiations here such as a promise to remove my restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac and L235: What would be grounds for a site ban then? If I was to make personal attacks would that be grounds? BHG was banned for personal attacks by adbcom, if I did the same would you do the same for me? You can block me with talk and email revoked and block my IP addresses with blocking logged in users so that I have no chance of contributing again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: A block is just a block, nothing official and can be removed by any admin while a site ban is formal and official. From what I can remember my IP addresses geolocate to places like Colchester, Danbury and Maldon and I don't think are used by anyone else so could probably easily be blocked as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cabayi: That would be global and not a formal ban for example I should still be able to contribute on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: But why not do something silly. Clearly doing the right thing hasn't got me very far. Clearly this project is sickeningly unreasonable. Clearly this project has lots of arbitrary rules that aren't even written and if you violate them or not is often down to chance. This project claims to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit not the project that wants to exclude many articles from Crouch, Swale or exclude a few hundred units from Crouch, Swale's country. The project appears to have some kind of agenda against my contributions or places in my country. But yes its not just things that have happened to me its also silly things like the ARBECR which targets new users who probably don't have a clue how this project works. So why not just do something silly and get banned clearly this project is cracy so I've probably not got that much to loose anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Kenneth Kho

Thank you for over 100K edits to Wikipedia, thank you for your service. However it is best to provide reasons why your editing restrictions can be lifted in part or in full, if that is what you are looking for. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

User:Crouch, Swale why does it need to be a site ban? I respect someone who wants to go out on their own terms, but a site ban is still an ugly ugly way to do it. If you ask me next week I am willing to put an indefinite block on your account without talk page and email access, which is what would also happen with a site ban. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by QoH

+1 to what Barkeep said, I would also be willing to place a self-requested block. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Crouch, it is highly unlikely that any admin would just randomly decide to undo a self-requested block. It would be logged as such and nobody would have any reason to unblock. Please, don't try and get banned by doing something foolish. If you did it would probably still be a single admin who blocked you anyway. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It has occured to me that if the issue here is trying to break Wikipedia addiction permanently, vanishing is probably a better option for you. It's a voluntary agreement between you and this project that you are going away for good. It's not a sanction, and it provides a clean break. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

Crouch, Swale, the best way to do this is to get a self-requested block, have talk page access revoked, and then scramble your password. If you are worried about scrambling your password, have Google or some other service create three passwords, mash them together, copy and paste into the change password field, and delete your clipboard history and saved passwords for Wikipedia. That would make it extremely difficult to regain access to the account, especially with email revoked.

As my statement should make clear, amendment should be denied. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2024 (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 ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I refuse to allow suicide by ArbCom. If you want to stop editing, you can stop editing. I hope it doesn't come to that, we have purposefully not banned you because we think you can be a helpful and valuable contributor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will point out your nearly ten thousand edits this year, which is quite incredible by any measure. You make a difference on Wikipedia. I know your editing restriction is a source of discontent, but it is only one aspect of your multifaceted and long career as an editor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot see ArbCom restoring a block that is not strictly necessary any more. If a block is desired due to concern of continued editing, I highly suggest asking Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks or using the WikiBreak Enforcer. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with above, and specifically I want to highlight CaptainEek's last comment. Absent contrary opinions in the next two days or so I will close this with a rough consensus of arbitrators that ArbCom will not reinstate the ban. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Crouch, Swale, it's not what I'd like to see happen but, as JSS points out, courtesy vanishing does what you want and, since July, also includes a global lock. All the best, Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• This is not something that ArbCom should be doing, especially when there are viable alternatives that achieve the same result and don't involve discussion by committee. Admins are often willing to block editors who self-request it. - Aoidh (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.