Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:55, 9 March 2010 editJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,524 edits →Statement by Jclemens: expand← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators128,264 edits →Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion: blocked 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} =
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
== Request for clarification: ] ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}
*{{userlinks|Maurreen}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Kevin}}, and anyone who follows his example with such out-of-process deletions --


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
=== Statement by ] ===
#]


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
As a minimum, I ask the committee to prevent any out-of-process deletions while it considers these issues with more information and deliberation than involved in ].
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)


; Information about amendment request
In short:
*]
* The committe said, "The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to '''conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.'''" And "Everyone is asked to '''continue working together to improve''' and uphold the goals of our project." (Emphasis added.)
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
** ] recently wrote that ].
**There is indication that other people have done similar deletions since the ArbCom's decision. But this deserves further research before I name names here.
* "The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people."
** ].
** ]s are being ].


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
I might or might not add more to my statement. That depends on factors on- and -off wiki. ] (]) 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.
*1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
*2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
*4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. ] (]) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:@]: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. ] (]) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Reply to Doc''' -- About why this is at arbitration: Mainly because ] recently wrote that "."
:I agree that the consensus is reasonable, one that most people on both sides of the issue can live with. I think that we ought not let outliers on either side work against that consensus. ] (]) 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
::If ArbCom agrees with '''SirFozzie''' about looking dimly "on attempts to force the issue on either side" -- I think that firmly clarifying that position should efficiently address the immediate matter at hand. ] (]) 05:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
''2015'', would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, ''2016''. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. ] (]) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Rosguill ===
:::'''Reply to Steve Smith''' -- We agree that the *issue* is contentious. That is not the same as saying that any given article, the specific articles that have been deleted, or unsourced BLPs in general are contentious. ] (]) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Izno ===
::::One motivating factor for those supporting the out-of-process deletions seems to be the perceived urgent need for such unilateral action, with no oversight or clear record. For the moment, putting aside whether these should be deleted or not -- If they deserve delection, they should go through our standard processes. Why do something drastic and contentious, when a routine method is available? ] (]) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
:::::Administrators have special tools, not special authority.
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. ] (]) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If deletion of BLPs for the sole reason of having no sourcing was supported by the community, there would be many more of them at ]. There are very few at ]. ] is a list of Prod'd articles, with the justification. I expect that a sole rationale of "unsourced BLP" is used less than an average of once a day. ] (]) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (Added two sentences, forgot sig earlier.)


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
{{od}}
Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
A little elaboration on '''Baloonman's''' suggestion of how ArbCom might handle this efficiently -- In a nutshell, the result of the RFC is:
# The community supports sticky prods for new unsourced BLPs.
# In general, the deletion side is willing to wait a few months to see if they believe further action is necessary.
I believe that people on both side will agree that this is the result of the RFC, regardless of how much they like it.


===Statement by Vanamonde===
Work on the sticky prods is ]. ] (]) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (Forgot sig earlier.)
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. ] (]) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Aquillion ===
:During the RFC, Doc (from the "deletion" side) suggested a . That compromise included "'''Do nothing''' for three months, so see if the recent falls in the backlog continue," and "If the progress stalls and the backlog stops falling at the current rate, then '''in three months we ''may'' need to start discussing deadlines.'''"
:To the best of my knowledge, no one from the deletion side objected to the suggested three-month wait-and-see period for old unreferenced BLPs.
:Especially given that they did not object during the RFC, I see no justification for unilateral contentious behavior, or to condone it, implicitly or explicitly. ] (]) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be ''intuitive'', since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --] (]) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::No evidence has been given that unsourced BLPs are otherwise more problematic than sourced BLPs. Limited evidence is available that there is no correlation between sourcing and other aspects. For one external example -- The has been researching WP. Of 15 BLPs, the BLP subjects were roughly evenly divided as to their opinions on how accurate, complete and unbiased the pages were. At the bottom of the page, in a comment responding to me, the blogger said the sourcing in all articles was poor.
::The focus whether the article has *a source* is misplaced. If *a correct source* was added to all our articles overnight, that wouldn't make the articles more accurate or less biased. It would only mean *a source* had been added. This focus whitewashes true problems.
::I've read sometimes that the community brought this on itself, because it did not rectify "the problem." But the community is all of us. Destructive measures should be a last resort. They should not be used unless substantive productive methods have clearly failed. As just one example, what notice was given for deleting said articles? Did the deleters either publicly warn the community or directly warn the specific article editors? ] (]) 05:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
:::And do the deleters source any of these articles, or do they think they have to ]? ] (]) 09:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
===Statement by Balloonman===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
Should an admin unilaterally decide that an active RfC did not reach the conclusions that said admin desired, and started acting contrary to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, then said individual should be stripped of his/her adminship. The threatened action, if carried out, will be a willful premeditated action that could not be tolerated.---''']''' '']'' 08:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*
:Lar, there is nothing in WP:BLP or WP:CSD that says that a BLP article without sources is a candidate for speedy deletion. The only way that it is acceptable to speedy delete said article is if it is an attack page or copy vio... an argument could be made for articles about people who are known for breaking the rules/laws. The notion of speedy deleting BLP articles solely because they do not have sources has been universally rejected everytime it has been brought before the wider community.---''']''' '']'' 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Steve Smith---your statement fails to address a key factor... just because a biography is unsourced does not mean that it is contentious. Kevin et al are not talking about limiting their deletion activities to just contentious materials, but intend to redefine the definition to cover any BLP that lacks sources.---''']''' '']'' 15:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
::Steve, what is contentious is the careless deletion of unsourced BLPs, not the articles themselves. The "Contetntious Materials" in the policy deals with questionable material within the article itself. An article can be 100% accurate, factual, and neutral without citing a source. These articles are not by definition contentious except for a small minority of the community whose position was rejected in the recent RfCs. If you review the RfC's, you'll see several threads wherein the notion that an unsourced BLPs equates to a bad/POV articles has been rejected. You would be hard pressed to find any consensus to support the stance that the mere lack of sources makes an article contentious enough to warrant speedy deletion. This is a position held by a small minority of people who contributed to the RfCs. In fact, the reason why Kevin has made this threat, is because the community has roundly rejected that notion, and frankly if you can't see that in the threads, I have to question your objectivity on this subject! In order to be a good judge/arbitrator, you need to be able to put your personal position aside. If you can't do that, then you need to recluse yourself from this case. The fact that you see the RfC as supporting a notion which it clearly doesn't distresses me.---''']''' '']'' 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of ArbCOM members have asked what actions can they take as a preventitive before creating a whole new slew of ArbCOM cases/issues. Simple. Make it clear that in your previous motion you referred the issue to an RfC, the RfC has happened, and all parties are expected to adhere to the outcome. Not everybody will be happy with it, but everybody needs to adhere to it. Sir Fozzie's statement would be a good foundation for such a clarification.---''']''' '']'' 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


=== American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
===Statement by Tarc===
* {{yo|Interstellarity}} I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) ] (] • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Reject this as patent nonsense, please. Nothing in the RfC precludes administrators from doing their job, which is to uphold ], whether it be deleting unsourced contentious articles, tagging, PRODding, and so on. There is still this ridiculous attitude of "let's wait and leave the articles be, someone, sometime will get to them eventually." Enough, already. ] (]) 12:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
**] indef pending changes
**] indef consensus required restriction
**] indef semi
:All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. ] (] &#124; ]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ] (]) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like ] still have recurring issues. - ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was ]); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? ] (]) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*A quick look down ] and ] enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. ] (]) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
:The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... ] (]) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 ], which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers '']'' and the ], while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the ]. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.{{pb}}History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. ] (]) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected
===Statement by WereSpielChequers===
:]


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
] can be upheld without disruptive editing or disruptive use of admin tools. Now would be a good time for Arbcom to remind all editors to inform the creator and other substantial contributors when prodding or otherwise tagging articles for deletion, and to remind editors ]. I think that the BLP RFC is ] that would make an exception to the latter, and it would be a great shame if that was derailed by another out of process deletion spree. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 13:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
#]
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->


===Statement by Peter cohen ===
The RfC has reached a conclusion. Some of us are prepared to live with it even though we did not like it. Others have to start the deletion spree again against consensus and then ]. The contempt shown by certain admins for process and consensus makes them unfit to hold the tools that they abuse. Firm action is required of arbcom rather than the previous wishy-washy motion which has made the offenders feel they can get away with more of the same.--] (]) 13:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*Reply to Kirill. This is not something that ahs not happenned yet. ], for example, has deleted ] this month with the explanation "unreferenced BLP for 2 1/2 years, no one seems able to source. I will undelete if anyone willing)" How people were expected to notice unless they checked for evidence of his carryign out his thrats, I do not know. MacDonald is well aware that the number of labelled unreferenced BLPs has declined by roughly a quarter so far this year. However, rather than working in a collaborative manner, he is acting in an extremely disruptibve and ]y manner which demonstrates him to be someone who should not be trusted with his sysop tools. This needs firm action by arbcom rather than vaascillation.--] (]) 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
**Reply to several arbiters below. Your first attempt at dealing with this matter attracted well-deserved derision from many well-established Wikipedians. You are going the same way with your response to this request. Several of you are maintaining that you are being faced with a hypothetical situation when both I and others have given you examples of speedy deletes of long existent articles earlier this month. If you are demonstrating that youy have not read properly the evidence with which you are presented, then how can you expect your judgment to be respected?--] (]) 13:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
===Statement by Scott MacDonald===
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
Speedy deletion isn't ideal here. We need a robust alternative that effectively deals with unrefereced BLPs. Speedy deletion is, however, preferable to continuing with a failed policy of evantualism.
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)


In effect, those of us using speedy deletion agreed a voluntary moratorium to allow the community to develop an alternative. In my opinion, there seemed to be an adequate way forward with "sticky prod" for new BLPs and some deadlined for clearing the backlog. If the current rate of sourcing continues, then no deletions might be necessary. If not, then some level of sticky-prodding might be. I think there was some consensus around this.


; Information about amendment request
Unfortunately, as the weeks have gone on, there seems to have been a tendency either to talk this to death (see ]), or to add a ] requirement - which effectively switches the burden back on to the person proposing deletion: if no-one is willing to look for sources, then the article remains (that's the failed eventualist policy again).
*]
:*2022 changes


There certainly should be no ''immediate'' return to systematic speedy deletion. However, given that it was the initiative of speedy deletion that was the catalyst to the current discussions, I'd strongly suggest that any ban on deletions would allow continued delay and inertia.


=== Statement by Crouch, Swale ===
We hope for an alternative to speedy, but the clock is ticking and patience shows some signs of running out. Perhaps those bringing this case would do better spend their time better seeking a working alternative pretty damn soon.
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 {{tl|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 "] is indefinitely site banned from Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All ]'s editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you '''must''' pick one. ''']''' (]) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Theleekycauldron}} Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start ] about other users and myself or I start posting ] content. I could just go on disrupting Misplaced Pages until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. ''']''' (]) 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. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
:I'm not sure we're not talking at cross-purposes here. The consensus I thought there was (sticky-prod for new BLPs, a one-year deadline for the backlog, with a review in 3months to see if we are "on target) is certainly one I can live with. The problem is that the RFC pages have become so convoluted and there appear to have been numerous attempts to summarise an close, that I've no idea what it is that I'm supposed not to be content with. Can someone actually tell us where this is at, and why a sticky prod isn't running yet? People are speaking about admins not getting their own way, but I've absolutely no idea whether there's a problem or not, the pages just confuse me. There may be no problem here at all. Why is this even at arbitration?--] 15:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
::It is perfectly reasonable for admins to issue reminders that moratoria dealing with BLP problems don't last for ever, and that this one will soon expire. As Lar has said, get the alternatives up and running, and the problem goes away.--] 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes ===
===Statement by Collect===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*


=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
"Isn't ideal"?
* 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 :) ] (] • 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. ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The use of this threat of speedy deletion goes specifically against the ArbCom motion as elucidated, ''and against the letter and spirit of WP policies and guidelines'' at this point.
*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. ] (] &#124; ]) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is clear, moreover, that the RfCs had definitely reached consensus on many issues. That it was not the precise consensus desired by some admins is not a mark of a problem with the process, it is a mark of the use of the ArbCom motion as a rationale to avoid facing the real and proper results of the actions of such admins who do not accept consensus which is the problem. Impose the penalties apparently sought by such admins. ] (]) 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC) * This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a ]. 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. - ] (]) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by Okip===
The reason that disruptive editors such as Kevin continue to delete articles against our rules is because arbitrration gave them a free pass. We have already been here, this is the third time. First their was the amnesty of disruptive administrators Scott Macdonald, Kevin and Lar, then there was the arbitration request for disruptive wheel warring editor Coffee, and now this.

Arbitration has sent a clear message to the community: If administrators blatantly disrupt and break[REDACTED] rules, having "utter contempt" for "community consensus" ''(deleted from talk page with a rationale for behavior)'' it is okay as long as the majority of the arbitration committee supports their disruption.

I have absolutely no faith that the arbitration committee will do the right thing here and accept the case, because the arbitration committee and Mr. Wales himself have already shown complete contempt for our established rules and established consensus with these bullying editors before. ] 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:Response to Lar, one of the three original <s>rule breaking</s> administrators who received amnesty by the arbitration committee:
:<S>Deleting full unsourced articles is not within policy, such as you did Lar: that is why an amnesty was necessary Lar, amnesty is defined as "a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment" you were an offender who the arbitration committee exempted from punishment.</s> I grow extremely tired of these disruptive administrators who, if there was actually any on[REDACTED] would have lost there adminiship a month ago, instead of continually trying to silence editors and rewrite the history of their extreme <s>contemptible rule breaking</s> behavior. ] 17:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::Lar continues to attempt to silence me with threats, yet more threats from the same group of disruptive bullying administrators. I am so disgusted that the arbitration committee has emboldened to continue to threaten, bully, and silence other editors.
::I strongly encourage them to take this case, instead of giving these disruptive administrators continued amnesty for their disruption. ] 18:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::In Lar's continued threats, he pointed out something I was not aware of, that the arbitration committee found that
::::"The Committee has found that Lar's actions during the BLP deletion incident were entirely supported by policy."
:::The same arbitration committee which gave Lar amnesty, now ignores the community's rules and states that . I strongly disagree with this arbitration decision. ] 18:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lar===
Deletion of unsourced material is entirely within policy. Admins are empowered to use whatever tools are available to do so. If some group wants a particular process used, get the process ''done'' so it can be used instead of frittering away time on endless prevarication. Get sticky prod up and running, instead of wasting everyone's time with requests like this one. I urge ArbCom to reject this request for clarification with a clear statement that the matter is not open to further debate, either develop a process, or get out of the way. ++]: ]/] 17:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:To Okip... You are confused about who is violating what, or to whom amnesty was granted. ArbCom was specifically asked to comment on (among other matters)
::''The allegation that Lar has violated English Misplaced Pages policy and ignored consensus (except in cases where consensus is trumped by Foundation directives) regarding deletion of Biographies of Living Persons.''
: Their was
::''The Committee has found that Lar's actions during the BLP deletion incident were entirely supported by policy.''
: In other words, I didn't ''need'' an amnesty since I violated no policy. Sorry if that's "arrogant" of me to point out, but you're '''so''' confused on this point that it merits direct refutation. You should stop ranting. It's really rather unbecoming. I am minded to ask ArbCom for a sanction on your actions since you continue to make unfounded and scurrilous allegations even after being repeatedly warned about it. ++]: ]/] 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Calliopejen1===
Even if summary deletion were an appropriate action at one time, it has now been rejected by the community (see ]). This supersedes whatever policy clarification (or whatever you want to call it) issued by arbcom in its past motion (see ]). The problem of summary deletions is not merely theoretical at this time. ] speedy-deleted ] on March 6 on the grounds that it was an unreferenced BLP. The arbcom's vague motion in the prior case has created confusion and encouraged administrators to violate consensus whenever their views of policy differ from the community's. I encourage the committee to take this case because it would prevent drama-causing deletions and allow the community to develop appropriate consensus-backed policies without the threat of rogue administrative action. ] (]) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:To respond to arbitrators' misconceptions:
:*This is not a matter of "something that hasn't happened yet". As I showed above, at least one administrator speedy deleted an uncontentious unsourced BLP as recently as March 6. Furthermore, it is impossible to compromise when one side holds over the other side's head the threat of not abiding by consensus.
:*This is not a dispute about "contentious material", as Steve Smith writes. This is a dispute about ''uncontentious'' BLPs being deleted simply because they are unsourced. (No, not everything unsourced is contentious--see ].) And what on earth is Steve Smith trying to convey when he says "WP:IAR should never override WP:BLP"? I don't think anyone has ever invoked WP:IAR to override WP:BLP. This seems like a total strawman. ] (]) 12:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Pohick2===
i resurrected the article ] with references. i would say marginal keep, but process circumvented. i note some earlier examples: a macarthur winner getting proded, ; president of vassar geting Proded ; a guggenheim getting a speedy ; a guggenheim getting prod'ed it would seem there is a process problem. ] (]) 19:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:i agree a process is needed to review BLP's, delete the non-notable and keep the notable. references are part of it. i am concerned that there is a lack of common sense, where clearly notable, but without references are thrown out with the bathwater. a ticking time bomb is not a solution; editing is. ] (]) 04:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Jclemens===
One thing that seems to have been missing in this discussion is the fact that the out-of-process deletions were held to be more disruptive and harmful than the simple existence of unsourced (vs. contentious/negative unsourced) BLPs. Consensus has quite thoroughly pointed out that the emperor has no clothes: IAR involves ''improving'' Misplaced Pages, yet there is a consensus that widespread, out-of-process deletions of unsourced BLP material do no such thing. There is no CSD for "unreferenced BLP", newly created or preexisting, nor will there likely ever be, based on the RFC's consensus. Absent consensus to add a speedy criterion, and absent agreement that deleting unreferenced BLPs out of process is improving the encyclopedia, '''there is absolutely no justification for further out of process deletions.''' While the amnesty may indeed have been the right way to deal with prior rash actions, the RFC consensus is clear: the community does not support out of process deletions as a remedy, the participants know this, and any future actions taken against consensus are incompatible with assuming good faith. ] (]) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Response to Steve Smith: There's no objection to deletion of unsourced article '''content''', nor has there been. This request for clarification focuses solely on the deletion (specifically, ongoing and threatened future deletion) of '''entire articles''' using criteria that do not exist as part of CSD, and that have been specifically rejected by the community. ] does not allow for the speedy deletion of articles, and CSD criteria G10 and A7 allow speedy deletion of BLPs only in certain limited cases. ] (]) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Kevin===

I had hoped that my actions would spur on some real change, even just a sign that Misplaced Pages had turned a corner and was now ready to act in a responsible manner toward BLP subjects. Deletion of the unsourced BLPs is of course only a small step, but it would have been one that showed that change was taking place.

Rather than force ARBCOM to once again deal with this, I shall withdraw from the project. ] (]) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Casliber===
Two things - (1) as a staunch inclusionist, I can now admit I can live with mass deletion of unsourced BLPs ''as long'' as there is some register or list, so folks can readily review, source and re-add articles. (2) we need to aggressively ensure that a collaborative environment is enforced. Giving one side a free pass and excusing their incivility is extremely bad for morale. Leaders need to be unifiers. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Kudpung===
I thoroughly support Casliber's statement above.<br> is clearly '''not''' a threat. If anything, it is a perfectly justifiable warning about extremists and what they might do. The BLP RfC was exceptionally confusing, because it tried to address too many BLP issues in one discussion, making any one consensus extrememly difficult to identify. The RfC has been closed. The consensus has something in it to satisfy all but the most intransigent of extremists of either leaning. Most of us will probably live with the decision and act accordingly although it may be necessary to occasionally politely remind those who go OTT :
*Stricter controls over what gets published in BLP are needed - without interpreting Mr Wales's recent comments comments on it too liberally.
*Mass, arbitrary, or out-of-process deletions of a backlog are not a solution.
*Speedy deletion should be used with extreme discretion and only in non contentious cases (spam, hoax, vandalism, etc).
*Liberal tolerance of what gets published is definitely counter productive to the making of an encyclopedia.
*WP:BEFORE is a policy that is extremely difficult to enforce, but there are plenty of clear cut examples where many taggers do not even read the first line of the lead. Some form of policy action is required against such taggers.
*A sticky PROD will both educate and encourage new users to provide sources and continue editing.
*Some positive action has been done, such as the creation of workshops to address the separate issues.
--] (]) 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by DGG===
I can not accept the mass deletion of anything that is not proven to be harmful, and I do not think there was every any evidence that the unsourced BLP articles were even potentially harmful in any way more than the rest of Misplaced Pages. We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: the need for truly competent referencing, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Misplaced Pages in a regular and reliable manner. Certainly we must be careful of what we say, and this applies to every article in the encyclopedia. This is artificially generated hysteria, and the only explanation I can come to is that this is the unthinking reaction of people who recognize they have no hope of dealing with the real issues, and who are over-focussed on the mistakes they made in the past that permitted the out of control situation to develop. It's right that our founder and the other long-term Wikipedians who started a project that that had inadequate standards should regret they did not insist on sourcing from the beginning--but their reaction is typical of those who try by harshness to make up for the sins of their childhood. What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages new editors: the entire thrust of Misplaced Pages policy should be devoted to the encouragement of new people, , and the development of them into active and well-qualified editors, to replace the ones who will inevitably be leaving. This is done by helping the articles they write become good content. The proper reaction to an unsourced article is to source it, ideally by teaching the author how to do so, and impressing on them the need to do this in the future. What does not help is to remove it without doing everything feasible to see if it can be sourced, and if it can be considered important enough for the encyclopedia. In particular, the following are wrong:
*the idea that maintain a list of articles deleted will help--for how can someone who sees the bare names know what they might be qualified to work on. What will help is keeping the articles until they are properly worked on.
*time limits so short they prevent adequate sourcing. Some of those who argue in favor of mass deletions are insistent also on the quality of the sourcing, and they are right to do so, but they then have proposed extending mass deletion to anything that does not meet their standard. And some of them do so without in the least being prepared to do any actual work on them.
*the view that WP:BEFORE is unworkable. Making a cursory search in the googles is not difficult, and everybody who works here should be capable of it. the thought that we would want to remove what we have not looked at is about as rational as removing every tenth article from the encyclopedia blindly, on the grounds that something is probably wrong with them. There are easy ways to enforce it--one is to do delist any deletion request that does not include a search. those who want articles deleted will then search, as they ought to.
*the attitude that other people should do the work of improving Misplaced Pages. For someone to say, all I want to do is mark articles to delete, and I don't care whether they ought to be deleted. Let other people figure that out is irresponsible and unconstructive and uncooperative. Those people who care that articles should be sourced, should want to source them. To say that I want article to be sourced, and you others go source them, is insolent, and against the egalitarian principles of the project. It's the statement of a boss, of a dictator, of a policeman: let the plebeians do the work, and we will judge it. Rather, the only people qualified to judge are those who are prepared themselves to work, and thus prove they understand what is wanted.
*the view that "liberal tolerance" of what gets published is counterproductive. It's exactly the opposite. We need liberal tolerance of what gets started , in order that we may improve it. It's the only productive course for making as wide-ranging encyclopedia as we are aiming at.
*the view expressed by one of the arbitrators that because the existence of apparently innocuous unsourced material is challenged, it must be removed. I could remove half the encyclopedia that way. Contentious material means material which is contended to be harmful or incorrect in good faith , on the basis of reason., not blind assertion.
*the previous decision of the arbitrators to commend those who removed material without looking at it. This will lead to the tyranny of whatever group among the arbitrators is in the majority among arb com. Arb com has essentially said, do whatever you like, as long as we agree with it. What is called for now is for them to repudiate that view. I hope they pronounced it because they did not realize the consequences.
I joined Misplaced Pages do improve its quality. i recognized it would be a slow process. It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty. I am , however, beginning to get exasperated at those who would prevent me and the others from improving it. I am probably a little unrealistic to get angry at those in authority who have no better idea than to abet them, for it should not really have surprised me that such is the nature of authority. I have tried not to use names. Too many people are at fault. It would be wrong to criticize only those who have made the most noise about it. ''']''' (]) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Fences and windows===
In another voting statement, Steve Smith says that "Rules either mean something or they do not." In this case it seems that rules mean whatever Steve Smith wants them to mean. There is a clear community consensus against speedy or summary deletion of unsourced BLPs, and the wording of the BLP policy (i.e. "contentious") was never intended to give carte blanche to delete all unsourced BLPs. ArbCom members siding with a minority interpretation to force a change in policy is disturbing. As we elect ArbCom to decide on behavioural disputes and enforce policy rather than set policy (something only Jimmy and the WMF can do by fiat) it would seem proper that any ArbCom member who uses their position to force a change in policy should be subject to recall. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&amp;</span>] 14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

===Comment by Resolute===
With all due respect Steve, ArbCom specifically invoked ] to overrule ] as a means to justify that asinine motion. You can't make sacred today what ArbCom trampled yesterday. ]] 14:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by The-Pope ===
This isn't about the RFC, the future of BLPs, how contentious information in BLPs may be, nor hypothetical situations. This is a request for clarification whether or not administrators who have either deleted articles or are threatening to delete articles, without using any of the normal AfD, PROD or CSD processes, specifically if they use "" as the primary deletion reason, should still be subject to the amnesty of the previous motion or allowed by a selective interpretation of the ] policy? Or should they be either strongly reminded, or actually held accountable to the existing provisions of the policy of ] and the almost 3-to-1 rejection of MZMcBride's proposal of immediate deletion in the ]? ] (]) 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I almost forgot that I was '''recused''' on this motion. - ] 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
* We cannot really rule on the propriety of something that hasn't happened yet, I think. Beyond that, I would urge everyone involved to work together in pursuit of a generally acceptable path forward, and to avoid comments that might unnecessarily inflame matters. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*I'm not going to pre-emptively decide this.. but I stand by what I said previously. A) We need to find a way to deal with the BLP problem going forward. Applying band-aids are not a solution (the problem's too big for that), but B) I'd look dimly personally on attempts to force the issue on either side. ] (]) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*Deletion of unsourced (not unsourceable) contentious material in BLPs is policy. It is desireable for the community to develop a process by which this policy can be fulfilled, but the absence of consensus on such a process does not mean that the unsourced stuff gets to stay; ] should never override ]. ] (]) 06:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:*Response to Balloonman, Calliopejen: I am not sure how it is possible to have followed the recent discussions on this subject, in the RFCs and elsewhere, and conclude that this material is anything but contentious. With respect to Calliopejen's question about IAR and BLP, I cannot see the suggestion that this contentious unsourced material should be allowed to remain as anything but an invocation of IAR. ] (]) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*While we are not constrained against advisory opinions, I think it would be unwise of us to try to determine the propriety or not of an hypothetical without the actual context surrounding it. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|Sandstein}}
:: against further comment by Abd on the current case, pending outcome of AE request.
:: during the month prior, in which a motion was passed reaffirming and tightening the original text.

=== Statement by Abd ===
I am subject to an "MYOB" sanction, as amended:
:3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. ''Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions by motion on 16:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)''
It is apparent that ArbComm did not intend to prevent me from normal editing, which can, of course, involve some level of "dispute." The discussion leading up to that ban made it clear: my interventions in disputes was considered disruptive, though this had not been established by specific evidence, so the normal existence of examples helpful in clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent. However, consistent with the discussion, I interpret "originating party" as referring to being involved in some dispute primarily, as distinct from happening across two or more editors arguing and intervening.
There is a present situation would could appear as the latter. However, it was, in fact, the former, I was an involved editor, and would have, for example, been allowed to file an AN/I report myself, presumably. My edits and discussion of the case were not considered violations of the sanction, until I responded to an AN/I report filed by one editor complaining about another, very much about that case. The sanction is not specific to AN/I, and if it prohibited what I did at AN/I, it would also seem to prohibit everything else I was doing.

But Sandstein has interpreted the line as being crossed at AN/I, interpreting "originating party" very strictly, in a technical sense, instead of as substance, i.e., as "already involved through legitimate and permitted editing." This interpretation was asserted before, in prior RfAr/Clarification, I questioned it, but this was not addressed by the committee.

Hence my request here. In this case, I considered filing this request before posting to AN/I, but I take ] very seriously, balancing the necessities of the project with the disruption involved in possibly violating a sanction. I judged that an emergency existed, and that serious and permanent damage might be done, were I not to intervene. Confirming and supporting on-wiki harassment of an editor, resulting from rejected off-wiki extortion over WP content, through a block, can damage the reputation of Misplaced Pages, and I was willing to risk being blocked to prevent or at least warn against this damage.

I'm presenting links to the history of this incident in collapse. They are only here as an example of how the sanction might be ambiguous, not to involve ArbComm in a dispute without groundwork being laid. '''No action other than clarification is requested at this point. Sandstein has issued a "clarification" which means that I'm clearly enjoined from repetition of what triggered the AE report, whether that was a sanction violation or not.''' However, now, some days later, and with the injunction requiring all abstinence from comment on the situation outside these pages, whether as "originating party" or not, and because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr; the instant situation is being used as a claim (below) that the strict interpretation was necessary to avoid disruption, thus it may be necessary to examine that, and I have no means of doing so outside of an RfAr, otherwise I'd follow ordinary DR over ''my dispute.'' That's the result of an over-strict interpretation of the ban. I'll wait a while to see, though. Please understand that I prefer any decision to no decision. No decision leaves me wondering what the hell ArbComm intends. Some seem to believe that it was basically, "Go Away, Abd, this is our project, not yours." Fine. ArbComm can decide that. I agree, even, with half of it. At least I thought it was "our project." <small>comment revised due to shifting situation --20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)</small>

'''@SamJohnston:''' Since he is insisting so strongly here (and elsewhere around the wiki) I'll pull this part out of collapse. I urge it be read by anyone who wants to understand the situation better, though the deeper background remains described and linked in the collapse box. It seems to me that I was arrested and charged with jaywalking while someone was being mugged on the sidewalk. Definitely, I shouldn't jaywalk, in general, especially after being warned, but ... what if I crossed the street to prevent a mugging? And the police came running ... and arrested me as that notorious repeat jaywalker? And the mugged person is also arrested for "disturbing the peace," i.e., yelling and getting blood on the sidewalk? Besides, he was wanted for an unpaid traffic citation. The mugger is thanked for calling attention to these criminals. Okay, dramatic, but perhaps you get my point.

AN/I report section on off-wiki harassment: <br>

There is more response to SamJohnston in the collapse box for responses to involved editors; however, his allegations are not relevant here, which is why the response is in collapse. The issue here is the interpretation of the sanction so that further unintentional violations do not take place, or, alternatively, AE actions are not filed on behavior not prohibited. The current incident is described only as an example where there was, certainly for me, or possibly for others, a difficulty of interpretation, and there have been opinions given by other editors, both ways.

I'm not asking ArbComm to decide whether or not I was justified under ], because ''that would not clarify the sanction.''
{{collapsetop|other links to current situation}}
AN/I full report: <br>
AE request: <br>
Sandstein's proposed result: <br>
that I consider Sandstein not involved and able to issue an injunction that will be respected.<br>
on my Talk page to enforcing admin.<br>
to reconsider on Sandstein Talk.<br>
{{collapsebottom}}
'''@TenOfAllTrades.''' I wrote TOAT to consider just what came to light in the AN report discussing his block of LirazSiri, and which led to another admin reversing his action. I describe the mail in the collapse box below.<br>
'''@TenOfAllTrades.''' Again! Thanks, it's a brilliant plan to find consensus on Misplaced Pages: (1) Block/ban anyone you don't like. (2) Block/ban anyone who defends or supports anyone you don't like. (3) Ban anyone who objects to this, after all, they are disruptive and should instead be working on articles. (4) Done. Consensus. No more disruption. Except for all the socks, but we'll have better software soon. --] (]) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|Replies to various involved editors and administrators}}
(Involved means that these editors are or have been involved in conflict with me and may be expected to have a possible prejudice. It is not a claim that they are guilty of some misbehavior.)

'''@SamJohnston:''' this request is to clarify the sanction. "This behavior," your term, is unclear, the sanction was not accompanied by evidence of specific incidents, and an MYOB sanction appears to be a new device, as far as I can tell. There have been multiple allegations of violation, ''most'' of which were not accepted as such. It's unclear what it means, I guarantee that. Hence the need for this clarification. Your comment is a possible interpretation. We are here to discover how ''arbitrators'' understand it. It's not at all clear that they considered it sufficiently, so now they have an opportunity.

It is not asked of ArbComm that they judge my recent behavior as appropriate or not appropriate in itself. Rather, it is requested that the committee clarify the meaning of the sanction, so that I can know more precisely what is permitted and not permitted. I had other choices at the time of the action behind the current enforcement request that might have been less likely to trigger an AE request, and if the sanction is interpreted to prohibit what I did, I would, in the future, take these other steps, such as emailing ArbComm directly for permission or to inform them of a developing situation. Or similarly emailing an administrator with the necessary information. I did this, in fact, while site-banned, I emailed JzG with information about a sock puppet filing AfDs. He quite correctly conveyed the information to AN or AN/I. Unfortunately, as often happens, nobody paid any attention to the report, and nothing was done until much later.

Since SamJohnston continues to insist, and drags in off-wiki evidence, and the evidence is cherry-picked to present his desired appearance, I refer again to the evidence I now have pulled out of the history collapse, that I posted to AN/i. SamJ acknowledges below threatening to AfD an article if the editor does not "chill" with respect to a ''different page.'' Suppose the editor does "chill." Would he then still file the AfD? If not, why not? If the topic is not notable, it should be AfD'd anway! No, Sam was attempting to control the behavior of the other editor on a page ''not related to the notability of ], the article in question. That was coercion. And when LirazSiri did not comply with the demand (i.e., tweeted back with "chill," himself, SamJ began his campaign of harassment. Some of the actions were legitimate, taken by themselves, just as if someone might move around, comb through my contributions, and find every questionable action I've taken or article I've created, and revert or nominate for deletion. ''All at once.'' All the while crying "vandalism," as he does below, a claim that has been sustained by nobody. And he's done more, much more.

Threatening to AfD an article known or presumed to be important to an editor, because the editor disagrees with you on ''another page''? This is coercion, and is the kind of off-wiki harassment that is clearly a violation of policy, and it's amazing to me that SamJ continues to wave this like a big red flag in front of the community. In a sense, he's right. It seems to take something really dramatic to get the community's attention. It's why he'd want to do that which is a mystery to me.

'''@Stephen Schulz:''' Sure. You are involved, historically, in conflict with me. was my evidence in the subject case, showing prior involvement in conflicts related to that case. The conflict originated with ] and continued in various venues.

'''@Future Perfect:''' Future Perfect blocked me in enforcement of this ban, but for an edit in which I criticized ''him'' over his reversion of my !vote in a poll at AN. This was recusal failure, for sure, but also shows how the ban has been wikilawyered to mean this or that, whatever the interpreter wanted. I was never clearly found to have violated the ban based on those poll votes, and ArbComm did have an opportunity to comment on it. Again, unclarity leads to confusion and opportunity for those with an axe to grind.

'''@TenOfAllTrades:''' I will send a copy of the email and TenOfAllTrades's response to any arbitrator on request. I would post it here but it contains details about the current situation, and the other editor involved in it. The mail was civil and not tendentious. It stated at the beginning that TOAT was free to ignore the mail. It was not a demand of any kind. It was sent in a hope that TenOfAllTrades might simply reconsider his action with respect to LirazSiri. As noted, I cannot read the deleted edits, but it appears that they contained nothing like what has been described, an attempt to "out" JzG, who is, after all, ] as the redirect says with his apparent approval. LirazSiri claims that he was actually attempting to be friendly, but without seeing the actual edits, I cannot, of course, confirm that. Could it be that an idea that this editor is some kind of monster is then affecting how his comments are read? I don't know.

But I know that last year I did ask TenOfAllTrades to intervene to talk some sense into the admin over which the subject case was filed, or at least to attempt to defuse the situation, and that TenOfAllTrades responded as if I'd ask him to do something very offensive. Had he responded more sensibly, Misplaced Pages might still have that editor as an administrator.

'''@Short Brigade Harvester Boris:''' SBHB is also an involved editor, part of the faction I identified in the subject case. It's only a handful of editors and administrators, comparatively! Please remember, the factional identification was not an allegation of misbehavior, only of involvement in a pattern of activity, which included calls for me to be banned previously. This response is inside this box because ArbComm is not asked to decide if I should be banned, though certainly it could decide to respond in that way. These arguments by SBHB are misleading, as we might expect from someone involved. SBHB is a master at brevity in tossing mud. He's also quite perceptive sometimes, I always pay close attention to what he writes.
*'''Testing the limits again.''' There have been several AE filings and actions. The decisions have gone both ways; actions which were clearly permitted were the subject of filings. So far, I have not, once, taken an action where I deliberately pushed the edge; each time, I believed that the action was permitted, and with one possible exception. ''This time,'' I knew that ''some editors'' believed that the AN/I comments I'd made would violate the sanctions, and I would thus have waited for clarification if not for an emergency. Shit happens, as they say. Unexpected circumstances arise. I'm not going around looking for edges to test, at all. I'm trying to work on the project, and I deal with what I see, like most editors. It happens, though, that I see stuff that others miss. Whether I was right or wrong on that, however, is not the issue here. The issue is the meaning of the sanction, and if ArbComm clarifies the meaning, surely that would leave me less room to "test the limits." There is no emergency now, and if ArbComm does nothing, damage will be slow in arriving. I'm now bound to interpret the sanction very narrowly, much more narrowly than I believe was the intention of the Committee, pending clarification.
*'''eating or breathing.''' Yes, I still do those things, probably for a while yet, though at my age, and with my health status, I'm acutely aware that there are limits to this. I don't want to waste my time, and "testing limits" would be quite a waste. There are no limits, in fact, as I see about every day, until and unless you run into one, and it's not reliable when that will happen. Sometimes an editor gets away with insane disruption for years, with nothing happening until it does, and sometimes an editor jaywalks and is promptly indef blocked, and nobody does anything about it.
*'''clarifications every few months.''' Well, this is the first one I've filed. One was filed by another editor, but instead of taking the opportunity to clarify, it enjoined the other editor from mentioning me. It actually picked the wrong editor to sanction in this way.... so disruption has continued. At some point ArbComm will learn to ''deal with the cases presented to it'' so as to avoid continued disruption. If someone is asking for clarification, maybe they need clarification! Not a ban against asking. If there are continued requests, ArbComm can surely deal with that then.
*'''remove him from the project.''' Whether or not ArbComm can even do this depends on the definition of the "project." Certainly it could site-ban me, but that would, as I've stated elsewhere, simply move my activity off-wiki, where there would be no control over it at all. I'm indifferent, in the end, I'd only feel some loss with respect to article work, which is limited anyway. I function through advice, not through control. I can do certain article work without "cooperation," but most of what I do involves seeking what might be called "obscured consensus," that is, situations where participation bias causes an appearance of rough consensus that is different from what a broader consideration would produce. Seeing stuff like this is indeed like eating or breathing for me, always has been. I've been effective at this, I'll note. But that pisses off people who were the "participants" in that false consensus, people who sometimes were able to ] articles or whole areas of policy for years. The proof of my work, however, is in ultimate resolutions, which often comes after I appear to have "failed." That's one reason why blocking or banning me is unlikely to reduce disruption. The disruption, in fact, is not coming from me, it just looks like that sometimes. It's classic "shoot the messenger."
*The flap over my supposed ban violations has consumed far more time than any disruption that would have accrued from tolerating them. Ultimately, perhaps, the ban should be reconsidered, but I'm waiting for evidence to accumulate naturally such that ArbComm could see it clearly. And there are other matters, problems that I see I should address that do not involve violating any reasonable interpretation of the ban, and that are ripe. "Ripe" means that I see that consensus is reasonably likely to form. I don't push for stuff when that time has not arrived, though I sometimes mention about it. (added 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)).
{{collapsebottom}}

'''@Mathsci:''' ]. Whom do you think you are fooling with "Uninvolved Mathsci"?

'''@EnricNaval:''' Yes. The ad-hoc clarification by admins at AE is legitimate, that is, it is proper for them to make an interpretation and enforce it, and to issue clarification, which ArbComm can accept or change, without any aspersions being cast on them. If they are involved, however, in some way, it might not be proper. That's not the case with Sandstein, I explicitly accepted his neutrality even when I knew that his proposed interpretation was, I believe, incorrect. If ArbComm takes no action here, then his interpretation stands and I'm bound by it. Which probably does mean that I'll stop editing Misplaced Pages as Abd, and if this is the result that arbitrators desire, they need do nothing. '''As to the instant case, if ArbComm wants to understand whether the strict interpretation being proposed was actually useful, it would have to look at that case, which could be arranged.''' I cannot arrange it because Sandstein has required me to avoid comment on that case outside of these pages. I could file an RfAr, though, I assume. Maybe I should, being prevented from acting short of that by the interpretation. If that were considered improper, ArbComm could easily move to site-ban me. But I'd be an "originating party," clearly. However, the present case doesn't define the sanction, and, even if the clarification by Sandstein et al stands, I'd probably have commented anyway, under the strict interpretation, because of ], and if a similar situation arises again (rare, I saw truly egregious abuse like I've never seen before, and I've seen a lot), I'd do it again. For better and for worse.

I'm still trying to figure out this wiki thing, when lots of editors here, part of a vanishing crew, seem to think they've got it down cold. They don't. It's failing. And lots of present and former editors, administrators, and arbitrators know it. I'm one of the few people actually trying to fix the ''system'' instead of imagining that the problem is Bad Editors and can be fixed by banning them. Has that worked?

===Statement by Sandstein===
This is related to the open enforcement request at ]. The question asked at some length above is whether my interpretation proposed there of "originating party" in is correct. I appreciate any guidance by arbitrators on that matter. So as not to complicate matters further, I have asked Abd not to continue his current dispute in any venue before the request for arbitration enforcement is resolved. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
:I have noted in the AE thread that Abd has agreed to abide by the meaning of the sanction as explained below by Fut. Perf. until such time as ArbCom makes a different decision. Given this, I've also noted that I don't think that enforcement action remains required at this time, and I've no opinion about whether, under these circumstances, this clarification request remains necessary. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by SamJohnston ===
This is utterly ridiculous. Abd has been explicitly forbidden from engaging in this behaviour and is just off the back of a three month ban. The fact there is any question whatsoever that the original editing restriction was blatantly and repeatedly violated is incomprehensible to me. This editor deserves to be blocked - for me it's just a question of how long for. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
: After a more thorough review it is absolutely clear that the intention of the editing restriction was to prevent exactly this type of situation from recurring. Attempting to "clarify" the restriction is either an attempt to work in a loophole that would effectively make it meaningless or an attempt to avoid ] (or both). In any case it's obviously ] and the exception should be interpreted narrowly (as it was intended). Conversely, "''clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent''" with good reason - the restriction itself was intended to apply broadly to any debate about any topic where ] was not an "originating party". I hope we don't have to clarify the meaning of "originating party" as seems fairly self explanatory - however ]'s claim of "originating party" status in the ] situation ought to be explicitly rejected (Update: and has been, ). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

:: ] a good point about the interpretation of "originating party" (what we would typically call a "plaintiff") in that the scope should be *expanded* to include disputes where Abd is named (e.g. "defendant"). ] summarises it nicely below: ''The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you.'' -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned my ] was (at Abd's no less) in spite of protests from other users and . Thus while that particular avenue may have been exhausted prematurely, the underlying issue remains unresolved. I reserve the right to pursue it through the usual channels pending the official outcome of this request for clarification - both as a victim of his ] and of his incredible ability to sap energy and waste the time of all those who engage with him. I hope and trust the arbitrators will reaffirm and enforce Fut.Perf.'s , as if this were not the intent, what could it possibly have been?

I too initially believed Abd had "''to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained in an unambiguous and convincing manner''" but he didn't even wait half an hour after this was before he on his talk page directly disputing it, and with ] for good measure. He had also the editor he had been egging on the whole time (once again involving himself in a third-party dispute even while the enforcement request was being discussed) and and .

P.S. Warning an active spammer/vandal that you'll nominate their article for deletion at AfD if they don't chill out is '''''not''''' "off-wiki harassment". . And despite all the usual hand waving, finger pointing, wikilawyering, etc. this clarification is the direct result of Abd turning routine cleanup after a ] into a multi-venue, multi-editor dispute. Quoting ]: "''It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it.''" -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved ] ===
When Abd had commented at length on ] concerning ] in a matter where he was not an originating party, I left a reminder there of his editing restrictions without further comment. Other editors, including {{User|Enric Naval}}, also commented. At ANI Abd's reaction has been problematic: an attempt to smear us, because we commented in the Abd&WMC case - as if we like him are under some kind of sanction as a result of that case (see above for example). He has written similar remarks about {{User|JzG}}. His posts on ANI seemed inflammatory and contrary to the ArbCom editing restrictions. Sandstein interpreted them this way at ] and other users seem to agree there. {{User|Stephan Schulz}} has commented there and also subsequently been described as "involved" by Abd; he has been banned from Abd's talk page. Likewise {{User|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} is now apparently "involved" and "in dispute" with Abd, according to Abd's talk page. Abd's escalation to a request for clarification and aggressive threats to SamJohnston are a repetition of the wikilawyering and time-wasting already witnessed in early January, when the short phrase on mentors was removed. That he is periodically testing the limits of his editing restrictions in this tendentious way is not a good sign at all. ] (]) 07:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

*Abd made some kind of commitment to Sandstein, which he has just withdrawn, a few hours after his block. He appears to be threatening to start an RfAr concerning FPaS's block. Hopefully this threat of further disruption and time-wasting can be nipped in the bud by either ArbCom or the community. ] (])

=== Statement by (uninvolved, but Abd disagrees) ] ===

The aim of the remedy is to keep Abd from wasting the time of everybody involved with his tendency to wikilawyering and his prodigous output, while still allowing him access to ] where it is really necessary. Therefore the exception should be interpreted narrowly, not widely. If he can enter any dispute simply by claiming to be involved, or by claiming that he wanted to file a DR request "soon", the restriction becomes useless. --] (]) 15:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fut.Perf. ===
I have offered the following clarification to Abd , and intend to enforce it as long as Arbcom doesn't provide a different decision:
:''You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that "conflict in which you are an originating party" means the same as "conflict in which you have a prior interest". It doesn't mean that. It means there is a conflict that arose from a disagreement ''between A and B'', and either A or B is you. Simple. In the present case, there was a conflict between A (SamJohnston) and B (LirzSiri). Neither A nor B is you, so it's off-limits. The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you.''
] ] 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

: As Abd has continued to breach the restriction on this very page, by continuing his comments about the dispute between LirazSiri and SamJohnston, in terms that amount to personal attacks , I have blocked him again. ] ] 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Aside from TenOfAllTrades ===
I've just received an email regarding this dispute from Abd, attempting to intervene with me on behalf of LirizSiri (whom I recently blocked for attempted outing and threats to reveal personal information). While this may technically adhere to the terms of his restrictions, Abd is certainly evading their spirit. Frankly, I find Future Perfect's statement above to offer the simplest, clearest interpretation of the ''intent'' of Abd's sanctions. ](]) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Observation regarding GoRight'''. I note that, as has been the pattern since at least ] (in which these restrictions on Abd's conduct were originally established) GoRight is continuing to argue on Abd's behalf, and continuing to encourage Abd's misguided interest in counterproductively inserting himself into other editors' disputes. While I am unsure of what form such a remedy should take, perhaps it is time to consider an ArbCom resolution along the lines of "''GoRight shall refrain from encouraging other editors to be wikilawyering nuisances.''" ](]) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


'''Addendum''': I have also previously, explicitly asked Abd not to email me. It is both telling and troubling that he felt the need to ignore my wishes to avoid off-wiki, off-the-record communcations with him in order to evade his editing restrictions. ](]) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Observation from uninvolved Short Brigade Harvester Boris ===
Abd is testing the limits again. It's just what he does, like eating or breathing. Thus Arbcom has two choices: (i) you can resign yourselves to dealing with "clarifications" re Abd every few months for as long as he's on the project, or (ii) remove him from the project. It's up to the Arbs how you prefer to spend your time, but experience proves those are your only realistic alternatives. ] (]) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Comment from uninvolved Ncmvocalist ===
I agree with Fut. Perf. and would endorse enforcement to that effect based on the wording of this restriction. ] (]) 09:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
:As stated, I've endorsed the block. ] (]) 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Enric Naval ===
The interpretation is inside the discretion given to admins in WP:AE. The goal of the restriction was keeping Abd out of disputes that he doesn't belong to (because he makes a mess out of those disputes). The interpretation is accomplishing this goal. The restriction has shown that it's effective by cutting short this latest dispute. The restriction has shown that it's useful in cutting drama and disruption before it gets out of hand. --] (]) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Before the edit that caused this last block, Abd had already tested the boundaries of his voluntary self-limitation. He in LirazSiri's page about the advice given to him, after saying that he wouldn't comment more on the dispute. It doesn't look like Abd is taking this seriously.

Abd is also making unwarranted analogies, like comparing himself with a man that is trying to rescue his spouse and children from a fire .

Please let admins at WP:AE take care of this and don't allow Abd to escalate this so he can grandstand about how he is being prevented from saving[REDACTED] from itself. --] (]) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by GoRight ===

After FP posted on Abd's talk page, I took the opportunity to (hopefully obviously) play the role of devil's advocate with respect to this ''excessive focus'' on the word ''originating''. To that end I posted which took that focus to it's logical interpretation:

: ''"Actually, if you want to focus only on the word "originating" the sanction actually bars Abd from participating in any DR which he did not personally initiate. This leads to the absurd situation where others can initiate DR against Abd and he is barred from even defending himself which indicates how ill-conceived this particular sanction actually is. Arbcom should restructure the entire sanction to implement something that is at least logically consistent. --] (]) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"'' <small>Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.</small>

FP then with a rather predictable stance:

: ''"Wrong. It's not about having played an "originating" role in the DR procedure (e.g. having started a noticeboard thread), but about having played an originating role in the dispute that triggered the DR process. If Abd finds himself in a content disagreement with somebody, and then that other editor or a third party starts a noticeboard thread about Abd, he is of course an "originating party". ] ] 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"'' <small>Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.</small>

At which point I was forced to again in FP's thinking:

: ''"You simply assert that you are correct. I simply assert that you are incorrect, FP. Who's right? Where has Arbcom indicated that your interpretation is correct?<p>Interestingly, with this post you now seem to be arguing Abd's point for him. If A, B, and C are all arguing about some particular issue and A files a DR action against B but explicitly excludes C how can you argue that C has NOT played an "originating role that triggered the DR process"? On what basis are you claiming that B is an originating party but C is not? Again, your original position stated above makes no logical sense. Either my interpretation as stated above is what was meant, which is clearly absurd and should be corrected, or I guess you are now in agreement with Abd's view and so he was correct all along. In either case your original interpretation is logically flawed. --] (]) 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"'' <small>Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.</small>

In the end, while FP's interpretation may be convenient for himself and Abd's detractors in general, it makes literally no logical sense at all. At this point I would actually just observe that this sanction is causing significant disruption in its own right given that it (a) isn't clear what it actually means, and (b) isn't clear what it is actually trying to address. Given the level of disruption occurring here it may make more sense to either remove the sanction entirely or restructure it to address a specific identified behavior and word it in a clear and enforceable manner.

Lacking any such substantive changes I fear that we will find ourselves in a never ending cycle of discussion over the whole thing as Abd's detractors come up with even more inventive ways to ''misinterpret'' and ''misapply'' this ill-defined and perhaps ill-conceived sanction. --] (]) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


At some point in the above sequence of events FP had to Abd's talk page:

: ''"More clarification for you. If editors A and B are having a content disagreement, and you see them edit-warring or engaging in other forms of questionable behaviour against each other, then the "conflict" in question is, and remains, a conflict between A and B, and only A and B are the originating parties. You may ''not'' then engage in any activity criticising, reporting on, or debating with, either A and B because of their behaviour in this dispute. About your interpretation that ''"If I see an editor violating a policy, and I ask that editor to stop, and the editor refuses and claims the actions are proper, ''we'' have a dispute"'': no, the intent of the sanction is precisely to stop you from spawning these kinds of follow-up meta-disputes. You may only approach an editor asking them to stop a questionable behaviour if that behaviour was already directed ''at yourself''. Same for the issue of when to raise a matter at noticeboards: only if and when it relates to an original disagreement between you and some other editor about your own content editing, and/or if the other editor has explicitly taken the first step addressing you as their opponent in a disagreement. ] ] 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"''

I then in this set of interpretations as well:

: ''"@FP - Sorry, FP, but this interpretation is clearly absurd. It implies that if Abd observes an edit war in progress that he cannot take action to raise the issue at appropriate venues such as AN3. I see nothing in the sanction nor the discussion surrounding it that suggests that Arbcom intended to bar Abd from taking proper actions to protect the project. If you believe that they did, please indicate where and how they made that point clear. --] (]) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"''

I can only assume, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the sanction was never intended to bar Abd from taking proper steps to protect the project from harm when he saw such harm actively occuring but this appears to be exactly what FP is asserting. If a vandal reinserts his garbage into an article after some other editor had previously reverted it, is it the intent of this sanction to actually bar Abd from confronting the vandal who is now in a dispute with another editor? The lengths to which this sanction can be misapplied are endless and disruptive to the project. --] (]) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


'''Question for TOAT:''' What part of my statement above appears to be encouraging Abd to do anything at all? Please point me to the specific portions that make such encouragement so that I can correct them forthwith. It is not my intention to encourage any editor to take any particular action, other than to encourage Arbcom to pro-actively eliminate or restructure the sanction in question so as to clarify its intent and to render it more directly enforceable than it is in its current incarnation. It is my belief that doing so will minimize disruption on this issue moving forward.

'''Let me be clear and direct:''' I encourage Abd to continue to take his sanctions seriously and to continue to endeavor to adhere to them to the best of his ability given his best understanding thereof. --] (]) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

'''FP's current block of Abd:''' I have opened an AN report . --] (]) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Unsigned edits in sections written by others:''' I note the following which was placed in a section written by Abd but was unsigned which makes it appear as though Abd wrote it. Perhaps the author or a clerk could move this comment into the author's own section to avoid confusion on this point? Thanks. --] (]) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by typically disinterested Badger Drink ===
I'm not sure it's possible to clarify things any further with Mr. Abd, whether his obliviousness is ] or ], the ] is the same. He seems to have confused ] with ], which is mysteriously red-linked. And so we move on to the passive-aggressive threats of sockpuppeting (see the "@EnricNavel" section of Abd's most recent missive). I can only speak for myself, but I know I'm shivering in my boots - well done, Abd. "If I decide your sanctions are unfair, I'll totally start socking to get around them, and '''then''' what will you do? *swivels black leather chair to survey cityscape with a smirk, silently petting largely disinterested snow-white pussycat*". What a valuable, mature, level-headed contributor to our online encyclopedia! ] (]) 06:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Spartaz ===
The ] seems to be blowing through the arbitrators# section. Does this mean:-
#The arbs are all fed up with anything and everything Abd related and can't bring themselves to respond
#The arbs are furiously arguing about the appropriate motion on their mailing list
#The arbs are supremely indifferent
#All of the above.

Thank you for your consideration. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by JzG ===
Abd's statement above is over 3,000 words. A bit of brevity would go a long way here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*This is an invitation to a time-sink. I decline the invitation, and believe that no action on our part is necessary. ] (]) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
*I agree with FPAS and NYB. Arbcom does not need to act here. Admins are fully capable of handling this. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
*Concur with Newyorkbrad and have no objections to the explanation (and resulting actions) from FPAS. ] (]) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''' on all Abd. ] (]) 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*I see no reason my the interpretation by FPaS would be at fault, or cause for the committee to step in. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 11:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*I generally agree with those above.. Nothing for us to handle right now. ] (]) 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ] (2) ==
'''Initiated by ''' <font size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> '''at''' 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

*I will note it on the project page. I would not presume or pretend to know the full list of editors affected by the project.

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by RTG ===

Note:This request is about the Wikiproject Ireland Collaboration and, perhaps, how to move the naming debate out of it without discussing naming at all!

A discussion has arisen on the project about renaming it as ]. The collaboration project was created at the instruction of ARBCOM. Judging the front page of the project, its description of inspiration and goals, a major intention was to provide a collaboration area for loyalist/unionist and republican/nationalist to collaborate and consider disputes. Please clarify this. Is it the WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate or is it the collaboration project intended to concile culturally opposed editors as may be presumed by the projects front page?

The Naming Debates have overshadowed the collaboration project. Nothing else appears to exist on the projects discussion and these naming debates are impossibly long. They also concern editors mainly of republican/nationalist persuasions excepting for some contributions from neutral editors. The Naming Debates were a runaway train long before the collaboration project was created. As such a debate chokes the life out of all else on a project page, should such debates be moved prerequisite to a sub-project such as the now suggested ] only to provide notifications to the parent project detailing progression or events (such as voting) to prevent overshadowing other issues?

The Naming Debates, as per normal dispute progression, have not produced a collection of evidence outside of signed statements to ARBCOM and talk page threads, signed statements and conversational viewpoints. Should editors in a runaway train dispute be requested in good faith to produce a collaborative collection of verifiable evidence without signatures or conversational viewpoints? Would such a page of evidence spread a little grease on the path of neutral evaluation? Neutral editors have shown up often to the Naming Debates but rarely managed their intended contribution. Also, editors making signed statements have an invitation to be as convincing and therefore cunning as they see fit. Would an unsigned collection of consolidated and verified evidence be preferential in a dispute put to the wider community for evaluation, even if it were divided into sections preferable to particular disputees collective persuasions?

Please, tell me where you get lost and I will explain. I do not have a second level education to speak of.

Please consider my request on the talk page to use context definitions in the clarification request heading.

Thanks, <font size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

;Response to Kirill, for any arbitrator reading this, by RTG

What about producing collaborating evidence, Ireland naming debates or other disputes, is it preferable to Arbcom? Would you consider at least requesting it of disputes? Without discarding the podium (everybody making signed statements or signed talk page comments), can there not be an alternative method whereby disputing parties gather together evidence much like a regular article detailing the whys and whats of disputed content? Is that not a good idea even if it were never taken advantage of? I think that it would be taken advantage of if Arbcom regularly suggested it. For the purpose of initiating collaboration between content diputees with cultural differences, it would be like requesting an Ireland collaboration project except with less scope for verbal dihorrea in the findings and more prominence for facts which are found to be mistaken or misleading. Every project has a front page with information, so should every dispute which merits the attention of Arbcom. Disputees will often refuse to participate in such a way but where then do neutral editors come in? Right there. They run the show. It doesn't seem as busy on Arbcom as a year or more ago but I am sure you still have some pile-ups in the works. I would like very much to see a non-statement oriented page of evidence coming from the Ireland naming case, purely for adequate reference purposes. They certainly wont do it now, but maybe if a long time ago Arbcom had suggested it to them... <font size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


=== Statement by Scolaire===
To clarify, ] was not created at the instruction of ArbCom, or as a consequence of the Ireland article names case. It was created by ] on to - believe it or not - improve collaboration. The Ireland naming disdcussion moved there on . --] (]) 19:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*'''Recused''' - I have participated in the Ireland naming content dispute as an editor. ] (]) 18:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
* Although the creation of the Ireland Collaboration WikiProject was a consequence of the ] case, nothing in the decision requires that the project fulfill any particular role. As far as I'm concerned, the community is free to determine what, if anything, it wishes to do with the project going forward. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 04:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
* I'm not sure what we're being asked to do here. The WikiProject, no matter how it got started seems to aim for collaboration, as is typical of WikiProjects. What the community decides to do with it and how the community participates in it is really up to them. If you're suggesting that the project is being used to continue the naming debate, I'd suggest that you simply ignore it as its been made clear that the subject will not be reopened at this time. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
*Use WikiProjects for what they're meant--improving the articles without all the bickering and POV-pushing that results in a never-ending stream of Ireland related issues being brought to arbcom.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
*I agree with the other arbitrators who have commented. ] (]) 02:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Tenmei}} (initiator)
*{{admin|John Carter}} --
*{{userlinks|Jmh649}} --
*{{userlinks|Kraftlos}} --
*{{userlinks|Leujohn}} --
*{{userlinks|McDoobAU93}} --
*{{userlinks|Robofish}} --
*{{userlinks|Taivo}} --
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by Tenmei ===
:ArbCom decisions in December set in motion a slow process which now calls for further ArbCom action. Relevant excerpts from amended remedies include:

:::1.1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:
::::(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from ] for a period of six months, ''to begin <u>when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee</u>. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion'' .... (underline emphasis added)
::::''Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)''

:::3.1) ] <s>shall be assigned</s> is required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary. ''While Tenmei is without a mentor, Tenmei is prohibited from contributing except for the purpose of communicating with potential mentors'' ....
:::''Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)''

:::3.2) The mentor must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.
:::''Passed 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)''

:ArbCom remedies required that I locate a mentor or mentors. This is a list of volunteers:
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
{{col-2}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{col-end}}
:ArbCom "approval" or confirmation is anticipated.<br>
:<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::A. No procedure tells me how to elicit ArbCom "approval" or confirmation. If mailing the list to ArbCom members individually and posting the list at ] is sufficient, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::B. No protocols explain how these mentors will know that he/she has been approved or confirmed. If it is sufficient for someone to post "approved" after each name listed at ] or here, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::C. Nothing guides me in knowing when I may re-commence normal editing. If "A" is sufficient or if "B" is required, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::D. If this is not the correct venue to address these matters, what venue is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

;Response to Steve Smith
Each name is presented for individual confirmation as an independent mentor. They will function as co-mentors in the flexible manner which appears to be playing out amongst those who are working with ]. Some have agreed to participate only on condition that he/she is part of a group, e.g.,
* ] --
* ] -- .

Anticipating time constraints and other burdens, ] asked specifically, "How available will ... co-mentors need to be?" My response summarizes a fundamental assumption: "I anticipate that everyone's availability will vary and that the interest in issues which arise will also vary. To the extent that I can exert control over any situation, I project that no issue involving me will be limited or burdened with time constraints. I predict that, in general, only one or two at any one time will be involved in any one issue/dispute/event/topic, etc."

Another relevant factor is suggested by threads at ]: I was alarmed to read about situations in which mentors confronted role-related abuse; and I won't be alone in defending those whose only motivation is benevolent.

In the planning period, I from ] which arose as these mentors worked with each other, reinforcing a comment or observation with different words or a slightly different emphasis.

The group also encompasses non-public advisors who remain unidentified. In the preliminary period of organizing, an anonymous leader was pivotal in the process of distilling a plan drafted to be less than 200 words; and in this context, ]'s comments about counting words were rephrased and refocused by ]. Although unconventional in this ArbCom setting, the word counting illustrates an arguably constructive experiment already initiated by the Mentorship Committee. --] (]) 02:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

;Response to Coren
] is the only one of us with ] experience. He has been off-wiki since late December; and it is unlikely that he will be able to add his voice here. A brief note from ] suggests that computer-hardware problems may explain and excuse this absence. I urge confirmation or "approval" as a mentor in anticipation of his return.

You will know that ] is one of ]'s mentors. His early advice was informed by what seemed to have worked well in that unique setting. For example, and were created as a result of his suggestions.

]'s early involvement doubtless influenced others in their willingness to join my mentorship group. For example, when ] agreed to join, he wrote, --] (]) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:In the contexts of ]' question and ]'s question below, it seems timely to recite something Coren explained in an e-mail: "Actually, mentorship is exactly ]: good counsel ... experienced editor familiar with the intricacies of how Misplaced Pages works." --] (]) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

;Response to RogerDavies
How this will work has been made explicit -- expressly provided for by ArbCom or created in order to facilitate the implied Tang Dynasty objectives. I cast a wide net as part of an ] search for a ] of co-mentors. My best interests are fulfilled only if their investments of time and thought are made easy and effective.

<u>Principles</u>. In circumstances which are impossible to foretell, the analysis of ] functioning in a ]-like role will be informed by principles adduced in the Tang Dynasty case; that is, ensuring the purpose of creating "a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors." (''See'' Principle 1, "Purpose of Misplaced Pages") This means that "the ] of our content is extremely important ..., requir that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published ] supporting the information presented." (Principle 3, "Reliability and verifiability of sources") In the same way that "t is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors," neither is this an arguable burden of the mentors group. (''See'' Principle 5, "Role of the Arbitration Committee")

<u>Remedies</u>. Consistent with the remedies ArbCom has mandated, the mentors are "publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately." (''See'' Remedy 3.2, "Tenmei Restricted") For redundant clarity, ArbCom has said the same thing in different words -- that "ditors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email." (''See'' Remedy 9, "Editors who come into conflict") These complementary remedies mirror a unique principle -- that "ditors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help ... in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought"; and "his particularly applies to editors whose native language may not be English." (''See'' Principle 4, "Non-] language sources")

<u>Non-English language</u>. Preliminary decisions in Tang Dynasty inform expectations about which may become problematic in the future, e.g.,
* "... Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover. I'd encourage ... seek out the input of one or more uninvolved ]-speaking editors." &mdash;&nbsp;] 05:49, 24 March 2009
* "Some input from a ]-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here." &mdash;&nbsp;] 03:48, 19 March 2009
* "I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved ]-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. &mdash;&nbsp;] 00:40, 20 March 2009
* "I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources ]] and translations. Wikisource has an Author page ... here are no limitations on the amount of detail that can be recorded on Wikisource Author pages ... if no public domain translation is available, a collaborative translation can be created on English Wikisource." &mdash;&nbsp;] 00:20, 26 March 2009
* "I see that we are stuck here. Has any ]-speaking editor who would help been found?" &mdash;&nbsp;] 18:46, 25 March 2009
] is ], living in ]; and if he should be unavailable, ] has agreed to assist the mentors as needed. An anonymous ]-literate editor has agreed to assist the mentors if asked to do so. In addition, other East Asian language resources will be developed over the coming weeks, so that the potential range of back-up sought by the mentors will have depth.

<u>Communciation</u>. The Mentorship Committee exists to help ameliorate communication-problems and/or to mitigate communication-barriers, e.g.,
* "When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication."
* "An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution."
To this end, ArbCom-approved "public" mentors will be available to help editors recognise communication-related issues and to encourage "steps to address the problems." (''See'' Principle 6, "Communication").

From time to time, ]'s background in East Asian matters may be helpful for the mentors. ]'s professional and scholarly background in language and linguistics may prove to be useful to the mentors. Other area-related or subject-related expertise can be developed when the mentors perceive the need for <s>other context-related</s> back-up.

<u>Working venues</u>. As a result of ]'s suggestions (developed from what seemed effective or useful in ]'s mentoring process), <s>the following</s> a bold orange Notice/navagation bar was posted near the top of the page at ]:
:'''Mentorship Committee &ndash; for issues requiring mentors' involvement, <big>→&nbsp;→&nbsp;→&nbsp;→</big> click <big><u><i>]</i></u></big>

This notice bar links to . The "public" mentors are identified on this "Alerts" page. Links to their talk pages and links to e-mail are posted. Instructions about how to use this alternate venue are provided; and a suggested format is offered for those who may want to make use of it. Principles and remedies adduced in Tang Dynasty are made specific and tangible in this on-wiki venue.

In addition, private e-mail communication between members of the Mentorship Committee is enhanced by off-wiki mentoring sites which have been established at ], ] and ].

<u>Other mentors or advisors</u>. If other "public" mentors are to be added, the names can be submitted for ArbCom confirmation. <s>in a manner similar to this thread</s> Additional advisors or non-public mentors will be added in a manner which the Mentorship Committee deems appropriate and convenient. Such additional names will be made public or kept confidential depending on individual preferences.

<u>]</u>. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --] (]) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

;Response to Risker
]'s enquiry strays outside the scope of A + B + C; and in this way, it becomes like ].
:A. ArbCom told me to locate a mentor or mentors.
::Yes &mdash; I did just that.
:B. ArbCom explained that Tenmei is "required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary."
:: Yes &mdash; the volunteers are ready to do just that.
:C. ]'s questions are like ].
:: No &mdash; paraphrasing ]'s words: "... mentorship is exactly ]: good counsel ... experienced editor familiar with the intricacies of how Misplaced Pages works."

In this circumstance, I feel awkwardly compelled to intervene to protect and preserve those who I have asked to help me as mentors. Is it not seemly for me to demonstrate in this way that I value them?

<u>What respects volunteers</u>? This confirmation process can be moved forward by repeating a fundamental axiom: "My best interests are fulfilled only if these volunteers' investments of time and thought are made easy and effective." ]'s questions are not easy; and whatever time volunteers might invest in answering would likely produce little more than ineffective guesswork.

In part, mentorship was proposed by ArbCom as a remedy because, ]. In contrast, the wide-ranging search for volunteers ensured that a broad range of tools are available.

In part, the group-structure was necessitated by the problems which flow from the ArbCom ]; and this explains why my Mentorship Committee is comprised of (a) "mentors", as described at ]; and (b) "mentors", as conventionally understood and described at ].

No one has volunteered to investigate the conceptual flaws in ArbCom's terminology nor in devising flexible mentoring group structures; rather, each has expressed a willingness to invest a limited amount of time in helping me improve how I participate in our encyclopedia-building project. I construe my responsibilities to -- which means paying attention to a changing ] which encompasses each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do.

<u>What is the main thing</u>? At , the main objective was clarified: "... a mentor is like a coach mostly." In this explicit context, words from the userpage of ] offer a succinct response to ]'s three questions and any corollaries:
;<center><b>The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.</b></center>

In June 2009, ] restated <b>ArbCom's objectives</b>:
:A. <b>rbitration requires that you work with one or more users to help you communicate better</b> and gain a better understanding of how to work through editing disputes.
:B. Speaking on behalf of the members of the Committee that I directly talked with about your participation in the dispute and the case, I say that we very much do appreciate that you have legitimate concerns and questions.
:C. The main issue continues to be that your style of communication is a barrier to you working collaboratively with other people.
:D. You need to focus on changing the things that you can change.
:E. <b>ur interest is not in criticizing you but finding ways to enable you to better edit the encyclopedia</b>. There is a general view that when you get into editing conflicts that your communication style makes it difficult for you to work through the issue. Our goal is to assist you in working that problem.

Now is the time to let these volunteer mentors get to work.

<u>]</u>. As ] explained in June 2009, As succinctly expressed by ] , " ...this is encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance ...."

<u>]</u>. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --] (]) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

As requested by Tenmei I will provide some oversight over his editing. I hope that this will allow everyone to get back to what we are here for, writing an encyclopedia.] (] · ] · ]) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC) (jmh649)

I as well have volunteered to provide some oversight. Arbcom said that he is topic banned, does that mean he can contribute to those areas while under oversight, or does it simply mean he needs to be observed in all his edits? --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to help Tenmei learn to be concise when posting comments. Based on my observations, he has a tendency to be excessively wordy in his posts, which in turn lends itself to people having a tl;dr reaction to his posts. As long as there are several people on this "mentorship committee", I'm willing to help out. I have a lot of other things I do here, and I'd like this to have only a small impact on that. I think Tenmei can learn and improve (and he has in many ways), so hopefully this mentorship will be deemed unnecessary at some future point. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">]</font> · ]</small> 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

::Tenmei has not made an article edit for three months this after he was consistently making a thousand a month. I would recommend he resume editing slowly so that we may have time to adjust or edit a different topic areas. Will be happy to look at concerns. I do not believe a formal process is required.] (] · ] · ]) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm continuing to provide Tenmei with advice by email as I had offered . <span style="color:Purple; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

::May Tenmei have permission to return to editing? I will keep an eye on things this week and provide feedback. As it has been more than 3 months I think it would be reasonable to move forwards.] (] · ] · ]) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Tenmei, is it your plan for all of these people to be your mentors, or are you presenting a range of options in the hopes that ArbCom will designate which are acceptable? As well, your concision is appreciated, but there is no need to post word counts along with each of your comments. ] (]) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
:*This looks to be at least worth a shot. ] (]) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
*It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made; but I'll point out that a return to editing suitably assisted is a desirable outcome and would be looked upon favorably. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*I also welcome suggestions from the suggested mentors about how this will work in practise. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
*I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. ] (]) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 22 January 2025
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:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

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 Misplaced Pages, 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-l@lists.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 Misplaced Pages: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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Interstellarity

I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.

  • 1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
  • 2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
  • 3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
  • 4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.

I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

2015, would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, 2016. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Izno

This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. Izno (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Kenneth Kho

The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. TarnishedPath 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Here is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be intuitive, since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 19 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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... Cabayi (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 Republican Revolution, which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers Bush v. Gore and the War on Terror, while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the Tea Party movement. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ⚓ 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)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions Add topic