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 18:02, 3 June 2012 editBrews ohare (talk | contribs)47,831 edits →Motion: To limit Talk-page discussions: Thanks to SilkTork← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:56, 23 January 2025 edit undoPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators210,310 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: if I remember correctly, closed requests are hatted not atop'd 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
== Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Scientology}}
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
see ]


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
Suspension of site ban: User:Justanother / User:Justallofthem
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
Your indefinite site ban is suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and compliance with the following restrictions:
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


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


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason. You may rename that account provided (i) you immediately notify the committee of the rename; (ii) the redirects from the prior account name remain in place; and (iii) you display a link to the previous account name on your user page.
#]


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Interaction ban Cirt
<!--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
i) You may neither communicate with nor comment upon or make reference to either directly or indirectly to User:Cirt or their contributions on any page in the English Misplaced Pages. You may not edit Cirt's talk or user pages though you may, within reason, comment within other pages providing your comments do not relate directly or indirectly to Cirt or their edits. The sole exception to the interaction ban is that you may respond civilly on matters explicitly pertaining to you raised by Cirt or any other editor in any dispute resolution or enforcement context.
*]
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
ii) Should you violate the letter or spirit of the restrictions above, you may be blocked without prior warning via the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard: on the first occasion for up to one week; on the second occasion for up to one month; and on the third occasion for up to three months. Appeal of any blocks is to the Arbitration Committee.
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)
Topic banned from Scientology


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
You are indefinitely topic-banned from Scientology on the standard terms outlined here.
''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 ===
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger talk 13:20, 2 February 2011 (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 ===
; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
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)
* {{userlinks|Lyncs}} (initiator)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
* {{userlinks|Cirt}}
; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* Would someone viewing this please be so kind as to inform Cirt; I am not able to under the terms of the reinstatement. Thanks --] (]) 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
* Cirt . --] (]) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
===Amendment 1===
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)
* Remove all account restrictions based on over one year of good behavior.
=== Statement by Lyncs ===
I was conditionally reinstated well over one year ago with the comment at the time that I could ask to have the restrictions lifted following some period of good behavior. I believe that statement was in an email from an arbitrator and can try to find it if needed.


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
It is now well over one year and I think that I have evidenced my good behavior and good intentions. I do not edit all that much but might edit more in the future. I would prefer to 1) have access to a subject, Scientology, that I am extremely conversant with and 2) not have any live mines that I might inadvertently step onto vis-a-vis interaction bans or the like.
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===
It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and it is currently not my intention to edit Scientology articles but I do not think there is any need to bar me from either at this point. If I do edit in Scientology (which could happen) or interact with Cirt (which is unlikely), I would still be bound by the rules and norms of Misplaced Pages with the added factor that I will be subject to certain scrutiny so I think it is not inappropiate to grant this request. Thank you.
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 ===
1. Response to Newyorkbrad: Lifting the one account restriction is the least of my concerns and if that is a deciding factor or a factor of concern then I have no problem continuing editing solely from this account. --] (]) 12:00, 24 May 2012 (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)
2. Response to AGK: I could make argument on the merits of the original sanctions and possible injustices but I am not interesting in rehashing that nor, I imagine, is the committee. The fact that I have been back for well over one year and have not had any problems is indicative of the fact that I am not into causing problems. That is an important point. Troublemakers cause trouble. They do not stop because they are now excluded from one area or another. They make trouble where they are. That is not what I am about.


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
On second thought, I will say one thing of a general nature related to my sanctions. When I started editing here, I edited the Scientology articles as that was something I had been involved with for many years. If you are familiar with that territory prior to the arbitration, the Scientology articles were a battleground of anti-Scientology zealots warring with Scientology zealots with the antis well in control of the situation. But it was noisy nonetheless. I arrived as a non-zealot Scientologist just trying to add some balance and the benefit of my knowledge. While there were and are plenty of non-zealot folks that do not think highly of Scientology, few seemed to accept that there could be a Scientologist that was a not a zealot. To most, especially the antis, all Scientologists were programmed, brainwashed, and agents of the evil ]. But that is how zealots see things. I made many thousands of edits. My edits were never much of an issue. What was the issue was that I screamed pretty loudly when getting stuck with pins. I think that the project is wiser now on the subject of Scientology. I hope it is wiser on the subject of wiki-bullying in general.
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 ===
I could discretely canvass my wiki-friends and ask them to speak for me but I am not going to do that. They are, of course, welcome to speak on my behalf if they care to; I am just not going around asking anyone to do so.
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*


=== American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
I think the fact that no-one feels strongly enough about my request to come over here and object says something also. I think the fact that it is so quiet here speaks for my request, not against it.
* {{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)
*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 ==
In other words, I present the case that my request is almost a non-issue and I am simply looking for the sanctions to be lifted as "time served" with a warning to watch my step in the future or as appropriate. --] (]) 00:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
{{hat|Appellant has been indeffed by ToBeFree as a normal admin action; rough consensus that no further action is needed. ] (] • she/her) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected
3. Response to Roger Davies: All due respect, but I am not sure what more persuasive argument I can make regarding the two and third issues.
:]


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
I think the fact that <u>three years</u> have elapsed since the end of the Scientology case and I have had next to zero interaction with Cirt and exhibited zero inclination to harass him in any manner should, IMO, be all the argument I need make. What more can I say? I have already stated that "it is not my intention to interact with Cirt". It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and certainly not my intention to cause him grief. I just do not feel that, based on my evidenced lack of intention to harass him, I need have concern about violating a sanction were our paths to cross in some innocuous fashion. Let me put it a bit more strongly; it <u>is</u> my intention to avoid crossing paths with Cirt where possible and to keep things civil if circumstance puts us on the same page.
#]


Regarding the one account restriction, as I state above, that one I can live with but, again based on good behavior, I also would be fine with having it lifted and simply being reinstated in full. --] (]) 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
4. Response to "Statement by Cirt": I think it is appropriate to respond to Cirt's points seeing as he posted them as arguments against my request. If the committee feels this is not appropriate then this edit can be undone. I do not think that his arguments against my request are compelling as outlined below:
<!--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|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)


:1. The reason I was blocked in January 2011 and unblocked in February 2011 is because, when I requested reinstatement in January 2011, I voluntarily admitted that I had some months previously evaded my site ban. The Lyncs account was then blocked pending the outcome of my request. I know that such evasion is a serious breach and I have apologized for it to at least one user . I do not know if I have apologized to the community as a whole but I will do that now. I apologize for evading my ban. I do want to mention that I made a total of <u>one</u> mainspace edit under the ban. One . I did not like socking and that is not who I am. I asked for and received reinstatement. This point is a known issue.


; Information about amendment request
:2. I think it was my right to remove notices referring to me as a banned user as I was not longer a banned user. The Justa... accounts were never inappropriate socks. They were my main and known accounts. How could they be socks? This whole socking thing was blown way out of proportion and is a bit of a sore point with me. I will expand on that a bit later. I very briefly tried socking, I don't like it.
*]
:*2022 changes


:3. Cirt seems to be making some distinction between my old accounts that I can no longer use as a condition of my reinstatement and me as a user? Not sure I agree with that. I am the user. I used a number of accounts. I was banned. Now I am not banned. My other accounts are not "banned" separate from me. I just cannot use them. I was asked to choose which account I wanted to use going forward. I picked Lyncs. I could have picked one of my older, known, accounts. This sort of stuff actually speaks to why I would like all the sanctions lifted as "time served". I would like to be able to go forward without clouds of this sort.


=== Statement by Crouch, Swale ===
:4. Yes, I have wiki-friends and, yes, I communicate with them. I do not understand why the association of my friend with the arb is important. As regards the quoted comment, as I state in my opening statement here, "I do not edit all that much but might edit more in the future."
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 ===
:5 and 6: See above.
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} ===
:7: I stated that I may want to edit the Scientology articles though, if at all, likely in the same gnomish fashion I am currently editing. I have some ideas for aticles (not Scientology-related) and may pursue those ideas in the coming year. I do not see myself interacting with Cirt, I just do not want a ] hanging over my head on that point.
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 ===
:8: Again, how is a known account a sockpuppet? This account, Lyncs, was briefly a sockpuppet. My Alfadog account for quite some time was simply an undisclosed alternate account as permitted by the then-current rules. It was not a sockpuppet, if by that term we mean something used improperly and in violation of the then-policy on alternate accounts. I was making an attempt to create a identity separate from my known "Scientologist" identity. I inadvertantly made one single edit in the Scientology topic without realizing I was still logged in as Alfadog. I also made a few innocuous edits while under a block. That was inappropriate. So that is the extent of my "socking", maybe six mainspace edits, only one in a hot area. That is why this whole "sockmaster" thing is a sore point with me. That and being raked over the coals over it.

Thank you. --] (]) 23:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by NuclearWarfare ===

I took a quick look at . The edits seem to be fine, but they go back quite far (Aug 2011) and aren't incredibly substantial so there isn't a lot of history to examine. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cirt ===
I've been informed by Arbitration Clerk ] that I may respond to this request, .

I have to strongly '''oppose''' this request by {{user|Lyncs}}, for several reasons.
#{{user|Lyncs}} was in January 2011 for ''"block evasion"'', and unblocked in February 2011.
#May 2011 = Lyncs chose to remove ban and sock templates from userpages of his (still blocked) sockpuppets, , , , and . He also
#This is contrary to the terms of his site ban. His other accounts were not unblocked. The siteban was never lifted from the Justallofthem account listed at List of banned users. In fact, the original message posted to Lyncs stated, Therefore, removing the sock tags from all these user pages and the notice that the Justallofthem account is (still) sitebanned was and is inappropriate behavior, and indicative of a lack of change in behavior from that which got him sitebanned.
#In communication with another party from the ArbCom case that got him sitebanned, , Lyncs admits he is
#Since the unblock on the Lyncs account, he has made less than 200 total edits to Misplaced Pages.
#It doesn't appear that the user has successfully made any quality improvements to any articles (FA, GA, etc.) since being unblocked, that would be a demonstration of willingness to work collaboratively outside the prior topic.
#Lyncs states in his request statement that it's not his intention to interact with me, or to edit on the topic banned topic. Therefore, I'm not seeing a need here or positive good done by lifting these restrictions.
#Further, the edits (above) by the Lyncs account post-unblock show an attachment to the prior blocked sockpuppet accounts. This indicates the restriction to one account is still necessary in this case.
Thank you for your time, &mdash; ''']''' (]) 14:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bishonen ===
I count as a friend of Lyncs' (Justanother), which should be kept in mind when reading the following. But I guess not many people remember this stuff, so after some hesitation I decided to weigh in all the same.

Lyncs doesn't edit much, no. It's chilling to be under restrictions that express so much distrust in one's good will. His continued interest in Misplaced Pages is evidenced by his remaining a gnomish editor throughout this long period. To me it seems reasonable to believe him when he states that he doesn't harbour any intentions to interact with Cirt or — at present — to edit Scientology articles. I'd be really, really surprised if he even wanted to have anything to do with Cirt. This is not the place to criticise Cirt, but since the 2011 ArbCom , the long-time campaign of his protector (who has left Misplaced Pages, so there's no reason to name her here) to discredit Justanother as an evil machiavellian harasser of the paragon Cirt has perhaps lost some credibility. from 2008, an attempt to get Justanother community banned, is a particularly egregious example. I'm happy to note that the community ban process has been cleaned up some since then. (My criticism of how it worked on this occasion is , right at the end, in case you can't face reading the whole. It's a very colourful thread, though, especially the.. uh.. different culture evinced in the input from the two Wikinews editors.)

If Lyncs should return to Scientology on a large scale, and/or in a questionable manner, it would surely be easy to reinstate the restrictions. I suggest all the restrictions be removed (unless everybody including Lyncs is happy with the restriction to one account), perhaps with phrasing that provides for quick and simple reinstatement of them, if required. ] &#124; ] 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

=== Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist ===
With respect to Bishonen above, the topical and interpersonal disputes are in a separate league to the issue of ] - the Community has always (to this day) expressed strong views on this issue, given how serious a breach of trust it is. A relevant question, I think, is what caused or tempted the user to the inappropriate use of multiple accounts - did it start off during a dispute in the topic (or with Cirt), did it start off as a matter of generality, or was it well-intentioned conduct that was inadvertantly disruptive (which has now been clarified and remedied)? Unless it is the latter, or this is a case where a single account restriction was completely unwarranted, I would not be comfortable with lending support to the removal of a single account restriction (even with a discretionary sanctions regime). <small>If it did start off during a dispute in a topic or with an user, and that user has subsequently demonstrated there are no issues with his editing in that topic or with that user, then I would agree about the chilling effect - but we are not even at that point yet.</small> ] (]) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by {yet another user} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Question to Lyncs: Does your request include termination of the one-account restriction? ] (]) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting statements from the community that what Lyncs believes is appropriately acceptable behavior is indeed so perceived by the community. ] (]) 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
* The argument to end the unban restrictions is not compelling, and given the absence of discretionary sanctions for this topic I am therefore reluctant to allow Lyncs' (Justallofthem) appeal. However, I too will await statements by the community (if any are to come) before adjudging. ] ]] 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
:* Standard discretionary sanctions apply to this topic. I am therefore minded to vacate the existing sanctions, even with the appellant's limited edits this year. A motion to this effect could be proposed if my colleagues are of the same mind. ] ]] 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
*I have to admit the lack of contributions to base the solving of past issues concerns me greatly. If I had to vote now, it would be to decline, but waiting for more comments first. ] (]) 04:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Decline for now''': ask again when you've made substantially more edits perhaps? &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:*Just reviewing this to see if we can move it forward. What Lyncs seems to be asking for is<ol><li>Lifting of the Scientology topic ban;<li>Lifting of the interaction ban with Cirt (and I'd like to hear from Cirt on that one);<li>Lifting of the one account restriction.</ol>The Scientology discretionary sanctions won't address all of this so I suggest that unless we hear more Lyncs persuasively addressing the two and third issues, within say, seven days, we decline. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
* While I would prefer to see more editing in a range of topics, I believe that the ARBSCI discretionary sanctions would apply in this case, and would likely be sufficient. ] (]) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
*Sort of willing to let the topic ban go at this time, but not then other two restrictions. ] 18:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
*It is problematic that there are so few edits from which to make an assessment; however, in the absence of concerns from the community, a lifting of the Scientology topic ban seems acceptable as time has passed and we have been lifting restrictions for other editors; also, there are discretionary sanctions in place as well as the to deal with any improper editing. I don't see a need to lift the restriction on using one account, given the low level of activity in the single account; and lifting the interaction ban would be best done in consultation with Cirt - preferably after a period of positive editing. In conclusion, I would decline lifting the interaction ban and the one account restriction, but would not oppose lifting the topic ban. ''']''' ''']''' 09:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
----

== Clarification: Speed of light (Brews ohare) ==

'''Case link: ] '''

'''Initiated by ''' <small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> '''at''' 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|JohnBlackburne}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Brews ohare}}

=== Statement by JohnBlackburne ===
It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but ] has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case, {{la|Wavelength}}, because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today , as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again).

My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: the RfC was the place to discuss content. This is neither the time or the place. I made on the content during the RfC, there is no point doing so again. You the RfC, after only a week, so it seemed you were happy that the discussion had run its course and consensus had been reached. It's your to argue and after that that's the problem. It was the RfC that drew me in, as a site-wide notice on a topic I'm interested in. As always if you find fault with my contributions please provide diffs not vague accusations. The link to find them is in my signature.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@] You do know that about editors that they have not volunteered themselves is ], don't you? If I cared to keep my identity private I would not use my real name here but it is still strictly forbidden.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: the problem is suggesting something to Brews ohare doesn't work. Asking politely doesn't work. Asking pointedly with links to relevant policies doesn't work. It's not that he doesn't understand such suggestions and requests: he just refuses to accept them, and has instead written essays saying ] and ]. Even arbitration didn't work. The only thing that stopped him disrupting talk pages and wasting many editors time by creating multiple RfCs
(
, all this year)
and was a block.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: I would like to clarify that this is not a content issue, though it would suit Brews ohare if it were. My presentation above is perhaps not clear on this, so here's the detail again, chronologically:
: Brews ohare first proposes an addition. Two editors object, discussions ensue
: Not accepting that the consensus is against him Brews ohare starts an RFC referencing the previous discussion. More editors join in, including myself. The text is rewritten multiple times (), breaking other editors replies. The consensus turns even more clearly against the additions, however phrased.
: Brews ohare closes the RFC, presumably happy with the result or at least resigned to not convincing other editors
: He continues to argue with other editors over the article
: Dicklyon asks him to stop
: his reply blames Dicklyon
: he continues to argue about the RFC content
: and again asks for "reconsideration" of the RFC content
: I, Srleffler and Dicklyon ask him to stop
: he dismisses these objections as "cheer-leading" and "missing the point".

The text but is the same material throughout: even Brews last attempt says it is for "reconsideration", and ] can be compared with the ]. I've not tried connecting this to the 2009 discussions that Dicklyon mentioned as I was not involved with them. It's also hard to find them: Brews ohare made the edits on this talk page, more than twice that of the next most frequent contributor, often rewriting his own contributions.

This reminds me of my observations : ''this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration''. Only a few months after that block ended and exactly the same is happening.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: That was the subject of the RFC, which is now closed as noted above and archived since, so it's too late to participate. Though even if you had it seems very unlikely given the overwhelming consensus against including it that it would have made any difference.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: You ''haven't'' provided diffs of my supposed improper behaviour, or at least not here. Diffs look like this one, , in which you imply some unnamed editor is 'an idiot' and suggest another or others of 'cowardice'. You can link them like above or link them with text describing them, such as (whatever that means). Please provide diffs of my supposed disruptive behaviour so I know what I am being accused of and can respond. Without such diffs your accusations are baseless and do nothing but make your own arguments weaker.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 00:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dicklyon ===
The problem is not so much "incorrect material", but tangential, poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information, and a few bits wrong, too, combined with refusal to hear or understand objections. When I was defending the ] article against his bloat and nonsense in the summer of 2009, I thought he was probably an overreaching grad student; turns out he's a prof emeritus and fellow of the IEEE, so no dummy. But in the years since, he demonstrated repeatedly an inability to collaborate, or to even understand the objections of other editors to what he is trying to do. This blew up more at ] because there were plenty of other serious editors there. I'm very happy that JohnBlackburne and a few others have been recently helping out at ], because I don't have the time or energy to take on that defense again. I have no idea how to convince Dr. Brews to take on a workable style, but this is a drag. The arbitration was supposed to help put him back on a tolerable track; I hope the arbs will look at how to help here. ] (]) 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the technical argument is Brew's claim that "the Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that". That's nonsense. The Fourier series is one tool used to analyze periodic functions, primarily in the context of linear systems for which a decomposition into sinusoids allows easy solutions and characterizations of behaviors. This is not the case in the situation where he is introducing the Fourier series into the wavelength article; none of the (relatively few) sources that mention the connection show any way that it is useful. It is a red herring, a dead-end tangent. Decomposition of waves into sinusoids is indeed important, but least so in the context of periodic-in-space waves; the wavelength article is hardly the place to get into this. ] (]) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Headbomb ===
Not this crap again... that's all I have to say. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Brews_ohare ===
The gist of Blackburne's complaint is that I have attempted to insert "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths". The text so-described is presented on ] as a proposed addition as follows:
{| cellpadding="2" style="border: 1px solid darkgray; background:#E6F2CE;" align="center"
|The wavelength, say &lambda;, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself. Sinusoidal waves with wavelengths related to &lambda; can superimpose to create this spatially periodic waveform. Such a superposition of sinusoids is mathematically described as a ], and is simply a summation of the sinusoidally varying component waves:
|-
|.. "''Fourier's theorem'' states that a function ''f(x)'' of spatial period &lambda;, can be synthesized as a sum of harmonic functions whose wavelengths are integral submultiples of &lambda; (''i.e.'' &lambda;, &lambda;/2, &lambda;/3, ''etc.'')."<ref name=Schaum group=Note/>
|-
|'''References'''
{{Reflist |group=Note|refs=
<ref name=Schaum group =Note>
{{cite book |title=Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Optics |publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ZIZmyOG-DxwC&pg=PA205
|page=205 |author=Eugene Hecht |year=1975 |isbn=0070277303}}
</ref>
}}
|}
If the direct quote from the cited source fails to convince, here are three others:
*{{cite book |title=Optical physics
|author=Ariel Lipson, Stephen G. Lipson, Henry Lipson |page=94 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2010 |isbn=0521493455
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aow3o0dhyjYC&pg=PA94 |quote= Fourier's theroem states that any periodic function ''f(x)'' can be expressed as the sum of a series of sinusoidal functions which have wavelengths that are integral fractions of the wavelength &lambda; of ''f(x)''
}}
*{{cite book |title=An Introduction to Mineral Sciences |page=65 |quote=''Fourier analysis'' is a mathematical method of expressing any periodic function with wavelength &lambda; as a sum of sinusoidal functions whose wavelengths are integral fractions of &lambda; (''i.e.'' &lambda;, &lambda;/2, &lambda;/3, ''etc.) |url=http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mineral-Sciences-Andrew-Putnis/dp/0521429471#reader_0521429471 |isbn=0521429471 |year=1992 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |author=Andrew Putnis}}
*{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=o7sXm2GSr9IC&pg=PA78&dq=%22As+Fourier+demonstrated,+complex,+but+periodic%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Aw-1T8PdOcqsiAK0jomzAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22As%20Fourier%20demonstrated%2C%20complex%2C%20but%20periodic%22&f=false |title=Introduction to Macromolecular Crystallography |chapter=Figure 4.1 |page=78 |author=Alexander McPherson |isbn= 0470185902 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |year=2009 |edition=2nd}} This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.

I believe this sets aside Blackburne's claim that I attempt to "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths", and also Dicklyon's claims that this text represents "poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information" or of inserting "bloat and nonsense". It also refutes mistaken that "wavelength" is not applicable to functions periodic in space ("And your statement that ‘''The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself'' ’ is contrary to typical usage of the term ‘wavelength’ " ] (]) 23:29, 15 May 2012).

At this point, it is established that content is not the issue here, and smearing this proposal as an example of bloat, flawed understanding, and idiosyncrasy is wide of the mark, and reflects poorly upon the grasp of the text by its critics. As is a self-professed "research engineer in Silicon Valley" and a declared mathematician, one may wonder how these basic misconceptions have arisen. On any other WP article a minor sourced quotation making a connection between one topic ('']'') and others ('']'') on WP would attract no attention whatsoever. I am forced to speculate that the primary source of the extreme response here is that Dicklyon and Blackburne have a prior history with me, and it is their lingering objections to my contributing to WP that drives them to bizarre claims contrary to sources, not this particular content. ] (]) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If further support for the content presented is required, I can supply an unending list of texts describing Fourier series and its application to periodic functions, and a case can be made that Fourier series ''is'' the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that.

What remains is the general claim that my ''Talk-page'' discussion insists too much on adding this aside to the reader, over "objections" of other authors. I'd suggest that these objections have been largely based upon misconceptions about the content of the proposed text and its purpose. My attempts to explain that this is an aside pointing out the applicability of the mathematical machinery of periodicity to the topic of spatially periodic waveforms has been addressed by Dicklyon using the argument that Fourier series is not useful for this purpose, which seems to me to be patently absurd. The entire history of functional analysis begins with Fourier series applied to periodic functions, and it is the subject of innumerable textbooks.

My interchange with Dicklyon on ] extends over several topics, and not just this particular point. Sometimes such discussion gets somewhere, and sometimes it doesn't. That is what Talk pages are for. ] (]) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example of a fruitful outcome, a discussion on ] led to my authoring of the article ] when it appeared that this topic could not be addressed within ] itself. Other discussions led to the inclusion of the topic of ''local wavelength'' and a figure, the inclusion of the section on ''crystals'' and the notion of aliasing with another figure, and to the sections on ''interference and diffraction'' with two more figures (all figures created by myself). In fact, seven of the figures in ] were contributed by myself and accompanied by additional text and sources arrived at through discussion. ] (]) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the comment by Count Iblis. I believe he has a point in a way. I recognize that most of my interactions with Dicklyon prove difficult, and the proposed text was clearly one of those. I modified my proposal several times to make it a more and more minor addition, hoping to get some recognition that ] in some form should be mentioned in ]. Some formulation of this point could be acceptable to all if the point were developed jointly in a constructive manner. But the practical approach is for me to keep in mind the limitations upon what is possible with Dicklyon and Blackburne, and recognize that Blackburne will adopt every opportunity to drag AN/I or some Administrator into what would otherwise settle itself. ] (]) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Count Iblis: Thanks for the added remarks. Dealing with Dicklyon at length has succeeded sometimes, but Blackburne's intolerance makes this more unlikely than in the past. My efforts to widen opinion using ] hasn't worked. Your recommendation of ] as an alternative mechanism to get other editors involved, and to limit my own participation, is worth trying in the future. ] (]) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@Count Iblis: You raise the very practical question "''how can you actually get something done here while facing opposition?''", and suggest an approach bases upon aggressive revision of the article Main page that, if properly crafted, will force Talk page objections into a productive framework. It is unfortunate that so often Talk pages must be viewed in this light as struggling against opposition, instead of joining collaboration. In particular, if some of the editors interested in a page perhaps do not share even the same concept of what a WP article should be, or view exchange of ideas as survival of the fittest, or see WP as a venue to establish who counts, that is the result. ] (]) 23:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
:::@Count Iblis: I believe you are right that where I have made new articles or added large sections I have been more successful. For example, ] developed when arguments by Dicklyon and others prevented exploration of periodic envelopes on ]. By creation of a new article, these editors were faced with a wide open argument about deletion, which they did not attempt. Likewise, with Blackburne on ], as you mentioned. In that case he tried for deletion and lost in the wider community. Also, ] avoided the controversy portions of this topic caused on ]. Any approach that widens the number of editors that might become involved in a dispute proves beneficial. ] (]) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
::::@Count Iblis' proposal. Count, can you explain your proposal more? Here is my confusion. You propose a list of only 3 articles where I can edit. It isn't clear to me what the list is about. Immediately after introducing a maximum of 3 articles, you go on to say that there are many articles where I can contribute without problems. So I suppose the list refers to 3 articles where problems have shown up, and that seems opposite to what you have said. I'd take it that a complaint to the mentor about Brews ohare's Talk-page participation by an upset editor leads the mentor to review that Talk page and decide whether it goes on the list or not. It is the mentor's job to look at the discussion and decide for himself if it is too extended, based not upon content, but upon how much back and forth has occurred. Once listed, I have to abandon that page, but I am unclear how a page becomes removed from the list unless it is has to be removed because another one is added, and the limit is 3 pages. If I have got this right, or otherwise, can you extend your presentation to make these points more transparent? If I've got it right, I'd say this proposal is workable for me. If instead I am allowed to work on only 3 articles altogether, I don't find that acceptable. ] (]) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to ''My very best wishes'', I gather that you pose a query to me that can be narrowly expressed something like this: "Assuming that Brews_ohare is completely correct in stating that a sourced quotation has pertinence to the article ], and assuming further that opposition to its inclusion is not well founded, would you, Brews_ohare, nonetheless agree to desist from pursuing this particular attempt to include this material in ]?" I'd answer that the posited assumptions reflect how I think about this matter, but, as stated above in my response to Count Iblis, I also see that there is little point in pursuing the issue on ] under the prevailing circumstances. So, yes, I'll move on. Your question, however, is posed more broadly, not restricted to this episode on ]. In a broader context, regarding discussion in general, I'll have to consider carefully to what extent Dicklyon is open to discussion should he appear on another Talk page. I'd point out the paragraph above detailing positive outcomes for ] in interaction with Dick. These were the result of useful but difficult discussions with Dick. Now a further difficulty to weigh in future is that any extended discussion with Dick will draw in Blackburne, who will use any detailed discussion as an opportunity to invite Administrator attention, even using a pretext such as this supposed query about "clarification" of an expired sanction. I will doubtless be more careful in the future. ] (]) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:@''My very best wishes'': Thanks for the remarks. Yes, there is no general answer to these kinds of problem. The answer appears in this case to depend upon my exercising more care in dealing with these two, regardless of the topic or the merits. ] (]) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@''My very best wishes'': I interpret your added remark as a suggestion that I be topic banned to reduce clamor on ]. If your suggestion is a page-ban, it is hardly necessary, as it is clear to me that the present discussion is over. If your suggestion is more general, I would strongly object that such a serious action goes far beyond anything suggested by ]. ] (]) 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
::@''My very best wishes'': I'd add to these remarks that many past prolonged discussions on ] have proved productive, as evidenced by the discussions attached in ] to the seven figures I have contributed there. Not all prolonged, and even heated, discussions are useless, although they may not generate a glow of satisfaction. Of course, the atmosphere on Talk pages is not always ideal (to say the least), and results often stem from debate as much as from collaboration. However, if the discussions on ] had been inhibited by the threat of sanctions, the article ] would not be as good. ] (]) 14:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Srleffler, the proposed text in the green box is not merely rehash. The proposal narrowed in scope and purpose over time to become what it now is, a simple cross-reference between ] and ], a much more limited reference than that found in the four sources cited above. However, your objections never addressed this change, as explicitly to you. ] (]) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Blackburne's objections to my "outing" him: I was unaware that referring to a link to your photo would prove upsetting, as it is immediately available from the posted on your . My apologies. I also was unaware of any policy in this regard. I have removed the link. ] (]) 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Blackburne: I'm gratified to see you read my two essays , though surprised at the tone of your reaction and your invented titles for them. You now are using this "clarification" as a foot in the door to squeeze in a smear campaign. ] (]) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to ''Jclemens'': Although it may appear from Blackburne's perspective that simple head-butting took place on ], in fact the discussion did evolve. It ended with the text in the green box that makes the connection between ] and ]. As pointed out by direct quotes from published sources, objections that this text contains improper content are wrong. The objections actually are only a matter of taste: the value of a digression. Nonetheless, at this point I recognize that even this limited proposal has been rejected.

You have advised "all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question". One might wish that interactions between myself and Dicklyon, with occasional participation by Srleffler, were less confrontational. Nonetheless, improvements to ] have resulted from our past interactions, leading to eight figures contributed by myself and their related content. One such discussion led to the new article ]. So, although our relationship is imperfect, shall we say, it can have positive results, and it does not require Arbitration. ] (]) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to ''Kirill'': There is nothing complicated about this case at all, if you look at it closely. The proposed text in the green box is nothing more than a straightforward quote from a reliable source, backed up by further sources for the purpose of this case. Bringing it forward here as a "clarification" of a dead sanction is only pretext, as you have noticed. This action simply is harassment by Blackburne, who was involved only peripherally in the discussion of this proposal. The real discussion was between Dicklyon and myself, and we frequently disagree about how a topic should be presented or even whether it should be presented. These differences are often just a matter of taste, as in the present case where the actual content is beyond reproach, and the only issue is evaluation of pertinence to the topic. Our joint history shows that we can sort these matters out without the intervention of Administrators. See, for example, , and as an example of one of our extended discussions that ended equably with positive results for WP. This whole matter should be thrown out in its entirety. ] (]) 15:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

====Summary remarks====
If I weren't the subject here, it would amuse me to see how a lengthy dispute between two editors (Dicklyon and Brews ohare) over including a reference to another WP article could be blown up to such proportions. The original object here of a so-called "clarification" of the Case:Speed of light, an expired sanction, has been completely put aside. By accepting the possibility of a topic ban, the matter is now, in effect, a case or a review with no name and no discovery, settled by a show of hands without open fact-finding.

Were it the case that the issue of noncontroversial or valuable edits were a factor in Arbs' thinking, the matter would be settled in my favor already. Since my return, among other articles Misplaced Pages now has ] and ] and ] and ] that were written by myself without controversy. ] contains multiple figures by myself with associated discussions fashioned amid controversy with Dicklyon, when Blackburne was not about. When Dicklyon is not involved, my editing history is full of non-controversial additions to articles, the most recent being a history section for ].

A real question is why a gadfly like Blackburne is given credence when he sticks his nose into something he has no interest in, and doesn't take time to understand. Apparently, he is appreciated for other reasons.

Blackburne has made to arbitration since my return to WP from a ban of a year that was instigated in response to a request by Blackburne at that time. He has across Misplaced Pages, even to articles like ] and several essays of mine, like ] that have no relation to the topics of physics or math. Prior history shows this will continue with increased intensity should the topic ban be imposed, allowing claimed violation simply by raising content issues that formally lie outside Arbs' jurisdiction as ]. A topic ban takes ''any'' claim that the ban has been violated to AN/I, where content is moot, or allows any Administrator to institute reprisal by themselves, without discussion with anyone else.

Some Arbs have pointed out this matter is not a "clarification" at all, and if any action is to be taken at all, it involves some complex history that needs sorting out by a review or a full case. I hope that sense prevails. ] (]) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see an about-face by Arbs who now contradict their initial reactions, for no stated reasons. Disagreement between a very few editors on a Talk page? Despite Elen of the Roads' observations that Case:Speed of light was over and a new case was necessary, AGK's comments that the matter was too specialized for a motion, Krill's and PhilKnight's agreement with that, Jclemens' exhortation that all parties work together, and SilkTork's seeing no problem with Talk page discussion? What happened, one might ask? Why were all of Roger Davies' motions ''against'' Brews ohare, and none for other alternatives? What has the pretext for this action of a "clarification" of a dead Case:Speed of light got to do with all this? The dead Case:Speed of light has decided things, after all, it seems.

There isn't any sign my remarks were considered, nor those of the community at large.

It's too bad. ] (]) 22:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Elen of the Roads: "Everyone else is quoting textbooks, Brews ... has his own interpretations. There's your problem." Elen, that is nonsense: it is my text in the green box that cites sources. There is no interpretation by Brews, and the claims by the critics is not sourced at all, and in fact contradicts four cited sources. ] (]) 23:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:Besides, this is not a content dispute, but a dispute over whether I am allowed to protest on a Talk page over spurious allegations contrary to sources. Apparently that rebuttal has limits, and my behavior in many other cases shows that I am aware of this fact, and have desisted. Were a full review opened, these matters could be properly explored, and my behavior properly assessed. ] (]) 23:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

:@Jclemens: "This seems a more appropriate way forward when only one previously-sanctioned user's conduct is being questioned." Two questions: Why is a topic ban preferable to the ], which has obvious advantages for easy Administrator enforcement and eliminates murky decisions about content? And, why is it that only the actions of ''one'' editor, Brews ohare, is under consideration when it is clear that Blackburne has pursued Brews ohare all over WP, and Dicklyon has been the major partner in long discussion wherever he has shown up? ] (]) 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
:@Jclemens: You say "you may be questioning the conduct of two other editors, but I didn't--and still don't on a quick re-read-through--see anyone else doing so here". That seems to be the case, no-one else has dwelt upon this issue. That doesn't mean it isn't there. In my comments I have linked diffs by the score showing Blackburne's efforts to embroil me in many contexts. And there are also diffs above showing Dicklyon's engagements with me can be very extended, so their length in itself is not a cause for alarm until Blackburne capitalizes upon it.
:I am aware having looked at statistics that Arbs have a lot of stuff to deal with, a mind-boggling amount in fact. So the time to look at things is limited. However, in this case these pressures have led you astray.
:In any event, the ] to limit my Talk-page interactions fixes all this, regardless of the brou-ha-ha and regardless of why it all came to be, or who is at fault. ] (]) 00:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

====Way forward====
So far the motions under consideration by arbitrators are limited in nature. The goal of all of them is to limit what is seen as my disruption of Talk pages.

A much simpler way to do this than the proposals, and one that does not eliminate my ability to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a positive way, is a motion imposing a limit on how many times I can attempt to rephrase a proposed addition to the main page without censure of some kind.

A motion of this form has two advantages: it eliminates my causing long Talk-page discussions while allowing me to contribute non-controversial material such as ], history of the ], and , and at the same time it is easy to administer. Instead of judging whether or not a contribution of mine on (say) 'Pythagoras' is biographical, mathematical or physics-related (an undertaking difficult for Admins with no technical background) an Admin has only to be able to count how many times I have attempted to explain a proposal of mine.

It seems probable to me that by working under such stricture I would develop habits of discussion acceptable to the community, and eliminate pretexts for arbitration.

There is no need for Admins to keep an eye on matters: if no editor complains about Brews ohare, there is nothing to worry about. If an editor does complain, that will trigger Administrator attention, and a count of Brews ohare replies will result. The criterion of three replies is so easy to implement that it seems likely to be a rare occurrence that Brews ohare will overstep. ] (]) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A different motion has been advanced by ''Count Iblis'' and ''My very best wishes''. That proposal involves appointment of an intermediary who would decide when and whether a suggestion of mine was ready for prime time, and serve to interface between myself and other editors. Some version of this proposal could work, but I feel that it is a burden upon the mentor that might make it hard to find a volunteer.

In any event, the present motions do not address my Talk-page discussions in the best way, and some more creative measure, like the two suggested here, would be better for the future of WP. ] (]) 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

====Motion: To limit Talk-page discussions ====

Brews ohare is advised to limit his Talk-page discussion of topics to an initial proposal and three or fewer responses to rejection. Follow-up proposals or new threads initiated by Brews ohare concerning the same topic do not re-initiate the count. Introduction of a new thread by another editor does reset the count. Brews ohare may reintroduce a topic on a Talk page after a lapse of time set as six months, which resets the count upon Brews ohare's ability to respond. These strictures upon Brews ohare will be reviewed in one year to see how things are going.

The penalty for violation of these requirements will be a page-ban for one year from the page and its Talk-page where the violation occurred.
:@Roger Davies: Roger, you have that this proposal to limit my Talk-page activity cannot be proposed as an alternative here because you "do not feel sufficiently confident in the outcome to propose it as an alternative." You go on to say that a topic ban is a great approach because an editor (like Brews ohare) will have no trouble steering clear of any edits that could possibly infringe upon the ban.

:Of course, history shows that to be nonsense: who can anticipate that some editor will call it an infraction of a physics ban to cite an author in an unrelated connection who also happens to be a physicist. Or that an idiot will confuse geometry with physics? All of which have happened, as the diffs I showed you substantiate.

:Your timidity regarding presenting this alternative to your peers speaks well neither of your common sense, nor of your opinion of their abilities as Arbs.

:Inasmuch as a perfectly fine solution to the supposed difficulties here cannot be discussed out of cowardice that it may have possible but unimagined pitfalls (which, of course, always could be corrected in another action of "clarification"), this entire proceeding is now perfectly crowned for all to marvel, a WP wonderment. ] (]) 23:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:@SilkTork: You've obliquely criticized this proposed Talk page restriction as allowing trouble before it is detected. Apparently the idea is that a topic ban will prevent disruption altogether, and not just react to it. Your criterion for a viable sanction is that it stop any disruption before it begins.
:One way to insure no trouble is to make a very clear sanction. Brews ohare and everyone here can count to three, so the likelihood of a transgression of the proposed Talk-page limitation is very small.
:In contrast, the likelihood of a topic ban leading to Administrator intervention is very high, based upon WP history. The reason for this dismal record of the topic ban is that a topic ban necessarily involves assessment of the ''content'' of edits, and both Administrators and editors cannot make the necessary technical distinctions. What is worse, they tend to push a topic ban far beyond the need to limit issues for WP, and instead wikilawyer the thing beyond any reasonable interpretation, as when a topic ban against physics is construed to be violated by citing a published source in a physics-unrelated matter simply because its author happens to be a physicist. ] (])
:These remarks are intended to assist in the consideration of methods to limit Talk-page activity, and I am happy to see that SilkTork is open to such a discussion. ] (]) 18:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved My very best wishes ===
I am not quite sure why the overall atmosphere in Physics is significantly more hostile than in Biology and Chemistry. It could be that articles in this area are better developed and therefore more difficult to improve, or it could be that some editors want everything to be described exactly as in their favorite textbook (although there are alternative interpretations) and in their favorite version of article, so they should be reminded of ] and ]. What I mean is not the editing by Brews, but the overall opposition to making changes in this area (including changes proposed by Brews). Actually, editors in the area of Physics and Math (including Brews) made an outstanding work. Now the real challenge is to make some of these articles more understandable and even interesting for students and general public. This can be done by using introductory textbooks and ''good'' books on ] that prove scientific concepts by explaining them. Unfortunately, such RS are frequently and unfairly dismissed merely on the grounds that they are not "academic" (even if written by experts with PhD degrees), and not only in the area of Physics.

In this particular situation, I do not think that returning to old subjects was a problem because consensus can change, but Brews must carefully avoid to be engaged in ]. I do not see any proof of WP:DE by Brews at the moment - ''agree with Silk Tork''. ] (]) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Brews. Please consider the following situation. There is certain perfectly sourced information that you think must be included, but there is also a couple of other people who do not want it to be included, and they are wrong. Would you agree to drop the issue and edit something else? Please read ] before response. (<small>Just to clarify, I am not telling here that "opponents" of Brews are wrong).</small> ] (]) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@Brews. Thank you. I think there is no general answer to this, and it well could be that the "other guys" are engaged in ], paid advocacy, or a personal crusade against an editor, even if they form majority (once again, I am talking generally here, not about people in this particular incident). This is a situation when ] sometimes comes in a contradiction with WP:NPOV and ]. But unfortunately, there is no other choice, but to follow WP:Consensus if we do not want to be sanctioned. ] (]) 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:::@Brews. No, I do not have an opinion that people who continue civil discussions even when they are in minority should be topic-banned. But I am not sure about our policies in such cases and therefore asked to clarify. In a couple of cases I looked at (Pythagorean_theorem and Wavelength), I think that your suggested changes do not significantly improve these pages (although there is nothing wrong with your materials to be included), so you could spend your time more efficiently by switching to other articles in the area of Physics, as you did during the initial period of your editing here. <u>However, in , you were absolutely right</u> , and there is now a constructive discussion on this article talk page. ] (]) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
*This looks to me as prolonged disputes on numerous talk pages, such as and now . The arguments by Brews are not unreasonable, and he provides some valid sources. At the same time, I can agree that such discussions are frequently fruitless, distract people from making productive contributions, and therefore can lead to sanctions. But we have much longer and even less productive discussions in many other subject areas, for example . Should we just look who contributed most in such discussions and topic-ban the leader? Please clarify. ] (]) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
*@ I think this is an excellent point by AGK ("I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea"). Indeed, an administrator frequently can not judge if a user contributes positively to the project or makes a disservice to reader (as Helen said ), unless he knows the subject. Actually, the biggest mistakes can be made in cases when an admin thinks that he knows something (because he follows "common sense" or read about it in newspaper - usually in the areas of history and politics), but he actually does not. Unfortunately, ''not knowing the subject is an official policy'': all admins are prohibited from ruling in the areas where they edit and therefore read a lot about. ] (]) 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
*:@JohnBlackburne. I did not read the entire discussion (], sorry), but the question that Brews asks in the beginning is this: "''Comment is sought as to whether a reference to Fourier series is appropriate under the heading general periodic waveforms''". Yes, it is. Certainly there is nothing wrong here. ] (]) 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree that Brews would be much better off by immediately dropping any issue that meets opposition, and I am sure he realizes this by now. ] (]) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

*Perhaps my problem is that I did not see the previous disputes with Brews. Sorry, I am not interested. It is enough that I looked at his content contributions and found them good. But to ban a user for conducting civil discussion on a talk page of one article is over the top. ] (]) 13:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:@SilkTork. I respectfully disagree. Yes, the list of previous sanctions for Brews looks convincing to me. The only relevant question now is this: did he made any serious policy violation this time. I think he actually did not. ] (]) 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

*@AGK. Yes, I agree. There are no problems with article Wavelength or with content changes suggested by Brews. Neither I see any serious problems with discussion by Brews. In fact, the only action needed on the part of other editors was to firmly say "no" ''one time'' (if they are so strongly opposed to the change by Brews, and I am not opposed to his changes), and peacefully leave the page. There was no edit warring about this. And if other editors continued discussion, it means that discussion was meaningful, exactly as Brews tells. ] (]) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Srleffler. Yes, I agree that Brews is a very knowledgeable contributor in Physics, Engineering and Math, and it would be shame to loose him. ''I also agree with proposal by Count Iblis.'' Of course I did not mean that someone just tells "no" at article talk page. I mean that someone comes to an RfC, tells his opinion, justifies it by sources, and leaves. But if he wants to continue discussion, this is fine too. And it is not uncommon that someone wants to have "last word" and makes a long post, but remains in minority and looses the dispute (no matter if he was right or wrong), like Brews. But considering this a sanctionable offense is over the top. ] (]) 22:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis ===
Brews is making the mistake of trying to get his way by posting more RFCs. Thing is that being right on the issue doesn't give you the right to edit your way. The first time, I did see the RFC Brews posted, and I wanted to comment, but I abandoned that due to lack of time. I did not agree with Brews' proposal, but I had an idea about an alternative text that would mention Fourier transforms.

What struck me also was the lack of such contructive efforts, because obviously, Fourier transforms does in principle have a place in an article about wavelengths, regardless of how flawed Brews' proposal was. So, there is also something wrong about the general editing climate if the issue isn't properly debated. If editor X raises an issue and he has a point, then one should discuss the point that does exist and steer the discussion toward that, and not focus on opposing by ignoring the real points that exist and only focussing on where the editor goes wrong. Because then that editor will eventually correct himself and you end up dancing around the central point for a long time, causing everyone to get irritated.

So, I would suggest Brews to limit the time he spends online here editing and arguing on the talk page. Try to get it (almost) right the first time you propose something, or when you edit something in an article. To the others, I would say that they should be more positive about any proposals. This doesn't mean that you have to accept something that is bad, just that you would in that case end up rejecting in a way that would more likely conclude the debate. E.g. on the ] page I see too much opposition for proposed edits while in the end you had to accept the proposal. Surely, that could have been agreed to weeks earlier by acknowledging that the proposer did have a legitimate point here? ] (]) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Brews, by limiting the time spend here, what I meant was the time you spend here in some uphill effort to get something into the article. I would recommend that as soon as you experience any difficulties like in this case, you drop a line at Wikiproject physics instead of letting the issue fester for many weeks. But then, after briefly explaining your point, you should let others take a look while you reduce your input significantly. There is, of course, nothing wrong with spending a lot of time editing and arguing constructively on Misplaced Pages.

Don't think that everyone at Wikiproject physics is going to oppose you, because of the past history. I remember that Headbomb asked for input there because he was having difficulties editing the Planck law article last year. He got support on some points, but on some other points he did not get support. So, this isn't some rubber stamp procedure where the people who you got difficulties with in the past, always get their way.

I think this is better than posting RFCs, because this is more likely to lead to new editors actually getting involved in the article. What matters in the end is if some text is going to be seen to be appropriate for the article by the larger community and eventually by the readers of Misplaced Pages, not by any particular editor. ] (]) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne, you have been de-facto patrolling Brews edits the last few years. You do this with the best of intentions (and that not necessarily actively, you may simply see Brews' edits on your wachlist), but in practice this leads to problems of the same type we've seen in quite a few other ArbCom cases. Your Wiki-philosophy is too much at odds with Brews'. Where there are two completely opposite but legitimate points of views regarding edits, you two end up preferring the different options, and ].
If you then also find yourself having to cite Wiki-policies to Brews on other occasions when its more serious and you intent to go to a noticeboard if he doesn't listen, he may not take you serous, even though the issue may now not ambiguous, i.e. Brews is wrong and you are right.
I guess Brews also needs to see examples of how you can actually get something done here while facing opposition, instead of only being told not to do something here whenever there is opposition. The example given by My very best wishes is a good thing to explore. So, the lede of the Fourier transform article now says that:
"The '''Fourier transform''' is a mathematical operation with many applications in ] and ] that expresses a mathematical ] of time as a function of ], known as its ]; ] guarantees that this can always be done."

I have to say that I find this definition mentioning time completely unacceptable too. The question is then how to go about changing this definition, without having to fight some uphill battle on the talk page. If I imagine how things are likely to go wrong with Brews insisting on the relevant issue on the talk page, it's actually because Brews will be "too nice" at the start. He will make the most minimalist of proposals you can imagine. He thinks by doing that he can avoid stepping on people's toes. But then, because he went out of his way with such a proposal, he will argue fanatically for it, ending up annoying people after a while.

My style of editing is completely different, I would completely rewrite the introduction of the article to make room for a more general definition. That creates far more room to deal with legitimate opposition than some minimalist proposal affecting only one or two sentences. I would not engage in arguments with people who oppose me but have no good arguments, who have ] issues. I gave them less room to exploit other issues to argue about. So, my starting position is much stronger than that of Brews. But this does require more work, as you have to rewrite a lot more of the article. ] (]) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews, for the articles you have been involved in it looks like that way. Now, I'm not saying that you have always been right in disputes, just that you have ended up being opposed with what you wanted to do quite often. Then, you can look at what you have been successul at doing here. I think that the larger editing efforts by you have been more productive, like the large sections of some classical mechanics articles (e.g. about curvelinear motion). I have the impression that whenever you engage in editing well developed articles here on more minor points, that this leads to problems.

So, perhaps you should think about creating new articles, or edit complete new sections in articles. That will automatically move you toward articles that are not well developed yet, and then you are less likely to encounter editors with strong ] feelings, plus you have all the benefits I wrote about above. My editing here is more focussed on these sorts of articles, see e.g. my recent edits to ].

If someone were to object to these edits, and start a discussion about that, then the ball would be more in his court than mine, because the formula and the proof should be in either this article or somewhere else. So, simply reverting and deleting the edits because, say, it is too textbook like, or because no sources are given, isn't really an option. These are issues that can be fixed by including sources or rewriting to make it less textbook like. But such discussions are less likely to happen in the first place.

Note that when you created the Idee Fixe article, it was put on PROD and then on AFD, so the opposer of that article had to argue with the larger community, not you, and he lost his argument. While you also argued a lot on the AFD page, you could have left only a brief comment there and then completely ignore the opposer. ] (]) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban will lead to more problems not less. I've explained that and suggested an alternative . Basically this is a ban on editing any article or talk page unless given permission to do so by a mentor. ] (]) 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


;Proposed Motion
;Brews restricted to work on an approved list of articles

The previous time there was topic ban, the same problems manifested themselves in some of the math articles Brews was working on, leading to a site ban for a year. So the problem is not topic related. While the present topic ban mentions "physics related", the problem really hasn't got one iota to do with physics. The nature of the problem is that when opposed, Brews will tend to try to talk his way out of that opposition. That he makes a proposal that is wrong in some case (i.e. his own interpretation that is not fully supported by a source) isn't actually the fundamental cause, because we can all make such mistakes. If you are right but the proposal is not welcome, you still have to accept that.

Then, because Brews has been able to work productively in many articles without friction, I would aks the Arbs to consider this proposal:

'''Brews is restricted to work on a list of articles, the list is determined by a mentor and is limited to a maximum of 3 articles. A link to the list is posted on the Speed of Light ArbCom page. Should Brews edit any other article than the listed ones, Brews will be blocked as part of the regular ArbCom enforcement procedure, and that block will be logged at the relevant ArbCom page.'''

There are plenty of articles where Brews can work without there being much friction on the talk page. But suppose that the mentor would need to intervene, how would that work? Note here that the perceived disruption caused by Brews is typically a slow moving one, where a discussion goes on and on and on and on. This means that a mentor who monitors how Brews is doing has ample time to intervene. The mentor can also be contacted by editors who feel that Brews is starting to engage in an argument that will likely lead to nowhere, allowing the mentor to cut that short and remove the article from the list.

What the mentor won't do is try to see if Brews has a point. So, suppose that I'm the mentor and Blackburne contacts me to notify that he has reverted an edit by Brews and Brews has explained his edit on the talk page, then I would remove that article from the list. Clearly, Brews has then made his point, and if he really has a point, any other editor can continue from there. Whether I agree with Brews' point or not is then neither here nor there. My task is to steer Brews toward articles where such discussions to defend edits are not necessary in the first place (of course, engaging with constructive criticism would not be a problem).

So, this isn't a burden on the mentor. Admins can easily check if Brews is sticking to editing the 3 listed articles. Brews also prefers to work within these constraints instead of the physics related topic ban. ] (]) 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Brews, you would only be allowed to work on 3 articles. This looks very restrictive, but note that the list is flexible. You have to consider this as an alternative to the complete physics topic ban and presumably also a very difficult editing experience in math articles, where your editing can be construed to be physics related or otherwise problems can occur and you then find yourself at AE frequently and perhaps eventually site banned for a year or longer. Also, for any restriction to have a chance to be accepted it must be practical to enforce. That's not difficult to do for a list of just a few articles.

Then about you feeling restricted a lot, in practice, that may not be a big deal because you can only ever edit at one place at a time, and looking at your conributions, you can see that you tend to stick to editing a few articles a lot. If you want to edit somewhere that is not in the list, you just propose that to the mentor, and you can get approval for that. But then another article will be removed, you then choose which one. If we limit the rate of changes to the list to one mutation per week, this will not be a burden to Admins who patrol AE.

] (]) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Srleffler ===
The fundamental problem here is Brews' persistent, tendentious style. In ] Brews introduced some weak material relating to nonsinusoidal waves and Fourier series decompositions of them. After much discussion, some of his ideas got reworked and put into the article and others did not. He just can't let go of the concepts that didn't make it in, though. No matter what arguments are raised or how many other editors object, he just keeps bringing forward the same ideas over and over and over again, with slight variations of form. Every now and then he files an RfC, and when his proposal is rejected he immediately resurrects it in yet another slight variation and starts all over again. It is tiresome, and a waste of time that could be put to better use editing other articles.--] (]) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Count Iblis' proposal should be considered. I agree with him that this issue is not really about physics; it is about Brews' editing style and method of interacting with other editors. A topic ban seems likely to be less effective and less appropriate than something that might help Brews to adjust how he approaches editing on Misplaced Pages. Also, Brews ''is'' extremely knowledgeable about physics and mathematics, and it would be a shame to lose his ability to make constructive edits in this area. --] (]) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To "My Very Best Wishes": you write "the only action needed on the part of other editors was to firmly say "no" one time ... and peacefully leave the page." That is ''not'' how Misplaced Pages works. We (the other editors) don't ] the article; editing is by consensus. Simply telling another editor firmly "no" is not acceptable. Everyone who is making a good faith effort to contribute is entitled to an explanation when others disagree with their edits, and if the original editor is not convinced then a discussion is necessary to either change one side's mind or arrive at a consensus. The problem is just that Brews keeps coming back with the same issue again and again and again, neither convincing anybody nor being convinced, and not letting the matter drop. He compromises, but I'm often left feeling that the compromise versions are just the ] for a further attempt to introduce the rest of the material (some of the interactions in 2009 worked out this way, if I recall correctly). --] (]) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To Silktork: a talk-page-only restriction is clearly not going to work, unless it is tied to an article-space editing restriction. The problem is not bad talk page behaviour ''per se'', but rather unending attempts to insert material into articles—not knowing when to give up and move on. What is required is something that limits his ability both to insert material into an article and to keep trying over and over and over to argue for that material on the associated talk page. To work, any solution has to not be prone to wikilawyering. Brews' proposal above concerns me in that regard, since I can see it leading to arguments over the definition of "the same topic" and "a new thread by another editor". (Brews tends to re-introduce the same ideas in slightly different form and insist that the repackaged material is altogether new.) Also, of course, article-space edits related to the talk page discussion would have to be prohibited: if he can't discuss a topic on the talk page, he should not be able to insert material related to that topic in the article. Count Iblis' proposal would be simpler to implement if a suitable "mentor" can be found, and it will be less prone to wikilawyering. The mentor could even implement something similar to Brews' proposal, but with the benefit that the mentor then is the one who decides whether a new thread is on "the same topic" or a different (but possibly related) one.--] (]) 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Looie496 ===

I am a bystander with no involvement other than being appalled at how much disruption one editor can cause. I would like to note that Remedy 2 of the case was ''Brews ohare is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Misplaced Pages.''. If that remedy has any specific meaning at all, it ought to mean that Brews ohare is subject to sanctions via some sort of expedited process. ] (]) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Request for clarification by Dr.K. ===
AGK made a supplementary statement on 21 May 2012 at 10:42 (UTC) as follows: {{quotation|Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. AGK 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)}}

Yet almost a week after AGK issued his supplementary statement, arb after arb quote AGK in wanting to open a new case or review the existing one. But in his additional statement AGK essentially nullified his original statement and declined the amendment request. Why quote AGK then in conjunction with reopening or reviewing a case? ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: Thank you Roger. I was suspecting that much. Hopefully this incongruence may end now. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Other ===
<!-- 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 === === 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 :) ] (] • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Awaiting statements''', particularly from Brews Ohare. At first (brief) sight, any sanctions have expired; no discretionary sanctions were authorised; and the original case was sufficiently long ago (autumn 2009) to be left to lie. If there is misconduct, and if it very closely mirrors the 2009 case, and obviously I'm not expressing an opinion on either of those points, it might be possible to persuade arbitrators to re-open the 2009 case as it is within ArbCom discretion to re-open any prior case at any time. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 16 May 2012 (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)
:* I too am happy to see this as either a case or a review, and (unless someone else beats me to it) will put proposals with the options.<p>@Dr K: I suspect people are picking up on the first, rather than the second, of AGK's comments. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:26, 30 May 2012 (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. ] (] &#124; ]) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* I have concerns that Brews is returning to ], but if that is the case, we can probably resolve this with a motion re-restricting him from the topic area. ] (]) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (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)
* Having reviewed this dispute, like SirFozzie I am concerned. However, I am minded to open a review of the original case, and would be uncomfortable with remedying this dispute by motion. We need a proper case (if an abridged one) with suitable mechanisms for evidence submission—not a Pop-Up Hearing on this page. ] ]] 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. ] ]] 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*Too soon for another case or motion, and would encourage other dispute resolution first. If via dispute resolution there is clear consensus of ], and Brews Ohare is warned and clearly ignores the warning, then it could be returned to us and we might be able to deal with this by a motion rather than a full case. I would suggest to Brews Ohare that it is OK to raise an issue once, but if consensus is against him, then he needs to wait 12 months before raising the same issue again. I think all of us will admit to having areas where we feel our views are the right ones, but consensus is against us. It can be frustrating, but it would be very damaging to the project if we all repeatedly raised the issue, so we move on, in the greater interests of the project as a whole. ''']''' ''']''' 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
::If there is sufficient evidence of recent tendentious editing to open a case, then - given Brews Ohare's history - there may be sufficient evidence to deal with this by motion. It is not a complex case as far as I can see, and relates to whether or not a single user - Brews Ohare - has engaged in problematic editing. At this point I don't see raising questions on article talkpages in itself as problematic; though, in one case, the Wavelength article, Brews Ohare has been problematic by persisting in pushing a point. Without further specific evidence of problematic editing, however, I doubt I would support a ban, but I can see myself supporting a warning which would give admins at AE the power to block Brews Ohare if he repeats the tendentious editing evidenced at the Wavelength article. ''']''' ''']''' 12:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Having looked at the Speed of light case I note that Brews Ohare has which appears to be still in place. Though, given his history, it appears that the warning wasn't sufficient then, and even a site ban hasn't moderated his behaviour. In the circumstances, a ban of some sort appears to be appropriate, and as the Wavelength incident appears to be an isolated incident I'm thinking that a topic ban would be more appropriate than a site ban. ''']''' ''']''' 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
*I'm of a mind that if previously sanctioned editors cannot return to a topic and garner consensus for specific content modifications, and, upon failing to do so, cannot even take "no" for an answer, there is a small likelihood that their future interactions in the area will be constructive. I would encourage all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question, appropriately representing minority views represented in RS'es per NPOV. ] (]) 00:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
*The response to the clarification request is clear as far as I can see - the sanctions have expired, discretionary sanctions were not put in place. If Brews is returning to the behaviour that occasioned the first sanction, then he is in the position of a man up once again before the beak, charged with the same offense he was sent down for last time. I can see no merit to reopening the original case - he did his time for it. He's (continuing the metaphor) charged with breaking into a different house this time, and needs to be "found guilty in accordance with the law." At that point, his previous offence will undoubtedly be taken into account in sentencing. I apologise for the extended legal metaphor, but I hope it makes it clear. John Blackburne/other parties will have (in my opinion) to either open another RFAR or potentially make a case at AN for a topic/siteban, if they believe it is possible to evidence the problematic behaviour without requiring a knowledge of post-doctoral physics. The community generally has little sympathy with a previously sanctioned editor who returns to their problematic behaviour, so Brews might be well advised to take the counsel of ] and "learn when to walk away, and learn when to run."] (]) 16:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
* Per AGK, I think that the best way to proceed would be to hold a new hearing, either as a full new case (which I prefer) or as some form of review of the original case; the dispute here appears to be sufficiently complex that simply resolving it by motion will likely be impractical. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* Concur with Kirill and AGK. ] (]) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:*On further consideration, I would much prefer trying to address this by motion if we can. I can't see any value in forcing everyone to go through even an entire review, let alone a new case. ] (]) 20:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
*I am not happy with this situation in which an editor who was banned for disruptive behavior in a topic continues, by all evidence, to continue to edit disruptively (albeit perhaps a bit less disruptively) on that topic. I do not believe that other users should be required to go through the entire dispute-resolution process, from beginning to end, all over again, to deal with such a situation: that strikes me as a sure-fire recipe for driving editors away. Hence I would support either a motion or a review here. ] (]) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
* Similar to Risker, Kirill, and AGK, I'd prefer either a review or full case. ] (]) 15:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
* After going through the R&I one, I think the difference between a review and a new case is almost purely one of terminology, so, fine with either. ] 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

===Motions: Speed of light (Brews ohare) ===

I've extracted the main three options from the arbitrator discussion above and put together motions for each of them, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

====Motion: To open a full case ====

The Committee authorises the immediate opening of a full case ("]"), to examine all aspects of the the conduct of ] (filing party) and ] (party) in relation to the ] article and the ] topic since the expiry of earlier sanctions on 21 November 2011.

:Support:
:# Third choice. It seems to me that, as we do not make content decisions, the dispute that needs to be resolved is whether Brews ohare is repeating the earlier inappropriate behaviour that lead to his sanctions or whether he is responding reasonably to the unreasonable conduct of others. Given the comprehensive nature of the statements, we probably do not need a full case to resolve this. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Second choice. ] ]] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:#Second choice. ] 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:#Equal second choice, but I would prefer not to mention the names of any individuals in the motion. It is frankly obvious that the initial focus of the case will be Brews ohare, although the editing of other parties will be examined as the evidence may warrant. I see no reason in particular to mention Johhn Blackburne in the motion. ] (]) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:# The information we need to make a decision on this is already in front of us. A full case would have no purpose other then to use up time better spent elsewhere.] (]) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# The information is available for a decision to be made. Despite a , , and a , Brews ohare received until he was . The consideration is if is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history the decision appears to be topic or site ban, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work. We have that as a motion, so a full case is not required. ''']''' ''']''' 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# He's repeating the behaviour of the last case. It doesn't need another case to establish this. ] (]) 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Abstain:
:#

:Comments:
:*

====Motion: To conduct a Review ====

The Committee will conduct a Review, ("]"), focusing on the conduct of ] in relation to the ] article and the ] topic since the expiry of earlier sanctions on 21 November 2011. The Review will follow on an expedited timetable, to be set at a later date by consensus of the Committee.

:Support:
:# Second choice. Again, given the comprehensive nature of the statements, we probably do not even need a review to resolve this issue. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Very weak second choice, again, I feel that the information we need to handle this is already in the history with the previous cases, its various amendments and clarifications, and this request.
:# First choice. ] ]] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:#First choice. ] 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:#Equal second choice for now. ] (]) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:# The information is available for a decision to be made. Despite a , , and a , Brews ohare received until he was . The consideration is if is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history the decision appears to be topic or site ban, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work. We have that as a motion, so a review is not required. ''']''' ''']''' 15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# I believe the problem is self evident and not requiring of a review. Everyone else is quoting textbooks, Brews ... has his own interpretations. There's your problem. ] (]) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 01:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Abstain:
:#

:Comments:
:*

====Motion: Topic ban for Brews ohare ====

1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that ] is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at ]. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.

:Support:
:# First choice. Arguably the core issue has now been examined in statements, and Brews ohare has taken the opportunity to respond robustly and amply to what has been said. We are probably therefore in a position to deal with this on the basis on the statements already posted alone. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# First choice, very nearly only choice. ] (]) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Despite a , , and a , Brews ohare received until he was . is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history a ban of some form is appropriate, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work, given that such a ban will be able to be enforced by AE admins. ''']''' ''']''' 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Pretty much only choice. The community is not very sympathetic to editors who return from sanctions to repeat problematic behaviour - we should respect the desire of those editors who just want to get on with life. ] (]) 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Only choice. I do not see value in putting everyone else through hoops to come to this obvious conclusion. ] (]) 04:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:#Third choice. I share some of AGK's concerns here, mainly that the wording of probabilities is poor, and that Brews is likely not the only problem in this topic right now, but the conclusion of the topic ban itself is, IMO solid. ] 16:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
:#''Currently'' my first choice, but I will consider this a tentative vote; I'm be open to persuasion (by AGK or anyone else) for another day or two that there is more to the situation than currently appears. I also agree with the suggestions for copyediting of the motion. ] (]) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
:# This seems a more appropriate way forward when only one previously-sanctioned user's conduct is being questioned. ] (]) 01:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#"''From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively''": By our own admission, we are meandering blindly. Guided by conjecture and statements by ''parties to this dispute'', we are proposing a topic-ban without a proper review of Brews' edits or the articles in question. Such a specialised dispute needs a proper examination, not a quick motion to eliminate the noisiest editor, and we ought to find out what is the real problem with this article. My own suspicion is that there is more to do here than topic ban Brews ohare, and I implore my colleagues to reconsider. ] ]] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:Abstain:
:#

:Comments:
:*@Brews, in reply to my above comment, ''you'' may be questioning the conduct of two other editors, but I didn't--and still don't on a quick re-read-through--see anyone else doing so here. So you can mentally change my commentary to read "... questioned by the community." if that improves things. ] (]) 19:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
:*As it has been pointed out that Brews ohare's article contributions are valued and non-problematic, the suggestion that we consider some form of talkpage restriction seems worth considering, as that is the area of concern. It would be inappropriate to create a restriction which waits until Brews ohare becomes a nuisance, so it would need to be a ban on the talkpages of the topic. Is this workable? Would he also need to be restricted from the talkpages of editors in the topic area? What happens if Brews ohare makes an edit, which is then reverted. He would be unable to discuss it anywhere. Would he be able to accept that, or would he become frustrated? Given that his history has shown that he finds it difficult to accept consensus, especially when he feels he is in the right, I suspect a talkpage restriction would lead to problems. But I would be willing to discuss it. ''']''' ''']''' 10:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:56, 23 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Palestine-Israel articles 5 23 Jan 2025
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 23 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

Appellant has been indeffed by ToBeFree as a normal admin action; rough consensus that no further action is needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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