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 15:33, 3 October 2014 editSphilbrick (talk | contribs)Administrators178,892 edits →Clarification request: Sexology: archiving closed clarification request← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:53, 22 January 2025 edit undoCrouch, Swale (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users105,686 editsNo edit summary 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
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>
== Clarification request: Pseudoscience ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
;Case or decision affected:
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{RFARlinks|Pseudoscience}}


;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|Squeamish Ossifrage}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Sandstein}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
=== Statement by Squeamish Ossifrage ===
#]
My apologies in advance if I've botched the maze of templates involved with this process in any way.


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
] establishes standard discretionary sanctions as its final remedy. It has, shall we say, an interesting history of amendments. Its current form authorizes sanctions "for all ''articles'' relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" (emphasis mine). ] lists the areas to which discretionary sanctions currently apply, including "''Pages'' relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science" (emphasis mine); this wording is also used in the discretionary sanction alert template for the associated case.
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)


; Information about amendment request
It is my assumption that this is a distinction without a difference, and that the sanctions apply regardless of namespace. I inquired with ] to ensure I was correct in my reading, as he appears to be among the more active arbitration enforcement administrators. He suggested that I refer the issue here for more explicit clarification. And so, I have.
*]
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


=== Statement by Sandstein=== === 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 reason why I recommended that Squeamish Ossifrage ask here is that I'm not so sure that the answer is all that obvious. As Salvio giuliano writes, discretionary sanctions apply to all pages, not only articles, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise", but – it seems to me – that is precisely what the remedy in question does by specifying that sanctions apply to ""all <u>articles</u> relating to pseudoscience", underlining mine. If that is (as I suspect) not what the Committee intended, I recommend that the remedy and others like it are amended to read "for the <u>topic</u> of pseudoscience" or similar. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
*1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
*2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
*4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. ] (]) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


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


=== Clerk notes === === 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. ] (]) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''


=== Statement by Rosguill ===
=== Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
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)
*Your interpretation is correct. Per ], the rules that are to be applied to determine whether an edit is covered by discretionary sanctions are the ones outlined in the topic ban policy, i.e. ]. As a result, {{xt|unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic}}. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
**Sandstein, in my opinion, you're reading too much in what's but a bit of anachronistic wording. After all, while it's true that there really is no uniformity in the wording of the provisions authorising discretionary sanctions (which, going forward, is something we may want to fix), our intention is generally clear. <p>Looking at previous cases, I see "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with X", "pages related to the Y, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions" and "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Z"; however, I don't doubt that, irrespective of the different formulations, all these mean the same thing: all edits concerning X, Y and Z are subject to discretionary sanctions, regardless of namespace.<p>Then again, we could pass a motion amending all provisions authorising DS to read "for all edits" rather than "all articles or pages", but, if I can be honest, this looks like a waste of time to me. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
*I agree with Salvio. By "clearly and umambiguously specified otherwise", I'd expect some sort of phrase such as "but not in project space" or "for articles '''only'''". It's pretty clear to me that the discretionary sanctions extend outside of article space. I'm happy to support a motion, but I don't see that it's necessary. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
----


=== Statement by Izno ===
== Clarification request: Sexology (Neotarf) ==
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)
<!-- As well as above, please also replace "CASE/DECISION" in the Arbitrators' section below, then remove this message. -->
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
;Case or decision affected:
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)
{{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. -->


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
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)
*{{userlinks|Hell in a Bucket}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Neotarf}} ] notified


===Statement by Vanamonde===
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator.
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)
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 Hell in a Bucket === === Statement by Aquillion ===
] Discretional sanctions specifically apply to self identifying transgender people, in this case Tutelary is a transgendered woman and the comment saying that they are claiming to be a woman does violate that remedy. Also if you look at the issue of ] which resulted in a topic ban after findings of fact which noted comments ] identical to what was stated on ANI. The views at Arb Enforcement is that this is not article related therefore unactionable, I believe that the remedy includes treatment of "any" transgender person. Does this remedy only apply to BLP articles or editors as well? ] (]) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
:I sent this in an email to NYB which was only part of my questions but I want to post this here too ] under the subheading "Defamatory Terms" it reads "Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are defamatory and insulting." Letting go the fact that this decision is closed ) which I will not pursue further I think a clarification is warranted for future reference. Apparently the drama meter is up right now and a big reason is because of the dispute of woman rights, civility and maintaining editing atmosphere that is not demeaning. I am quite sure ] would agree on those principles. I also think that if it's established that the remarks are offensive Neotarf will refrain from making them but let's at least agree it's demeaning to a transgender person, the question is does this remedy only apply for articles or does it apply to other editors. ] (]) 09:10, 27 September 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)
=== Statement by Carolmooredc ===
Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought ] regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well. The relevant passage is:
::The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
The problem is the phrase "any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning." sounds to some like it ''includes editors'', despite the previous mention of articles.
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
Hell in a Bucket is not the only person to have misread this. I have been threatened with sanctions for once accidentally and once unknowingly calling two different transgender editors "he". I've been repeatedly badgered by someone (whether female or transgender, I'm not sure) who I admitted I only ''thought'' was a "he" but who finally admitted she was a "she", but doesn't advertise the fact. I guess I should ask her if that's what has her so ticked off. In fact I just noticed that this conversation - ] - is mostly about people being not sure if it was effrontery to use he about an editor on a talk page. (This a sub-thread of another Hell in a Bucket posting on the topic.) Check it out.
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*


=== American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
I sure would like to see it made much clearer you are talking ''only'' about article space and not just article space. Anything that makes it a bit clearer in the actual section (bolding the word '''article''' or writing "only article", for example) would be a big help. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
* {{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 ==
=== Statement by {other user} ===
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->


;Case or decision affected
=== Clerk notes ===
:]
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
=== Sexology (Neotarf): Arbitrator views and discussion ===
#]
*The context here is a closed AE thread in which the AE administrators concluded that (1) the discretionary sanctions authorized in the ''Sexology'' and ''Manning'' cases apply only to articles, not to noticeboard discussions, and (2) the single comment in question did not warrant action in any event. I perceive the second of these conclusions as clearly correct, and hence need not reach the first. This is not a useful request. ] (]) 08:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
*I see nothing requiring further action, broadly per Newyorkbrad. ] ]] 09:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
*I see no reason to disagree with the outcome of the ]. No action required here. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
*{{xt|Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought ] regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well}}, well count me in among those who thought that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
----


== Clarification request: Sexology (TParis) ==
'''Initiated by ''' v/r - ]] '''at''' 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
;Case or decision affected:
<!--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 ]-->
:{{RFARlinks|Sexology}}
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)
:]


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


; Information about amendment request
=== Statement by TParis ===
*]
* I would like to know if ] is a broad enough consensus to meet the threshold listed at ] #2 requiring a consensus at the administrator's noticeboard ("AN") to have the decision by Sandstein to list me as sanctioned with a warning under this case overturned.--v/r - ]] 19:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
:*2022 changes
**{{reply to|Sandstein}} Righteo - I didn't feel comfortable calling a consensus of four editors a consensus that could uncontroversially overrule an Arbcom sanction/warning, even as an enforcement action and not as part of a case, and I wasn't prepared to argue that such a precedent should be set either way.--v/r - ]] 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
**@Arbcom: Regarding Sandstein's question of where to log violations of ], I am not at all opposed to being listed in a log if one were to be created for it specifically. I only oppose where it is logged currently.--v/r - ]] 04:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
**@Arbcom: Hey folks, I've already had an ANI thread stall on me, could we please get a resolution out of this?--v/r - ]] 01:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


=== Statement by Sandstein ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
The four editors who commented in that section supported TParis's appeal, which in most Misplaced Pages discussions would constitute a consensus in favor of their position. But I don't really have any basis on which to form an opinion one way or the other about whether they were uninvolved editors (for whichever meaning of "uninvolved" the Committee may have intended), or whether this relatively limited degree of participation constitutes the "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved participants required to sustain an appeal. <p>On the merits, despite the disagreement of these other editors, I remain of the view that an editor who misbehaves in an AE discussion concerning a topic covered by discretionary sanctions is, themselves, subject to the discretionary sanctions authorized for that topic area, and that the warning at issue (meant as the mildest possible sanction, and not to be confused with a no-longer-loggable alert) was therefore correctly logged. <p>Moreover, to the extent that the sanction was also in application of ], this case raises the question of whether and where sanctions authorized by that provision should be logged. <p>While I don't have strong feelings about any of these questions, some clarification with respect to any of them might be helpful for future cases. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
:*Salvio giuliano: I appreciate the feedback. In this case, though, I consider that my action was appropriate to the misconduct at issue. Indeed, a brief block might have been preferable, also in view of the fact that TParis is an administrator, about the conduct of which the community tends to have higher, not lower, expectations. Of course, such appreciations are a question of individual judgment and temperament, and it is therefore to be expected that different people will come to different conclusions. But the mere fact that my appreciation of the situation doesn't match yours doesn't mean that I didn't exercise my best judgment and common sense. If the ArbCom delegates discretionary sanctions authority to individual administrators, it must accept that they will come to conclusions that may differ from those of individual arbitrators in any given case. Otherwise you'd be better off doing the job yourselves. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
:*Newyorkbrad: If the Arbitration Committee concludes that TParis's appeal to AN was successful, or if the Committee itself undoes the warning on appeal, then I certainly accept that. But as I have said, I am of the view that the warning was appropriate. Therefore I don't quite understand what it is that you would like me to do. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


===Statement by EdJohnston=== === 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 {{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)
Arbcom, please don't create any new procedures or any new logs for decorum warnings. The existing ones are working. TParis has argued that the warning to him was logged in the wrong place, but I disagree. If there was to be a warning at all under ], surely it should be added to the log of whatever Arbcom case the complaint was brought under. In my opinion Arbcom should treat this request from TParis as though it was an arbitration enforcement appeal. On that basis, Arbcom has jurisdiction to grant the request if it wants to (without being worried that it is interfering with the closure of the AN thread he filed). Another way to handle this would have been for TParis to file an arbitration enforcement appeal at ]. If that had been done, I'd probably vote to grant the appeal and remove the logged warning. ] (]) 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
===Action by NE Ent===
Per ] and the obvious trend here I've removed the warning on the sexology . <small>]</small> 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


===Statement by The Devil's Advocate=== === 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.
Sandstein has been brought before ArbCom numerous times over the years for misguided and/or heavy-handed actions in areas subject to discretionary sanctions with this just being the latest incident. I think it would be nice if the Arbs would show some official displeasure with his conduct. At the very least he should be advised or instructed to be more judicious and respectful when carrying out his admin duties in this area. Perhaps you can include it in a motion to grant the appeal by TParis.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


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


=== Sexology (TParis): Arbitrator views and discussion === === Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*
*I have reviewed the discussion on the noticeboard, including Sandstein's detailed comments there. On the substance of the request, while I understand Sandstein's technical points, on balance I fully agree with TParis that it is unreasonable and misleading for him to be listed as a DS-warned party under either the ''Manning'' decision and/or the ''Sexology'' decision. (This obviously doesn't mean I condone calling editors "morons," and I'm glad TParis understands that the term was inappropriate.) I also agree with TParis that the discussion on AN has reached a consensus in his favor on this issue. ¶ As a matter of DS procedure, the appeal-to-AN alternative would ordinarily call for assessment of consensus on the noticeboard itself by an uninvolved administrator, rather than by the Committee. However, due to a lull in the AN discussion it aged off the active AN board and into the archive, and I think it would be excessively wikibureaucratic to insist that the thread be pulled from the archive back onto AN so that an administrator can close it with the obvious result. ¶ With respect to Sandstein's inquiry concerning whether 4 editors is sufficient for consensus, I would say it depends on what is being discussed. If the subject of the discussion were a site-ban, participation by 4 editors would be woefully insufficient. In this instance, though, given the limited nature of the sanction and the fact that everyone who wanted to discuss it had an opportunity to do so, I believe there is sufficient basis for an outcome&mdash;particularly when the alternative would not be to declare the appeal unsuccessful, but to reopen the discussion in either the same or a different venue. ] (]) 19:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
**I agree that we don't need to create a new logging location; we should just drop the warning that was given, as being unnecessary. I would appreciate if Sandstein would just accept this outcome so we can close this request out, as otherwise, unnecessary additional time will be spent on what everyone seems to agree is a very minor matter. ] (]) 18:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
*In general, I agree with Sandstein that edits to an AE thread are covered by the underlying discretionary sanctions. However, and I find myself repeating this, the administrators manning the AE noticeboard need to use their best judgment and common sense when determing what the most appropriate course of action is in any given case. Here, TParis' use of the word "morons" was inappropriate; redacting the insult was a good idea as was leaving a note on his talk page, urging him to be more civil. What was an overreaction was making it a big deal, by logging the warning on the relevant case page like a discretionary sanction. After all, this was an isolated case of incivility and was not part of a pattern {{endash}} at least, from my experience. Those who commented during the AN discussion reached the correct conclusion, in my opinion; and, while 4 people is a bit on the low side for these things, I agree with Brad that for the purpose of determining the number of people required to overturn a sanction, its severity should be taken into account (also, those commenting were, if I'm not mistaken, entirely uninvolved, which partly makes up for their small number). So, for all these reasons, I think the warning should be removed from the log. Also, in my personal capacity, I'd like renew my request to Sandstein to please be less heavy-handed in future and to first consider talking to the other editor as a person, instead of reaching immediately for his DS quiver. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
**In light of the consensus on AN and that of the arbs who have commented, I have just removed the log entry. Unless one of my colleagues disagrees, I'd say this can be archived now. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
*While I also don't endorse the "morons" comment, I agree with Salvio and Newyorkbrad. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
*I think Sandstein's warning was within the letter of the proverbial law, I'm not sure it was an ideal course of actions, per those above. Removal from the log would likely be ideal. In this case although a block would also have likely been within the letter, I don't think it would bevery consistent with the general actions taken against users/administrators that use such language, especially because of his willingness to redact. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 06:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
*I thought I wrote before, but clearly not. TParis, your comment was inappropriate - especially so in the forum it was written. It's hard enough to enforce arbitration decisions, without having to worry about decorum issues. That said, I don't believe it needed a formal warning and it certainly shouldn't be logged there. I don't see that the warning needed to be "logged" at all - in future, if an admin is being troublesome at AE, take to Arbcom - who can have a quiet word. At any rate, I believe the warning should be removed, and it appears that the community consensus (though of a small number of editors) agrees with that. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
*It seems a strange interpretation, in any event, to call a warning a "sanction". I would therefore eliminate this sanction from the log in question, then close this request. ] ]] 09:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough ==

'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected:
:{{RFARlinks|Rich Farmbrough}}
:Link to relevant decision: ]

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

<!-- 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 Fram ===
Rich Farmbrough has ], one stating that he is "indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Misplaced Pages. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so." and another that "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented."

One of the causes of these restrictions was the mass creation of script-generated biographies taken from the Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource (see ], which was also at the start of my evidence on the RF arbcom case).

Now, RF has created many more similar pages (same method, same problems) at Wikisource, and is actively looking for people to import these to Misplaced Pages, if possible by bot or script. His script adds very little of value to the existing Wikisource pages: an extremely rudimentary infobox, bolding of the page title, some seemingly random wikilinks (sometimes none at all), birth and death year cats, and (the only thing of potential value IMO) the references used by the DNB article presented in a Misplaced Pages-style at the end of the article. The pages he creates are taken from all kinds of Wikisource transcriptions, not all verified for correctness (of transcription, this is not about factual correctness).

Evidence of same kind of problems (examples, not exhaustive at all):
*Largely ruined pages: ]: compare to ]. It is quite revealing to open this page in edit mode, to see how the same nonsense appears in the persondata, defaultsort, and so on. See also ]: compare to ]; and ].
*Introduing errors not found in the Wikisource page: ] ends with "the people of FrisinGenesi", which should be (and is in the Wikisource page) "the people of Frisingen".
*Random wikilinks not leading to anything or to the wrong page: ], ], ] (linking to ], which is not really the intended page: the correct yellowed is explained at ] instead)
*Layout problems: ], ] (as a typical small example, when automatically removing a ] with his script, he also loses the indication of the end of a sentence: further, he botches some italics and the rest of the article is italicized): compare to ])

Note also that every page starts with <nowiki>{{subst:Quick infobox|...</nowiki>, but there is no ].

As for evidence that he believes these pages are ready to be imported, that he is actively recruiting people to serve as proxies to circumvent his restrictions, and that speed is the defining characteristic for his creations and the manner he uses:
*] states since its creation on 16 August 2014: "These pages are drafts ready to be copied into Misplaced Pages at your peril."
*His first statement on this, at the DNB project page, stated in part: "I will be creating draft article in my userspace on Wikisource. Anyone can feel free to let me know of issues, or to import the articles to Misplaced Pages, as they are of course, copyright free and attributed. '''If you have the rights you might consider an export-import solution.'''" (bolding mine)
*Correcting his drafts on Wikisource is no use
*Need more articles? You'll get them fast!
*Many are done (no indication which ones):
*At another project, he is more cautious, but still advocating the "quick win" of importing his articles (when, as seen above, it would be more useful to simply import the original wikisource page, if people want a page that needs a lot of work still).

I had put a note on the project talk page to raise my concerns. The response speaks volumes.
Considering the April 2014 clarification issued by the Committee that "Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.", I would suggest that enough is enough, and simply siteban him for continuously trying to circumvent or violate his restrictions, and for basically not learning anything from his previous mistakes and the discussions and blocks surrounding them. Nothing less, including his last one-year block, seems to make any difference. A siteban won't stop him working on Wikisource, but it will at least stop the active recruitment on Misplaced Pages of editors to proxy for him. ] (]) 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

*Addendum: as an indication of the scale of the errors in his drafts: I noted above an article where he had changed Frisingen to FrisinGenesis. This was apparently a remnant of a completely unrelated task, where he auto-expanded some abbreviations to the full Bible Book name. He has now corrected these in his DNB drafts (which is good in itself), which gives an idea of the number of errors (and the fact that my list above was just the tip of the iceberg):
*Expanding "gen" to "Genesis":
*Expanding "ez" to "Ezekiel":
*Changing "john" to "John":
*Expanding "dan" to "Daniel":

After this was done, he did another run on the articles, changing "thither" to "there". Seven articles were changed, one incorrectly though, as "thither" was part of a title in that one, so the change made the article less correct, and would be hard to detect afterwards. ] (]) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I don't care what he does on Wikisource, ''as long as he doesn't try to find people to import these pages here as a way to circumvent his restrictions here''. My links to Wikisource are only used to show that the pages are problematic. My request here is about his actions here. ] (]) 19:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: I don't really understand your statement about an "alleged import"; I have provided multiple piecees of evidence that Rich wants people to import these to Misplaced Pages: the category at Wikisource claims that they are ready to be copied into Misplaced Pages, is a section he started, called '''importing articles''', where he specifically states "If you have the rights you might consider an export-import solution.", and elsewhere he also promotes bringing his drafts to Misplaced Pages as a "quick win". So it is obvious that he has already tried to "crowdsource" his automation, as you put it, and that he wants (or certainly wanted) these to be imported swiftly and preferably en masse. That no one so far has acted upon this (as far as I know) doesn't mean that he hasn't tried to breach the sanctions in this way, only that he was unsuccessful. The "proxying", brought up by others, is a red herring in that regard, as I am not seeking any sanctions against other editors, even if someone would have imported one of these. This request is only about the behaviour of Rich Farmbrough. He now claims that "I have never suggested using a bot or script to import the items, and indeed I would strongly disagree with doing that ''en masse'', as it would break the proposed workflow."; I wonder how he reconciles this with his preferred "export-import solution" for someone with "the rights". I hope that, contrary to earlier ArbCom proceedings, he will actually explain what he intended, and not simply dismiss evidence without any justification for it. Note also this: "As to importing, of course they would not be bulk imported to article space, but to my user namespace by default, or the project namespace by choice, which would create no issues for anyone, except to make mass updating difficult." This not only contradicts his advice to the gender project, but also would still violate his restrictions on mass creating articles, which clearly states that he is "indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace". ] (]) 06:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

About Rich Farmbroughs comment (or "preliminary statement"). Most seems rather irrelevant, I'll stick to a few points.
*"one's off-site edits microscopically examined for typographical inaccuracies," is the usual ignoration of his own errors, which are much more fundamental than "typographical inaccuracies", as evidenced above. This blindness to the problems with his scripts and its results, and the lack of control of the results of his script runs, are the root cause of the problems and restrictions. Furthermore, these are "off-site edits" made with the explicit goal to get them on-site, not something that would remain off-site.
*"The advantage of using the import function, as I understand it, is that it allows attribution to be maintained, and a consistent edit summary of the import itself is used." The import function is not even available to copy pages from Wikisource, see e.g. ].
*"No proxy editing is taking place here, and none has been proposed." But it clearly has been asked. No one has taken up the proxying, but that is not under discussion here. The problem is that you were looking for proxy editors to get your deficient script-created pages on Misplaced Pages, since you are restricted from doing so yourself. You have not explained how this is ''not'' an attemmpt to get around your restriction by recruiting others.
*"To keep these projects in the dark about a possible resource would be unkind, unproductive and unwiki." No, to present your already banned script-created contributions to these projects as if they are positive, welcome contributions is unkind and unproductive. You could have just pointed e.g. the gender group to Wikisource, and indicated that there are a lot of DNB entries there that have been proofread, which can be copied over and turned into articles with some work. You could have provided them with a list on Wikisource of such pages, I wouldn't care and it would in no way violate your retrictions if you had done that. But you just had to use your already condemned scripts there and invite people to use ''your'' versions (no matter if they started from proofread pages or not, no matter if they introduced errors not in the original Wikisource page or not). And ''that'' is the problem and the reason I filed this. ] (]) 06:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade. I don't really get this, you seem to be basically syaing that if someone has restrictions here, they are free to try to circumvent them and find other editors to help them continue their problematic editing? Doesn't that make the restrictions rather toothless? ] (]) 07:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Both. Restrictions are not "don't do this unless your edits are good", they are "don't do this"; but in this case, as I presented in my opening statement, the edits still present the same or very similar problems as the earlier ones had, so I don't believe using them would be a net benefit either (I don't think using the RF versions will make it any faster to present decent articles compared to starting from the standard Wikisource pages, and the chances are considerable that they will introduce additional errors not present in those Wikisource pages, like in some of the examples above). ] (]) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rich Farmbrough ===
In the interests of collegial working, and to save everyone's time, I would appreciate guidance form the Committee, as to whether they would like a point-by-point commentary on the above, a general statement, or, indeed, whether it is not worth responding to. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>13:03,&nbsp;25&nbsp;August&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />

I have drafted a statement which I will post later tonight or tomorrow, once I have removed or reduced those points that Kim has already made more ably than I.

I will just point out, for the record this absurd statement of Fram's, which I had missed amongst the cruft (I may later incorporate it into my general statement:

{{Block quote|''is actively looking for people to import these to Misplaced Pages, if possible by bot or script.''}}

This is quite simply a chimera. I have never suggested using a bot or script to import the items, and indeed I would strongly disagree with doing that ''en masse'', as it would break the proposed workflow.

All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>22:01,&nbsp;26&nbsp;August&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />

====Preliminary statement====
1. '''Scope'''{{Break}}
I address only the substantive point made relating to English Misplaced Pages. While it is doubtless flattering to have one's off-site edits microscopically examined for typographical inaccuracies, it is not something I will address here, except to point out that I had explicitly invited Fram to report and discuss them, if he should desire, as indicated at WP:DNB.{{Block quote|:You are still welcome to proof-read or validate any of the pages in DNB, and if you let me know I will re-create their drafts, where appropriate. And you can add here any issues you discover which appear to be new.<ref name="response">{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Dictionary_of_National_Biography&diff=622742718&oldid=622457296|title= Response to Fram}}</ref>}}

2. '''History'''{{Break}}
2. a) "The Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) is a standard work of reference on notable figures from British history"<ref name="D">]</ref> and "many of the longer entries are still highly regarded"<ref name="D"/>, it covers tens of thousands of people from legendary figures from the mists of time, up to the the early years of the twentieth century, when the supplementary volumes are taken into account. Due to the publication dates the text is in the public domain.<ref>]</ref> These texts, therefore, form a good potential starting point for Misplaced Pages articles. Over the last decade a small group of dedicated volunteers, lead by the redoubtable Charles Matthews have been working on creating a proofread version of the DNB on Wikisource with the express aim (although not the sole aim) of having the material available for Misplaced Pages. In parallel a very great number of Misplaced Pages articles have been created for the same subjects, sometimes based upon the DNB material, sometimes partially so, and sometimes from completely different sources (although these are often derived in whole or part from DNB).<ref>Personal knowledge</ref>

A ] was set up on the 10th of September 2010, I joined on the 14th.<ref name=WP:DNB >https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dictionary_of_National_Biography#Members</ref> The DNB project exists solely to bring information, sometimes in the form of new articles, from the DNB into WP. It is a child project of ]<ref name=WP:DNB/> WikiProject DNB was broadly supportive of the previous automated creation of drafts on WP.


2. b) The "Gender Gap Taskforce" is a taskforce of the Sytemic Bias WikiProject, set up on the 13th of May 2013. It is active on other aspects of systemic gender bias than the Gender Gap, despite its name, for example Afd, categories and missing articles. I have been active there since the 4th of August, shortly after the taskforce saw a resurgence in activity, and had commented elsewhere on the subject of main discussion of 2013, category "ghettoization". I have previously produced lists of missing articles (and provided other, mainly technical, assistance) the Women's History project. I have also made a list of 187 women environmentalists (that I cannot share with fellow Wikipedians, except by providing a link to the off-wiki list), and have slowly been creating articles on notable women leaders form Wesleyan movements.

3. '''Proposed use'''{{Break}}
There was never any suggestion of automated import of these drafts as I have outlined above. You can clearly see that a ''''manual''' process is suggested at the Gender Gap Taskforce, that implies individual articles need to be created and worked upon.<ref name="GG"/>

The advantage of using the import function, as I understand it, is that it allows attribution to be maintained, and a consistent edit summary of the import itself is used. I made it clear, when Fram raised the issue of import that bulk importing would "make mass updating difficult."<ref name="response" /> Had Fram the slightest concept of how the process of continual improvement works, he would have realised that bulk import by any means is anathema to my goals, at least while I am unable to work effectively upon the English Misplaced Pages.

Moreover it is clear that the drafts are not ready for article space as noticed to the DNB project, so any bulk import there would be a bad idea.<ref name="DNB notice" />

4. '''Warnings given'''

4. a. ''Caveat: ... You remain responsible for your own edits. {{Smiley}}'' <ref name="GG" />

4. b. ''These pages are drafts ready to be copied into Misplaced Pages at your peril.''<ref>]</ref>

Note that the WikiProject DNB members tend to be experienced editors who know that they are responsible for their own edits.

Members of both projects clearly have their own reason to create these articles. (See, Bruning, Kim: 2014)

5. '''Conclusions'''{{Break}}
No proxy editing is taking place here, and none has been proposed. Assistance is being offered to two projects I am already involved with, and which have aims in line with my own: to wit, creating missing articles on notable women, adding missing articles on notable Britons. To keep these projects in the dark about a possible resource would be unkind, unproductive and unwiki.

No proxy automation is taking place either, this is a trivial lemma.

6. '''Quotations'''
It is, though, instructive to note the previous comments of a couple of current arbitrators:

* "othing prevents other botops from taking over Rich's bots, provided that they comply with all relevant policies and guidelines," ''T. Canens''

* "You'll also be delighted to hear that the proposed remedies enable him to give you exactly the help you seek by way of planning the {{Sic|logisitics}}, working up the code, liaising with bot owners and so on." ''Roger Davies''

* "Hasteur is a big boy, if he wants to code a bot to Rich's specifications - it's his responsibility..." ''Worm That Turned''

7. '''Colophon'''
It has been expressed to me by an Arbitrator that, despite the findings not saying anything about it, the root issue was the speed of editing.<ref group=notes>We could potentially have a productive discussion on this basis, if that is the view of the Committee as a whole.</ref> It is already perverse, then, that I was blocked for a year for mistyping a single character manually. It would be even odder if any sanction were considered for precisely zero edits

On this note if any Arbitrator knows of any other hidden reasons for sanctions, I would be most grateful to be appraised of them.

====References====
{{Footnotes|refs=
<ref name="GG"></ref>
<ref name="DNB notice">https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Dictionary_of_National_Biography&diff=621477792&oldid=609060720 Notice of availability at WP:DNB</ref>
}}

====Notes====
{{Footnotes|group=notes}}

====Response to Fram's third set of comments====
''I wonder how he reconciles this with his preferred "export-import solution" for someone with "the rights".''

:Where does he get ''preferred'' from? Just makes it up as he goes along I suppose.

====@Robert McClenon====
I provided the Gender Gap Taskforce with two links, one to a list of red-linked articles and their corresponding DNB pages on wikisource, and one (IIRC) to a category of drafts.

Anyone who wishes may take the text of the Wikisource article, or of a draft, or they may retype the text from the image of the DNB page, or they may re-write it in their own words.

If they use the draft (which is in my userspace) they will, in general, have less work to do than if they if the Wikisource page. I will be happy whichever they use.

As to the particulars, the intention is to improve the conversion process continually, this is known as ]. If an improvement to the process is made it will be shared by all new and existing drafts. Moreover source changes will also be reflected to existing drafts.

If they try to polish a draft in my userspace in Wikisource, and it were to be overwritten, their changes would not be lost, but would be available in history. Nonetheless this is probably a bad idea. It would be better to polish it on Misplaced Pages. They can do this, for example, in their own userspace, in Draft space or at AFC. They could also do it under the WP:DNB project space, or indeed in article space, provided they are not going to abandon a particularly problematic draft. Clearly they would do this if they worked from the Wikisource article or the images.
So I don't think I am placing any large manual burden on anyone, rather removing a manual burden.


====@AGK====
Anyone who wants to automatically import these drafts will need to propose a BRFA, which includes showing community consensus, per ]. If the community consensus is to bulk import the pages, then I would not wish to stand against it, even though I don't think it is currently appropriate. The committee may have a different view of community consensus, of course.

====@WTT====
I had not realised these fine distinctions were that important. However the prohibition on automation is recorded, as far as I know, as an "Editing restriction" and does not ascend to the lofty height of a "Topic ban".

=== Statement by Wbm1058 ===
'''No jurisdiction'''. Per ], {{tq|This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends only to the English Misplaced Pages}}. See ] for other committees. Apparently ] has a committee, but Wikisource does not. If you don't like what Rich is doing there, or ''in his own user space'' (which I'd assume was intended for debugging), then go to the Foundation and ask for an Office Action. – ] (]) 19:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

Quick point of policy:
Just pointing out that ] fails on both forks:
# ''"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor"'' . Rich is currently not banned. (block expired in march AFAICT)
# ''"unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits."''. Which passes if an editor checks before submission to en.wp.

Even if we bend #1 to also apply to editing restrictions, #2 still applies full force.

Further, I guess Fram reads "are ready to be imported '''at your peril'''" opposite from me. (I read it as "Don't do it that way. (yet)").

Together with the fact that this is on ws instead of wp I'm not sure there's a case here for arbcom per-se.
(Though Fram's frustration is quite understandable here.)

I know the tendency these days is to delete rather than improve, and ABF over AGF, but this is still wikipedia. :-)

You know, Rich can Code, and Fran knows their quality control. Could we establish procedures where Fram can cooperate with Rich to generate something that both would agree was useful? The large benefit to[REDACTED] if these folks could work together is obvious, imao. ;-)

--] (]) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

: ], Sure! Hence, anticipating that line of argument: ''"Even if we bend #1 to also apply to editing restrictions, #2 still applies full force."''.
: --] (]) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

:: ] <3 :-) --] (]) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

=== Questions and Comments by ] ===
] has stated that many of the articles are "broken". I have not read the articles in detail, but would like to ask whether Fram's comments, such as that abbreviations for books of the Bible have been replaced with the names of the books, are valid. Is that criticism correct? If the criticism is correct, are the articles in Wikisource really ready to be pulled into Misplaced Pages, or will it be necessary for those copying the articles to make non-trivial edits? If, in your opinion, the articles are ready for Misplaced Pages, how is Fram mistaken? Why have you cautioned not to edit the articles in Wikisource? Am I correct in assuming that you are using a script in Wikisource? In that case, by overwriting and "rebreaking" any broken features in the script, it appears that you are proposing to place a large manual burden on Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 23:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
=== Comment from NE Ent===
If RF does something, and Fram doesn't obsess over it, is it really disruptive? This ''we have jurisdiction over anything in the universe that might affect Misplaced Pages'' slope ya'll seem to be on recently should stop, because it diminishes the credibility of the commitee (i.e. good luck banning Erik Möller).

RF was banned from automation because he demonstrated a lack of judgement in using automation to affect articles. If he automates off-en-wp, there is no violation. If the introduction of the work product of those automations by another editor diminishes the encyclopedia, the responsibility lies on the editor who did the edit, not RF.

If the committee is going to establish a vicarious liability policy in that an editor who encourages another editor to do something is as responsible for the one who does it … please desysop Fram for encouraging the behavior of Kafziel ] whom ya'll desysoped. No, that's not a serious request, it's a ] argument for the principle editors are only responsible for their ''own'' behavior, not what others do. <small>]</small> 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Fæ===

I have met Rich in real life many times, we have had great chats, as you might guess this includes our different experiences with Arbcom, and he is a fellow supporter of ]. I expect the outcome here to be ''"I don't see anything that the committee should do"'', as others have highlighted. If Rich wants to play around with Misplaced Pages content away from Misplaced Pages, meh, this is something that is actually a ''good'' thing as if others are going to reuse his work to improve Misplaced Pages contents that's their editorial judgement, not Rich's.

The Misplaced Pages community has seen 2 years of Rich being publicly pilloried for his use of automation, or more accurately, even the ''appearance'' of automation such as simple cut & paste editing, has become a reason for eye-watering year long blocks. This has become a death of a thousand cuts, how about putting aside the punishment hat and instead talk realistic solutions that give Rich a way to regain his good standing as a Misplaced Pages editor, and we can all benefit from his significant talents and interest in writing better tools for our editors?

Those members of Arbcom who have not had a chance to meet Rich and discuss his passion for the English Misplaced Pages, I strongly encourage to take up the offer of a Skype call. Nobody can possibly doubt his good intentions, his enthusiasm for open knowledge and his great potential for helping to deliver on our shared mission. He is exactly the sort of long term Wikipedian you want to encourage.

Let's move on please. --] (]) 12:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

<small>P.S. I note that Fram's statement is currently 1,395 words long and may well be added to. I have only briefly skimmed the text as a result.</small>

===Statement by PBS===

As one of two editors who did most of the systematic clean-up of ] in October–December 2011, I do not share all of Fram's concerns. At the time I was of the opinion that it was better to modify the text and fix the attribution than it was to delete the articles. I was disappointed at the number of editors who participated in the clean up, and because the pages had been published I felt a responsibility to clean them up (even thought I wanted to be editing other pages), and so resented RF for placing that extra burden on the DNB project.

If articles are manually ported by editors from wherever RF has placed them, those editors have three choices:
*to use the original DNB source,
*to use RF's modifications
*or not to do it at all.
The decision and the responsibility for making sure that the text meets Misplaced Pages content policies guidelines must rest on the editor who chooses to import the text. One editor building on the efforts of another is the Misplaced Pages way. I suspect, given the lack of participation if fixing the problems in the 100+ pages in 2011 when RF generated similar content, that the speed at which the articles he creates are copied across to Misplaced Pages will occur far more slowly than RF hopes it will happen.

To facilitate monitoring the ports I would suggest that an audit page is kept consisting of:
* Date start, Date end, porting editor, Misplaced Pages page(s) affected, notes on the port

I think Fram needs to question whether Fram is opposing this initiative by RF, because Fram believes that RF is gaming the system and should not be allowed to do so (whether or not the outcome of RF's initiative will be a net benefit to the Misplaced Pages project); or whether Fram's motives are because Fram believes that this initiative will inevitably harm the project and so should be strangled at birth.

I think on balance it should be a benefit to the project, but it largely depends on the the editing care of any editors who decide to import the text and their taking responsibility for doing so. Therefore I would suggest that the project is allowed to go ahead with the understanding that it can be reviewed at any time.

-- ] (]) 16:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft ===
It would be helpful if the committee could help clarify at what point Fram's reporting of Rich becomes abusive and/or excessive. --] (]) 00:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by bystander Mangoe ===
If Rich were to persuade someone to import ''en masse'' the material he has generated off-site, there would be something to deal with. As it is, one-by-one article creations don't represent the same sort of problem. ] (]) 19:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I reject the point that this is out of jurisdiction, because the purpose of the pages in question appears to be an import into Misplaced Pages. If this is not the case, urgent clarification is requested. Otherwise, I would welcome a statement from Rich Farmbrough; in answer to his question, detail is welcome and, I think, important. If there is no meaningful defence against the allegation that Rich intends to introduce a large number of automatically-processed stubs, statements should focus with some urgency on how this is not – as it would then appear to be – another violation of the automation prohibition that was issued on a "last chance" basis. ] ]] 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:* If Rich assures us that the alleged import in question will not take place, I do not see much else for us to do. I would advise him not to attempt to "crowdsource" his automation, which would be a violation in spirit of his restriction, but until the committee receives evidence that such a thing is taking place, I do not see that we have anything to consider in this complaint. Perhaps {{u|Fram}} can correct me before I finalise my opinion on this request? ] ]] 22:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
* In response to Rich Farmbrough's question, I do believe a statement from him is needed. ] (]) 22:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
*We do not have jurisdiction over Wikisource or any other project but the English Misplaced Pages, but it has long since been established that we have jurisdiction over off-wiki conduct when it is undertaken with the purpose or outcome of affecting the English Misplaced Pages. A banned editor lobbying for others to circumvent the ban would fall squarely within that, so Rich, yes, a statement addressing that accusation is much needed from you. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
**Agreed with AGK, with the further clarifications here, I don't see that any action is required. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
*Ah, proxying. Our policies on the matter are quite ] and I'm sure ]. In any case - if Rich is "making a resource available for people" and the people are willing to take responsibility for the edits - I don't see anything that the committee should do here, we have no powers that would change the matter. I would certainly take into account that Rich has circumvented his topic ban through using another project should he ever request his topic ban be removed. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
*:<s>] - Rich is banned, not site banned, but topic banned - where the topic is a meta topic of "automated editing" and is covered by the ]. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 13:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)</s>
*::], indeed - hence my previous comment {{xt|"I don't see anything that the committee should do here"}} ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
*:@Rich, I stand corrected. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
* I agree that there's not much for us to do here. What he may or may not do at Wikisource is up to the Wikisource community to decide, and I don't think his discussion of importing the text to Misplaced Pages is something we should act upon. ] <small>]</small> 00:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 18:53, 22 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 22 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Amendment request: American politics 2

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

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

Statement by Interstellarity

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

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

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

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

Comment by GoodDay

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

Statement by Rosguill

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

Statement by Izno

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

Statement by Kenneth Kho

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Special:Diff/1064925920
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Special:Diff/1064925920


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


Information about amendment request
  • 2022 changes


Statement by Crouch, Swale

Please either site ban me or remove the restrictions completely. If you site ban me please block with account creation, email and talk revoked and also block my IP address(es) with {{checkuserblock}} including blocking logged in users so that I have no way to contribute to here again and say I can't appeal for 10 years or never, the choice is yours but I'm not prepared to go on as is. And yes unlike last month's request this does count as an appeal but it does include the first option of a full site ban. And yes doing either of these options won't be much effort and would make you're lives easier. Option A motion would say "Crouch, Swale is indefinitely site banned from Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you must pick one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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