Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 22:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/1064925920.

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 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

• Special:Diff/817961869 (original ban appeal in 2017)
  • Remove restrictions

Please remove all my restrictions as has been asked of me in the previous discussions (2023). I don't think I need to be under any formal restrictions however to avoid a large sudden change I will voluntarily agree to only create 20 (current) parish articles a week (plus my 1 article a month and DAB pages and redirects) for 3 months after a motion is enacted, this won't require any supervision from anyone (other than maybe giving updates and discussing things). I would also suggest like the July 2018 changes there could be a 6 month suspended which means the restrictions can be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action. All the articles that I have created have been kept and few of my RMTs have been contested so I should be fine as far as article creation and page moves go. I'm not in any rush so I'm happy for this to take a few weeks (or longer) as I do have other things to do.

• @Thryduulf: Please look at the edit history of the unitary authority area articles I created on 25 and 26 March 2026, I created them in draftspace and another editor moved them into mainsapce (in the case of Greater Norwich there was a history merge). I have no restriction on creating pages in other namespaces (including draft) although I will disclose that over the few months after I was unblocked in September 2025 I did create the 8 articles from January to August that I hadn't created (since I wasn't site banned as requested and only blocked). I don't think there is or was consensus against the articles being created just not with a bot or low quality. I have been using my 1 article a month to create articles on settlements/former parishes, the most recent examples are Newton Underwood (June), Crownthorpe, Norfolk (May) and Murton Grange (April) all of which are well sourced articles on clearly notable topics with plenty of content. I agree I probably should have used some of my creations to create new (current) parishes, I will create a few drafts for you this evening as a sample for this appeal.

  @Thryduulf: See Draft:Hollinghill for an example of a draft about a current parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Thryduulf: The article gives more than enough content and sources even if the prose isn't great in the lead. If you would like more to sample I can produce some more drafts, there are another 16 missing parishes in Northumberland. The articles are not going to be bot created or very short so I don't think there is a problem with the 2020 discussion. I haven't discussed this much because I feel I have discussed things enough and people didn't appear to want more RFCs but it seems I get mixed messages about this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Thryduulf: Nowhere does it say that it is needed to get consensus to create a number of missing articles, this is double standards, why should I get be expected to get consensus to create around 300 missing articles? This is not within any policy or guideline. If people didn't want to lift the restrictions then why did the changes happen, it feels like I've been lied to, back in 2019 it was passed to allow me to create 1 article a week through AFC and I get almost no articles declined yet people don't want to lift my restrictions because I had had to take time to create 1 a week, it's essentially like I'm being lied to, what is the point in submitting articles to AFC if people are just going to dismiss the success, I might as well have not bothered or just sumbitted a load of nonsense. Some people have said that I should have spent more time getting consensus for creating them while others have said they want a moratorium on RFCs. I have spent lots of time now editing with the restrictions and people have said they want to have them lifted yet they don't lift them. Thryduulf I am sick to death of (1) being sent mixed messages with respect to discussions, (2) following my editing restrictions and getting success with AFC etc only to be told it's not good enough (3) double standards and made up rules, there has never been a rule to say people are expected to get consensus to create missing articles and (4) the fact that the community and AC didn't want to site ban me last year and give me feedback that they want the restrictions removed, yet again it feels like I'm being lied to, if people didn't want to site ban me then why haven't they said yes to listing me restrictions, enough is enough, I'm sick of it, enough lies, enough mixed messages, enough double standards, enough arbitrary non existant rules. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Thryduulf: If you think the articles have poor prose then you can suggest a different way to write them, WP:NOTPERFECT is not a reason to say no to an appeal when when the policy says perfection isn't required, WP:MAKESTUBS also applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Thryduulf: Then what is your main reason? If it's that I should have discussed more after the RFC then my answer is that some people didn't want more RFCs, if it's that you think I should have been using my 1 article a month on (current parishes) then I admit I should but if this is the case and you want more evidence then why not suggest that I am restricted to 20 or 10 new parish articles a week until my next appeal? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• @The Bushranger: 20 new articles a week isn't much, it isn't difficult to create 20 high quality articles a week. There are around 350 missing (current) parishes in England though there are many more former parishes but some former parishes (urban parishes) might not need articles.

  @The Bushranger: I don't think 20 articles a week is very much, many editors create lots of articles and there isn't a problem, if it was say 500 articles a week then I think there would be reason to be concerned. These articles should have been created years ago, it is astonishing that they don't exist, almost every other functioning division in Europe appears to exist. If you think that a lower amount (either for 3 months or permanently) would be better then you can suggest it, for example you could suggest 1 parish a day etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• @HouseBlaster: I'm aware of MASSCREATE and I don't think any of my contributions would violate it. If there were problems with my creations and I was asked to stop I would. If someone was creating 100 low quality stubs a day that might be seen to be WP:MEATBOT but otherwise "merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive" and while I have suggested creating articles with bots this has been rejected by the community (and I wouldn't know how to create a bot anyway) and I don't use AI either so I don't think this is an issue. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  @HouseBlaster: (1) I'm not using any automated tools nor creating them in such a quick/short way that WP:MEATBOT may be seen, the articles would look like Draft:Hollinghill which I could easily produce 10 of those a day, if I was producing 100 very short stubs then it might be a different question, (2) I have already discussed with the community and there was a consensus against bot creations and very short low qualify articles, the likes of Draft:Hollinghill clearly don't fall under that and (3) if there are problems then I will stop, as has been said I have included a suggested suspended restiction.

  @HouseBlaster and Elli: Are we happy to remove the move restrictions then? This would also be helpful for if I wanted to help with the backlog on RM discussions that need closing. Would the AC be happy with me closing move requests? I have closed a few RM discussions such as withdrawn etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• @CaptainEek: The hamlets and areas were also parishes, I used to write "X is a hamlet and former civil parish" and "X is an area an former civil parish" but I was told that that wasn't appropriate and to just put what the place is today and include information about the former parish further down. As you can see for example Newton Underwood is a hamlet that was also a parish until 1955 and Lee Chapel, Essex is an area that was also a parish until 1937. If a current or former parish has the same name as a settlement it is included in the settlement article unless the parish excludes the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  @CaptainEek: It doesn't generally matter if a parish still exists or not see WP:DEFUNCT, all parishes (apart from pre 1974 urban parishes and parishes with the same boundaries as a district) had a parish council or at least a parish meeting so would pass WP:GEOLAND. Most parishes do have the same name as a settlement such as Denby Dale, see the other settlements etc at Category:Denby Dale or Weston-super-Mare and the parish would be covered there rather than at a list and pre 1974 urban parishes would probably be better covered in the pre 1974 district article rather than a list. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  @CaptainEek: If a parish in London functioned at least at some point then yes it would generally need an article however as you can see from User:Crouch, Swale/Greater London and User:Crouch, Swale/Greater London/Exists (I have only done category 1 parishes in London) that nearly all parishes in what is now Greater London were urban parishes that didn't have their own council or meeting and as such would probably be best covered in the district they were in. With regard to Bungay St Mary as you can see from Wangford Rural District "Bungay St Mary" and Bungay Holy Trinity were one of many parishes in that district and because they were rural parishes they would have had their own council or meeting, in 1910 a new urban district was created from merging both parishes into 1. Had Bungay Urban District have been formed in 1894 containing these 2 parishes then I would agree these 2 parishes wouldn't be notable as they wouldn't have had a council or meeting. Look at Maldon for example, as can be seen the municipal borough (click on "Lower level units) contained 3 parishes, Maldon All Saints, Maldon St Mary and Maldon St Peter but because these 3 parishes were urban parishes they probably would not be notable and should be covered at Maldon#Administrative history, in 1934 all 3 parishes were merged into 1 when the district expanded to take in other parishes[1]. With regards to covering it at St Mary's Church, Bungay parishes and buildings are generally not combined like parishes with the same name as settlements. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @CaptainEek: Draft:Hollinghill is an example, I've mainly been focusing on settlement former parishes and former parishes in Suffolk and Essex, I probably should have done more on current parishes but I just wanted to wait until I could create some of them as well as my 1 article a month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @CaptainEek: Last year I thought you were wanting my restrictions to be removed (which you appear to have continued here by saying that you appreciate asking for the whole restriction to be lifted) but you are saying that you think that the 2020 RFC was against me creating them, firstly as noted I have shown that I can create pages of suitable content (even if the prose isn't great) but if you (and others) are saying that I shouldn't be creating them then that doesn't really make sense... if you and others say that I should have my restrictions lifted/shouldn't be site banned but are still saying that I shouldn't be creating articles then that's like saying "you are released from prison but we still would prefer you stay in the prison grounds or "you are no longer under a restraining order from contacting X but we still don't really want you to contact X". If we aren't happy with the lack of parishes that I have created for evidence of removing or think 20 a week is still too much then why not try allowing 10 new (current) parishes to be created a week (plus any DAB pages and redirects) as well as allowing the current 1 article a month. I know people have said they don't want to partly remove but if people are saying they want more evidence etc then why not look at this partial removal? Then in the new year we can look at complete removal. In around 6 months that would allow me to create around 260 of the around 300 which would mean it would be nearly done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The restrictions linked in the appeal limit you to creat[img] at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. Why then did you Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England. There has been nothing in at least the last four years at the first, nothing ever afaict at the second and nothing at the third since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC in 2020 which resulted in a clear consensus against the mass creation of articles about parishes. Why do you think the consensus has changed?

If the creation of Parish articles is the main reason for your appeal, I would have expected to to have been using your one article per month to create high-quality articles to showcase what the community can be expected if you are allowed to create such articles in bulk, yet all the recent creations seem to be about settlements or unitary authorities? Why is this? What are some examples of your recent new articles about parishes? Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your answers so far, the one example of an article about a parish you cite is OK but not brilliant quality, and it's very difficult to reliably extrapolate from a sample size of one. It would surely be improved by spending more than just a few minutes on it - quality is more important than quantity. Also, you haven't explained why mass creation is desirable given the outcome of the 2020 RFC and why you haven't discussed this anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Back in 2020 I said: This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but 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.[2] In the same appeal @Gorilla Warfare said: Crouch, Swale, you need to spend more time editing productively within your restrictions, and demonstrate that you actually understand why the sanctions were imposed. Appealing your sanction with the intention of mass-creating 700 articles without any kind of prior consensus is not a good step in that direction.[3]. Six and a half years later and some of the numbers have changed but pretty much nothing else has. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Crouch, Swale NOTPERFECT is not part of the reason I'm not recommending your appeal be granted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Crouch, Swale my principal reasoning is the same as it has been for the past however many appeals: I am not convinced that you understand why the restrictions were placed, and I'm not convinced you've understood the feedback you keep being given, especially with regards mass-creation.

Last time you asked the community said that they didn't want articles about parishes to be mass created, yet your appeal is predicated on you mass creating articles about parishes. I'm not convinced that you understand the disconnect here. In every appeal going back to at least 2020 at least one person, and more often than one person, has attempted to help you understand that this disconnect exists and why it is important. However you either haven't listened or you haven't understood, and I've run out of ways to explain it. Unless there is some evidence of you having a major revelation I don't think I'm going to be able to provide any further useful input here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Leaving aside any comment on the merits or otherwise of the appeal itself: why, exactly, do we need 20 new articles about parishes in a week at minimum (given that's suggested as a temporary voluntary restriction, which would presumably skyrocket once the three months were up)? There is no deadline, so why do you want to create so many articles so quickly? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

@CaptainEek: regarding So if they were Parishes, but aren't currently, why are they worthy of inclusion? - Notability is not temporary. Whether they were notable enough for articles in the first place may be questioned, but if they ever were notable, their no longer being parishes doesn't make them no longer notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Crouch, Swale: Whether or not 20 new articles a week isn't much (and at over two per day, it is) you didn't address the rest of my question: why is there a need to produce so many articles so quickly? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I'm not an arb, but if it was up to me, your continued non-answers would indicate that the editing restrictions on you shouldn't be lifted at all, as it seems little to nothing has been learned from them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I can't help wonder why Crouch Swale appealed the C-ban to the ArbCom in 2017 instead of the community itself via WP:AN. Nonetheless, ArbCom restrictions on Crouch Swale have been amended a few times. Right now, the ArbCom is deciding on what or which motion to pass. Why not (via some motion) give the community another opportunity to handle Crouch Swale anymore, aside from past sockpuppetry (ANI discussion link)? Meanwhile, what shall be done about Crouch Swale's excessively long statement here? --George Ho (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

• I've been thinking about how some editors consistently engage in misbehavior but are great at showing understanding of what went wrong. These editors often cycle through being blocked or banned, writing a great appeal, the community happily lifting the restrictions, and the bad behavior resuming. On the flip side, I wonder if there are restricted editors who will make good decisions if unrestricted, but struggle to write a compelling appeal—and if so, whether Crouch, Swale is one of them.

  That being said, WP:MASSCREATE is a policy. Crouch, Swale, I have three questions for you: How does your proposed plan comport with that policy? Will you seek approval before creating parish articles? What will you do if the community says "no, these should not be mass created"? Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Crouch, Swale: WP:MASSCREATE is no longer part of the bot policy. It is now at Wikipedia:Editing policy § Mass page creation to make it clear it applies to humans, too. At first blush, I believe it applies to your proposed creations. I would like to hear the answers to the three questions I asked. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  I support lifting the restrictions other than the article creation one. The ban on moving pages forces Crouch, Swale to use WP:RM/TR even when he has the technical ability to perform the move. Looking at Crouch, Swale's RM/TR requests, I have yet to find a request that was declined. Forcing him to request moves from other volunteers wastes our most precious resource—editor time. The one account restriction can also go; socking hasn't been a problem for years.

  I oppose lifting the article creation restriction until there is a formal RfC on the question Should the remaining articles about civil parishes be mass created?. @Crouch, Swale: If that answer is "no", that means you may not engage in rapid-fire civil parish creation even if we lift the restrictions. Creating multiple articles per day, when there are 300+ outstanding articles, needs approval from the community. I want to say this louder: start an RfC on whether the remaining articles about civil parishes should be mass created. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Crouch, Swale: I am just one arbitrator, so my opinions are only worth so much. If the move restriction was lifted, I think you would be better served if you waited a bit just performing your own moves before diving in with RM closes. But that's just my advice. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Well I at least appreciate asking for the whole restriction to be lifted, as I requested the last few times we did this. But asking for it to be lifted...so that you can create 20 parish pages a week is not the solution. The 2020 RfC seemed to be against you creating parish pages at all, and frankly skeptical in their value as pages in the first instance. There are more than 10,000 civil parishes in England alone! (according to Civil parish). In comparison, the smallest similar division in the US is the Census Designated Place, of which there are only about 12,000 in a country that is 40 times larger and with 5 times the population. ([4] plus 19k incorporated towns, but the point is...if a place is a town...it doesn't need a civil parish/CDP article). Why do we need 300+ more articles about an arbitrary unit of sometimes neighborhood-level governance that is often subsumed by other place based categorizations? ArbCom doesn't make content decisions, so I'm not making a pronouncement about whether those pages should/shouldn't exist. But you have failed to engage with the core complaint that got you banned, i.e., you kept making poor stubs of places that really shouldn't have pages in the first place. It doesn't matter whether you make the parishes one at a time or 20 at a time. Can you make them good? Can you determine whether they should actually exist? Can you accept that the answer might sometimes be no, they shouldn't have an article? That they might be better covered at a "List of Parishes in [county]" or other such solution? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  Oh, and for the curious, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  So if they were Parishes, but aren't currently, why are they worthy of inclusion? Also, you didn't address my core concern: can you accept that some parishes might not qualify for standalone articles? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)(moved your comment to your section)reply

  For one, I disagree that GEOLAND means that every parish ever is notable. If there was a defunct parish in the middle of London...you wouldn't write an article on it. You'd just redirect it to the currently habited city of London. For example, why shouldn't Bungay St Mary just redirect to Bungay or St Mary's Church, Bungay? Also, just because a place is notable doesn't necessarily mean it needs a standalone page (see WP:NOPAGE). But putting that aside, if you say it is so easy to create quality parish articles...why haven't you been doing so? Your recent Parish creations are mostly stubs, and you haven't actually made very many at all. I don't see how we're going to go from your spotty current record to all of a sudden you're going to make the last 300. If its so easy, why haven't you published a quality civil parish article a month for the last 60+ months? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  Alright, well let's say for the sake of argument that I accept that all 300 remaining Parish pages really should be created as standalone pages and not redirects or lists. Why should I trust that you can do a good job of that, when you haven't hardly been doing it? This is my last question to you, and your reply should address my prior unanswered questions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 16:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I actually find myself agreeing with @Asilvering that having a slight increase in the number of articles, to perhaps three a month, might be helpful. I however disagree with @HouseBlaster and @ScottishFinnishRadish that an RfC would help. The prior RfC was clear: folks didn't want mass creation of the Parish articles, and in fact were dubious as to whether all Parishes really were notable. I don't think another RfC would clear things up, and would just anger folks. "Should Crouch mass create Parish articles?" If the answer is anything but "no!" I'd be very surprised. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Not to say that there couldn't be a useful Parish RfC, but it would be more like "Are all currently extant Parishes notable? Are historical Parishes notable? When should Parishes be covered in a list rather than a standalone article?" CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• I see no reason to allow an editor to fait accompli around community consensus (that articles on a particular subject shouldn't be mass created) because of an internal need to complete a set by an arbitrary deadline --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Decline. And increasingly thinking that we should put a moratorium on appeals. Izno (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Decline - After the appeal in December 2024 asking to be site banned and threatening to edit disruptively if it didn't happen, Crouch, Swale was indefinitely blocked for nine months last year (from January 2025 to September 2025). Such behavior is concerning and this appeal makes no attempt at explanation or any assurance that something similar wouldn't happen if Crouch, Swale disliked a given outcome moving forward. I would have liked to see this being addressed, but instead I'm of a similar mind as CaptainEek and Guerillero's comments concerning this appeal. - Aoidh (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Not an ideal appeal (as other Arbs have explained) but I'd be inclined to lift the move restrictions at least. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I will not be voting for any modifications of the sanctions outside of moving the appeal tempo to only on number years. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• We're 15 years out from the original block and we're still talking about mass-creating stub articles? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I would be ok with loosening/removing the move restrictions, per House. Regarding the article creation restrictions, @CaptainEek, you've asked why Crouch isn't making standalone parish pages but I really don't see how that would be possible, given the restrictions. I would be in favour of raising Crouch's number of permitted article creations per month so that we're no longer so firmly caught in this Catch-22. If given, say, 3 article creations a month, gets us 24 new articles on parishes that everyone agrees are no good, we've all learned something. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Decline any modification of the article creation restriction; maybe open to movement on others. It wasn't Crouch's idea to go for a full repeal, after all. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Also, @Crouch, Swale: You are well over the word limit. Please request an extension before posting anything new here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Decline C,S doesn't get it. Because he doesn't get it, his approach to these appeals over the last period of years has been to throw a bunch of mud at the wall to see if anything sticks, and we get all these different types of requests. I think HouseBlaster's RFC idea is a good one. Ask the question, Crouch – unless you don't really want to know the answer. Katie ^talk 14:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Arbs that are more into moves than me don't have a problem with loosening the move restriction, so that's fine with me. As far as the other restriction, I'm with Katie and HB. Run the RFC, find out where consensus is, then you can appeal with a clear path forward. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• I agree on declining to lift the creation restriction, and on recommending an RfC on the proposed mass creation. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Arbitrator discussion

I believe we've reached the point where we should see where the votes fall. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Why are we even considering lifting the 1 account restriction from someone who extensively socked for years without as much as a note anywhere in the discussion? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I did leave a note: The one account restriction can also go; socking hasn't been a problem for years. The last entry in the SPI case is from 2011, so I believe it is unnecessary. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I'd prefer not to lift it outright but to change it to something like "If Crouch, Swale creates any alt accounts, they must be clearly disclosed on the userpages of both the alt and main account." In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

That would be preferable to letting him have a privacy alt or something else where it becomes difficult to enforce the page creation restrictions -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I oppose complicating Crouch, Swale's restrictions any further. If we aren't ready to fully lift it, I'd rather it remain in place. I maintain that it is not necessary; Crouch, Swale remains bound by WP:SOCK, and his restrictions apply per person, not per account.

I think it is reasonable to separate the one account restriction into its own motion. @ScottishFinnishRadish, SilverLocust, Elli, and Theleekycauldron: Objections to doing so? Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I'm fine separating things out (and would continue to support lifting that restriction). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Fine with separating it out, yup theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Good with me. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I haven't voted yet, but given the votes here so far (5/5), agree with closing this original motion down and voting on the individual clauses seperately. We did something similar with Lightbreather last year (permalink), which proved effective as it allowed arbitrators to support specific removals without being required to support them all to see the omnibus achieve majority. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

No objections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support

1. As above. I judge people by their actions, not their words—so I judge Crouch, Swale by his actions at RM/TR, not his words in this appeal. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 14:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
2. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
3. Per above. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
4. Daniel (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
6. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
7. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC) reply
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Izno (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
2. Katie ^talk 15:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
3. per my comments above --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
4. Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Taking Daniel's suggestion, I think it is clearer if we don't modify the original motion and propose it separately. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 14:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Less strongly than I do with the move restriction, but I still think this is unnecessary. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 14:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
2. Seems unnecessary at this point. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Izno (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
2. Katie ^talk 15:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
3. Daniel (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
4. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
5. Per my comments in the previous motion. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC) reply
6. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply
7. Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Abstain

1. I don't think it matters. If someone is going to sock illegitimately they're already breaking the rules. Sure, this keeps them from having a legit sock, but that's so uncommon as to not really matter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
2. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Arbitrator discussion

• Wikipedia arbitration
• Wikipedia requests

• Wikipedia move-protected project pages