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 10:51, 15 April 2011 editKirill Lokshin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users75,365 edits →Motion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:07, 20 January 2025 edit undoSdrqaz (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators26,826 edits Addition of comment regarding the Republican Revolution. The pre-load templates need a bit of work too ... 
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|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{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}}
'''Initiated by ''' ]] '''at''' 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|CalvinTy}} (initiator)
*{{admin|EdJohnston}}


;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#]


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* Per template instructions, EdJohnston was notified .
<!--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
=== Statement by CalvinTy ===
*]
My apologizes for making this request for clarification several weeks after the fact. Only today, I came across this between Amatulić and Sandstein about the ArbCom Longevity case. There was a link to the ArbCom case, and there's where I saw the Notifications section showing that the admin EdJohnston gave me a notification on 6 March 2011. The ArbCom Longevity case closed on 17 Feb 2011, and I was not active on Misplaced Pages until 25 Feb 2011 and onwards.
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
EdJohnston and I did discuss the necessity of the 'notification' at the time (on 6 March 2011):
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)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
That's the reason I'm here today. I hope I'm at the right place. For starters, I have learned a lot since 25 Feb 2011 and am now better educated in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. At the time, and still today, I am of strong opinion that I should not have received a notice considering that I was not engaged in any inappropriate behavior.
''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 ===
I thought I had not, but I see that I did tell EdJohnston where I quoted the ArbCom case, , ''"Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or <b>any other group</b> named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics."''
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 ===
In that RfE case against NickOrnstein, which was expanded to include The 110 Club members (of which I'm an administrator/member of) due to possible off-wiki canvassing by some forum members, I had suggested a potential compromise . I asked any admin this: ''"first, what is a discretionary sanction? Of more concern, why should every member of The 110 Club forum receive one automatically regardless of their level of involvement, if any, in a possible violation of any guidelines (which, to date, is quite debatable and has not been sufficiently proven)?"''
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 ===
*
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)
* I gave a on my talk page: "My point is that I could have not known that some forum members could have been in violation of ], regardless of whether I am an admin there or not. Like I have said repeatedly, I only became active as of 25 Feb 2011 (no matter how "soon" it is perceived after the Longevity ArbCom case -- that's an unfair assumption.) I wanted to get your response and hoped to see you agreeing with my point of view, and voluntarily retracting the formal notice. You haven't indicated why you have associated me with the possible canvassing going on by some forum members, do you understand what I'm trying to say? In light of that, you have perceived me as a "guilty party" without due process by sending me that formal notice. That is inappropriate. <b>I now respectfully request you to retract the formal notice that you sent directly to me until there is a new (if any) RfE regarding any possibility that I have been involved with any violations of any Misplaced Pages guidelines.</b>"
* As mentioned earlier, EdJohnston had replied to me through his talk page, so I never got the chance to get a response from him on that particular formal request from me for retraction of the formal notice, which would have been helpful.
* Though, the day before, EdJohnston even to another admin, ''"The meatpuppet issue is in a gray area, and one could argue there is not enough evidence of on-wiki mischief due to the off-wiki coordination. The arguments of the 110 Club that they are not canvassing seem to misunderstand policy."''
* EdJohnston closed that RfE against NickOrnstein with the , ''"Admins may choose to notify forum participants of the discretionary sanctions."''


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
To date, I still don't feel that I along with several other forum members should have received any notice unless there were diffs to provide evidence against each one of us (as far as I know, none were supplied by any editor against me). Yes, there were several diffs providing evidence against some forum members, which were quite convincing, but EdJohnston may have acted erroneously in good faith when he came to the conclusion that "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Misplaced Pages' ought to receive this message.".
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)


===Statement by Vanamonde===
<b>Finally, I apologize again for my chatterbox habit, but to sum up, I just feel that a formal notice was given to me by mistake, and I want to find out how I can have this formally retracted, if possible. I just am the type of person who abides with policies and guidelines, whether on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, and I still feel that formal notice is a negative connotation against me and who I really am like. Seeing my name in an ArbCom case did upset me so that's why I'm following up on whether I am able to have a notice retracted, hopefully by EdJohnston himself.</b> Best regards, ]] 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
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)


==== Response by CalvinTy ==== === Statement by Aquillion ===


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)
@EdJohnston, that was a good analogy about ''"taking back a notice is like unringing a bell"''. @SirFozzie, I did understood that ''"Notification does not imply any wrongdoing"''; I guess I was just taken aback when I saw my name appearing in an ArbCom case that closed before I even became active here (even if it's just a notification). By 6 March 2011, the date of the notice, I knew that Longevity articles were being watched due to the recent ArbCom case. Yet, "notification does imply <b>something</b>" and the notification appeared not to be sent to every The 110 Club forum member that is also a Misplaced Pages editor (we can see a larger list of duplicate members in the ArbCom case) -- so naturally I felt "singled out" and that it was implied that "I was engaging in inappropriate behavior solely because of my The 110 Club membership" even as EdJohnston did strike out the "further" part of "inappropriate behavior" of the notice template, which was appreciative. <b>That notification just didn't seem to jive with the ArbCom's statement about membership affiliation, that was all.</b>


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
In any case, I certainly do not want to make a big deal out of this; just wanted to see whether there was an appeal process for getting a notice. Since there isn't, so SirFozzie or any arbitrator, please feel free to close this request for clarification. Regards, ]] 11:15, 13 April 2011 (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. * -->


===== Follow-up comments by CalvinTy ===== === American politics 2: Clerk notes ===

I read some great points by everyone who commented to date. Since they have made the effort to comment, I'd like to follow-up here:

* Jclemens said: ''"I would like to see notifications that are relevant, recent, appropriate, and targeted."'' I couldn't say anything better than that.
* Jclemens also said, ''"The options for that are twofold: those doing notifications can take it upon themselves to keep warnings appropriate... or ArbCom can draft more constraints around what constitutes an effective notification."'' Sandstein commented along the same lines, ''"But evidently, editors who are not editing problematically should be warned (if at all) without using the <nowiki>{{uw-sanctions}}</nowiki> template, which assumes that misconduct has already taken place."'' Perhaps that was all I was seeking at the time of the notice.
* SirFozzie mentioned, ''"...a topic banned user canvassing off-wiki to "rally the troops" to AfD and other such locales, thereby putting a cloud over what 110 club editors would say."'' That might be the precise concern I was trying to convey here as that is a dangerous slope thinking like that. Again, I agree that I saw potential canvassing evidence -- after the fact -- as you have mentioned the topic banned editor doing that. <b>Just because "CalvinTy and RYoung122" are members of the same longevity forum, therefore, to paraphrase you, "anything CalvinTy (and/or others) may say should be viewed in a skeptical manner". Is that fair to me?</b> ArbCom made it explicitly clear that membership of any group "does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics." I think it comes down to the fact that it's not the actual notice that bothers me, but it's the perception BEHIND the notice. Sure, some members of The 110 Club had been potentially guilty of canvassing, but a blanket warning to any/all forum members shouldn't occur <b>without any justification & supporting evidence</b>.
* To conclude, I quote Jclemens: ''"is it appropriate to simply notify every editor who has ever edited in an area about discretionary sanctions, thus fulfilling the requirement and taking the "Safety" off for an insta-sanction should they cross a line? That doesn't make sense to me."'' I have no qualms about the interpretation that a notice does not mean that any inappropriate behavior has already happened, that's fine with me, I only ask that the notice is given when it's due ("relevant, recent, appropriate and targeted"). Regards, ]] 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:* (Reply to SirFozzie) I understand your opinion, though it's just an opinion on your part. All I can say is that I am here on my own accord, without influence of anyone else, and that I form my own opinions of everything here on Misplaced Pages. I also have casually (as in a couple of times per year) edited longevity articles since my first edit on 4 Aug 2009. See . I only got involved in discussions in Feb 2011 as I educated myself about what the acronyms all meant such as ], ], and so forth since they were overwhelming to me as a "still-new casual user". Since then, I have worked collaboratively with editors who have shown differing opinions in longevity articles such as David in DC and Itsmejudith. RYoung122 feels they should be banned, and he has mentioned that recently as you know. It's disappointing that you feel that anything I say would have a cloud above me, SirFozzie. Maybe that's precisely the problem here -- administrators or arbitrators looking at me in a negative light because I'm a member of the same forum as a topic banned editor (RYoung122) & because of the "timing" of my contributions to Misplaced Pages. That is... just not right and unacceptable. An apology would be appropriate from you, SirFozzie. I think I have said everything I can on this request for clarification. Best regards, ]] 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:* (Reply to Newyorkbrad) I would like to be sure that I did not misunderstand you. You were explaining that the second purpose of the notification is because in someone's view, an editor may have been in violation of a guideline, etcetera. Then you felt that a "preemptive" notification (to all editors of a topic) does not meet that second purpose? In other words, if someone (like I did) received a preemptive notification, then there is another incident where I knowingly violated something, an admin or arbitrator could impose immediate sanctions on me because there was a prior "notification"... you feel that there should be an appropriate intermediate step in between instead? I think I got it. That may be what I was nervous about as well.
:* (Reply to all) After this good discussion, I am of the thought that I understand that a notice can be given to a <u>particular editor</u> if a "behavior" in a sensitive topic like Longevity may become problematic, even if no misconduct has taken place yet. I accept that, as we certainly do not want to restrict an admin/arbitrator's ability to maintain discussions and administer them. Note I underlined "particular editor" as <b>it now comes down to whether a preemptive notification to a group of editors was/is appropriate</b>, keeping in mind once again, the spirit of the ArbCom Longevity case clearly states that a membership of Group A or Group B does not rise to COI in editing longevity articles. Apologizes to using SirFozzie as an example (but to be fair, EdJohnston was of the same opinion when he gave the notice), but he was providing his opinion that the notification was justified <b>solely</b> on those grounds:
::# I'm a member of the same forum as the topic-banned editor, RYoung122,
::# There were evidence of canvassing by some forum members over there,
::# I began contributing actively on Misplaced Pages "shortly" after ArbCom Longevity case closed,
::# Therefore, a preemptive notification to a group of editors, including me, were appropriate.

:* That would appear to be against the spirit of the ArbCom Longevity case where, generally, editors should not make the attempt to "associate" similar editors together as being part of a "rogue forum" or something to that effect. As I told David in DC , RYoung122 and I are quite different editors as I essentially summed up in this sentence, ''"I think Robert and I are two sides of the SAME coin... different personalities but having similar interests such as longevity."''. I don't want his actions or anyone else's actions to reflect poorly on me. That was what I feared with the preemptive notification. Best regards, ]] 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by EdJohnston ===
At present there is no appeal process for those who receive notices of discretionary sanctions and feel that they do not deserve them. Since notices are intended to head off future trouble, it seems unwise to make them into a major deal. The notice gives the recipient a link to policies and past decisions so they can see if they think they are OK. Taking back a notice is like unringing a bell. I am not aware that any recipient of a notice has ever been un-notified, and I don't see why we should began that now.

The major concerns raised at ] was that Nick was edit-warring against consensus, and that an offwiki group called the 110 Club was trying to manipulate the longevity articles on Misplaced Pages. CalvinTy made it known that he was an administrator of the 110 Club. As a result of the AE, Nick agreed to change his approach, and that issue appears resolved. It was decided not to take any action regarding the 110 Club. There were no sanctions against CalvinTy as a result of the thread; he was merely notified of the discretionary sanctions. ] may recall some of the details since he participated in the admin discussion at the AE. ] (]) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Sandstein===
I'll only comment about my understanding of the warning requirement, as the longevity-related matters are ].

] says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

The wording of this provision does not require that the editor being warned has already done anything objectionable, or even (as some remedies do) that the warning needs to be given by an uninvolved administrator. With this wording, my understanding of the warning is that it is simply a procedural requirement to ensure that people who edit troublesome topics are aware that higher conduct standards apply to editing in these areas than elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. As such, I see no need to question, appeal or undo a warning under any circumstances. But evidently, editors who are not editing problematically should be warned (if at all) without using the {{tl|uw-sanctions}} template, which assumes that misconduct has already taken place. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===


=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
Looking at the AE section to refresh my memory. I think there was a valid concern that there was canvassing happening there, that the blanket notification of possible sanctions for issues in this area. In fact, Ed went so far to say in the formal closing of the AE request: '''Notification does not imply any wrongdoing, but it is official notice that their behavior may be looked at if they seem to be editing so as to favor the use of a specific set of off-wiki sources.''' It's good that we haven't had any further issues after the warning was issued, but I don't see any reason to say that means the blanket warning wasn't necessary and/or a good idea. ] (]) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
* This raises a gaming issue--is it appropriate to simply notify every editor who has ever edited in an area about discretionary sanctions, thus fulfilling the requirement and taking the "Safety" off for an insta-sanction should they cross a line? That doesn't make sense to me. I would like to see notifications that are relevant, recent, appropriate, and targeted. I don't see them as a way to avoid "ignorance of the law is no excuse" conversations, but rather as notifications that one or more specific behaviors are trending problematically. The options for that are twofold: those ''doing'' notifications can take it upon themselves to keep warnings appropriate... or ArbCom can draft more constraints around what constitutes an effective notification. ] (]) 15:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
**I don't think it's an issue in '''THIS''' case.. the activities around the last request were deeply problematic to me: a topic banned user canvassing off-wiki to "rally the troops" to AfD and other such locales, thereby putting a cloud over what 110 club editors would say. Again, it's a good thing that AE admins haven't had to follow up with anything, but it doesn't mean that the warning were not needed and/or a good thing. ] (]) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
***(reply to Calvin) Quite frankly, when the users showed up A) Without having a track record of participating in such discussions previously, and B)After the "call to arms" done.. yes, it puts a cloud over their participation, per the canvassing issues we discussed previously. ] (]) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
****Agree with SirFozzie here. Regarding Jclemens's comment, there's nothing wrong with notifying editors - where appropriate a reminder or warning can be issued at a later date. ] (]) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
*****Oh, to be sure... everyone should be ''notified''... but warnings that sanctions are in the future if changes aren't made should be proximate and specific to the problematic behavior. ] (]) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
*Notification serves two purposes. One is to make sure that the editor is literally aware of the issues with the article and the discretionary sanctions regime applicable to them. The second is to make sure the editor is aware that he or she has, in at least one person's view, violated policies and guidelines in editing these articles. My view is that before a sanction (topic-ban, revert restriction, whatever) is imposed on an editor under discretionary sanctions, unless he or she has really misbehaved in a gross and obvious way, the editor should have the benefit of both types of warning. A "preemptive" notification to all editors on a topic, including those who aren't misbehaving (or aren't even active at the time) serves the first purpose but not the second, so I think that it may be helpful to do sometime, but should be followed up by a more formal warning that there are problems if and when that becomes necessary, wherever possible. In other words, from "everyone in the world is on notice of sanctions" to "you have been sanctioned" is a long jump; "you are in danger of sanctions if you keep this up" will often (perhaps almost always?) be an appropriate intermediate step. ] (]) 12:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

== Request for clarification: ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|aprock}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Miradre}}
*{{admin|Sandstein}}

notifications: ,

''List of any editors already sanctioned, and confirmation that all have been notified of the motion to amend:''
* {{Userlinks|BT35}}
** (Indefinitely blocked)
* {{Userlinks|Captain Occam}}
**
* {{Userlinks|Ferahgo the Assassin}}
**
* {{Userlinks|Lycurgus}}
**
* {{Userlinks|Mikemikev}}
** (Indefinitely blocked)
* {{Userlinks|Miradre}}
**
* {{Userlinks|Woodsrock}}
**


=== Statement by aprock ===

There seems to be some confusion about what edits fall under Administration Enforcement for the Race and Intelligence discretionary sanctions. From ]:''Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.'' The open question is how to interpret "closely related".

At the current ] discussion, the behavior being discussed centers around the article ]. ] mentions IQ/intelligence seven times, and ] is listed in the "See also" section of the article.

Several editors feel that the content and edits about race and intelligence (e.g. ,,) to ] should be covered by arbitration enforcement. On the other hand, at least one administrator (Sandstein), is taking the not unreasonable view that this article is not covered by discretionary sanctions.

Clarification request: Does "closely related" apply only to what articles ''should'' be about, or does it also apply to the actual content within articles which may not otherwise be considered closely related?

=== Statement by Sandstein ===
Instead of interpreting what "closely related" means in this particular case, I recommend that the Committee change the remedy to replace "] and closely related articles" with "in the field of ], broadly construed", or "broadly related to the relationship between race and other topics, such as crime or intelligence", or something similar. This would bring the conduct in the instant case within the scope of the remedy. This seems appropriate, as the AE report indicates that there are problems with the "]" topic similar to those which triggered the "]" case. <p>I've no opinion about whether the AE case is actionable on the merits, as I've examined it so far only with respect of the scope of the remedy that is to be enforced. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Volunteer Marek ===

Second Sandstein's suggestion. Just make it "race and related topics", as in this particular case - and most likely many future ones - the problems aren't just limited to ] and ] but also ], ], ] and many other articles, all orbiting in one way or another the topic of race.] (]) 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Maunus ===
I would suggest that it makes little sense to phrase the remedy as having to do with certain articles, but rather with certain topics. The topics is "race and intelligence" but this topic can be partially treated in many articles that are not yet tagged with "Race and intelligence controversy" because nobody (but Miradre) have noticed that this topic has any relation to the R&I topic yet. If the restrictions should be limited to articles within the category then any user would be able to create new articles without including them in the category and repeat all the same problems that lead to the R&I Arbcase with impunity. That seems unreasonable. The discretionary restrictions should touch the topic whether it is treated in an article that is explicitly linked to the arbcase or not.] 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
:Note to Sir Fozzie: I am not sure if you are under the impresion that Miradre is already topic banned. He is not, so he can't brush up against the topic. He is fully allowed to edit within the topic. The question is whether his editing is subject to the discretionary sanctions, so that he ''can'' be topic banned if an administrator finds that he is not editing in accordance with the expected editing practices under the discretionary sanctions.] 01:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by User:ResidentAnthropologist===
The issue to me is we are experiencing spill over from the initial WP:ARBR&I scope. I am going to talk about the scenario without naming names here to show that this is problem with the scope. I am not going to name name because that would that its limited to single editor and single scenario but represents a flaw in ability to enforce the core values of ], ], ] and ] to ensure Encyclopedic Content.

;Scenario in this case

An editor who is using legitimate sources to and portraying them in way unintended by the authors of the sources. The Article ] seemingly represents something well outside the WP:ARBR&I boundaries. The assertion is put into the article that Black are responsible for disproportionment amount of crime in Western Justice systems. No one dispute that Black are convicted of most crimes in America/UK and a fair number of european justice systems Justice system. The article as written by this individual presented very main stream data of Crime and prison statistics. This seemingly valid content has place in an encyclopedia under articles like Minorities and Crime.

The editor then presents fringe sources that suggest Race/Genetics/Intlectual abilitlities all play a role that makes blacks more prone to crime. Then says the view have been met with "criticism" but leaves it at that.

The editor is taken to AE where Admin who is taking a strict interpretation of the Ruling that states "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles."

Clearly in this scenario and all future scenarios AE admins need to have the tools to prevent spill over of WP:ARBR&I material into articles where such material is placed.

I thank the committee for their time and hope they will understand the scenario is not limited to this Editor and this Admin made in the request for clarification. ] <small>]•(])</small> 22:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
:@75.57.242.120 the WP:ARBSCI case was entirely different case and entirely different scenario. The sanctions was designed to address COI-SPA issues since all evidence indicated CoS IP addresses were being used for a plethora of accounts. I dont think we have any of those types accounts here. ] <small>]•(])</small> 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
:@NYB, I think consensus outside of Miradre that the current scope is too lose and leads to Wikilawyering about what is "closely related" and the Category clause further inhibits it from being effective. I would suggest the normal ''"broadly construed"'' phrasing.
:On I side note I am looking at serial POV pusher espousing White Supremacist views that harms the integrity of WP as whole. I dont think know how to combat this other than another arbitration case as I doubt you would expand the scope that much. ] <small>]•(])</small> 03:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
:@Roger, I think such action may be wise. ] <small>]•(])</small> 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Miradre ===
IQ correlates with lot of things. Similarly, race can be interpreted very broadly. Obviously the main articles about the controversy falls under the arbitration remedies. But I think one can introduce IQ as a factor in many race articles. Should ] be under this scope? One can certainly find sources on IQ and affirmative action. IQ is not mentioned there now. But if I introduced some material on IQ, would the article then fall under the scope? Would ]? Similarly, there are a lot of articles where one can introduce the factors IQ and race. Should all of those articles fall under the scope the moment anyone makes this connection? Should ] fall under this scope the moment someone introduces some material on race and IQ there? Should ] fall under this scope the moment someone introduces some material on race and IQ there? Should ] fall under this scope if someone introduces some material on race and IQ there, studies of which are in the academic literature? Should ], ], ], or ] be under the scope, since they are proposed environmental factors explaining racial IQ differences? Or should the ] article be, the ] article already have some material regarding Chinese views that they are suited to "technical" sports in part because the stereotype of them being smart. Material not in the article applied this to differing Chinese Olympic medal rates for different sports. Should ] or ] fall under this scope since they are intelligence related and differ between races? Should a book like '']'' be? Or ] or ]? Should ] or ] be, if someone transferred some material from race and crime there? Should ] and ]s be, some researchers have made a connection with different average IQs causing conflicts between groups.

In short, it is possible to introduce sourced material connecting race and intelligence to numerous other topics. Where does it stop? Some clarification would be greatly appreciated. I introduced IQ to ]. I could introduce IQ and race to numerous other articles as per above. ] (]) 02:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the AE dispute I would have made the edits to ] regardless since none of my edits are close to being a policy violation.] (]) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also ask that the arbitrators to consider my view that while biological unequality explanations are automatically unpopular, they are not necessarily harmful to society. See and the section "My motivation for editing these controversial topics". In my view, I have done no policy violation, but my critics are trying to use the general unpopularity of the views I have introduced, in accordance with policy, to get me banned, not on merit for what I have done, but due to the emotional responses these views cause. Any objective evaluation of the AE evidence would instead show policy violations by several of my detractors.] (]) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In my view a topic that causes emotional revulsion, regardless of scientific merits, has the potential to fare poorly in a quick process possibly involving only a single administrator. Only in a slower process, with more participants, has such unpopular views some chance to judged on merit and not on emotions. So I would also ask the arbitrators to consider the effects of extending the arbitration remedies, which in my view are not well suited for this emotional and important area, more broadly.] (]) 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
*Reply to the IP editor. You are not the first to mention the many months old SPI. I have already commented on it in my AE comments. See my replies to Aprock and Mathsci: ] (]) 08:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
*Reply to the IP editor again. Regarding SPA see my third reply to AndyTheGrump: Regarding "brand new editors appearing out of nowhere to stir up this area", that would seem to describe yourself. A new editor who have done little to improve the encyclopedic content itself, in this area or elsewhere. More generally, none of those wanting to ban me from the area seems interested in improving the area itself while I have done a considerable amount of boring, housecleaning work on this as stated in the AE.] (]) 04:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by 2over0 ===
Miradre makes a good point above regarding the futility of trying to demarcate the bounds of a contentious ''topic'' by an explicit list of ''articles''. The text at the policy touches on this issue - the relevant sections at otherwise unrelated articles are covered by a topic ban; going by the principle of least astonishment, we should apply the same reasoning when defining areas where discretionary sanctions are necessary. Otherwise we will find edits that violate a topic ban yet fall outside the list of articles covered by the discretionary sanctions invoked to impose that very topic ban. If it was ArbCom's intention that ARBR&I sanctions only be used for article bans and similarly explicitly strictly limited sanctions, then the current wording is fine. That is a significantly more limited tool, though, and is much more easily subjected to ]. Sandstein's proposal to extend the scope of ARBR&I discretionary sanctions by motion has merit, though I am not sure where the balance lies so that this dispute is covered but the rest of the site is not. By the principle of '']'', the current AE case deals with editing of the same sort that led up to the case (no comment regarding whether the material should be part of the encyclopedia - it takes two to edit war, and all that); I think that that gives us a minimum threshold for clarifying the scope of the case to cover every article, section, and discussion treating race, intelligence, and any connection between the two. - ] <small>(])</small> 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by 75.57.242.120 ===
I thought someone should mention ]. It does seem like the system is being gamed. ] (]) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

====Addition====
No opinion (some reservations) about extending R&I discretionary sanctions to all race-related articles. I notice the Miradre SPI didn't mention ], created within a week of Miradre. I think I remember a few others as well. (Woodsrock did make a small effort to branch out to a few more topics besides R&I).
] says:

{{quotation|
:;Single purpose accounts with agendas
:5.1) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

::''Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
}}
Given this recurring pattern of brand new editors appearing out of nowhere to stir up this area, I think something like that should be added to ARBR&I. A proposal like this was discussed extensively in one of the pre-arbitration ANI threads, and got pretty wide support, not quite reaching consensus at the time (I supported it). Subsequent events suggest we need it after all. ] (]) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

'''SirFozzie:''' re "a warning/clarification is probably the best bet", does the warning Miradre already received (per Mathsci) not count? ] (]) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
] (]) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

'''Resident Anthropologist''': WP:ARBSCI banned quite a lot of SPA's from Scientology topics (]), some of whom were connected with Scientology and others of whom were opponents of Scientology. The editing conduct that led to the bans was often relatively mild if you look at the actual diffs (editing that might have gotten a regular editor warned but not banned). The approach taken seems to have been to let only regular editors do anything controversial in those articles.

'''Miradre''' I've never edited in the R&I area. I've commented (like now) on some of the related dispute resolution. ] (]) 06:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by EdJohnston ===
I appreciate the invitation for admins active on AE to comment on this. Here is the current 'Locus and focus of dispute' for ]:
<blockquote>1.1) The dispute is focused on articles within the ]. The core issue is whether ] varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors. The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent ]; (ii) persistent ]; and (iii) incessant ] on certain controversial sources.</blockquote>
This is one of the narrowest definitions of any Arb case that I reviewed. (It is the only one I found which is based on articles in a category). I think the current definition of ] is working well. It helps that 'conflict between Arabs and Israelis' is an easy concept to grasp, both for the contributing editors and for the admins who may be asked to intervene. The ARBPIA definition is ''"..the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted."''

Arbcom should consider widening the R&I definition to include "..the entire set of articles that discuss scientific findings which purport to show that race has a significant influence on human abilities and behavior, broadly interpreted." If the definition is widened, and this causes too many disputes to wind up at AE, Arbcom could easily undo this by motion. It may be less work for Arbcom to do it this way than for all borderline requests such as ] to be passed over to Arbcom for handling as cases. ] (]) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
:As someone pointed out at AE, the phrase 'broadly related' is used in the template ] for all 16 of the included cases. If the Committee wants some cases to use broadly related and others to use closely related, then the uw-sanctions template should be updated. ] (]) 06:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Timotheus Canens ===
I generally agree with EdJohnston's statement. In general, authorizing sanctions for articles "closely related" to a topic is pretty much an open invitation to wikilawyering about how close it must be for an article to be "closely related". ] (]) 01:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Enric Naval ===
Please ''make a clarification or a clear statement'' so that the R&I reach is "broadly interpreted" (and that topic bans in general are broadly interpreted, if possible). Otherwise, every month we'll have a new request for clarification of this same issue, and WP:AE will become increasingly useless as POV pushers wreack havoc and claim that they be sanctioned because they were not editing in the strict topic area (inserting their POV in articles that are not under the ban if it is narrowly interpreted, changing unrelated articles so they are all about their POV, etc). This is, and will keep being, a recurrent problem, and you need to "fix" it via clarification. --] (]) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Professor marginalia ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
The problems here aren't limited to easily categorized articles but to the overall subject itself, which is questions of racial inheritance and race difference. Uninvolved admins might not recognize how clearly linked the ] problem is to those in ] but editors who've worked in the articles will recognize the same sources and the same pattern of NPOV problems with the ways they're being used. Virtually all of Miradre's edits orbit this theme; nearly <u>all</u> relate to some controversial aspect in the study of race differences. "Broadly construed" is more appropriate given that the same pov pushing goes on in subordinate topics such as ], ], ], ], ] ... ] (]) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tijfo098 ===
Make the entire Misplaced Pages subject to ]. People hardly ever edit it these days without an agenda. I have waded though swaths of topics where dozens of textbooks exist and only a pathetic stub or some crappy and unreadable article exists on the topic here. On the other hand, everyone likes to elbow the competition out of some socially important topic so their opinion is the first hit in Google. In short, admit that Misplaced Pages is mainly a venue for ] these days, and act accordingly. ] (]) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mathsci ===
Thanks to the four administrators who watch ] for commenting here. Posting a motion to add "broadly construed" for the discretionary sanctions re ] would create consistency with previous topic bans and make the sanctions more straightforward to administer. ] (]) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Courcelles===
I can't echo more what Timotheus Caneus said above. The standard wording of "broadly interpreted" is beneficial in that it nearly eliminates arguments about whether article X is within topic Y- I'm unaware of any successful challenge of a discretionary sanction due to the article involved not being within a broad interpretation of the related topic- because it is clearly understood language that boils down to on self-moderating one's behaviour for avoiding sanctions to "If it seems related, treat it like it is." On the uninvolved administrator side, a narrower view than that extremely liberal view is taken, my experience on the enforcement side is that the broadly interpreted is treated along the lines of the ]. Generally, this lets AE get down to the business of behaviour (which AE is designed to evaluate) instead of questions of jurisdiction. (Note that I am only discussing mainspace and clearly related discussions (talk pages, AFDs, etc.)

What we have here is so different from the usual wording that enforcing it becomes difficult. It has had a tendency to turn enforcement not into a discussion of whether the behaviour involved was problematic, but how close the article involved is to the original subject of the dispute. And unlike the broad interpretation, entirely reasonable people can disagree on closely related, as there is no good, agreed upon way to decide how close is required for closely related to apply. Whether ArbCom settles this by replacing the remedy with "broadly interpreted" language or offers other guidance into the scope of the sanctions is much less important than that some form of clarification is provided. ] 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*


=== Arbitrator views and discussion === === American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* {{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)
*Based on the evolution of the article, at this time I think ] has become a "closely related article" to ]. However, if the administrators on arbitration enforcement conclude that Miradre honestly was not aware of this or did not believe this when he made the challenged edits, then an appropriate warning might be in order before any discretionary sanction is imposed. (I have not investigated the edits to determine whether sanctions are in order; that is an AE task.) Regarding the possibility of expanding the scope of articles subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy, I will allow some more time for community input before commenting; input from more administrators active on AE arising from this case would be especially helpful. ] (]) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
**As there still seems to be some disagreement among the administrators on the AE thread as to how to interpret our decision, I am considering proposing a motion tomorrow to address it. Prompt comments on this idea would be welcome. ] (]) 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes

**] indef consensus required restriction
*Before I was elected as an Arbitrator, I worked in AE extensively, and in general, this is the question that I asked myself when such an issue arose in an AE request: '''Would an average person consider the edits to be related to the topic area?"'''. If the answer was no, to decline the request, if the answer was unequivocally yes, then to take action on the request (this is for cases that they really should have known better). If the answer was yes, but I could see arguments either way, then I would rather issue a warning and clarification then to enforce the action as harshly as I would otherwise.<p>My current thoughts at this point in time is that this would fall under the third category here, where a warning/clarification is probably the best bet. I'd also note that this is not a game to see how CLOSE one can get to the topic area without actually violating a topic ban (this means adhering to the spirit of the sanction not the letter), and that I would recommend not brushing up against this fuzzy line too many times. ] (]) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
**] indef semi
:*Manus: I am aware of the situation, I'm just saying that in this case, I think it would be best to give one warning and then apply discretionary sanctions as needed afterwards. ] (]) 01:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
: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)
::*JClemens: Would it be best to clarify that like in other similar topic restrictions, that it is not only the '''Articles''' that fall under the topic, that even if the TOPIC would normally not fall under restrictions, that if the EDITS THEMSELVES would fall under the restrictions, then it would apply? ] (]) 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but based on the widespread implications, I think the whole committee ought to weigh in on such a change; there may well be unintended consequences that we're not seeing initially. ] (]) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* Looking at the AE thread, it appears we have a gap here, where users ''trying'' to implement article changes which move a particular article closer to the scope of an existing remedy doesn't necessarily "compute": before they start, the articles are essentially unrelated, and don't really ''become'' related until the material, ] or not, is integrated into the article. Perhaps we should be more clear in the future about whether edits are confined to related articles on similar topics, or whether topical edits are affected regardless of within which article they appear. I do not fault Sandstein for taking a more conservative approach to this particular question based on feedback in the current open case, given this ambiguity. ] (]) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (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)
* Substantially per JClemens. I don't think there's much doubt that expanding the scope of discretionary sanctions will be beneficial though there are two way of doing this: either (i) either extend the topic ban to include all articles which discuss alleged racial characteristics; or (ii) extend it to any editor introducing any material about alleged racial characteristics, broadly construed, into any article. The SPA clause adapted from Scientology would be a useful addition. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:27, 11 April 2011 (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)
:* @EdJohnston. Or fix the case to "broadly related" :) &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:11, 11 April 2011 (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)
====Motion====
*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?
That the following replace the terms in ]:
: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)
:<big>'''Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)'''</big>

:5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the <s>influence of race/ethnicity on<s> <u>intersection of race/ethnicity and<u> human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Misplaced Pages policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a ]; avoiding ]; carefully citing disputed statements to ]; and avoiding ] and ].
:To enforce the foregoing, ] are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Misplaced Pages.
:Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but ] may be given and should be ].
:All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

'''Support''':
:# &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 15:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:#: Copy-edited to remove a bit of wiggle room. If anyone objects, I'll post it as an alternative, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:# Yes, broaden. ] '']'' 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:# I understand JClemens rationale, but think it's necessary to broaden it as above. ] (]) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:# Actually I think applying to non-article space is completely appropriate (for me the AE case is about whether or not that particular invocation of AE sanctions was appropriate); there's no use in just moving a dispute elsewhere. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:# Agree with Fozzie in this case. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 14:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:# –]] 14:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:# Also agreed that the applicability outside of article space is appropriate and necessary. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:# <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:# I agree with the broader scope. I expect that this remedy, like all discretionary sanctions, will be enforced proportionately and sensibly. There may be some principles adopted in the pending Noleander case that may, as background, also be germane to some issues here. ] (]) 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:# ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 10:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

'''Oppose''':
:# Too broad as written, and can be badly applied in non-article space as I think we've seen in the AE Sanctions case. I would prefer to see this split out a bit more:
:#* "Any edit to any article or article talk page"
:#* "Any sufficiently egregious edit to any non-article, non-article talk page" ] (]) 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

'''Abstain''':
:#

'''Recuse''':
:# I recused from the original case, and will recuse from this motion in order to ensure that there is no grounds for questioning the result of the motion. ] (]) 14:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

== Request for clarification: ]'s topic ban ==

'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Cptnono}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Prunesqualer}}
*{{userlinks|Guinsberg}}
<!-- 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 Cptnono ===

Prunesqualer is indeffed from the topic area. Another user and I have a disagreement at ]. I "warned" him (he had been warned about his conduct before) on his talk page. In hindsite, I should have been nicer and made it sound less scary. But the point of this request for clarification is that Prunesqualler decided to chime in. Is he allowed to comment in a discussion about the I-P/I-A topic area?

Also, I would be worried about the potential hounding of him following my "career with interest" but he is not prohibited from checking me out. I believe he he is prohibited from joining in discussion, though. If an admin would clarify that an indef does not need to be forever it would be helpful too. If Prunesqualer would stop going out of his way to make attacks and proved his editing could be a benefit to the project then he could request to come back.

<s>On a side note, Guinsberg and I have not gotten off on the right foot. I am tempted to request counseling in a separate request but would like to stop rocking the boat now. It would be appreciated if an admin could formally notify him of the arbitration case and give him advise in a friendlier fashion than I am capable of. Edits of concern include this pointy bombardment of the article with fact templates when there are sources provided for some of the lines.</s>] (]) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (this has now been done by an admin, although it has not been logged at ]

:Note that this request for clarification is on if the talk page comment is under the scope of the topic ban. If Prunesqualer wants to open a case against me they will have to get unbanned and make it at AE. Also note that those quotes were already handled at AE so they are now stale. If Prunesqualer wants to get unbanned the appropriate venue is not here but through the normal appeals process.] (]) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
::I'm not asking for "action". I am asking for clarification. Can Prunesqualer contribute to a discussion that is about the conflict area or not?] (]) 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
::BTW, the reason I ask is because the policy ] is clear that the edit can be reverted. I also want to make sure that Prunesqualer does not continue to chime in on such discussion until an appeal is accepted. It is not much to ask and it is backed by policy. Unfortunately, both editors have refused to follow policy and allow the edit to be removed (I actually struck it out instead of reverting to be a little more open)] (]) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


Prunesqualer continues to violate his topic ban. No other editor has been allowed to edit in a discussion based on the conflict area they were banned from. This request was a formality. Can an admin advise Prunsesqualer to stop commenting on discussions that originated in the topic area. He is not commenting based on anything else. It is only the I-P/I-A topic areas that we have been involved in and he even mentions them in his initial comment. Can an admin take care of this or do I need to jump through more hoops? If he gets blocked then he cannot edit anywhere so that is my next option.] (]) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is still unresolved. Although I am happy to see this dropped sooner than later, some clarification is still needed.] (]) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop dodging th quesiton admins. Xeno: Can he edit or not? I am not going to open an AE just to see it devovle into garbage. I want something clarified and that is the point of this board. Either you can do it or you should not comment here ever again since you have proven that you are not interested. Can he edit or not in a discussion about a topic area. Yes or no. I ti s an easy question. I get the reluctance but go ahead and answer.] (]) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Prunesqualer ===
I realise that the following is almost certainly not being presented in the correct form, or forum. However I can only hope that interested parties will sympathise with the following: I am doing little harm here, and that: one should not have to be a Wiki-Lawyer in order to contribute to Wiki.

I believe my contributions, before my indefinite topic ban, <b>were</b> "a benefit to the project".

Re. my ban (to which Cptnono has linked/referred) I can now see that I committed naive breaches of Wiki editing rules. In the case of my first ban I didn’t even know what 3RR meant (I realise ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence, I'm just pointing out where I stood as an inexperienced editor). I noted during my resulting 21 October 2010, 24 hour, editing "block" that Wiki software made it impossible to edit. I made the following wrong assumption: that when I was allowed by the software to edit the Gaza war article before my longer ban on that page had run it's time I must have been forgiven or had slipped through the net (accepting the second possibility was not a noble thing to consider acting on, I admit) . This excuse may seem a little lame but I would add that if you follow the "Gaza War" discussion page at that time, you will find a fair bit of acceptance for the edits I proposed, even from previous opponents (this added to the "green light" feeling I had about making the edits). I realise now that that is not how Wiki works. For these relatively harmless mistakes I received an indefinite ban on editing IP/IA articles.


By contrast here are some Cptnono Wiki quotes:

"Call it Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos as far as I am concerned"

"If you fuck with the mainspace I am going to fuck with you"

"How many separate articles do we need on the Palestinians being sad?"

"So you have enough time to write an AE but it took you this long to comment? Prick."

Action taken for the previous comments "blocked 3 hours for incivility"

Frankly, I admit, that since these events my attitudes and actions have reflected more than a touch of bitterness towards Cptnono.
I believe Cptnono is more biased in IP/AP outlook than I am. I see no good reason beyond his (admittedly) superior Wiki-lawyering skills, as to why- he should be allowed to edit on IP/AP articles, and not I.
PS I would be very happy to discuss the issue of subjectivity, which is so central to these matters (and all human affairs), with any interested party.

<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Shucks another of my fiendish schemes, to undermine Misplaced Pages, and to subvert truth, has been thwarted. It's fortunate, for you pesky good guys, that the Guardians of integrity (Wiki admin) are so clear sighted and unbiased. I will now retire to my up-lit livid green laboratory, and munch on some babies, whilst Cptnono shines a beacon of truth for the free world. ] (]) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Guinsberg ===

I'm not a great connaisseur of wikipedia's protocol. Even though I am aware that user Prunesqualer has been banned from contributing to Israeli/Palestinian articles, I can't understand the basis for Cptnono's complaint against him. User P. was not contributing to an Israeli/Palestinian article: he was using my Talk Page to warn me about the rather sly argument style Cptnono adopts on discussions about that topic - that is, user Prunesqualer wasn't even actually discussing Israeli/Palestinian politics, the only subject he has been forbidden to contribute to on Misplaced Pages. From what I can see in Cptnono's conduct, he has a very provocative communication style. He frequently accuses me of being disruptive and threatens to file a complaint against me for doing exactly what he's done before - even on instances where he recognizes I was right in acting in such a way. That he decided to pick on user Prunesqualer even though it is very hard to see what he has done wrong in communicating with me, only goes to confirm the pattern argumentative behavior. Plus, what he says about me - that I have been warned by an adm on my editions - is not true. ] (]) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Prunesqualer has just one edit in the entire past month, and I do not feel impelled to take any action on this request. If Prunesqualer wishes to seek a lifting or modification of his topic-ban in the future, the appropriate venue in the first instance would be a request either to the administrator who imposed the topic-ban or to the AE board. Any such request would benefit from evidence of appropriate, collegial editing in other topic areas. I can't evaluate the quotes for Cptnono without diffs or links, but needless to say, if they are authentic, then this type of approach would best be avoided, no matter how stressful the editing environment in this topic-area may ofttimes be. ] (]) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
**Prunesqualer, stay off Cptnono's talkpage. Of all the places you could post on the entire wiki, that is one of the least appropriate. Cptnono, you still haven't answered whether the quotations attributed above to you are accurate. If they are, clean up your act. ] (]) 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
* Agreed with Brad. I don't see any reason to take action here. ] (]) 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
* ''"This request was a formality"'' &rarr; If you feel that the user has violated restrictions and arbitration enforcement is required, you should file at ], not at clarification. –]] 15:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
*:The topic ban is "over the entire area of conflict" . Yes: the edit , being made in direct relation to the area of conflict, violated the restriction. –]] 12:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
* Concur, nothing for us to do here. ] (]) 05:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
* I agree with my fellow arbitrators - there isn't anything for us to do here. If there are further infractions of the topic ban, they should be handled at ]. Similarly, an appeal of this ban should be heard at ]. ] (]) 14:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 23:07, 20 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
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)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions Add topic