Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Clarification and Amendment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 31 January 2025 (archiving Special:Permalink/1272940058#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 125←Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131


Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal (December 2024)

Original discussion
Consensus among arbitrators that they will not reinstate the site ban. Crouch, Swale is welcome to consider asking an admin to place a self-requested block, using the WikiBreak Enforcer, or requesting a courtesy vanish. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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


Information about amendment request
  • 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

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.

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3

Original discussion
Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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 SimpleSubCubicGraph at 18:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Olympian ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan


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


Information about amendment request
  • I request a modification to the probation period, and want the probation to end immediately and for all pages involving Armenia-Azerbaijan, except the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wars to be downgraded to Autoconfirmed Protection.


Statement by SimpleSubCubicGraph

A recent statement was made by Armenia offering condolences to Azerbaijan which has almost never happened, I believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages blanket protection of Extended Confirmed should be lowered to Autoconfirmed protection, with the exception of the wars between the two sovereign nations. Additionally, relations are getting better between the two countries. For nearly 30 years, relations were rock bottom, diplomats were not found in Azerbaijan nor Armenia and tensions were at an all time high. However ever since the 2020 war the two nations have started to make amends. This first started with the peace deal ending the war between the two nations. Turkey whom is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan has started to resume direct flights from Yerevan, the capital of Armenia and Istanbul, the largest city in the Republic of Turkiye. In 2023, Armenia and Azerbaijan entered into extensive bilateral negotiations as well as a prisoner exchange between the two countries, and Armenia supported Azerbaijan for being the host of the UN climate change forum. Finally, last year the two countries solved many border issues and created a transport route between the two countries which is a symbol of peace. The two nations are much better off now than they were just 4 years ago and can be seen as having a cooperative/reconciling attitude. That is why I propose an amendment that will immediately downgrade all protections (from ECP to ACP) for all Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages.

@Voorts then how would I appeal or ask the community to lift sanctions over Armenia-Azerbaijan SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)  Clerk note: Moved to own section HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Houseblaster going off what voorts said, can this suggestion be repealed/deleted? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by voorts

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: ECP-only edits were imposed by the community as a general sanction, not by ArbCom. ArbCom does not have jurisdiction here. That said, whether or not Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are warming, the community has imposed sanctions here (and ArbCom has designated this area as a contentious topic) because of disruption in the topic area by editors. I highly doubt that you'd get the community to agree to change this rule, given that editors are still routinely sanctioned under this GS. See WP:GS/AA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: There is. You can read WP:GS for more information. However, as I said, there is almost zero chance that you will get this sanction to be removed. You should be patient and wait to get 500 edits and EC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 4 January 2025 (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.

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Clerk notes

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Arbitrator views and discussion

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.

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal (January 2025)

Original discussion
Appellant has been indeffed by ToBeFree as a normal admin action; rough consensus that no further action is needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Special:Diff/1064925920
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Special:Diff/1064925920


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


Information about amendment request
  • 2022 changes


Statement by Crouch, Swale

Please either site ban me or remove the restrictions completely. If you site ban me please block with account creation, email and talk revoked and also block my IP address(es) with {{checkuserblock}} including blocking logged in users so that I have no way to contribute to here again and say I can't appeal for 10 years or never, the choice is yours but I'm not prepared to go on as is. And yes unlike last month's request this does count as an appeal but it does include the first option of a full site ban. And yes doing either of these options won't be much effort and would make you're lives easier. Option A motion would say "Crouch, Swale is indefinitely site banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you must pick one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start posting personal information about other users and myself or I start posting libel content. I could just go on disrupting Wikipedia until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (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

  • Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to decline. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a false dilemma. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - Aoidh (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline, obviously. I have indefinitely blocked Crouch, Swale in response to Special:Diff/1271154047. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (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.

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Original discussion
There is a clear consensus among participating Committee members that "strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area" refers to "primary articles" in the area of conflict. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Zero0000 at 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 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:

Statement by Zero0000

The recent case included the following resolution: "All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article."

There are two types of ARBPIA content defined by previous PIA resolutions:

  1. Whole articles deemed to be entirely or mostly in the domain of ARBPIA.
  2. Content in the domain of ARBPIA that lies within articles not covered in whole.

My question: Does default EC-protection apply to type 1 content only, or to type 2 as well?

My guess, relying on the phrase "strictly within" in the resolution, is that only type 1 content is intended. Please confirm or deny that.

Omitting type 2 content would allow non-EC editors to edit the non-PIA parts of those articles, while still allowing discretionary EC-protection in response to disruption. Zerotalk 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

My reading of it, which I put in my case summary in the Big Ol' LibraOffice Calc File of Arbitration Effluvia and on my userspace subpage, was that it only applied to primary content (read: articles specifically about the Arab-Israeli conflict). It doesn't make sense to summarily ECP a random page just because a couple of sentences of it touched upon a humanitarian aid project in Gaza its subject supported. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:48, 29 January 2025 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_131&oldid=1272945710"