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 23:56, 4 July 2016 editCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,488 edits →American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion: re Coffee← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators128,258 edits →Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion: blocked 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>

<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
] ]
] ]


== Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough == == Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC) '''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Rich Farmbrough}} :{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}


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


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


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


=== 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. ] (]) 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 Rich Farmbrough ===
In a case brought against me something over four and years ago, it was found that certain community norms had been broken by me, specifically ], ] and ].


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
I note that in the intervening period I have complied with ], been civil and collegial with other editors, and been responsive to other editors concerns, as anyone active in the community will know.
''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 particular I have worked at ], welcomed new users, attempted to smooth ruffled feathers at ], mainly by focussing discussion on substantive issues, provided assistance to other editors both on and off-wiki (a list could be made available if desired). I have continued to work on other wikis with no issues.
I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Izno ===
I also continue to perform work high community trust, on protected templates, but more importantly on edit filters where, together with others (notably Dragons Flight) I have overhauled almost every filter to ensure that the whole system continues to work (it was failing) and additional filters can be implemented.
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
Moreover not only have I been policy compliant, collegial and responsive, I have every intention of continuing indefinitely to be so.
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. ] (]) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
For these reasons in October 2015 (with substantially the wording above) the then Arbitration Committee to terminate Remedy 2. The Committee agreed, partly as a response to significant community support, as a first step to reduce the scope of the remedy, removing restrictions from my user spaces and subpages of Misplaced Pages:Database reports.
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===
Subsequently, in addition to my regular contributions as outlined above, and other endeavours to help make the way Misplaced Pages works more public, I have been able to add value in other ways.
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. ] (]) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Aquillion ===
I have been able to run ] (after the usual, though not strictly necessary for user-page-bot Bot Authorisation Request), to maintain ] - and appropriate links to Geograph, a source of suitably licensed images.


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)
I have also implemented the ] I suggested in 2012 which allows any editor to turn off any bot task.

I have also been able to perform mundane administrative tasks such as checking out ], monitoring the ], creating lists of , ] and ] without fear of retribution.

Given the above which indicates the benefits to the project of the previous reduction, the length of time which has elapsed since the original case was brought, and the lack of any subsequent substantive issue, and the apparent support from the community, I would request the Committee to terminate remedy 2 as soon as convenient.

All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',<small> 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC).</small><br />

:Please feel free to raise any issues, or just have a chat, here, on my talk page, by email (though please leave me a note on my talk page) or in person at Wikimania, where I look forward to discussing all metters Wikimedian with colleagues, including Arbitrators. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',<small> 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC).</small><br />
:{{Ping|Callencc}} Of course I would rather not have to re-auth the old tasks, but it is a sensible idea, which I cannot really fault. And many of those tasks were one-offs, so they present no problem. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',<small> 09:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC).</small><br />
::One of the BAG mentioned they have reviewed my old bot tasks, and of them all only couple of handfuls are relevant today. It is of course not guaranteed that I will have time to revive these tasks anyway. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',<small> 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC).</small><br />
Note: I have already agreed with BAG to re-apply for any old tasks that still need running. So it is a matter of form only whether this clause is included.{{Break}}
I thank those Arbitrators who have already !voted on these proposals, and look forward to a speedy resolution. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',<small> 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC).</small><br />

=== Statement by Xaosflux ===
As an active member of the bot ] I am not opposed to vacating the prior remedy. I suggest that any closing motion include a final reminder to Rich Farmbrough that both the spirit and letter of the ] are important to the community. As far as bot tasks that were approved and since suspended prior to the original sanctions ( and any other tasks approved prior to the sanctions listed on other bot accounts) , I recommend that the original approvals are explicitly rescinded, without prejudice for future (re)approval requests. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Opabinia_regalis}} Yes, will ] from others in ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Magioladitis ===
As I BAG member, I am in favour of Rich being able to use semi-automated tools such as HotCat, Twinkle, etc. All old bot requests whether they have been approved or not, they should be considered as expired. This is something I would suggest to anyone who would like to resume a code written 4-5 years ago. Any bot request should go through the normal bot approval process. -- ] (]) 07:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kudpung ===
For a long time already these sanctions continue to be merely punitive rather than preventative. That is contrary to the spirit (and policy) of Misplaced Pages. RF is a highly intelligent and mature individual and I see no point in continuing to deprive him of the use of any scripts. After all that has been said and done, including the appalling treatment he received on his bid for re-adminship , I don't perceive any risk whatsoever in lifting the last remaining restrictions and it's time now to fully restore his dignity. --] (]) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
I'm not completely comfortable at the moment with a total removal of sanctions. However I am in favour of a near total relaxation. Specifically I would allow everything except unsupervised edits to content namespaces.

The reason for this is that I don't have confidence that he understands ''why'' the community viewed the mistakes as seriously add they did/do. ] (]) ] (])] 19:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

:@Amanda - that will lead to much confusion about whether the community sanctions expire in sixth months with this probation or only when successfully appealed. It also implicitly allows high speed bot and bot-like editing from a non-bot account. ] (]) ] (])] 10:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by slakr ===
As a BAGer, I have no problem with rescinding ], as supervised script use can certainly make one more productive and generally less frustrated by many of the shortcomings of the editing experience. That said, I still feel it prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to suspected ''unsupervised'' edits that haven't been approved, especially if done in high volumes or at high rates, as {{U|Thryduulf}} alludes to. For example, if, while a large number of clearly similar edits are being made, an editor pings his talk page with a concern related to them&mdash;especially if it's an objection&mdash;then he should be expected to ''immediately'' stop and respond, thereby demonstrating he's likely supervising his edits.

As far as old bot approvals go, I wholeheartedly agree with {{U|xaosflux}} and {{U|Magioladitis}}; all the old bots should be assumed to be unapproved (perhaps something along the lines of any of those approved prior to whenever the latest AE action was?). No prejudice against re-approval. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by L235 ===
{{re|Opabinia regalis}} Weighing in purely as a matter of principle, the proposed probation terms don't look bad to me. They somewhat resemble probation terms imposed years ago, which commonly stated (something like) "so-and-so may be blocked if, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, so-and-so violates any " or "so-and-so may be banned from any page so-and-so disrupts". The probation usually doesn't prohibit anything that's not already prohibited, it simply provides that administrators have greater available remedies available for breaches of the admonition. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fram ===
The case was quite a while ago, and no problems I know off have occurred during the last two years (perhaps longer, I haven't checked; the most recent ones I remeber were with the buggy "redirect creator", but I can't recall the date of those). I don't really see what could change between this appeal and a next one: either Rich Farmbrough has regained enough community (or ArbCom) confidence to give him a new chance at automated editing, and then now is as good a time as any, or else he will never regain that confidence, and then it is rather cruel to let him appeal every six months or so, and the committee should just send a "never" message. I would support a lifting of this restriction, with the need to get renewed bot approval for all tasks he wants to restart (or any new tasks obviously). The advantage of probation seems to be that, should serious problems happen in the probation period, we can go to Arb enforcement instead of ANI or a new ArbCom case? ] (]) 11:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) ===

I am in favour of removing all these restrictions, with the caveat that all bot tasks be deemed expired, and thus requiring re-approval. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hawkeye7 ===
I don't have much to add to what has been said above. The sanctions on Rich were ridiculously broad, and it is to his credit that he has complied with them. Time for the sanctions to be removed. ] (]) 00:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Omni Flames ===
The sanctions in question were applied over four years ago now. At the time, yes, that was probably necessary to prevent further disruption to the project. However, since that arbitration case, Rich has always fully complied with the sanctions laid upon him, and the remedy has long since been more of a punishment than a preventative measure. I would be fully supportive of a complete removal of these sanctions, assuming that the previous bot approvals are rescinded (as they're most likely outdated or done by other bots now). '''] (])''' 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Boing! said Zebedee ===

While reading through this request (and being familiar with previous controversy over the sanctions on Rich), I was working out how to express my opinion, and then I saw that ] has expressed my thoughts perfectly (I wish I knew how he did that). So please consider my recommendation to be exactly the same as his, for exactly the same reasons. ] (]) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} === === 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. 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. * --> <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Rich Farmbrough: Clerk notes === === American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*
*{{re|Kirill Lokshin}} {{done}}. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 19:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''' to give a statement. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


=== Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion === === American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* {{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)
* Given the apparent success of last year's partial lifting of these sanctions and the lack of any ongoing conflict in this area, I'm inclined to end the remaining sanctions as Rich requests. {{@ArbComClerks}} please invite the active members of the ] to comment here if they have any thoughts on this matter. ] (]) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
* I agree with Kirill on this one. {{ping|Xaosflux}} Thanks for your thoughts. Not to get all ], but I assume you mean BAG would rescind the prior approvals? In the absence of sanctions, bot approvals sound more like your wheelhouse than ours ;) ] (]) 21:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes
**{{u|DeltaQuad}}, thanks for writing this up. But how are the probation terms different from what anyone else running a bot is expected to do? After the probation is over, he can use edit summaries of "because reasons"? ;) ] (]) 05:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
**I don't object to probation, I guess, but I think it would be much simpler to just get rid of the restrictions rather than fussing with the details of what "probation" means. Providing a hair trigger for the strictest admin who happens to notice a minor problem is a bug, not a feature. I'd rather just say something like "Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. Rich is expected to follow the ] for all automated tasks and must consult with ] regarding tasks for which approval was previously suspended. The applicable community sanctions remain in force." ] (]) 01:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
**] indef semi
*I agree as well. With the caveat suggested above that a new bot approval be required for previously approved tasks; {{u|Rich Farmbrough}} any issues with that? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
: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)
*I am very cautious about this --] &#124; ] 22:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*So there are the community sanctions that still are not rescinded either. We also reviewed the sanctions about 6 months ago. I'm thinking that probation would be a best next step, with an auto-expiry clause. Something along the lines of:
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{quote frame|1=Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. In its place, the following remedy is enacted:
*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 ==
Rich Farmbrough is placed on probation for a period of six months. During this six month period, starting from the enactment of this motion, Rich Farmbrough is required to
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
#perform all high-volume and high-speed edits on authorized bot accounts only
#provide edit summaries sufficiently identifying their task on authorized bot accounts
#disclose on their userpage of the editing user (whether bot or Rich himself) any high-volume or high-speed editing tasks. In the disclosure Rich must give an appropriate description of the task being performed and include any appropriate links to approvals.
#comply with the ].
If in the view of any uninvolved administrator Rich violates these sanctions during the 6 month period, they may block or restrict Rich from some or all aspects of bot editing or high-volume high-speed tasks, whatever is appropriate to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. After the 6 month period, this motion is rescinded unless blocks or new restrictions are placed as a result of this motion, which then will require the involvement of ]. It is noted that the original are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the committee.}}
It's only a rough draft I made in about 20 minutes, so feel free to edit for grammar/wording and propose change on issues with it. I feel like it strikes a balence of ensuring a smooth transition and keeps our hands out of areas that aren't ours. -- ] <small>]</small> 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Thryduulf}} Sent my thoughts through the car wash. -- ] <small>]</small> 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
*I think I agree with Kirill and OR. If there is questionable behaviour, I think we will be pinged soon enough. ] (] '''·''' ]) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
*] seems to have raised some valid points. If the probation is no more than what we expect normally, it almost sounds as though after 6 months he can deviate from those expectations. ] ] 15:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
:::The difference is that normally if someone violated the expectations, we would consider sanctioning them, depending on the severity etc.. ; on probation, a violation would unquestionably immediately cause the previous sanction to be reimposed. ''']''' (]) 15:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
*I would support relaxing restrictions per Kirill and Cas. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
*I support relaxing the restrictions, given the success of the previous changes to the remedies. I would appreciate more input on how the larger community feels about relaxing restrictions to allow fully-automated tasks. I am at least willing to relax restrictions regarding supervised edits; I am tentatively willing to allow fully-automated changes, and I do believe that Rich knows that these can be revoked very quickly and easily if he does not comply with enwiki best practices, and that such a revocation will affect his ability to perform such tasks in the future. ] <small>]</small> 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
*:For clarity, I would '''support''' Amanda's proposal. ] <small>]</small> 23:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
===Rich Farmbrough: Motions ===
:''{{ACMajority|active = 14 |inactive = 0 |motion = plural}}''
==== Rich Farmbrough: Motion (probation) ====
{{quote frame|1=Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. In its place, the following remedy is enacted:

Rich Farmbrough is placed on probation for a period of six months. During this six month period, starting from the enactment of this motion, Rich Farmbrough is required to
#perform all high-volume and high-speed edits on authorized bot accounts only
#provide edit summaries sufficiently identifying their task on authorized bot accounts
#disclose on their userpage of the editing user (whether bot or Rich himself) any high-volume or high-speed editing tasks. In the disclosure Rich must give an appropriate description of the task being performed and include any appropriate links to approvals.
#comply with the ].
If in the view of any uninvolved administrator Rich violates these sanctions during the 6 month period, they may block or restrict Rich from some or all aspects of bot editing or high-volume high-speed tasks, whatever is appropriate to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. After the 6 month period, this motion is rescinded unless blocks or new restrictions are placed as a result of this motion, which then will require the involvement of ]. It is noted that the original are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.}}

;Support
:#Second choice, in the better-than-nothing sense. As I said above, I don't think we need to fuss around with defining "probation" or invite hair-trigger reactions to minor problems. ] (]) 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:#Second choice. This is a completely viable option, but I think that Rich has shown enough willingness to work with us and with the community that we can remove the sanction entirely. ] <small>]</small> 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:#Second choice. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:#Second choice. ] (]) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Abstain

==== Rich Farmbrough: Motion (sanctions rescinded) ====
{{quote frame|1=The sanctions placed on Rich Farmbrough as part of the {{RFARlinks|Rich Farmbrough}} are rescinded. For clarity this includes ] which prohibited Rich Farmbrough from using automation and clause B in the ].

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.

It is noted that the original are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.}}

;Support
:#First choice. Though I'm not sure about the second paragraph - we don't need to tell BAG they can handle the existing task approvals. ] (]) 00:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:#First choice. I am optimistic that this will turn out well; if not, sanctions can be reapplied. ] <small>]</small> 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:#First choice. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:#First choice. ] (]) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Abstain

----

== Clarification request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 05:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:]
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
#]
*{{userlinks|StAnselm}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Coffee}}
*{{userlinks|Stadscykel}}


''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*
*


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
=== Statement by StAnselm ===
<!--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 ]-->
We have previously discussed this at ], but were not able to resolve the disagreement.
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)


Coffee has placed ] and ] under page restrictions, which includes that violations can be sanctioned without warning. Stadscykel made to ], and was blocked without warning by Coffee under discretionary sanctions. Is this a correct block per ]? That is, does the page notice alert at ] count as a DS alert? ] is unclear at this point. It says that "no editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict". It goes on to define "aware" as (among other things) "given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict". But "alert" is defined as having the standard template message "placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". This would seem to indicate that Stadscykel did '''not''' receive the necessary DS warning. Furthermore, if ] mandates that all editors need to be alerted before they can be sanctioned, is ] (which is on the Donald Trump talk page), allowed to say that editors will be "blocked without warning"? (I note that ] does not mention being blocked without warning, and there is no indication that Stadscykel ever saw the talk page notice.)
=== Statement by Coffee ===
My understanding is that the editnotice does indeed qualify as the required warning. I would definitely be interested if the Committee says otherwise. Such a ruling would have an immediate effect on the GMO RFC that I and {{u|The Wordsmith}} are moderating, as we're using the page restriction format to enforce DS per the previous ARCAs you're aware of.


; Information about amendment request
I am taking some time off to think about everything that happened today, to reevaluate my actions and to calm down some. I would appreciate if you could take that into consideration (i.e. email me if you have an immediate need for me to comment, I'll gladly provide my cell number as well if necessary). I also do not intend to rehash all of my arguments from earlier (there's an obvious sign that I'm missing something here, but I'm not going to discover the answer via those types of discussions), I would just like some guidance from the Committee so I can be that sure I'm properly enforcing your actions.
*]
:*2022 changes


I apologize to The Wordsmith for leaving him with most of the work on the RFC for a bit, but I feel it's best for me to reset before I move forward. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Signing off... <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 08:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
:{{u|Kirill Lokshin}}, {{u|Opabinia regalis}}, {{u|Doug Weller}}, {{u|Callanecc}}: The whole point of this restriction is to reduce the unnecessary workload faced by editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, and thorough (and in the case of the BLPs, in full compliance of the requisite policies)... I'll refer to such editors as "content editors" henceforth. Having a 0RR restriction would allow "drive-by" editors to place something completely without consensus on the page, and having the 1RR restriction creates an issue wherein a drive-by editor can easily force the same issue when adding content that has not existed in the article before (as long as only one content editor is actively watching the article). So the idea for prohibiting "potentially contentious content without firm consensus" was to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, as long as we can find an acceptable method to reduce the workload of our content editors and ensure that the media is not scrutinizing our behaviour in the process. Do you all have any ideas on how to address this particular issue? Or do you feel it is literally outside of the available restrictions that your discretionary sanctions provide? (I'd also love to hear from {{u|Anythingyouwant}}, one of the most prolific editors on ], on their ideas on how to solve this issue.) <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 07:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:{{re|Callanecc}} Great point. Perhaps something like "if an edit is reverted, you are prohibited from adding the contended edit back until consensus is found for it"? Better wording can be used for the final restriction, but this would seem to be a good idea based on your input. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 07:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:{{u|Waggers}}, {{u|Callanecc}}: From what I'm seeing, yes. This should completely remove any issues regarding admins blocking users unfamiliar with the area, who are editing in good faith. It would definitely seem to make any editor's intentions quite clear too. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 08:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


=== Statement by Stadscykel === === 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)
It is obvious that the editnotice does not consitute the required alert. Indeed, ] says clearly that the alerts "only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{tl|Ds/alert}} – is placed <u>unmodified</u> on the talk page of the editor being alerted".
:{{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 ===
Besides, I disagree with the content of ] created by ] and placed by him on the ''talk'' pages of the relevant articles, particularly with the section "Further information" and, more precisely, the sentence "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked <u>without warning</u> by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence", as nothing in the current rules regarding the discretionary sanctions suggests that. Meanwhile, I agree that the sentence (from the same template) "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" describes my understanding of the current policy, though I see no way how this could have been applied to me.
Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that there is any sufficient reasoning why should be "punished" by a block; the idea that re-stating the fact already presented otherwise in the article can be seen by an editor new to the topic as a "potentially contentious edit" (as the warning from ] tells us) is ridiculous. Indeed, the logic behind having to issue the official alert is providing the right to learn about the policy which applies to the topic in question, and having the possibility to apply sanctions if the offences continue. Besides, I do not consider this edit as contrary to the objective of the discretionary sanctions on the topic of American politics, even through it is contrary to the style guide (as discussed at ]), as I have neither added nor removed any fact from the article. There is no warning anywhere that the breach of this particular "style guide" (which is not presented to the editors at all), could result in a block without warning, nor is there any evidence suggesting that this type of sanctions is allowed.

My opinion is that Coffee's current application of the discretionary sanctions turns all the topics covered by discretionary sanctions into a minefield for editors not previously informed about any possible consensuses which have possibly been achieved somewhere else. I hope that the Arbitration Committee agrees with me that creating these "minefields" is not the intent of this policy. ] (]) 10:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by {{u|The Wordsmith}} ===
According to ], "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator...Best practice is to add ] to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{tl|ds/editnotice}})."

That would seem to suggest that the standard Editnotice is a valid method of notification, ''specifically for page restrictions''. While this seems to be at odds with the portion mentioned above, and clarification would be beneficial, the policy clearly states that editors ignoring page restrictions (as listed in the editnotice) may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee's block could have been handled better (though I think it is within policy, discussion would have been preferable), the unblock should have been handled better (anything marked as Arbitration Enforcement probably should not be overturned without permission from Arbcom or a strong consensus, even if you don't think AE applies). {{u|SlimVirgin}} , {{u|Trusilver}} , {{u|Dreadstar}} , and {{u|Yngvadottir}} were desysopped for overturning Arbitration Enforcement blocks out of process, even though they all thought they were bad blocks as well, with Dreadstar even logging in their unblock message "Invalid block".

The Committee needs to clarify the editnotice issue, but they also need to make a strong statement that if something is labeled as AE and properly logged, it can't be overturned out of process even if you think it was a bad block. If an admin is abusing that by labeling regular blocks as AE, that would be grounds for desysopping, but what happened here is clearly a grey area. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Newyorkbrad ===

I commented on this block and unblock in the AN thread. Those comments are equally relevant here, and if it's all right, I'll simply refer to those comments rather than repeat them all here. If there are any questions I'd be happy to address them. ] (]) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Like some of the others commenting below, I am a bit troubled that the focus of the discussion thus far has been on procedural clarification. Obviously, to the extent that there are issues of governance or procedure that people think are unclear, clarifying them is good. But let's not lose sight of the big picture here, which is that this was an ''extremely'' bad and troublesome block. In fact, it may be the least justified block I've reviewed in my entire time on the site. My memory isn't perfect, but I literally cannot think of another block that troubled me to the same extent.

How did we get to the point where a hard-working, dedicated, good-faith administrator, whom I respect, came to make such a block? Precisely by focusing too much on the wording of procedures, and "discretionary sanctions" protocols, and not enough on what is the purpose of blocking.

Blocking is a last resort. It should never become routine where good-faith editors are involved. It should never be used as a substitute for discussion with editors who can be expected to understand when expectations are explained to them. And the fact that a given page or topic-area is under discretionary sanctions, while it may justify the reasonable creation and enforcement of tighter editing rules for those pages, does not change this basic norm.

As I wrote in the AN thread, I personally wrote the requirement of a prior warning into the DS procedures nine years ago (in the ''Israel-Palestine'' case). I did so precisely to avoid the situation we have here, in which a good-faith editor new to a page made what he reasonably thought was a routine edit and is suddenly hit, not with information about how the page must be edited, not even with a warning, but with a block coming totally out of left field. There are very few, if any, situations in which such a block is warranted and this was not one of them.

The question presented is not whether the wording of the edit notice was sufficiently clear, although it obviously wasn't. The question presented is not whether an edit notice, without more, is sufficient warning that editors may be blocked for first offenses, although it obviously isn't. '''The question is whether editors who are acting in good faith and have no idea they are doing anything wrong should, absent extraordinary circumstances, be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule and told how they can comply with it going forward. The answer is that they should not.'''

I hope never to see another block like this one again. ] (]) 22:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by L235 ===
It is generally recognized that enforcement of page restrictions validly imposed under discretionary sanctions do not require a prior alert. Obviously, editing a page with a DS editnotice does not mean that anyone editing that page is "alerted" to DS, only that the ''specific page restriction previously imposed'' under DS may be enforced. However:
*]'s question regarding the validity of the ''original page restriction'' is a good one. My personal view is that viewed in the most restrictive light possible, the restriction requires a consensus before any edit – which seems to be less restrictive than blanket full restriction and, in the alternative, less restrictive than a "prohibition on the addition or removal" of any content on the entire page "except when consensus for the edit exists" (]).
*In addition, I agree with {{U|The Wordsmith}} that the Committee should make a formal statement – perhaps by motion – that any admin action that purports to be AE, even if there is question as to whether it is valid, should not be lifted without the AE/AN consensus or ArbCom motion. Challenges to whether the action was validly AE should be brought on appeal.
Respectfully submitted, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC) <small>Reformatted, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)</small>
*I made the above (procedural) statement before reading the AN thread. Having read that now, although admins have wide latitude in fashioning an appropriate discretionary sanction, they should be reminded that blocking should not be the first solution that comes up when dealing with good faith editors such as {{U| Stadscykel}}. Thanks, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
*To avoid any doubt, DS ≠ AE. All DS actions are AE actions, but AE actions are not necessarily DS actions. Blocks under DS page restrictions, even without DS procedural protections such as alerts, ''are AE sanctions'' and are subject to standard modification procedures. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sir Joseph ===
I think that page sanctions are not the same as discretionary sanctions imposed under ARBCOM. My thinking is that page sanctions are blocks given out with permission of ARBCOM, but should not be considered an ARBCOM block, so that a regular appeal process can be used. Under the rules, in order for a block to be an ARBCOM block, it must have valid notices, etc. The page sanction is just used to prevent contentious edits, but is not the same as an ARBCOM block.

=== Statement by DHeyward ===
It should be plainly obvious that individual notification of ''what'' DS for a particular topic are. The page notices are for editors already aware of the topic Discretionary Sanctions and makes clear that the page falls under them. That doesn't mean we should presume that a page notice is sufficient to fully inform editors about the restrictions. AGF requires at least a good faith attempt to individually warn each editor about the sanctions and the topic area associated with them. If we wish to be a welcoming and safe community, admins with the block button shouldn't be the door greeters but rather should be attempting to explain the rules and what they believe is a sanctionable offense before sanctioning. It stands reason on its head to make the most unappealable block/ban also the one with least notice. A block for vandalism generally requires a warning and if it escalates to block, the appeal template can be used. But as used here, a no-warning AE block has a complicated and higher threshold for appeal. It should be more difficult to impose an AE block than than general disruption block precisely because the AE topic is more nuanced, the block more severe. --] (]) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

An admin has least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for Page Sanction random content restrictions, not less.

{{ping|Kirill Lokshin}} The problem is that templates for pages subject to AE DS is an overreach of the wording in the decision for pages subject to DS. The template appears to give authority to block for any contentious edit without warning as part of a page restriction, the ArbCom decision does not. --] (]) 20:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Opabinia regalis}} Okay, you got me. I am not hip enough to know what ] is and following the link did not help. What is MEGO and where do they camp? --] (]) 12:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Masem ===
Speaking only to the idea of using edit notices as a replacement for the alert to a user about DS in place on a page, I strongly discourage this as an acceptable replacement. At least for myself, the appearance of a editnotice is like banner ads on other websites, and my own eyes slip right past them unless they are brightly colored, large, or something I am specifically looking for. It is very easy to miss these if you have been editing WP for long enough. On the other hand, a talk page message on the user's page is not likely to be missed, and can be readily treated as a warning directed at that user (even if it is copy-pasted warnings). Once warned about the general topic DS, those editors can continue to edit elsewhere and aware that DS applies to a certain range of topics, they should be informed enough to watch for editheaders to know whether a page falls into the same sanction or not.

Noting the other factor, this GMO RFC, if I were specifically planning to comment on an RFC, it is reasonable that a statement in the header of the RFC (not as a editnotice) is going to have to be read for anyone replying to that RFC, so in such a case, the broad alert about the existing DS can be put there instead of warning every user that replies the first time. That DS warning can be repeated in the editnotice, but I think the RFC header would be reasonable assured to be something that had to be read by all participants. --] (]) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Gerda ===
My trust in arbcom is not the highest, as you may know. They can pleasantly surprise me if they manage to send a clear message that an admin should at least look at an editor's contribution before blocking, and - if the victim is obviously a good-faith editor who helps this project by gnomish edits - ] ("Talk to the user who offended, tell the user how you feel about it, trying to achieve modification or revert."). The editor made three edits in 2016, so missed all discussions about religion in infoboxes, possibly even missed all discussions about infoboxes. Believe it or not: there's life on Misplaced Pages untouched by noticeboards. It needs preservation, not blocks. --] (]) 17:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

re ]: you emphesize "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content", but the one edit in question did not add content nor removed content, only repeated it. --] (]) 05:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

re ], ] and others who mentioned "potentially contentious edit": that is so vague a term that every edit can be construed to fall under it. If an edit is contentious, revert it with an explanation in the edit summary, - no need to block. If it happens again - quite likely when a new user doesn't know how to read an edit summary and only sees that their "improvement" disappeared - contact the user's talk, refer to the article talk (another secret for a new user), in other words, assume good faith, - no need to block for the first time, without warning. --] (]) 12:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kingofaces43===
Not going to comment on the nature of the block as I'm not involved in the topic at all, but I'm curious for clarification since it seems difficult to say this isn't notification from a ] approach. The edit notice clearly states discretionary sanctions are in play, and editors need to go through that notice to edit. That should be the end of that question there. If it were only just something like a 1RR notice only, I might be singing a slightly different tune in regards to awareness of DS, but editors are still expected to follow even that 1RR notice. It shouldn't be any different for awareness of DS.

Basically, if this edit notice is not appropriate for proper awareness simply because it is not listed in ], we're dealing with a ] problem because we only need to scroll down a few sections to the page restrictions that say, {{tq|Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator.}} That wording should invalidate any claims that an admin cannot take action solely because the editor didn't get a talk page template. Not to mention that the user talk page template is not the only indication listed that an editor is aware of DS. The entirety of ] and the wording at ] makes it clear that editors are aware even if it's not explicitly stated in the awareness section.

To cut down on this potential for bureaucracy, I would suggest adding an explicit 4th option under the awareness section that is some variation of:

:4. An editor has edited a page with an ] explicitly detailing that discretionary sanctions are in effect for the article.

This would be redundant with other wording on the page for the most part, so it's not really adding anything new that would constitute a "new rule" per se. It would however require an explicit mention of the discretionary sanctions as happened in this specific case. ] (]) 17:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tryptofish ===
I'm not really commenting on the central matters here, but I want to request that the Arbs be careful, in replying here, not to do any collateral damage to the GMO RfC that is in progress. There are editors who do not like what the community seems to be leaning towards, who are looking for ways to discredit the RfC process, and they will seize upon anything said by Arbs here, that could be construed as reflecting badly on how Coffee and The Wordsmith have utilized DS in carrying out the RfC. Thanks. --] (]) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
:As can be seen below. --] (]) 21:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Petrarchan47===
My comment is only in reference to Tryptofish and his plea to protect the GMO RfC. His statement contradicts the facts as I see them. There are serious concerns with this GMO RfC process, and they were mostly raised (before being quickly silenced by Wordsmith) before the RfC began. To say that concerns raised now (by plural editors?) are only due to RfC comments and their overall direction is pure conspiracy theory and has no place on this noticeboard sans proof.

=== Statement by {Blackmane} ===
I was the one that came across the unblock appeal. Opening up an edit window in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I notice the page restriction ''box'' but my eyes slide right past them without reading their substance and I scroll straight down to the editing box. One could easily argue that it is the responsibility of the individual editor to take the time to do due diligence. However, we're in an age where banner ads are viewed as intrusive annoying things and the page restriction box has all the hallmarks of a banner ad and is likely to automatically trigger the same response.

In my view, the edit notice should ''not'' qualify as appropriate warning ''by itself''. It should serve as a reminder notice ''after'' a DS warning. Consider a speed limit sign; when you first set out learning to drive, you won't know what those white boards with a number surrounded by a red circle means, but once you do every time you see one you are reminded of what it is for. ] (]) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nableezy ===
There needs to be a limit on what one administrator can impose as a sanction. I understand desperate times and all that, but this is as close to thought crime enforcement as Ive seen here. A blanket ban on "potentially contentious edits" is not a reasonable exercise of authority. Its one thing to restrict specific material, eg no one can add material about some candidate's view of the Birther movement or Black Lives Matter or whatever to the lead, or even to restrict reverts of such material, but to ban an edit to a page on the basis that some other person on the internet finds it objectionable or otherwise contentious? Regardless of whether an edit notice constitutes sufficient notice, there should be some limit on just how far an admins discretion is allowed to go. And I think a subjective open-ended restriction on edits, not even reverts but edits, should be on the other side of that acceptable sanction line. ] 07:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Waggers ===
I came across the discussion at WP:AN after three users had commented, all of them expressing a view that Stadscykel should not just be unblocked, but unblocked ''speedily'' and that Coffee's block as a terrible block. With speed evidently of the essence I reviewed the block and it seemed very clear that Coffee had made a mistake, which I assumed at the time to be an honest mistake. With Coffee not around at the time to consult on the matter I took the decision to reverse the block, with a note at the AN discussion that should consensus emerge that the original block was correct I would have no objection to it being reinstated. I believe I was correct to do so and stand by my actions. It is worth noting that no administrator involved in the discussion, including Coffee, has seen fit to reinstate the block despite my comment that I would not object to that happening.

Essentially that's where my own involvement ends, other than returning to the AN discussion to try and summarise it and move towards closure. All the above was done without taking a firm view on Coffee's block of Stadscykel, but while I'm here I would like to comment on that. The block was clearly wrong; others have explained why in their words and I would like to do so in mine.

It seems a lot hinges on Coffee's assertion: "My understanding is that the editnotice does indeed qualify as the required warning." So let's look at the edit notice; it says users are not allowed to do any one of three things:
* make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article
* making any potentially contentious edits without consensus ''on the talk page of the article'' (emphasis mine)
* breach discretionary sanctions on the page

Nobody seems to be suggesting that Stadscykel breached 1RR, and rightly so: the edit in question was the user's only edit to the article. As StAnselm has pointed out a number of times, the notion of adding the subject's religion to the page has indeed been discussed and reached discussion on the talk page of the article. Others have pointed to a Village Pump discussion which they believe somehow trumps this, but the edit notice makes no mention of the Village Pump - it requires consensus on the article talk page and that requirement is satisfied. That leaves the third matter, of discretionary sanctions. The link in the editnotice only takes editors to a description of what discretionary sanctions are, not a list of sanctions in place on that article - so a new user to the article such as Stadscykel has no easy way of finding out what sanctions exist. But more importantly, ] is very clear about what constitutes an editor being aware of a sanction and it is equally clear that Stadscykel had not been made aware of any sanction according to that procedure. ]] 10:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

: A short addition to the above; apparently the sanction Coffee things Stadscykel breached is a page restriction the article in question. At the DS log, Coffee logged this as "The following pages have had page restrictions applied to them, due to their high visibility" followed by a list of pages. Coffee did not specify ''which'' page restrictions were in place either there or in the edit notice. As discussed above, there was a talk page consensus for Stadscykel's edit so did not breach any "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"; nor, as discussed, did it breach any revert restrictions; neither did Stadscykel use some devious means of circumventing any form of protection that was in place on the article in order to make the edit in question. Those are the only types of page restrictions that exist. I would argue that not only was Coffee's blocking of this user incorrect, but that Coffee's logging of the page restrictions in force at ] is meaningless unless the log entry specifies which page restrictions are supposed to be in place. It is not sufficient to say "there are some page restrictions". ]] 10:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Callanecc|Coffee}} Am I right in thinking that under that wording, ] would not have been blocked, since they didn't add the contended edit back? (They were blocked after their first and only edit to the article). In which case, are you satisfied that it would solve the problem? ]] 08:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by OID ===
Just to expand on Waggers comment - other than Coffee (who is obviously not impartial) subsequent further discussion by those uninvolved in no way supported Coffee's position. ] (]) 10:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Boing! said Zebedee ===
While the Arb discussion below is on the literal minutiae of the actual rules (and, I guess, has to be), there's one thing that's clear to me. When an innocent new editor sees an edit notice that says they can be blocked for doing something "''potentially contentious''" (with that nebulous term unexplained), makes one good-faith edit on each of two articles with no idea what constitutes "''potentially contentious''" and considers their edits to be uncontroversial, and then gets blocked for it without any prior explanation of what was "''potentially contentious''" about their edits... well, that is clearly '''not''' the intention behind the way discretionary sanctions are supposed to work! (It can't be, because that would be astoundingly stupid!)<p>Rules are meant to be used intelligently and not just applied blindly, and just because a rule might say an editor '''can''' be blocked, that does not mean they '''should''' be blocked. Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide a means to handle contentious topics and quickly deal with troublemakers, and should not be misused to clobber innocent newbies. I'd expect any admin worthy of the role to see that difference, and if they make a mistake, to see the mistake when there's a clear consensus pointing it out to them. ] (]) 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Statement by {other-editor} === === Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. 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. * --> <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes === === Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*
*'''Recuse''' – writing a statement. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


=== American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion === === Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to '''decline'''. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) ] (] • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* My reading of ] is that an edit notice doesn't meet the procedural warning requirements; as {{u|Stadscykel}} points out, the rules state that an editor is aware if they have "received an alert for the area of conflict", but then go on to define alerts as being valid only if "the standard template message is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". However, I know that past enforcement practices—and some of my colleagues—disagree with me on this point.<p>Having said that, I'm actually more interested in the content of the edit notice rather than its form. ] allows administrators to impose "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and '''prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content'''" (emphasis mine). My interpretation of this rule is that a restriction of this sort must define some specific content that cannot be added or removed, in sufficient detail that an editor can determine whether an edit they wish to make would breach the restriction. Consequently, I'm unconvinced that a blanket prohibition of "potentially contentious edits" is an acceptable form of discretionary sanction under this clause. {{u|Coffee}}, could you comment on your interpretation of this requirement and your rationale for imposing this particular sanction? ] (]) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
*Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
** {{ping|Gerda Arendt}} I'm questioning whether the page restriction is a valid one under the current rules for discretionary sanctions. Whether the edit in question actually violated that restriction is an entirely separate issue. ] (]) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (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)
* Well, first off, I don't expect to be sanctioning anyone as a result of this particular incident. I am squarely in the ] camp on editnotices in general (in fact, I use a userscript to hide them), but there is precedent for treating them as sufficient warning; it's clear that there's ambiguity in the DS procedures that needs to be sorted out going forward. On review of this particular implementation I agree with Kirill that "potentially contentious edits" may be too vague to be a workable page restriction. If you've spent months deeply immersed in some particular wiki-problem, it may seem obvious what kinds of edits will fall into that category, but the audience for these notices is much wider than that. ] (]) 06:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) <small>{{ping|DHeyward}} MEGO = My Eyes Glaze Over. I swear the dab page used to say that. ] (]) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC) </small>
* 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)
* I agree we shouldn't be sanctioning anyone. So far as I'm concerned, practice is that talk page notices and edit notices are sufficient, and if our documentation is confusing or suggests otherwise then we should do something about it. This could be to change practice (but not to suggest that enforcement of such notices in the past was wrong) or to change policy/documentation as appropriate. "Potentially contentious" is a problem and I'd have to be convinced that such wording is useful and enforceable. ] ] 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
**{{ping|Coffee}} Looks like we are getting somewhere, hopefully more of my colleagues will be around soon to comment. ] ] 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC) * '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* My interpretation would be that {{xt|Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator}} implies that an alert does not need to be left on an editor's talk page and that an editnotice is enough when the admin is enforcing the edit notice. However, in this instance, I tend to agree with Kirill that {{xt|prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content}} refers to "some specific content that cannot be added or removed" rather than broad restrictions on "potentially contentious edits". <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
**{{ping|Coffee}} Sounds like full protection, but one that allows anyone to make uncontroversial edits? I don't actually think something like this is covered by the current DS procedure. The issue would be with a sanction like this is that what is and is not "contentious" is ambiguous and subjective so it's difficult to expect editors to know what it is and what isn't. You could impose a different revert restriction which enforces ]? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
***{{ping|Coffee}} Sounds good to me. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
****{{ping|Coffee}} If you're happy to implement that we can probably close this request as it will resolve the underlying issue? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
----

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