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 00:22, 2 February 2015 editLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Statement by Lightbreather: first← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators128,264 edits →Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion: blocked 
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: Ryulong ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<!-- As well as above, please also replace "CASE/DECISION" in the Arbitrators' section below, then remove this message. -->
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' —] '''at''' 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
; Case affected : ] ]
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
# Remedy ]

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Mythdon}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

* Lift the new remedies and enforcement concerning verifiability and reliable sources at ]

=== Statement by Mythdon ===
I am requesting an amendment concerning the restriction barring me from verifiablity/reliable sources that came as a result of and

This restriction came as the result of me having unwilling to produce guideline for tokusatsu articles as outlined in the decision at the closure of the case while persisting in the behavior that led to various urges to seek outside input and work more collaboratively of my views regarding verifiability. There not long after I received a topic ban from Tokusatsu/Ryulong after of the gratitious mention I made of Ryulong

I have not edited the tokusatsu articles since given as I held myself to

The edits I make these days include contributing to the articles I have interest including television stations and The Sims and making minor corrections to errors in articles like spelling and grammer and vandal fighting. I realize my activity has gone down a bunch since my unblock with having let go of all the old habits and old behaviors that led to my September 2009 banning which six months later when I repeated my habits I was blocked indef. My edits gone down a bit since my unblock and I go into spurts of being active and then inactive and then active again

Having no longer any interest to edit the topic area as I outgrew the subject area and having held myself to the voluntary restriction for the security of allowing myself get over the emotional attachment to the articles and to force myself to be productive in other areas. I had been asked and advised by various editors to go find other topic areas to edit while I was editing the topic area and honestly I can say I never made one positive contribution to the topic area but since my unblock I have made productive contributions to other topic areas with referenced content. I have been stumped on what to do about the situation about me being restricted commenting on reliable sources as on one hand I feel it be wrong to only return to the topic area as part of a process pertaining to a remedy but on the other hand if I have nothing to offer the topic area then I think if I just learned from the behavior that led to it that I can make things a fresh start in other topic areas and a new opportunity to avoid the confrontations and behaviors that led my past sanctions

But having learned from the behavior that led to it from my strict interpretations of policy and failing to collaborate with others about my stances and refusing to produce a guideline, what I am requesting is to lift the no commenting on verifiablity and reliable sources sanctions. I have been watching over the topic area even though I no longer edit it and none of the arguments that occurred that led to the guideline remedy are happening as most of those disputes during the time I edited was by a certain editor (myself) doing whatever he could to get the topic area to where he saw fit as most of the never ending disputes were initiated by myself. So the way I see it is this restrictions purpose has been served in having learned from the behavior and its been five years and a lot of the topic areas problems left when I was topic banned and is now only moot as if I were to source an article I would not be allowed to discuss it if an editor were to question my edits

If the sanction should be lifted I will promise to avoid any behavior that led to the sanctions and urges on verifiability and will work more toward an effort to collaborate on verifiablity and to let go of the old strict interpreations of policies including verifiablity which I already no longer am hung up on strict disruptive intepretation of policy. But if the arbcom decision should be that I return to the topic area to help produce a guideline then thats what I will do. Most of the arbs that were arbs at the time this was put in place are no longer arbs and I recommend all arbs take a look at the case before coming to any decision. I will be bound by any result the arbcom should come of this. Thank you for taking the time to read. —] 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

===Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist===
I know much of this case from start to finish, and there is a long history so there will no doubt be some uncertainty regarding what happened here. To bring some context to this, after the original case remedies were enacted Mythdon had initiated a significant number of "clarification/amendment" requests (brace yourself as there's a bit to read in each: ). The third request/diff is the discussion where this restriction was imposed by way of motion, and his last request is found in the last diff where the site ban in 2009 was imposed. I understand Mythdon appealed to the committee but ultimately his 2012 appeal was directed to the community. The appeal was successful (the community agreed to lift the site ban).

Overall:
*I don't oppose this appeal to lift the further restriction, despite an initial reservation regarding the obvious timing of this appeal. He seems genuine in his intention to abide by his promise that we will no longer see the previous disruptive conduct he exhibited (such as tendentious editing, harassment, treating Misplaced Pages as a bureaucracy, etc.) which brought about the remedies + further restrictions in this case.
*I think there should be explicit mention on the case page that '''if''' the same problematic conduct issues arise, it should be brought back to the committee to deal with swiftly. I don't think it would be appropriate for dispute resolution to have to start from the bottom if issues persist.
**5 years, 5 months & 28 days ago is not really the way to look at the duration. Even though the restriction was imposed in August 2009, he was site banned from September 2009 to just before December 2012, so it was only really in place from 2013 - though that isn't much to go on seeing Mythdon made just 85 edits during the entirety of 2013, most of which were over just 3 days in July. So we are then looking at 349 edits from 2014, most of which were during May and June 2014. If that's the sort of irregular activity we can expect, maybe it won't be an issue - but I expect it will increase (seeing his edits were at 2500+ in 2009 and and 4000+ in 2010 when problems were constantly recurring).

I hope that assists somewhat anyway. ] (]) 07:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by Kurtis===
I was around back when Mythdon was originally banned. At the time, he was known for being extremely terse, unfriendly, and overly concerned with trivialities. See his ] back in 2009 to get a sense of what I mean by that. But I don't think it's really relevant anymore, as he's clearly changed quite a bit. He has a genuine understanding of where he went wrong, and as far as I can tell, there have been no problems since being unblocked.

This sanction serves no further purpose and should be lifted. ] ] 09:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

=== Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*That restriction predates my time on this Committee to the point that I'd never actually tried to parse it. And it is a doozy. I read it, and I'm not sure what the 2009 ArbCom was really trying to do, or what the end restriction actually is. (Example; "Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies". Is he banned from questioning the reliability of an individual source, or discussing those polices in the general case?) I'm not familiar with this user, but the clean block log since being unblocked in the fourth quarter of 2012 speaks positively. ] 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
*"5 years, 5 months, 28 days ago" - whew, that's a long time. I'd be interested in seeing any arguments against this. ] (]) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
**''Support'' - my comment about the length of time reflected my opinion that that's enough time for someone to change their attitude. I agree with Ncmvocalist that there should be an "explicit mention on the case page that if the same problematic conduct issues arise, it should be brought back to the committee to deal with swiftly." ] (]) 11:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
*Inclined to support. Going to go through archives to determine what exactly they were going for first though. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 07:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
----


;Case or decision affected
== Amendment request: Argentine History ==
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}
<!-- As well as above, please also replace "CASE/DECISION" in the Arbitrators' section below, then remove this message. -->
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Argentine History}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#]
# Remedy 1


; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment ; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
* {{userlinks|Cambalachero}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)

<!-- ; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
* (repeat above for all parties) -->


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


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
* Exemptions for the articles ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]
I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.
*1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
*2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
*4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. ] (]) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:@]: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. ] (]) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Cambalachero ===
I am currently topic banned from articles that talk about Latin American history. As clarified ], the line between history and modern times in Argentina has been set in 1983 (end of the ] dictatorship, and restoration of democracy). The articles listed are the articles about the presidents of Argentina since 1983, and the Pope. As such, the bulk of their articles is/would be about their presidencies (or papacy), already within the allowed limits, and do not require any special exemption. However, the sections about their early lives and early careers usually need to explain the dictatorship and the ], to provide the appropiate context. In other cases, the aftermath of the dirty war still sparked controversies in the national politics (see the dirty war article, sections "Truth commission, decrees revoked", "Continuing controversies" and "Repeal of Pardon Laws and renewal of prosecutions").


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
Have in mind that the original discussion that led to the case was about articles from the XIX century. Those small exemptions will not go anywhere near the original controversy.
''2015'', would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, ''2016''. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. ] (]) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Rosguill ===
In relation to modern Argentine events, I wrote the featured article ], helped to promote the articles ], ] and ] to the "In the news" section of the main page. I also wrote new articles, featured in the DYK section, for ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. ] (]) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Izno ===
:{{ping|DGG}}: If an article about a modern controversy includes information about an unrelated historical one, I would consider it a ], needing to be fixed. An article must stay focused on its own topic. As for the limit, it's a limit established by the arbcom, to set which articles and topics are covered by the topic ban and which ones are not. Also this phenomenon you talk about is usually about issues that stay unresolved from one administration to the next, and so the media talks about both ones in relation to it. The phenomenon, however, only goes back for a limited time to the past. The media may talk about Bush when talking about issues of the Obama administration that started back then, but if some issue goes back up to Washington, Lincoln or other old historical times, its historical aspect is usually treated as trivia and dismissed from the news headlines, focusing instead on the most recent events related to said issue. ] (]) 13:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
:'''Add''' ], the other user included in this topic ban, requested a precise clarification on the limits of the ban, which articles are included and which ones are not. It is archived at ], and it was agreed again by the Arbcom to set the time limit at December 1983. True, it was MarshalN20 who requested the amendment and it was only applied to him, but it's the same topic ban and it would be the same discussion. ] (]) 15:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
::Let's be less philosophical and focus more on tangible things. The article on ] is a featured one, and mentions George Bush, but does not mention George Washington or Abraham Lincoln anywhere. For similar reasons, a featured article of Cristina Kirchner would mention previous presidents but would not need to mention Manuel Belgrano or José de San Martín at all. There is a historical background for the gun control controversy, but there is no need to mention it in Obama's article, only the things related to gun control under his administration. ] (]) 01:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Courcelles}} The internet archives of online newspapers only go back up to a certain point, and the articles of current leaders (Pope Francis and Cristina Kirchner) are the most checked ones by casual readers, and thus the ones that should have priority in being as perfect as possible. I would follow the list mentioned in a backwards line, from Francis and Kirchner first to Alfonsín last. Incidentally, the list in said order would also go from the least involved with the dirty war to the most involved ones (the Kirchners were just mere students that left a city, and Francis did not hold any noteworthy religious rank; Alfonsín and Menem were active politicians at the time). Still, it may be easier and less time consuming to ask for this whole group a single time, rather than coming here several times to make similar requests for each new case. ] (]) 21:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


=== Statement by MarshalN20 === === Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. ] (]) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
As a professional historian, I agree that it is difficult to draw a "line" between what is history and what is the present. Nonetheless, for the sake of understanding the subject, historians have (time and again) made these lines (they vary, of course, depending on the context and historian). ArbComm has also indeed drawn a line in this case.


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
Regardless of that, the purpose of ArbComm is to focus on user behavior. Cambalachero has conducted himself exceptionally, and has provided a series of positive contributions for the project since his topic ban (including a featured article). This positive behavior should be far more important for the committee's amendment decision than anything else.
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===
Sincerely.--] ] 15:50, 30 January 2015 (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 {yet another user} === === Statement by Aquillion ===


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


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
=== Argentine History: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
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.
*As a purely preliminary comment, I am not sure that for any nation whatsoever, there is a clear separate between historical and current controversies. Current disputes tend to include the interpretation of historical examples. ''']''' (]) 08:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
::::to use the US as an example, debates on current politics often refer back to the principles of US government as established in the 18th century; and much work on the writers of the Constitution is motivated by their implications for current events. See , for example, our article on ]. That's not coatrack, but , in the US, one of the possible and much-debated principles underlying constitutional interpretation. Nor, I think, has Europe forgotten World War II, or the third world the period of European imperialism. ''']''' (]) 21:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Cambalachero}}, I think this is reasonable enough. That said, I would be slightly more inclined to grant an exemption for those people more tangentially connected to the dictatorship... is there a subset of the articles you'd like to work on first? ] 20:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
*This seems a reasonable request. I would be inclined toward granting the standard exemption for these (articles, talk pages, pages related to FA review), revocable by an uninvolved admin in the event of misconduct. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:*I'd rather either designate ''one'' admin that was willing to supervise, or say send it back to ArbCom for review if needed, rather than the open-endedness of any uninvolved admin. We've done the first two strategies. Not, to my memory, the any uninvolved admin route. If no one objects strongly, I'll throw up a motion tomorrow. ] 03:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
::*I'm pretty sure we've also done the latter, though I can't recall the details now and, speaking personally, I'd prefer to have any uninvolved administrator authorised to revoke the exemption (which, by the way, I too support). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
*Although I sympathise with DGG's comments somewhat, I think we can do this. Not decided yet on which route to take about rovocing it if necessary, I need to see the pros and cons. ] (]) 11:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
====Motion (Argentine History)====
:''{{ACMajority|active=13|inactive=2|motion=yes}}
{{Ivmbox|1=Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, {{u|Cambalachero}} is permitted to edit all content on the articles ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be temporarily revoked either in part or entirely by that administrator prior to referring the issues back to the Committee for review via an ].}}


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
;Support:
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
# As proposer. I think this strikes a balance between the various methods of revoking the exemption. Copyedit or change as desired. ] 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*
# ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 05:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
# ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
# &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
# '']'' <sup>]</sup> 07:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
# ] (]) 08:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
;Oppose:
# I support the exemption, but not the mandatory referral. If Cambalachero thinks the administrator in question has made a mistake, he can appeal to us. Demanding that the administrator ask us to confirm his decision is a waste of time (his and ours). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


=== American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
;Abstain/Recuse:
* {{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 ==
;Comments:
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{u|Courcelles}} Support in principle though I'd like to suggest a clarification of our intent here:
**From "This restriction may be withdrawn if there is misconduct by an uninvovled administrator, either for one page or for all of them. Any administrator who does so is required to open a ] for the Arbitration Committee's consideration."
**To: "If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be temporarily revoked either in part or entirely by that administrator prior to referring the issues back to the Committee for review via a ] ."<p>&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
***That works, {{u|Roger Davies}}, but I think it needs just one more word to make it an imperative that the admin open the ARCA... ] 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
----


;Case or decision affected
== Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling==
:]
<!-- As well as above, please also replace "CASE/DECISION" in the Arbitrators' section below, then remove this message. -->
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
;Case or decision affected:
#]
:]
:{{RFARlinks|Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling}} (] in particular)


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


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)


=== Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist ===
My first request for clarification concerns the AC procedures - standard provision for appeals and modifications. In particular, the section entitled "Modification by administrators" in the following situation:

'''1A)''' An administrator X blocks an user for a period of time after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban (which was imposed as a case remedy). After the block has expired, administrator Y imposes another block of the same or a longer duration for the same complaint (and where there are no further breaches). Administrator Y did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here, for imposing the further block. Can the committee please confirm in those circumstances whether administrator Y's further block would be considered a modification of administrator X's block, and that such an action is unauthorised?

My second request for clarification concerns the AE sanction handling case (principle 3.1.2 - Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions) in the following situation:

'''2A)''' An administrator X refuses to block an user after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban (which was imposed as a case remedy). Other administrators opine on the issue at AE and there appears to be division regarding the appropriateness of any block (and the appropriate duration for a block even if it is agreed). Administrator Y unilaterally imposes a block (where there is clearly no pressing need to), and did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here for imposing the block. If there is a division in opinion at AE regarding the appropriateness and duration of a block, has the committee indicated to its admins that they can unilaterally impose a block anyway? Does principle 3.1.2 only apply to discretionary sanctions? Or does that principle apply to requested enforcement of case remedies too?

I have listed 1A and 2A above only, as I may have a follow up under each. Thanks, ] (]) 19:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:'''Sigh!'''
:I think it's embarrassing that AE admins were responsible for attempting to derail this request into one about {{user|Eric Corbett}}, when this request is really about (as the name of the case suggests): Arbitration Enforcement Sanction Handling. One of the main parties to that case was AE-active {{admin|Sandstein}}, and it's disappointing to note that Sandstein's seem to continue, and that too in the name of Arbcom.

:The community elected the committee, not Sandstein. Even if for some bizarre reason you want Sandstein to remain entitled to keep up his repeated wikilawyering, his overly bureaucratic approach and his ] tendencies at AE (be it as far as the noticeboard requests or actions he takes at those requests), I think the community is entitled to hear that from you directly, rather than his comments on arbitrators 'deliberate intentions'. Alternatively, if previous reminders or indications have not worked for him to change his approach to be more consistent with what is expected at all levels, maybe something else needs to be tried.

:Even here, I am concerned that Sandstein appears to improperly suggest that:
:# I am filing an appeal on behalf of a certain blocked user (Eric Corbett) but have concealed it in the form of this request;
:# I've filed this request to circumvent the appeal procedure, and thereby game the system in relation to Eric Corbett's block; and
:# I and several other users are (a) friends of Eric Corbett, and (b) therefore incapable of assessing when enforcement is appropriate and necessary.

:For the avoidance of doubt, those suggestions are false accusations made in bad faith without a shred of evidence (except possibly the bit about "other users" being friends of Eric Corbett as I don't know how accurate that is. Still, ] even for this type of thing.

:I do wish the arbitrators would find a more effective way to tell Sandstein to cease engaging in such needlessly problematic conduct. ] (]) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Roger Davies}} Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you are saying principle 3.1 of the case only applies to discretionary sanctions, and does not apply at all to requests to enforce individual editor topic ban case remedies enacted by the committee. That is, in the 2A hypothetical, you are saying that even if uninvolved administrators (plural) opine and determine a breach of a topic ban in 2A is minor that it does not warrant a block (or that a block is going to be ineffective), it doesn't matter; any admin who wants to block and first imposes a block will have a supervote. Is that correct? And is that what you want/wanted? ] (]) 15:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

:::'''Note'''
:::] (who was an arbitrator at the time of the case) has that Roger Davies seems to have surprisingly forgotten why a certain principle was added in an older arbitration case. That appears to be happening in respect of the principle in this case also (and of course, I invite Risker to correct me if I'm wrong or provide more detail about the principle in this case, as she was also an arb when this principle 3.1 was unanimously passed with Roger's **unreserved** support). The principle says because of the priority given to enforcement of arb sanctions..."''When it is not entirely clear whether a sanction is appropriate, or '''when an administrator knows that there is a division of opinion regarding whether a sanction is warranted, and there is no pressing need for immediate action,''' it may be best for an administrator to raise the issue in the discussion venue for Arbitration Enforcement and '''seek a consensus, rather than to act unilaterally.'''''"

:::I'm pretty sure I've been patient and brought this up in a very reasonable way, given there were a lot of ways this could have otherwise been raised. I also did think the 2A situation has been expressed clearly in my comments here (indeed, ]'s comment accurately summarises the situation I am seeking clarification in relation to, and what the principle intended to address). Unlike the example in Roger's comment which may have been contemplated in initial AE design, the situations like what I've described in 2A have gradually arisen in more recent years because of a few very specific AE active admin who have not got the message fully, or who are often being misguided (perhaps by users with their own agenda). Please ''effectively'' address it.

:::I can't even imagine how the case principle I just quoted (or the AC procedures I linked to above) seriously intended to deliberately allow an admin to unilaterally impose a block even if the block is against already-formed consensus not to block (that is how I interpret Roger's statements too). I thought the idea is to reduce the number of unnecessary appeals and not force them to become a much more regular and frequent feature. Also, when a consensus is clearly desired by the admins in the first instance who are still ''reasonably'' discussing the best way to handle the request, I don't believe this principle or the procedures intended to (as Roger's statements suggest to me) deliberately let an admin make a unilateral block and cut the desired discussion off where there were no genuine supervenient circumstances requiring that action. I really don't see how that approach is ensuring priority enforcement actions are taken carefully in the first instance where possible, or are helpful especially in those situations.

:::Perhaps more discussion and views are needed. ] (]) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by IP ===

I feel it's worth noting that the situation described in 2A just played out in a recently closed AE request (it's still there but hatted). I assume that part was unmentioned in the hopes of avoiding a dramastorm, so I won't name it directly. That said, I consider it valuable context that arbs should be aware of and review. ] (]) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

::Since the dramastorm came anyway (sorry, Ncmvocalist) I will comment on the AE after all. Despite the criticism, I have found that Sandstein goes out of his way to accommodate other admins positions at AE. Most commonly he will state he disagrees with something but will not stand in the way of consensus. I have also seen him full on defer to other admins who disagree with him at AE when closing a case. His actions in the related AE surprised me. I think this is the first time he has pushed through his preferred action in the face of what was arguably a developing consensus for a simple warning. I'm not saying he was wrong, Sandstein is usually technically correct (the BEST kind of correct!), but it is curious that he would act... Out of character, I guess? I'm not sure how best to describe it.

::to Roger, would you consider closing an AE request with no action an administrative action? It does not require use of the tools, but it is something only an admin is allowed to do. If so, does it enjoy the protection of other AE admin actions? So if, for example, HJ Mitchell had closed the case with a warning, would Sandstein need a "clear and active consensus" to block instead? I ask that you consider these scenarios seriously because it appears to me Arbcom is inadvertently creating a race to action in contentious cases where you are intending "deliberate and careful use". ] (]) 16:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Floq ===
I'm glad to see this has been asked already, I was about to. I think the answers so far to 1A are pretty reasonable and uncontroversial. I'm more interested in Arbs' answers to 2A. Normally, an admin can take unilateral AE action without waiting for a discussion, and then the normal AE rules apply to reverse that action: unlike a normal admin action, consensus would be required to overturn the AE action. However, when a discussion is already underway, and there is no consensus on the blocking (or a preliminary consensus not to block), it seems unfair to unilaterally make the decision to block, and then insist on a new discussion to overturn it. If it really is acceptable to do that, could not an admin with an opposing viewpoint decide to "officially warn" someone, or block them for 1 second, and then close the AE request, preventing any further blocking without a brand new discussion? (I'm not advocating that, of course, just pointing out that it kind of follows from the answers to 1A). AE enforcement is meant to streamline things, but in the scenario described above, it's being used instead as a trump card. It shouldn't be. If there is an ongoing discussion at AE with differing viewpoints on blocking among the uninvolved admins, an admin shouldn't wade in and block before a consensus develops. --] (]) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

===Short comment from Collect===

The principle of "do it first so the other admin will be wheel-warring" has been discussed before, without any solid answers. ] is a rough equivalent. Why not recognize that valid issue raised by Floq above - and issue a ''sua sponte'' dictum that blocks should generally require the initial input of (say) three admins in order to have standing against a simple reversal by another admin? Thus reducing the value of "first move wins." ] (]) 20:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

=== Observation by TenOfAllTrades ===

While the IP has alluded to it, I'm going to make it explicit. This is another damn "hypothetical situation" thread that's actually not at all hypothetical, and like it or not the Arb's responses are going to be read in that context. Yep, it's another damn Malleus/Eric Corbett thread: , .

Unlike most threads involving Eric Corbett, it was dealt with in a reasonable amount of time, after a reasonable discussion, and resulted in a reasonable final decision that ''wasn't'' followed by a firestorm or wheel warring. The ArbCom should be very cautious in how it approaches the question in 2A, in that the question seems to be exploring ways that an ArbCom decision to impose discretionary sanctions can be nullified by a single admin. ](]) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

=== Passing comment from Harry Mitchell ===
I was one of the admins who opined against a block in the "hypothetical" scenario. I disagree with the block for reasons I've stated elsewhere (mainly that it is based on an overly literal interpretation of the remedy with no regard for its spirit), but at the end of the day AE cannot afford to become deadlocked like ANI whenever a big name is involved. The solution? More objective, level-headed admins at AE. ] &#124; ] 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sandstein ===
As the admin who made the block discussed in the second question, I'm offering the following comments:
*This looks like an appeal in the guise of a clarification request, and an attempt to circumvent the Committee's rule that appeals are heard only if they are made by the user who is the subject of the sanction. Because that user has chosen, in this instance, not to appeal the block, and the user asking the question is not in any way affected by this situation, there is in my view nothing that needs – in the sense of an actual controversy awaiting resolution – to be clarified.
*On the merits, I'm of the view that any discussion among admins or others about an enforcement request does not prevent any admin from taking, or not taking, any enforcement action they deem appropriate.
:*First, the rules about enforcement actions (as well as discretionary sanctions, which are not at issue here) do not envision or require any form of discussion among whoever. The only exception is the case mentioned in the question but not at issue here because no discretionary sanctions are concerned: "]". Even this does not require admins to follow or look for consensus, but only advises them to listen to the opinions of other admins (which they may then choose to disregard). As far as I know this was an intentional decision by the arbitrators who drafted these rules. Any discussion that does occur is merely an aid for coming to the right conclusion, but it is not envisioned by any rule to be a consensus-forming process. Discussion and consensus become relevant only at a later stage – in an appeal, either to the community or to administrators.
:*Second, as has been mentioned above, requiring admins not to act in the absence of a consensus to act would have two effects that would severely impair the effective enforcement of the decisions made by this Committee. First, sanctioned users who have many friends, as seems to be case here, can block enforcement just by having enough people show up that any consensus becomes unfeasible to establish and timely action impossible to take, as is regularly the case on community noticeboards. Second, this would in effect compel admins who are interested in arbitration enforcement to take action as soon as possible without waiting for discussion, which would likely impair the quality and acceptance of enforcement actions, and by extension the effectiveness of this Committee's decisions. I would prefer that not to be the case, because I think that the discussions among the admins who regularly work at AE are often very helpful. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::with regard to your first point, I hope you do not mean to imply that an admin may act ''against'' known consensus.''']''' (]) 03:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:::No, that would be pointless because an admin acting against known consensus would have to expect their action to be overturned on appeal. What I mean is that I read the existing rules to mean that admins are neither expected not required to wait for or act only based on consensus. If and where the Committee expects admins to look for consensus instead of enforcing ArbCom decisions on their own initiative, they should be clear about it and tell us so in the rules, which is currently not the case. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Roger Davies}} Thanks for your advice concerning a ''de minimis'' rule. If it is indeed the view of the Committee that violations of ArbCom decisions that are considered less severe according to some standard should ''not'' result in enforcement action, then the Committee should articulate this standard explicitly. I currently work on the assumption that if you topic-ban somebody from "X, broadly construed", this means that you expect this editor to be blocked in each and every case in which they make a X-related edit outside of the ], no matter what the circumstances may be. If that is not so, then you should tell admins which criteria they should use to decide whether or not to take action. I caution, though, that this (and any added consensus requirements) may have the effect that your sanctions against popular and well-networked users may be enforced much less effectively, if at all, than your sanctions against other editors. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by Rich Farmbrough===
It seems to to me that the "first mover advantage" is a long-standing Wiki problem which has been dealt with traditionally by consensus and discussion, and application of policy.

The rule making AE non-overturnable effectively gives a form of absolute power to the Admins who frequent AE, which has been abused, just as the absolute power of checkusers has been abused (and historically, almost every other form of power, both absolute and otherwise).

So the instant problem of Sandstein's "overly literal interpretation of the remedy with no regard for its spirit" - and indeed his history of such narrow and binary interpretations, not unusual amongst the Misplaced Pages demographic, really pales into insignificance with the systemic problem that we have created of non-overturnable admin actions. It would be better, if still not ideal, if these actions were subject to normal community scrutiny.

I understand, of course, that the idea is to prevent an infinite regress. More important though is the inequality

<math>Community > Policy > ArbCom > AE decisions</math>

The current arrangement breaks this in no uncertain manner.

All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>16:30,&nbsp;28&nbsp;January&nbsp;2015&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />

=== Statement by Risker ===
I was pinged to comment here. I do indeed remember both this case, and the early stages of the discussion about revisions to the discretionary sanctions process that were made, in part, as a result of that case. The clear intention at the time was to address the fact that AE seems to attract administrators who like to mete out sanctions regardless of the state of the discussion of a request (i.e., to sanction even in situations where a preponderance of administrators do not believe a sanction is appropriate) or just as seriously to interpret the "consensus" of administrators as supporting sanction even in situations where almost all other administrators would say there was either (a) no consensus or (b) a consensus not to sanction. Arbitration enforcement is in some ways even more powerful than arbitration decisions themselves, because at an arbcom case there must be a clear majority supporting a sanction before it can be placed. My read of the two situations described above is as follows:
*1A) is a clear superimposition of the second administrator's decision, overriding the first administrator's decision. This is not acceptable and, if there have been prior warnings, could easily lead to desysop or other sanction such as restriction from participating in any way in arbitration enforcement for an extended period (Arbcom seems to be big on the "don't appeal for a year" position right now, which would be sufficient).
*2A) If multiple administrators have opined and there is no really clear consensus for applying sanctions (or no clear consensus on what sanction should be applied) then sanctions should not be applied. The assessment of consensus should, ideally, be done by an administrator who has not participated in the discussion of the request. (The reasonable parallel would be XfD.) Administrators who regularly apply sanctions when there is no clear consensus are also subject to the sanctions mentioned above. It is not helpful to have hardliners applying sanctions that don't have at minimum more than a majority support of uninvolved administrators, either for the reputation of AE itself (it's not appropriate to have a situation where it doesn't matter what others say if Admin Y is going to do what they want anyway) or to ensure that there is a multiplicity of administrators participating.

Those were the intentions at the time of the case, and in the early discussions for improving the procedures. Hope that helps. ] (]) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lightbreather ===
If this ''is'' meant to clarify a situation like the recent Sandstein/Eric Corbett brouhaha, Ncmvocalist's '''2A)''' should say:
:<ins>On a talk page, not Arbitration Enforcement, </ins><del> An</del> administrator X refuses to block an user after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban <ins>by editor A</ins> (which was imposed as a case remedy). <ins>The complainant then goes to AE.</ins> Other administrators opine on the issue at AE and there appears to be division regarding the appropriateness of any block (and the appropriate duration for a block even if it is agreed). Administrator Y <del>unilaterally</del> imposes a block (where there is clearly no pressing need to), and did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here for imposing the block<ins>, although admin X admitted at AE that they misread the topic ban the first time and now agree that editor A did in fact violate their ban, and that "another administrator would certainly be justified in per the topic ban's stipulation that refrain from discussing the ... topic."</ins>

The decision to block wasn't unilateral because {{u|Guettarda}} agreed that EC had violated his ban.

Principle 2.2.1 applies here: ]. Go Phightins! acted quickly (5 minutes) after I asked for admin help at WT:WER, as did NE Ent (3 minutes) after I asked a second time, otherwise they might have realized that EC really had broken his topic ban and simply removed EC's comments per the ], which is all that I asked for, before I went to AE.

If admins were perfect, Go Phigtins! or NE Ent would have either removed the comments as I asked, blocked EC (which I did not ask for), or started a discussion here at AE, per Principle 3.1.2. --] (]) 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hell in a Bucket ===
For ]'s concerns of casting aspersions please see the section below where I have provided the requested evidence. ] (]) 23:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

=== Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Regarding 1A, the key part of your scenario are the words "After the block has expired". Once the block has expired any further blocking, for any cause, is a new action. I suspect that in most circumstances this second blocking would be very ill-advised and possibly a bad block. There exists the possibility that the second administrator is in possession of new/additional information (which may or may not be publicly shareable) that justifies the action, so I am not going to say it will always be a bad block. Your question 2A requires more thought before answering. ] (]) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
**Regarding 2A, contrary to how I interpret ]'s statement, I see choosing not to act is as much a part of the role of an administrator as choosing to act is. If there is consensus that a block is not warranted then that should have the same protection as consensus to block does. If consensus is unclear then absent an emergency situation or being privy to private information (both of which would need to be explicitly flagged as such) then no single admin should issue a block until it is clear that a block does have consensus. A useful analogy for me is that an admin closing an XfD as "keep" is acting in exactly the same capacity as if they were closing it as "delete", even though only one outcome requires using the administrative toolset. ] (]) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
*Concerning 1A, I tend to agree with my learned colleague. As a general rule, I'd say that once an administrator has imposed a discretionary sanction on an editor, said sanction should not be modified ''in pejus'' (i.e. should not be made harsher) in the absence of a. the imposing administrator's consent, b. a consensus of uninvolved editors or administrators, b. arbcom's authorisation or d. supervenient circumstances justifying the increase. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
**Concerning 2A, both the imposition of discretionary sanctions and the enforcement of an ArbCom-imposed restriction do not require consensus; any admin may act without having to go through AE and without having to seek consensus. That's the point of arbitration enforcement, after all: to have the means to stop disruption quickly without getting bogged down in long discussions. Seeking consensus (and, of course, following it) is merely advised and not made mandatory. It's certainly possible to argue that acting without seeking prior consensus and acting against an emerging consensus are different things, and I agree, but this distinction is not supported by policy at the moment. That said, an admin following best practices, for instance, would not have blocked in the circumstances, but the block is neither an abuse of power nor invalid. Of course, should a sysop make a habit of acting against consensus, arbcom would consider asking said admin to stop doing enforcement. <p>Concerning what constitutes an admin action, well, this is trickier. In general, declining to act has generally not been considered an admin action and, so, another admin may decide to act without violating the prohibition on modifying someone else's action without consent or consensus. At the same time, an admin who decided to impose a 1-sec. block to prevent others from imposing harsher sanctions would clearly be trying to game the system and could probably be sanctioned himself. My personal feeling is that the only action which qualifies as admin action, in these cases, would be closing (and hatting) an AE thread without action. <p>Finally, concerning the issue of ''de minimis'', yes, Sandstein, admins are allowed to exercise their best judgement when enforcing an arbcom-imposed restriction; sometimes, a block will be needed, others a warning will suffice and others the violation may even be too inconsequential to warrant any action and could even lead to a boomerang on the OP. We trust administrators, that's why we have tasked them with enforcing our decisions, we don't want you to become automata. Your common sense is valued. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*This is perhaps the least hypothetical hypothetical I've seen in a while. Blocking after a prior block has expired strikes me as double jeopardy in the absence of either a fresh violation, or a consensus of uninvolved editors that the editor actually needs a harsher block (the situation that comes to mind readily is a community request for an indefinite block/community ban.) But in most cases, if the block "fixed" the issue and there are no new violations, blocks are not punishment, and the discretion of the first administrator likely should be respected. ] 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
* Placing a fresh block for conduct that has already been dealt with - at least on the face of it and absent a rationale from the second admin - seems to me to be gaming the prohibition on modifying another administrator's blocks. On the second question, what distinguishes administrative actions is use of the tools or making an action explicitly reserved for administrators. A refusal to act cannot therefore be an administrative action as no administrative action has taken place. As a hypothetical if a bunch of people are hurling abuse at each other and furiously edit-warring, and - for whatever reason - an administrator explicitly refuses to act in respect of any of them, are each of them immunised against blocking? The common sense answer has to be "Certainly not". &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
** {{reply to|Thryduulf|Ncmvocalist}}. The point here I think is that AE is designed as a streamlined summary process and has never required collective decisions before admin action. This is how it should be. It enables admins to act swiftly and decisively when the need arises, by authorising admins ''as individuals''. They can ask their colleagues what they think but they're not bound to take those opinions into account. There is no supervote because no vote is taking place. The enforcing admin is entirely responsible for their action and if they get it seriously wrong (or make strange calls frequently) they may be subject to sanction themselves. This will sometimes lead to actions which are controversial and sometimes heavyhanded but the issue then is whether the admin action was reasonable (and the DS procedure sets out guidelines on this) and not whether there was consensus for it. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 09:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
** {{u|Sandstein}} What you say is true though I find it wearying that once again a borderline call has been made and once again you are the instigator. Perhaps you might consider writing "de minimis non curat lex" on a post-it note and placing it prominently on your monitor? &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
** {{u|Ncmvocalist}} I'm not quite clear what Risker has got to do with this (but for information I replied ). Anyhow, to the substantive point. The text you quote comes from the . Since then we've had a ]. It doesn't talk about reaching consensus before a decision but it does include an extensive new section, ], advising administrators about when to act and when to not act. Whether or not, in this instance, that advice has been disregarded is an altogether difference matter. So, to turn back to the consensus issue, I still it's wise to obtain consensus but it's not compulsory. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
* I agree with my colleagues's views on 1A - there would have to be something new or overlooked to justify a 2nd block. The phrase 'supervenient circumstances' is a great description but I'd warn against reading our article ]. As for 2A, I'm not convinced it can be answered as a hypothetical question - and I'm not convinced that ArbCom trying to specify an answer wouldn't be micro-managing, rarely a good idea. I'd perhaps be willing to opine on a specific situation. And I like Roger's example. ] (]) 19:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
*I agree with Thryduulf about 1A. There would need to be something additional, and in a possibly uncertain case like this it would be very wise to seek consensus first. Otherwise it would facilitate administrator-shopping, and one point of arb enforcement is to avoid this. I also agree with him about 2A. Within the structure of arb enforcement, this is an admin action, and over-riding it would require prior consensus. Otherwise this too would facilitate administrator-shopping. As for the original block that set this off, our discussing this would need to be separate. ''']''' (]) 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
*To 1A, I think that it's generally common courtesy to discuss an issue with the other admin when one is considering modifying their action, especially when nothing new has taken place that changes the circumstances since that admin made their decision. Whether such an action would be justified depends on the circumstances, and I'm hesitant to give definitive answers to a wide hypothetical, but I think once an action has been decided and taken, it shouldn't be modified without a very good reason, and "I would've done differently if I'd made the call" is generally not in itself sufficient. The point of having admins is that we should be able to trust them to evaluate individual situations and exercise good judgment, as no two scenarios will be exactly the same. To 2A, arbitration enforcement actions are intended to be undertaken by a single administrator, and that admin takes full responsibility for the action. Preexisting consensus is not required, but good judgment is. If several other uninvolved admins, or uninvolved editors in good standing, are objecting to a sanction or have explicitly declined to place one, that doesn't prevent someone else from doing so, but it is at minimum incumbent upon an admin placing a sanction to carefully consider the objections others made before doing so. If the editor who has been sanctioned does not believe there would be a consensus of admins for the action in question, that editor may appeal, and at that point, consensus of admins (or arbitrators, if the appeal reaches us) would be measured during the appeal. The fact that the editor in question here (we all know that this hypothetical isn't too hypothetical, I believe) chooses not to take advantage of the process doesn't change what the process is. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
*The eventual action is of course appealable and beholden to consensus. An administrator, if they see a consensus against applying a particular sanction, they ought not apply it because presumably such AE an action would be undone. However, if there is disagreement, and an administrator is confident in an application, I'm hesitant to say they cannot just becuase it's possible there will be consensus against them. The onus definitely relies upon individual administrators. I'd advise that in areas where a consensus is in the process of forming, or has formed, against the administrator action, due caution and restraint be advised. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 07:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*As for "broadly construed" I understand that to mean that it refers to the breath of the topic area -- that a ban from , say, articles on comic books would also include articles on the history of comic books, because normally the same sort of problems would arise. It does't mean that a very minor purely technical violation should necessarily be sanctioned. I recognize this as a possible problem -- there have been instances of an ed. first making a purely technical edit, followed by one that is a little more substantive, and so on. An admin is expected to judge the situation, and see if a pattern is developing that needs to be stopped. ''']''' (])

== Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF ==
<!-- As well as above, please also replace "CASE/DECISION" in the Arbitrators' section below, then remove this message. -->
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Interactions at GGTF}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# ]
# ]
# ]

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Lightbreather}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Hell in a Bucket}}

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)


; Information about amendment request ; Information about amendment request
*]
:*2022 changes


* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
* Details of desired modification


=== Statement by Lightbreather === === 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)
Following the GGTF ArbCom case, I proposed an Iban between {{u|Hell in a Bucket}} and myself. He declined. I have left the offer open on my talk page, without reply. However, today, Hell in a Bucket again called me a liar, as he has in the past, without evidence.
:{{Ping|Theleekycauldron}} Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start ] about other users and myself or I start posting ] content. I could just go on disrupting Misplaced Pages until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. ''']''' (]) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
Could an admin please place this Iban?
Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
{{ping|Hell in a Bucket}} The link you gave shows that I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I maintain that ], but {{u|Mike V}} disagreed. That doesn't mean that I "lied" anymore than Mike V "lied" (he didn't) for coming to a different conclusion about my reason for editing while logged out.
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes ===
{{ping|GorillaWarfare|Roger Davies}} You were involved in the discussion where I originally proposed this. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, do you?
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*


=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
Links to vitriole Hell in a Bucket has spewed at me since the close of the GGTF Arbcom:
* Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to '''decline'''. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) ] (] • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
# In direct response to an IdeaLab project I've proposed: '''''Oppose'''- if you feel like you need said safe haven make a feminist wikipedia, let the grown up women stay where they should be (en.wiki) and work with the rest of the community like the adults they are.''
*Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
#
*Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. ] (] &#124; ]) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
#
* This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a ]. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - ] (]) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
#
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#
The last one, (in reply to a simple question by GorillaWarfare) is 592 words and not one diff! The allegations of lies and not AGF without evidence (]) really bothers me.

=== Statement by Hell in a Bucket ===
:Any editor familiar with the Arbcom case GGTF knows that Lightbreather lied about socking and then evading her block using another sock and then lied again but begged everyone to believe her that she wasn't lying the second time although she was not honest the first time. I would note this is actually the first semi direct interaction I've had with her in some time and it was not even her but the inclusion of a SPI. I think this was my last comment other then this new SPI ] that had any involvement. I think we have an editor that can not under any circumstances deal with anyone that disagrees with her POV, which is what I said here ] with no suitable response. ] (]) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
] as you seem to have forgot here is the evidence ]. ] (]) 22:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:*Yes we've already had this complaint ]. It hasn't changed. ] (]) 23:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*Link 20 (not en.wiki) and as stated above she is upset I disagreed.
*Link 21 Delete as drivel or "talk nonsense."
*Link 22 Discussion with Ironholds explaining why I believe what I do. (not lightbreather)
*link 23 Still talking to Ironholds not Lightbreather
*Link 24 Asking that Lightbreather be stopped from harrassing a new user in contravention of ] with a second SPI although there was zero reason to do so. (on someone else's talk page no less)
*Link 25 is stating the same thing several admin and one former arb stated about honesty.
*Link 26 and 27 is a discussion regarding the use of ] and not a problem except again it doesn't agree with LB preferred view.
*Link 28 a response to another editor who had stated concerns and I wanted to clarify again not with Lightbreather. ] (]) 23:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think total out of that there is one that is directly addressed to Lightbreather 00:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

=== Interactions at GGTF: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*
----

Latest revision as of 20:24, 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)

@Theleekycauldron: Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start posting personal information about other users and myself or I start posting libel content. I could just go on disrupting Misplaced Pages until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to decline. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a false dilemma. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - Aoidh (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline, obviously. I have indefinitely blocked Crouch, Swale in response to Special:Diff/1271154047. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions Add topic