Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:43, 15 May 2014 editSalvio giuliano (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators49,151 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: r.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:07, 20 January 2025 edit undoSdrqaz (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators26,826 edits Addition of comment regarding the Republican Revolution. The pre-load templates need a bit of work too ... 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{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}}


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


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected: ;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}
:This restriction is not logged as an action resulting from the ]. It was added when I was unblocked as documented on .
:A previous discussion in advance of this request was made ] in January 2014.


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
The restrictions were stated as:
#]
# topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
# topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
=== Statement by Fæ ===
<!--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 ]-->
I would like the committee to remove the restrictions. They are so broad that they remain <s>blight</s> major barrier to my return to productive work as a Wikipedian editor, <s>my future employment as a Wikipedian in Residence</s>, and ensure I cannot create proposals for, nor take a lead in, future Misplaced Pages projects.
*{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)


; Information about amendment request
Failing removal, replacing with a narrow and well-specified restriction that is relevant to the original complaint in 2011 (which never went to dispute resolution as it was resolved amicably with the other editor), would prove far less damaging, such as ''restricted from adding external links on BLP articles to sites featuring sexually graphic material, excluding external links to germane non-profit/charity archives with educational medical or political material, such as the Wellcome Digital Library, British Library or similar respected archive or museum.'' However even this seems excessive, when there are sufficient members of the Misplaced Pages community closely following my edits to ensure that any problematic link would be rapidly challenged and widely discussed for consensus.
*]
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
The previous discussion confirmed that members of Arbcom are not of one mind on how to read the restrictions, leaving them interpreted as broadly as technically possible. This stops editing where there would be any way of interpreting the topic relating to sexuality, women's rights, or of LGBT cultural interest. Specific examples included:
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.
* Suffrage in Britain.
*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.
* Ancient history connected to gender or sexuality. I have created ] only after reviewing it specifically with Arbcom.
*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.
* Women in Science edit-a-thons that touch on sexuality, for example my article on Professor ], created before realizing her speciality is sexual assault.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
* LGBT cultural initiatives within the ] programme.
*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)
Specific projects that these restrictions have made impossible, damaging content improvement for Misplaced Pages:
* Educational material to support ] 2014. Of the 100,000 images that I have been working with the Wellcome to make available (see ]), a significant number relate to AIDS education and ACTUP posters, as well as more general LGBT related historic material. I am free to support these on Commons, but unable to help on Misplaced Pages.
* My proposal with an LGBT archive was withdrawn due to these restrictions. I was hoping to start this project back in February (diversity awareness month).
* I have not applied for Wikipedian in Residence positions in 2014.


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
In January it was suggested that I create new BLPs to demonstrate my competence (I improved several hundred before the Arbcom case). I have created the following articles in the last couple of months, mostly on living women:
''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)
;Biographies
{{flatlist|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}}
;Historical biographies
{{flatlist|
*]
*]
*]
}}


=== Statement by Rosguill ===
Two of these, along with my photograph, were ] as part of promoting Misplaced Pages's improvement during ].
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 ===
I believe the broad restriction was partly in place out of concern for my welfare. My interactions on controversial LGBT topics, ] and ], show that I can handle difficult discussion on LGBT topics and BLPs without inflaming debate.
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 ===
:{{ping|AGK}} I am sorry that you read my request so negatively. I have removed the word "blight", which I meant in a technical sense (I am used to the word being used in a legal context), this may have set the negative tone you were reading into my statement. I am presenting the relevant impact the restriction is having, which includes employment prospects. My intent is not "martyrdom", but to ignore the facts would seem odd, particularly if a concern of the committee was to place restrictions as a means to protect me, or to protect Misplaced Pages from me. --] (]) 08:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
:{{ping|Thryduulf}} Responses to questions:
:1. This is Arbcom's call, I have no issue with a gradual approach if they feel it is helpful.
:2. First choice would be LGBT biographies and cultural images so I can support ] next month and may be able to renegotiate the LGBT archives proposal I had to withdraw. The contested site back in 2011 was part of a legal case, adding a link to that website without a community consensus was a serious error in judgement. I have learned a lot about how to interpret policies both here and on other projects with regard to respect and dignity of the subject in the years since then. That case is quite distinct in my mind to the projects I have mentioned above where I can support Wikimedia with relevant illustrative historic images from respected sources, or images from public events illustrating contemporary LGBT culture.
:3. I suggested a refined form of words above, though I wonder if rather than spending time debating a technical form of words better to define a restriction, a probationary period for BLP editing and images relating to "sexuality" would be pragmatic, perhaps running a log of articles as evidence of review during probation in preparation of restrictions being removed.
:{{ping|Beeblebrox}} {{ping|Worm That Turned}} and all Arbcom members that have found my mention of future paid projects offensive. I apologise for mentioning this in my statement. It is completely irrelevant to this request and I have struck it. It was never my intention for this to be read as a criticism of the Committee. I understand how this was read as an attempt at manipulation of the Committee or a way to make a martyr out of myself. I hope the Committee can now ignore it. --] (]) 17:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|GorillaWarfare|Newyorkbrad|Beeblebrox|Seraphimblade|Worm That Turned}} In the light of views for keeping a core restriction and gradual relaxation, I would like to suggest a simple amendment to relax the topic ban to ''introducing sexually graphic images or adding new information about living people's sex lives or sexual identity to articles unless there is an existing consensus to do so.'' This would enable expansion or creation of LGBT related articles and BLPs, including adding portraits or images such as the Wellcome Library's posters, historic images such as my restoration of an 1869 Park and Boulton photograph or cultural illustrative photographs as part of the forthcoming Wiki Loves Pride. As a good practice, I intend to stick to 1RR for both BLPs and topics related to sexuality. After six months, I would hope to appeal this remaining restriction for further amendment or removal. --] (]) 23:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Kurtis}} Could you please provide evidence to support your claim that I attempted ''"to suborn the committee through position as chair of the UK Wikimedia chapter"''. Thanks --] (]) 13:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Kurtis}} Sorry for spelling this out, "suborn" can be read as an allegation of an unlawful act between two or more parties, and if proven may lead to people losing their jobs or prosecution. Unless you have evidence that myself and others engaged in this act, please remove the allegation as statements like this tend to get re-cycled later as factoids, as has been my experience with the UK press. --] (]) 09:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your amendment. I firmly refute the assertion that I "attempt to subvert the committee through position as chair of the UK Wikimedia chapter". If you have evidence to the contrary, please put it forward either here, or to the Wikimedia UK charity's board of trustees for investigation. ] applies to assertions about my life, as it does to any other living person. Please consider removing allegations where you have no verifiable evidence to support them, they do not help resolve the issue at hand. --] (]) 12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Worm That Turned|Newyorkbrad}} Thank you for discussing a motion. I may be wrong, but it may be worth clarifying that the issue was more about sexual images rather than images relating to gender identity, and that images such as my restoration of ] are not sexual, but might be suitable for me to add to articles if considered to be about gender identity. It would be helpful if Rexx's suggestion were picked up, so that I were able to provide evidence at my next appeal of how my contributions to the encyclopaedia demonstrated the behaviour you require of me in order to remove the topic ban, similar to my list of BLP creations included in my statement, as was suggested in the January discussion. Thanks --] (]) 14:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


=== Statement by AGK === === 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. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


===Statement by Vanamonde===
Fae's statement implies that the committee decision is affecting his real-life employment. This does not mean the ban was unjustified, and I am not impressed he would claim otherwise (or by the tone of his statement in general). As this subtextual martyrdom is the same sort of conduct that led to Fae's ban in the first place, I question whether he has reformed. ] ]] 07:05, 29 April 2014 (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)


=== Statement by Thryduulf === === Statement by Aquillion ===
The Committee is explicitly required to act in the best interests of the English Misplaced Pages - it is not in their remit to consider how their decisions may or may not affect someone's personal life. In my opinion, this amendment request should succeed or fail solely on the basis of whether the Committee believes that removing or relaxing Fæ's restrictions will be a good or bad thing for the Encyclopaedia. Whichever they decide though, it is important that the reasoning is explained so that all parties may understand why that decision was reached. ] (]) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (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)
:{{ping|Fæ}} Given that at this point a complete removal of your restrictions seems unlikely but a partial relaxation has not been ruled out, it might be helpful if you could offer some thoughts around the following questions:
#If you were offered a partial relaxation, would you accept one (depending on the exact terms) or would you reject it in favour of an all-or-nothing approach?
#If you do want a partial relaxation, is there one area you'd prefer to see relaxed first?
#Again only relevant if you do want a partial relaxation, but if the partial relaxation doesn't take the form of narrowing the scope, is there any looser but still realistic and practical form of restriction that you would be happy with and that you think would allow you to demonstrate to the committee that you are ready to return to full editing?
I guess input from the Committee other interested people about questions 2 and 3 might be useful to. ] (]) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Partly per Seraphimblade, I don't think that this is very well worded motion as it is not easy to interpret. I think it would be clearer to replace the second restriction, "topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed", with something like
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.
:"topic banned from images relating to sexuality post 1000 AD, broadly construed"; or
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
:"topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed, except where the image and any surrounding context relates entirely to pre-1000 AD"


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
(I realise that these options differ in whether the single year ] AD is allowed or not allowed, but unless Fæ indicates otherwise I highly doubt this will be significant). ] (]) 07:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*


=== American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
=== Statement by RexxS ===
* {{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 question that ArbCom needs to address is how they are to manage restrictions on editors. If the intention is that certain editors are to carry restrictions forever, then be honest and say so. It is cruel to offer false hope and the editor affected at least can make a decision on whether they wish to continue editing at all under those restrictions or whether they will channel their energies into something else.
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:

**] indef pending changes
On the other hand, if Arbcom believes that no-one is irredeemable, then it would make sense to encourage whatever processes of rehabilitation are considered suitable. For infinitely banned users we have the standard offer, but I am unaware of any similar guidance for indefinitely restricted users. Were I in your position, I would be looking for clearly defined milestones that a user could aim toward in order to show that they no longer need restrictions to be able to edit productively and without undue conflict. If you are serious about bringing editors back into 'normal' editing, then you ought to be marking out timescales and expectations for targets that restricted editors could achieve to demonstrate their progress. Simply leaving them without any direction and having to guess how to demonstrate their progress is just not good enough. If that's too much work for ArbCom - and heaven knows your workload is heavy enough - then find some reliable way of delegating the tutoring of restricted editors back into full editorship. --] (]) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
: I understand ArbCom's desire to ensure that our BLPs are as free from problems as possible. I would therefore suggest in this case that someone - an ArbCom member, a clerk, or an uninvolved admin - assemble a collection of diffs of problematic BLP editing by Fae and enter into a dialogue with him on how he would avoid such problems in the future. That should give you a lead on what he must do to demonstrate that he has moved forward. Obviously, the more diffs he is given to address, the more time and effort he'll need to undertake in order to illustrate his progress. That would at least be a step forward in clearly defining the problems that need to be solved. --] (]) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
**] 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)
===Question by Cla68===
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Has Fae ever fully disclosed every single one of his sock accounts to the Committee as he was required to do? If so, please tell us that he has so the community can let that matter drop. ] (]) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Worm that Turned, acknowledged as resolved. Thank you. ] (]) 12:47, 6 May 2014 (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)
=== Comment by Wnt ===
*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)
The text of the original decision, with which I strongly disagreed, nonetheless finds only that "Fæ has added poor quality material to biographies of living people and, on one occasion, added a highly inappropriate link." So far as I understand, the link referred to is one which related a film "Superhead" to the person who comes up if you search that term on Google. I have to ask: why is such an anemic finding as this used to place Fae in what sounds like a very special category of people who are viewed as unrehabilitable? The repeated use of the term "at the moment" below seems out of place for a two year old case. How many years is does a moment last? Also, Arbcom has failed to explain how any editor is supposed to know when ] does not really apply to information which is well known. So far as I know, no one has actually written any policy against providing information about porn stars, yet the clear lesson here is that Misplaced Pages is not a trustworthy competitor to Google on this sort of information.
*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 message I infer from this is that ArbCom believes it has to take a realistic view toward political issues, which includes such necessities as ensuring that articles about famous people don't include unpleasant information about them. Truth must take a backseat to power, and a part of that is that it is essential never to say it openly. Nonetheless, even assuming this unalterable reality, it's not clear why Fae has to take the brunt of it. And is there any reason why ArbCom would need to restrict Fae's editing about ''academic'' sexuality? Surely the prohibition could be limited to BLPs of sexual ''performers'', while permitting him to do good work with BLPs of researchers doing sexuality studies or people advocating on LGBT issues, etc., without preventing anyone from keeping their unmentionables unmentioned.
: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)
Misplaced Pages's treatment of one of its best admins and prolific editors, which ignored and worked hand in glove with a cyberbullying campaign off-site, is appalling. Even so, it doesn't matter that much. Misplaced Pages remains firmly on a downward course in editing and readership and I fear the end may not be that far off. I hope that Fae will find a way to get involved in a successor prepared to take up the cause after Misplaced Pages's final foundering. ] (]) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Black Kite}} I don't believe for a moment that Fae has "proved that he cannot be trusted". There was a range of opinion about his edits, with many of us finding them reasonable enough - more to the point, there was never any situation where he was given a chance to show he could "improve"; all the offending edits are ancient history from before any decision was made. And I think it's really offensive to say there was no upside to Fae's contributions, when he has contributed a ''torrent'' of great images and content edits to match, ''including'' those of sexual BLP related topics. ] (]) 19:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Black Kite}} I see no particular risk from Fae editing, but I ''do'' see a risk that you could lose what you admit is a very good editor, because either (a) with opponents closely watching him, he gets fouled up on some trivial technicality, or because (b) after seeing the totality of his contributions treated as if they have zero value, and looking at a future where he will apparently never be treated as the equal of a teenager logging in after school, and working here yields nothing but attacks and humiliation, he simply gets disgusted and leaves. I know many who opposed him would cheer that day as a victory but I can assure you it is not a victory for ''Misplaced Pages''. ] (]) 22:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Worm That Turned|Seraphimblade}} I see a need for greater clarity on the text caption issue. For example, suppose that Fae wants to add an image of a Roman mosaic to an article with the caption (and perhaps some accompanying text in the article) that it was unearthed in 1974 on an expedition by A___, carefully restored by B___, placed in the C___ Museum of Roman History, where curator D___ described its discovery as a "key milestone in our understanding of how Romans viewed sexual identity". (''Or'' it might plausibly be ''"]"'' at the end of that quote) Of the living persons A___, B___, C___, and D___, which are Fae not allowed to mention?

=== Statement by Kurtis ===
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly distance myself from a I made in 2012 following ArbCom's decision to ban Fæ from editing Misplaced Pages. In retrospect, I would say that I found him to be very aggressive towards other users at times, and that he handled criticism rather poorly. But the parts where I said that I have "absolutely no confidence in Fæ's honour, or his integrity", and that he will "never regain even a modicum of the trust necessary to be welcomed back here"? I don't stand by those statements today at all. I suppose I was responding more out of emotion than anything, and was upset by his attempt to subvert the committee through requesting a WMF official to intercede (at least, that's how it was presented). However, looking back, I believe he was on a downward spiral at the time. We all go through hard times where we say things we really shouldn't have. It's also unfair to cast all of the blame on him; he was the victim of a sustained campaign of harassment, after all.

So the question is, should we consider relaxing the restrictions at this time? I think there needs to be a demonstrated understanding of what constitutes a reliable third-party source, and how important it is that the citations used in an article assert ''precisely'' what they are referencing. This threshold is obviously amplified for BLPs. If Fæ can show that he has learned from his past mistakes, then it would serve no real purpose to keep the topic ban in place. For now, I think it would be best if he took the time to develop a better track record of conscientious article writing, and then return here in October-November to submit a second appeal. Once he has shown a greater understanding of his past issues, I would support lifting the active sanctions against him. ] ] 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

:@] &mdash; That was the among members of the 2012 Arbitration Committee. I don't know the full situation, but it sounded like an attempt to use connections within the WMF to subvert the Arbitration case. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what they had said. ] ] 05:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:@] &mdash; I've altered the text to avoid misinterpretations of any sort (similar to the revision made by Jclemens at the time). But I do have to reiterate what the Arbitration Committee has said, that the onus is on you to avoid sabotaging yourself and your career with what you do online. You've tied your employment to your activities across the Wikimedia community, which can have a broad range of consequences depending on which course of action you take. ] ] 12:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
::I don't see why ''I'' should be required to provide evidence or retract any part of my above statement. I'm not making allegations, I'm parroting what was discussed in the 2012 ArbCom case. I even linked to the specific subsection where it was brought up. I don't see how anything I've written constitutes a BLP violation. ] ] 07:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:::I've rewritten that sentence so it will no longer present Fæ as having abused a position of trust in his capacity as chair of a Wikimedia charity. I did not intend to slander him in any way, and I apologize if that's the impression I had given off. ] ] 08:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
::::I've removed the stricken text and other relevant aspects of the above statement pursuant to a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. ] ] 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Black Kite ===
There are 4.5m+ articles on Misplaced Pages. Fewer than 1% of those involve the restrictions that Fae is barred from, yet many of those are amongst the most controversial and prone to problematic content. Fae - via his current, and previous accounts - has previously proved that he cannot be trusted to edit BLPs in this area (nor, indeed, to deal with relevant images in those areas), so I don't see any reason for Misplaced Pages to expose itself (again) to possible problems with no upside whatsoever. ] (]) 18:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
: {{ping|Wnt}}. I didn't say there was no upside to Fae's editing ''per se'' (he is clearly a very good editor), merely that it would appear to be prudent to limit him to the 4,000,000+ articles that ''don't'' involve content with which there have previously been issues with his editing. Personally I don't think it's worth the risk. ] (]) 21:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*Changed to an amendment request as it is asking for a past decision to be changed. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Recuse. ] ]] 07:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
*No. --] (]) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
*I'm still considering this, but I will comment on RexxS's point. There are editors that I have come across since I have been on Arbcom that I would say should never have their restrictions relaxed, just as there are a small number of editors who I would be reluctant to unban under any situation, even OFFER. I will say the area I'm least keen on relaxing restrictions is on BLPs where there has been previous problematic editing. <p> Now, I'm open to a relaxation, but not a removal at the moment. I will need to think about what relaxation would be appropriate - and would be interested in hearing from other committee members to see if one is even worth proposing. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
*:I've had a little while to think about this and have a few ideas on a possible relaxation. However, {{ping|Fæ}} I have been struggling with your request due to the way you've framed it. AGK may have used evocative language but his point is well taken - if the ban is affecting your future livelihood, then that is unfortunate but should not be relevant to the Arbcom's decisions. It should not be down to the Arbitration Committee to ensure your livelihood - if you insist on tying your income to Misplaced Pages, you make damn sure to follow the rules. Raising the issue of future employment appears to be an attempt at manipulating the committee, similar to the behaviour which landed you in the situation in the first place.<p>On top of this, you've implied that you are restricted from areas that you don't appear to be. Suffrage, for example, is about gender, not sexuality - and if you cannot tell the difference between those terms, you should not be working in either area. LGBT cultural outreach should not require you to be editing the BLPs. If you are leading by example, there are many non-BLP LGBT articles. The Assyrian statue you checked with us that it was outside the scope of the restriction, we agreed. There wasn't confusion there, no Arbs suggested it was a problem. <p> {{ping|Cla68}} per ], Fae needed to pass the committee a list of his accounts prior to being unbanned. I, for one, was satisfied with his disclosures and consider the matter resolved. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Fæ}} I've been struggling to come up with a relaxation that will actually allow further participation whilst at the same time keeping the protection in place. However, due to conversations we've had, such as ], I'm no longer sure that a general "relaxation" is a good idea - I can see significant potential issues with allowing you to edit areas which cover human sexuality. What I will suggest though is a specific exemption - that of images regarding ancient sexuality. For clarity, I'd allow images relating to periods pre-1000AD, which I think is a very generous definition of ancient. I've posted a motion to that effect below. At present, I'm not willing to relax the BLP restriction, nor the image restriction that might directly affect BLPs. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
*::Regarding ]'s suggestion, if a committee member had the time to do that, I'm sure they would have volunteered, I wouldn't presume to tell a clerk or uninvolved admin to do so. I'm afraid to say that due to the voluntary nature of Misplaced Pages, people do what they want to do - if someone was interested in that role, I dare say they'd have made themselves known (and would be very busy... ] is failing for this exact reason). ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 14:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|Wnt}} That would fall under the BLP exemption, not the image exemption. Whether it is a violation of the BLP exemption would be based on the context of the situation, but given the scenario described I would personally have no issue with any of the people being mentioned. That said, the sentence could equally be written without the names of the people involved, and I would advise Fae to take care in how he writes such captions to keep in mind his restrictions - which I'm sure he would. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 06:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
*If there were to be any relaxation, given that BLPs are involved and with the previous issues in the BLP area, it would have to be very, very gradual. I would be categorically opposed to a total removal of the ban, but might be willing to consider a narrow exemption for some particular purpose to gauge things, with an understanding that any problems will lead to that exemption being revoked. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
*Per the above comments, I do not think a wholesale removal of restrictions is what we want to do here but I might be persuaded to support a more gradual reduction on a trial basis. ] (]) 20:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
::Fully agree with Worm's statement above. Sorry Fae, the best interest of the project, not your paycheck, is our bottom line. We already do the worst job here and we don't get a penny, so forgive my lack of compassion for your alleged inability to make money from your involvement with this volunteer-run non-profit organization. Now, if you want to drop the martyr act, show a little humility, and discuss ways in which your sanctions might be slowly eased back on a provisional basis, I am still open to that, but if you want to just appeal to our sympathy with your inability to get a Wikipedian in residence job, well, that's your own problem and your own fault. ] (]) 17:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
*I agree with the preceding comments. There is a core of restriction that should stay in place for now, but the boundaries may sweep too broadly. I have no interest at this stage in the issue raised by Cla68. ] (]) 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
**I completely agree with Worm That Turned that "sexuality" is quite different from "gender." ] (]) 12:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
* I agree with Worm That Turned's statements above, but I am not yet sure if I agree with some of my colleagues that the restrictions should be relaxed. ] <small>]</small> 04:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
*Recuse. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

===Motion (exemption regarding ancient sexuality)===
Proposed:
:Notwithstanding the existing restrictions on his editing, {{u|Fæ}} is permitted to edit regarding images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times, up to A.D. 1000. This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee.

:; Support
:#Proposed. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:#:Copyediting of anything I write for the committee to vote is always welcome, it's not my speciality. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 13:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:#Support in principle, though we might want to do a bit of copyediting. ] (]) 13:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:#:I've made my proposed copyedits to the motion. Any arbitrator who disagrees with them may revert in whole or part to the original. ] (]) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:#Support<s>, but would prefer with the change I suggested below</s>. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:#In the hope that it is understood that this very slight easing of the current restrictions is a sort of probation, and if there are '' any'' further issues in this area the pendulum will swing back in the other direction. ] (]) 16:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:# My thoughts echo Beeblebrox's. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 19:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:; Oppose
:#Not because this particular exemption is highly troubling, but because IMHO allowing the thin end of a wedge has higher costs than benefits to the encyclopedia in this case. --] (]) 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:; Abstain
::#

:; Comments by arbitrators
::*I'd be inclined to support this, but if we're going to allow the exemption, I would prefer to allow both images and text related to sexuality in ancient cultures. A literal interpretation of this motion wouldn't even allow a caption to be added to an image. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
::*:I'd be happy with a change if you want to put it in, but at the moment Fae is under 2 editing restrictions - images relating to sexuality and BLPs relating to sexuality. If Fae was under a topic ban re: sexuality, I'd have put it in, but otherwise the change seems rather moot. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:::*You are correct, I misread. I don't think there's much chance of a BLP being at issue in that time frame. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 23:07, 20 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

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

Amendment request: American politics 2

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

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

Statement by Interstellarity

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

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

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

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

Comment by GoodDay

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

Statement by Rosguill

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

Statement by Izno

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

Statement by Kenneth Kho

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Aquillion

Here is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be intuitive, since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

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