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 22:55, 18 September 2013 editPenwhale (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,574 edits →Clarification request: Sexology← 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>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{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}}
== Clarification request: Sexology ==


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> '''at''' 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
;Case or decision affected:
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{RFARlinks|Sexology}}
<!-- If seeking clarification related to a case replace "Example" with the case name. If seeking clarification related to a decision (such as a motion) include the link or specific decision. If none of these apply delete this and preceding lines. -->


;Case or decision affected
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}
*{{userlinks|Sceptre}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Penwhale}} (clerk)
*{{userlinks|99.192.90.227}} (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
*{{userlinks|Elaqueate}} (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
*{{userlinks|Sportfan5000}} (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
*{{userlinks|Daira Hopwood}} (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)

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

=== Statement by Sceptre ===
Remedy 4.1 of ''Sexology'', "Discretionary Sanctions", states that discretionary sanctions may be authorised "for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification". This is mostly a set theory/syntactical question: does the remedy refer to the '']'' of the categories, or the '']'' of the categories? My view of it was the former, but Penwhale believes it applies to the latter. It may be prudent for the Committee to state what its intent was. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

===Statement by Collect===

In sanctions, the word "and" generally refers to the ''union'' of the topics mentioned. ] (]) 18:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Penwhale ===
First things first: I have added the names of the 4 editors I notified of the ''Sexology'' DS and have notified them of this discussion (as they're directly affected by this request). Now that's out of the way: That wording really is not the best thing in the world. (As Sceptre pointed out, it creates different interpretations.) The thing is that the ''intersection'' of the two clauses... In fact, I'm having trouble pointing out the intersection of the clauses, because I believe that such intersection would cover a very limited set of articles that the committee would have named those articles directly in the remedy. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*Performed admin action related to this request, so '''recuse'''. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*In my opinion, Penwale's construction of the clause is the correct one. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
*Agree with Penwhale, Collect and Salvio. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Scientology ==

'''Initiated by ''' ] <sub>] ]</sub> '''at''' 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Scientology}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#]
# Other remedies
# Log of warnings about discretionary sanctions

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|The Devil's Advocate}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Peter cohen}}
* {{admin|Sandstein}}


; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request ; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
<!--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 ]-->
* notified
*{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)
* notified


; Information about amendment request ; Information about amendment request
*]
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


=== 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.
* The restriction against me that was issued by Sandstein is lifted.
*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.
* A note is added below my warning and Peter's stating that the claims of misconduct underlying Sandstein's warnings were invalid.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
* Furthermore I would ask that the I made on Sandstein's talk page be restored as it only contained public information available on the arbitration pages, a recent highly-trafficked noticeboard case, and a mention of an editor's previous username.
*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)
=== Statement by The Devil's Advocate ===
<small>Note:Originally, I sought to appeal this restriction by e-mail out of respect for the privacy issues alleged by Sandstein, but was instructed to make the appeal publicly. My appeal below is a slightly altered version of that e-mail.</small>


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
In the initial comment I made to Sandstein I noted ]'s previous account name was ChrisO (disclosed plainly on the ARBSCI page), pointed to ] that concluded giving out Prioryman's real name was not outing, and described how the WP:ARBSCI case page itself plainly gives out Prioryman's identity in ]. The closest I personally came to giving out Prioryman's full name was noting his username.
''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)
Since Sandstein had blocked an editor for the apparent offense of noting Prioryman's name and conflict of interest regarding Scientology in the context of that editor's dispute with Prioryman over a Scientology-related article, this was all germane to the discussion. However, Sandstein's sanction against me did not even come at that point, but only after I responded to his warning. It appears the sanction was imposed solely because I mentioned Prioryman's previous username after Sandstein's warning.
At ] there was majority support, though not a clear consensus, for lifting the restriction against me. At ] several Arbitrators agreed that, in the specific case of Prioryman, even noting his real name was not outing and certainly not noting his previous account name. The one Arb who commented on my sanction directly said it should be lifted.
Seeing as all I did was note the name of a previous account and point to public arbitration pages and noticeboard discussions, the underlying charge of outing is invalid. A majority of those who commented say the restriction should be lifted and at least one Arbitrator said the same. The restriction should thus be lifted and the warnings, having been based on a false premise, should be noted as containing invalid claims of misconduct. My desire to see on Sandstein's talk page be unsuppressed is to avoid the appearance of misconduct that goes with having an edit oversighted.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
:@Salvio, as stated, my suggestion is to simply note the warnings were not making a valid claim of misconduct. It is less a questioning of "unissuing" the warning and more a matter of repudiating it. A note to the effect of "the warnings issued to The Devil's Advocate and Peter Cohen are found to be without merit" is sufficient.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


=== Statement by Sandstein === === 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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
To summarize the background from memory (without links so as not to link to private information):


=== Statement by Izno ===
I indef-blocked {{userlinks|Drg55}} for outing and/or harassment by unnecessarily and despite another admin's warnings publicizing private information about another user in the course of a ] request related to Scientology. I understand Drg55 unsuccessfully appealed that block to ], and remains blocked. I also understand that the other user at issue, who may previously have engaged in significant misconduct themselves, is at the center of numerous controversies related to Gibraltar and Scientology (which are topics subject to discretionary sanctions) and also the target of off- and onwiki harassment activities because of that.
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
On my talk page, The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen protested against the block of Drg55 and threatened community noticeboard discussions about it. To prevent such discussions becoming fora for continued outing and/or harassment, I warned both not to do that and to pursue private venues of appeal instead. Because of their misguided insistence, I also forbade The Devil's Advocate from engaging in public discussions related to this private information. Part of this talk page thread was suppressed by the oversight team because it contained private information. Nonetheless, Peter cohen launched a long and acrimonious ANI discussion which, as I predicted, did become a venue for outing private information, but did not achieve consensus about the appropriateness of my warnings and sanction. To understand how discretionary sanctions apply to such situations, I sought clarification by the Committee, and my impression of the tenor of their response was that discretionary sanctions may be used in the way I did, even if the misconduct by Drg55 might have been "only" harassment and not outing in the strict sense because the private information at issue might, as I then learned, have been indirectly acknowledged on-wiki years ago.
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)


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
As a result of the clarification request, I wrote that the sanction regarding The Devil's Advocate could probably be lifted because it has proven unsuccessful in preventing the kind of problematic ANI discussion we then experienced, but that the two users at issue here, and others who participated in the ANI thread, should be warned that they may experience discretionary sanctions if they publish private information without compelling reasons. But I forgot to follow up on that - sorry. That is still what I think would be an appropriate course of action going forward. As for the warnings, I think they were appropriate and can, in any case, not be undone in any meaningful sense (though, if I may remind the Committee, we are still waiting on the result of your review of the rules about warnings and other aspects of DS). As to the oversighting, that is a matter for review (if needed) by the appropriate functionaries and processes, and probably not suited to onwiki discussion. All users should be reminded that our privacy rules must be taken seriously and that private information is not an appropriate subject of ANI drama fests, but that conflicts related to it should be resolved in the appropriate private venues. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
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===
:Should the Arbitration Committee come to the conclusion that my warnings and/or sanction were in error, I'd appreciate more detailed guidance as to how I can avoid such errors in the future. For instance, is the problem that it is an inappropriate use of discretionary sanctions to direct editors not to initiate public discussions (including public appeals) related to private information, or is it that the information at issue (the user's real name and the former username derived from it), which they want to be treated as private, should not in fact be treated as private? Additionally, I'd appreciate it if the Committee also considers whether additional warnings or actions are appropriate with regard to Peter cohen's approach to contesting his warning, which include numerous personal attacks here and in the earlier ANI thread. <p>I'd also appreciate it if the Committee could come up with a way to set up appeals against discretionary sanctions such that they are much faster and more ''conclusive''. Because these sanctions are designed to be routinely and quickly used, we must expect that there will be disagreements concerning their application, and we should set up a dedicated, orderly process to handle these disagreements. Prior to this appeal, all users involved in this matter were forced to spend inordinate amounts of volunteer time discussing the same issues in an inconclusive and very lengthy and confrontational ANI thread.You should set up an appeals framework (whether before the Committee, the community, administrators or another authority) that has a defined structure, some degree of oversight, and is designated as the only place in which discretionary sanctions may be contested, much like ] for deletions and {{tl|unblock}} for blocks. The present lack of structure contributes to the waste of our principal resource - time and attention - and contributes to an unnecessary personalization and emotionalization of good-faith disagreements that ought to be resolved in a professional and dispassionate manner. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. ] (]) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Newyorkbrad}}, thank you for clarifying that an administrator may still modify their sanction even as it is being appealed. As I wrote above, I am of the view that the sanction can now be lifted. That is not because I think that it was in error (though like in the case of most actions requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, opinions may legitimately differ about whether it was in error) but because it has proven to be ineffective in reaching its goal, which was to prevent a discussion on public fora in which the alleged real name of a Misplaced Pages user was likely to be (and was indeed) publicized, in what I think is, on balance, a violation of our rules concerning privacy and harassment. Considering that several arbitrators have now expressed the opinion that the sanction was in error, but have not specified why (see my preceding comment), I think that if I were to lift the sanction now, this would not bring about the clarity which I think would be helpful in any future disputes regarding that name. <p>I would therefore prefer it that, if anything needs to be done regarding that sanction, it is done by a Committee decision about this appeal that authoritatively determines (a) which if any identifying information about the user at issue is to be treated as private under which circumstances; and (b) whether discretionary sanctions may be used to direct that issues related to private information are not to be discussed publicly. <p>As I wrote above, I would also appreciate it if the Committee would determine if the approach taken by Peter cohen in contesting their warning here and at ANI was appropriate and, if not, what consequences should ensue. I imagine that it will materially impact the willingness of administrators to engage in arbitration enforcement tasks if they must anticipate that their actions will be contested, without reaction by the Arbitration Committee, in the manner they were contested in this case, rather than in an orderly and disciplined appeals procedure. A reaction by the Committee appears particularly necessary because, in such cases, administrators face the dilemma of either having to ignore unseemly and disruptive conduct such as personal attacks, or (by acknowledging them) creating the appearance of bias and personal involvement, which may disqualify them from future enforcement actions – which may well be the goal of those engaging in inappropriate conduct. Such conduct should not be incentivized by Committee inaction. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
:::{{ping|AGK}} Thanks for clarifying your views about the matter. I do not think that it would be helpful to dwell on Peter cohen's conduct any more than I already have. Could you please also clarify whether, in your view, the other user's alleged full real name should be treated as private? That is, I think, a more clear-cut privacy concern than the username, and the publication of that alleged full name by the editor I blocked was the principal basis for my restriction when a noticeboard discussion was threatened about that block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


=== Statement by NE Ent === === Statement by Aquillion ===
Of course the warnings can be undone -- it's a wiki. We just go to ] and ] and remove DA's and Peter's name with an edit summary linking to the AN discussion. <small>]</small> 10:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
=== Statement by 204.101.237.139 ===


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)
@NE Ent: the warnings cannot be undone in any meaningful sense because the users cannot be made unaware of discretionary sanctions. The word 'warning' is the confusing part. It was never meant to imply wrongdoing. It was meant to notify of stricter rules. At some point down the line, someone altered the warning to imply wrongdoing. While well meaning, that only confused things. Removing their names in the way you describe would not make a practical difference since proof that the user is aware of DS can and has been used in place of the 'warning'. As Sandstein notes, we are still awaiting Arbcoms official review concerning that knot. ] (]) 15:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


=== Statement by Peter cohen === === 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.
I had been about to exercise my right to vanish having demonstrated to myself the ability to keep away from Misplaced Pages for a month. This was as a way to disassociate my real name from a subject (Scientology) with which I have had nothing to do and with which I intend to have nothing to do. Sandstein's arrogant refusal to examine his actions and most of Arbcom's failure to answer the questions I put not once but twice in the previous thread about this matter on this page having persuaded me that I want nothing to do with a project that is run by people such as you who are willing to give Sandstein free reign to bully anyone who points out that he has made a poor decision.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
The matter of Prioryman's name and previous id came up last year in long ANI thread. The closing summary mentioned that "There seems to be or nearly be a consensus that YRC did not violate WP:OUTING.". In short the community's judgment was that calling Prioryman by his real name, as ] did before the ANI thread and which ] did before his ban, was not outing. It follows that Sandstein's decision to use WP:OUTING as a grounds for banning Drg55 went against the majority, consensus or near consensus of the community.
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*


=== American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
Both TDA and I referred Sandstein to the AN/I thread. (Although Sandstein's use of revdel meant that I was not clear of what exactly TDA had done.) Sandstein's response was to slap us both with Arbcom enforcement warnings on a subject with which I have had nothing to do. He also slapped an enforcement action on TDA. How Sandstein can be surprised that I went straight to ANI as my next step after his repeated abuse of admin power as a means of protecting his ego from being questioned by non-admins, just shows what a fool he is.
* {{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 ==
Returning to the AN/I thread that I reference above, you can find the following piece of dialogue
{{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
<small>Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
:]


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
#]


So the fact that I referred to "User:ChrisO'' in my posting on Sandstein's page is of no import.


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
So, Arbcom, are you prepared to do something to retain an editor who has contributed a moderate amount of featured and good content or would you rather let Sandstein continue as your bully boy taking admin actions against anyone who points out that he has gone too far. If the latter, then please delete my user and user talk pages and rename my account to vanished user something or other.--] (]) 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
<!--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)


:I see that Sandstein still wants his pound of flesh so that he has some way of pretending that he was in the right. The thing is that if you act like an arrogant piece of shit whose immediate reaction to non-admins telling you that you've got something wrong is to slap them with warnings and sanctions without bothering to read the links that they refer you to (and Sandstein has previously admitted that he could not be bothered to read the threads in questions) then you should not be surprised when people say that you are an arrogant piece of shit. And the fact that I am not the first person to criticize Sandstein with strong language just shows that he is a repeat offender who regularly acts like a piece of shit. Having decided that Misplaced Pages does not reward me enough to make it worth putting up with Sandstein then I see no reason to mince my words. He has had plenty of time to apologise to The Devils Advocate and to me for not assuming good faith in our actions and that convinces me that there was malice in his. And as I'm intending to exercise my right to vanish I don't care whether Arbcom tut-tut me or not. So can someone vanish me, please?--] (]) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


; Information about amendment request
=== Statement by A Quest for Knowledge ===
*]
I don't see any reason why The Devil's Advocate's request should not be granted. The only question is whether Sandstein's warning to TDA was a warning or a notification. If it's just a notification, it cannot be undone since TDA is obviously aware of it. OTOH, if it's a warning, of course it can be undone. As NE Ent aptly points out, this is a Wiki. ] (]) 02:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
:*2022 changes

===Statement by Cla68===
I just wanted to say that although Sandstein acted in error in how he initially handled this, to his credit he is now asking for feedback on what he should have done. Since ArbCom presides over WP's administration, you need to give him that feedback that he is asking for. Also, contrast the maturity of Sandstein's request with Timotheus Cannens' (TC) response when his administrator actions on the enforcement board regarding Mathsci's multiple conflicts with other editors, including yours truly, where he threatened to undo all of his previous enforcement actions if you undid one of his decisions. So, TC, should Sandstein do like you did and threaten to undo all of his previous admin actions if you guys decide he was incorrect? ] (]) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Anthonyhcole===

Just a query. It's still not clear from any of this whether or under what circumstances I may point out to another editor Prioryman's previous username. Do you think that should be made clear, or is it best to leave it ambiguous so Sandstein may sanction people, or not, at his discretion? --] (] · ] · ]) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jayen466 ===
Lift sanction, delete warnings from ARBSCI page as a courtesy. Courtesy blanking is commonly done, and in this case it is fairly clear that the warnings were inappropriate: by the standards Sandstein applied, several arbitrators – who in their comments said the same as TDA and Peter cohen the last time this matter was before the committee – would have to be "warned" and logged on ARBSCI as well. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hans Adler ===
I happened to see this during a long wiki break. I wasn't aware of Prioryman's previous account but found it immediately with my first Google search: An edit by the Prioryman account itself put an old barnstar with the old user name on the account's awards page. It is still there.

Sandstein has an unfortunate tendency to alienate valuable editors. He makes mistakes like every other admin does, but blows them up ridiculously by not correcting them unless directed to do so by a higher authority. (As the evidence is a number of previous appearances of Sandstein before Arbcom, I feel I don't have to go to the trouble of researching and linking them.) If he gets away scot free each and every time, no doubt this will continue. ] 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

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

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*I frankly wouldn't mind if I never had to read another word about Prioryman's former username. However, the reminder that it's time for the Committee to post the proposed clarifications as to how discretionary sanctions should work is well-taken. Several of my colleagues have made this a priority task, though our attention has been diverted to finishing the active cases recently; I hope we can post something for comment soon. ] (]) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
**I would vacate the sanction and lift the warnings. The latter is a purely symbolic gesture, but this whole fiasco isn't worth losing editors over. ] (]) 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
**To the extent Sandstein accepts that he issued a sanction he should not have, it would be in order (and would save everyone a lot of trouble) if he would simply lift that sanction on his own initiative. In case he has any doubt whether he is authorized to take that action at this stage, the answer is yes. ] (]) 14:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Partially grant appeal'''. As I've said the last time we discussed this issue, I believe that, in this case, the sanction Sandstein imposed on TDA is unreasonable and, in my opinion, an abuse of discretion. For that, I think it should be lifted. On the other hand, warnings, once issued, cannot be ''unissued'' in any meaningful sense and, so, in that respect, the appeal should be declined. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
**{{ping|Sandstein}}, as a rule of thumb, I'd say that if you believe an appeal against a decision you make should not be heard by the community, then the best approach, in my opinion, would be to refer the issue at hand to people who can legitimately make a decision and then say "the action ''de qua'' was taken as a result of evidence which we may not disclose" (basically, functionaries and ArbCom). <p>Also, I see that you still think your decision was not wrong; frankly, I find it unreassuring that, all else aside, you still fail to see why your actions could give the appearance of impropriety: an editor comes to your talk page explaining why he thinks you were wrong, providing evidence, and you sanction him. Now, that surely wasn't your intention, but you should have considered how your actions could be perceived by an involved observer, particularly considering how serious an AE sanction is and how difficult it is to overturn it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
* Agree entirely with Salvio, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 11:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
:* For information, the long-awaited draft update to Discretionary sanctions procedures has now been posted for scrutiny and discussion ]. If adopted, the new procedure would downgrade all existing warnings to alerts (or notices) and thus remove the perceived stigma and finding of fault sometimes attaching to them. The discussion page is ]. In the light of this, there is probably no reason to rescind the warnings.&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
* I've reviewed this situation in detail, hoping to find some piece of information that had been missed, but I must also agree the sanction imposed on ] is unjustified. (With the same thinking as Salvio, I would however do nothing about the warnings.) I will shortly propose a motion to this end.<p>In response to Sandstein's questions, (1) Administrators are permitted to direct appeals to be submitted privately to the committee if they think it is necessary. In this case, although we overruled your direction, I do agree it was justified that you directed TDA to appeal privately to the committee. Needless to say, the unnecessary imposition of conditions on appeals by an administrator would be grounds for remedial action and could not be tolerated, but that is certainly not the case here. (2) The community's consensus appears to hold that Prioryman's old username is not private information. I do not see any reason to object to that consensus, but at the same time I cannot think of a situation where it would actually be necessary to refer to his former username; all else aside, it is simply discourteous. (3) I do not think I see any actionable misconduct by ] in this clarification request. If there has been any elsewhere, and it can reasonably be attributed to frustration with what my colleagues and I have agreed is an unwarranted sanction, then I would recommend excusing it. If it cannot reasonably be excused, then I still cannot see evidence of it in this thread, so a better evidence submission would be required. And in any event his misconduct would not be a subject that falls under the scope of ''this'' request. (4) Recommendations as to reforming the appeals process are welcome, as Roger Davies said, at the Discretionary Sanctions Review. I think this answers all your questions, ]. ] ]] 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

=== Motion – The Devil's Advocate ===

:''{{Arblinks|Scientology}}''
:''{{ACMajority|active=11|inactive=2|recused=0|motion=yes}}''

For reference, the current sanctions ( at ''Scientology'' on 9 July 2013) against The Devil's Advocate (TDA) are:

{{Quotation|1={{user|The Devil's Advocate}} is banned from all discussions or other material concerning or related to the identity of a particular editor, per .}}

==== Motion: The Devil's Advocate (Scientology AE appeal) ====

'''Proposed:'''


:The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon {{user|The Devil's Advocate}} on 9 July 2013 under ''Scientology'' discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect.


=== Statement by Crouch, Swale ===
'''Support:'''
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)
:#Proposed. For the avoidance of doubt, this motion does not affect the imposition of future sanctions, and does not confer a conflict of interest on Sandstein with regards to ''Scientology'' or TDA. ] ]] 10:42, 14 September 2013 (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)
:# <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:30, 14 September 2013 (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)
:#] 15:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
:# <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:# &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:#See my comments above. ] (]) 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
'''Oppose:'''
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} ===
'''Abstain:'''
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 ===
'''Comments by arbitrators:'''
:''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 :) ] (] • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*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)
* This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a ]. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - ] (]) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}

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