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 03:15, 11 February 2017 editL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators27,367 edits →Motion: Article titles and capitalization: enact← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators128,264 edits →Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion: blocked 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__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: American politics 2 ==

'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
== Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 15:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Article titles and capitalisation}} :{{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|SMcCandlish}} (initiator)


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


; Information about amendment request
''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
*]
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
This isn't about any parties in particular. While Thryduulf is mentioned (and pinged), I make no allegations about the admin's judgement or actions (I agree with his scope determination, though not with his desire to apply it to the party at the ANI in question.)
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 SMcCandlish ===
Please clarify whether ]'s discretionary sanctions rule (which may need to be clarified) applies to all discussions about "the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed" including ] discussions or not. I think that they must, since these are the distributed locus of the vast majority of title {{em|and}} style disputes on Misplaced Pages, as well as of most of the aspersions cast and other incivility about those things. The majority of {{tlx|DS/alert|at}} templates I've delivered have been in response to AGF, NPA, CIVIL, and ASPERSIONS problems in RMs.


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
Arb {{U|Thryduulf}} at ANI very recently said he would, if not INVOLVED, have discretionarily sanctioned someone for alleged RM-related disruption, under ARBATC specifically. However, I'm also aware of at least one previous case or ARCA in which it was strongly argued but perhaps not formally decided that RM was somehow exempt from ARBATC.{{efn|I believe it was in a request that was declined and thus not archived as part of a case page, so I'm not sure how to find it.}} I would urge that ARBATC's broad construal of scope include RM, or there was little point in enacting it. There's very little disputation that would trigger ARBATC at places like ] or ], and only very sporadically about article content, but almost {{em|daily}} about moves. If anything, that problem has notably worsened over the last two years, probably emboldened by lack of DS enforcement, even as "style" dispute has receded elsewhere, system-wide. While a large proportion of requested moves involve a "style" matter (]-connected or not), even those that don't – about things like ], disambiguation, ], etc. – are still within the ] remit. I.e., if it's at RM, it is about "article titles policy, broadly construed" by definition (and also often about the MoS).
''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 ===
The confusion arises because the exact wording is unfortunate, and easily ]d: {{tq|"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed."}} The gaming is that while ] ''{{lang|la|per se}}'' is obviously within the scope of article titles policy, the RM discussions themselves take place on individual article (or non-article) talk pages, and they aren't technically "pages related to" AT or MoS. The intent of the provision was clearly to curtail style-and-title conflict, and it fails to do this as long as it is actively gameable as inapplicable to nasty behavior in RMs, or (more often) admins are uncertain they can enforce the DS in an RM discussion and so do nothing, or perhaps wag a finger. I rely on our principle (mentioned at GAMING, ], ], and I think ] and ]) that WP's rules are interpreted and intended to be interpreted as to their intent and spirit, and their role in the project as facilitators of getting the work done, not with any eye to finding loopholes and escape clauses to exploit. There seems no "danger" in clarifying that the scope of the DS includes RM discussions, since everyone gets at least one {{tnull|Ds/alert}} before DS can apply to them anyway. I.e., anyone being a ] in RM gets away with it at least once until brought up to speed that it's not acceptable. And the behaviors in question aren't acceptable anyway, per the policies and behavioral guidelines the DS would be used to enforce.
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 ===
The problem can be fixed by amending "all pages related to" to "all discussions related to". This would also have the side benefit of curtailing ARBATC-scope verbal abuse in user talk, ANI, and other venues, where it is also frequent. I believe that a great deal of title-and-style strife will evaporate, replaced by civil, reasoned discussion that focuses on policy and sources instead of personalities and ] / ] grandstanding, if civility policies are more actively enforced in RMs. All it takes is a one-word, common-sense amendment. It would also be more consistent with other DS cases, which don't have special exemptions for RM or any other particular forum, but apply to the topic generally.
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 ===
{{notelist}}
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)


=== Responses to commenters === === Statement by TarnishedPath ===
Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@Andrew Dingley: The fact that an admin's DS-related comment in a particular case conflicts with previous admin comments in the other direction is why I seek clarification is neither here nor there. Your conspiracy theory cannot possibly be true; while I agree with Dicklyon about many things, we disagree about others. I'm seeking clear applicability of DS to RM given doubts about the matter, even though an admin in question wanted to apply them to a person you presume to be my lock-step ally. All of this has been long on my mind, since reading the ARCA request that RGloucester re-identified; recent events simply bring it to mind afresh. Instead of ], actually {{em|read what I've written}} and take it at face value. PS: You complaining about and misinterpreting a routine notice isn't other editors accusing me of harassment . <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


===Statement by Vanamonde===
@Exemplo347: It has nothing to do with you either, but with a conflict between what Thryduulf has said and what was said in the ARCA that RGloucester dug up . This couldn't be about you since no DS would be applying to you for anything you've posted, those things having been posted before you received a Ds/alert. As I said, the majority of the uncivil style/titles disputation is at RM not elsewhere, and the majority of Ds/alerts I leave relate to them. Not everything is about you. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. ] (]) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Aquillion ===
@BMK: I'm not making a complaint, against anyone . I'm asking for a scope clarification, because this question of ARBATC's actual scope keeps coming up for several years now, and different answers keep being given, including by Arbs. The ANI being referred to simply reminded me that this needs to be settled one way or the other. I'm really not very devious. I would think this is pretty obvious after over a decade here. I'm very direct and just call it like I see it, without much regard for "wikipolitics" (in fact, I like to short-circuit wikipoliticking as much as possible, because I think it's corrosive to the community and project, increasingly so as the editorial and admin pools condense. Or you can continue to make assumptions about my motives. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be ''intuitive'', since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --] (]) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Calton: Mischaracterizing editors who disagree with you as like unto religious zealots is precisely the kind of personalization of style disputes that ] is intended to address. '''Update''': So was your "I feel pretty safe in ignoring anything you say as being wrong, self-serving, or intellectually dishonest" assumption of bad faith . Your response here, again indicating a false belief that {{tl|Ds/alert}} is a threat/warning about misconduct, not a notice of DS scope applicability, just proves my point further at ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC) <small>Updated 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)</small>

@Dicklyon: Agreed, though I'm primarily concerned about more unicvil statements that most of those quotes (e.g. referring to other editors as "obnoxious and ... twatty", "idiots", "fanatical enforcers", plus comments like "I don't give a shiny shit about civility when it comes to people like you"). This kind of behavior is common across all "style" disputes (MOS, AT, infoboxes, citation formatting, etc.), and would not be tolerated if it were about Palestine or GMOs or race. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 18:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Thryduulf}} Sorry, I have not kept track of who's on or off ArbCom lately. :-) I generally agree strongly with your interpretation, yet ask you the same question I asked Euryalus, below. ARBATC is ARB''AT''C, not "ARBMOS". Nothing has ever limited to the scope of ARBATC to MoS discussions and doing so here would actually be a much more major change in ARBATC scope and interpretation than applying ARBATC (to its full AT and/or MOS-related scope) regardless of venue including RM, as I've requested, per "broadly construed". While MoS-related incivility was mostly what I've been thinking of, people sometimes cross the line about other AT-related stuff, especially PRIMARY and disambiguation squabbles (the more the topic in question attracts fannishness, the higher the likelihood of hostile territorialism). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Responses to Arbs ===
{{Ping|Newyorkbrad}} I agree the level of disputation/striving is much greater at ANI, especially given the frequency with which it involves new editors (RM rarely does). But the level of incivility of a very predictable and consistent and continually ongoing kind, from particular parties, is much more apparent at RM, and has been on the increase for some time, turning into a sort of "this guideline will be applied over my dead body", RM-after-RM-after-RM tendentiousness. It could be another ArbCom case, but that would seem like a bunch of pointless drama if one one-word change to the original decision could permit admins to just deal with it at AE. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Drmies}} I'm loath to provide example diffs, because the kind I have in mind – in the AGF/CIVIL/NPA/ASPERSIONS vein especially, like labelling other editors "obsessive nutters" and implying various specific destructive or unhinged motives to them – would essentially be seen as trying to make disciplinary cases against specific editors (and might be likely to turn into them whether that were my intent or not). If I'd thought that route would be productive, I would have just opened an RfARB and named a bunch of parties . I did consider it, but it seemed likely to generate heat without light.

{{ping|Euryalus}} Why would that MoS line be drawn, when ARBATC is about disputes involving the article titles policy {{em|or}} the MoS (both are not required at once)? RM's are always about article titles, so they would always be under the "AT" in ARBATC. The original case had as much to do with MoS-unrelated AT conflict as MoS. '''The only block I've ever received was an ARBATC DS action for alleged disruption of RM''' a few years ago. So, DS have definitely been applied to RM before.<br /><small></small><br />I would like to have that block declared invalid if ARBATC is held to not apply to RM, since that "scarlet letter" has repeatedly been held against me in a punitive fashion. PS: I agree that different regimes of DS should be normalized into something consistent.

{{U|Newyorkbrad}}: If the onus is on me as the requester to make the case for this "expansion" (in my view, clarification) of the scope, I would add to what I've said already:
*The gist of the concerns, as expressed by someone above (and it seems consistent with comments in the old ARCA) is a "surprise ArbCom sanction" and "effectively plac thousands of pages under an ArbCom sanction". But that's doubly inaccurate.
**There's nothing "surprise" about it if you must receive a Ds/alert before any DS can be applied; and AE tends not to act in applying DS after such a warning anyway, unless the case is egregious or it's a multi-time repeat problem after the Ds/alert. The number of editors likely to be affected by DS would probably be countable on a single hand, even a few years later, but the strife level should drop notably just from AE issuing a few admonitions.
**It would not be placing "pages" under DS; this would have no effect on any discussion on any talk page unless that discussion in particular were a) about article titles or the MoS {{em|and}} b) rife with disruptive or uncivil behavior (which are against policy to begin with).
*One could stipulate that DS/alerts delivered before the scope clarification don't count (though this would be inconsistent with a previous ARCA decision that these notices cannot be rescinded or invalidated because they are just notices of scope, not conduct accusations or warnings).
*Finally, "broadly construed" has no applicable meaning if ARBATC is held to apply only to discussions at WT:AT, WT:MOS and the talk pages other naming convention and MoS sub-guidelines; that's narrowly construed by definition. The clear intent of that wording was to construe the scope as covering title and style discussions broadly. Even if I'm misreading the original intent, it seems obvious that ''extending'', if you like, the scope to AT/MoS "discussions", rather than "pages", would have a civility-reinforcing effect at little if any cost.
<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

{{U|Opabinia regalis}}: So, what, the current roiling pot of title- and style-related incivility and disruptive battlegrounding is going to continue forever, and worsen when people realize they're immune to DS if they do it at RM or otherwise away from WT:AT and WT:MOS? Are we supposed to open a new RfARB every time? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by {{u|Andy Dingley}} ===
Of course this isn't "not about any parties in particular", it's a direct reaction to an ANI thread, ], seeking a TBAN on {{user|Dicklyon}} for disruptive and over-simplistic pushing of a style guide over objectively sourced external uses with capitalisation. SMcCandlish's own behaviour and harassment of other editors has been questioned in the same thread. ] (]) 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by RGloucester ===
The relevant past ARCA request that SMcCandlish said he could not find is . The conclusion there was that these DS only apply to guideline and policy pages related to the MOS and AT. ] — ] 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
*To the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee: Now that various individual arbitrators have stated a position on this matter, and given that there seem to be mixed messages apparent in their responses, perhaps the Committee could decide the scope of these sanctions together, with clarity, and publish an official clarification in the form of a motion. As it is now, it is quite clear that everyone has a different definition of how these sanctions should apply. That type of ambiguity should not be present in a DS regime. It isn't fair to editors, nor to administrators who must attempt to enforce such sanctions. I'm asking this with sincerity. The reason this issue has come up again is because the last clarification request, which I submitted, was essentially ignored. If the DS regime is meant to apply only to policy/guideline-type pages in the project space, then publish a motion to that effect. Likewise, if the scope is different, and includes RM discussions or whatever. Please do this, for the good of the encylopaedia. ] — ] 19:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
*As I said above, it would be greatly appreciated by everyone if the Committee would pass a formal motion of clarification so that the scope of these sanctions is clear to all parties. This doesn't seem like a particularly complex matter, and it is one that only the Committee can address. Please do so. Letting this languish like the last clarification motion will only lead to further submissions at ARCA. ] — ] 17:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by {{u|Exemplo347}} ===
I believe this to be in response to something I said to SMcCandlish, when he gave me an ArbCom notice for a page that was not under any ArbCom sanction and I told him I'd be ignoring it on that basis. I'm glad to see, from reading the relevant discussion, that the interpretation isn't as broad as SMcCandlish thinks it is - it would have effectively placed thousands of pages under an ArbCom sanction without any justification. I'd like to call upon SMcCandlish to remove any ArbCom notices he has mistakenly posted on user talk pages, and he should leave apologies in their place. Regards ] (])

Further note: Interpreting the decision as suggested above by SMcCandlish would involve a lot more than just "changing one word" - like I've said, it will affect thousands of pages, putting every single discussion that involves any Manual of Style related issue under some sort of surprise ArbCom sanction that can be deployed by editors determined to press home their point. It will be a massive, sweeping change if it is decided that the ArbCom decision really IS that wide. This definitely isn't a simple case of changing a few words and sending us on our way. ] (]) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a huge loophole that should be closed definitively. If a page is under an ArbCom sanction it should be correctly labelled on its talk page, and those that aren't marked as such should be implicitly not seen as being under ArbCom sanctions. Leaving it up to the interpretation of editors clearly isn't working. ] (]) 10:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

*'''Question''' So, is this issue going to be allowed to stagnate? There's a loophole that you could fly a 747 through & it needs to be rectified - it's no exaggeration to say that there could be hundreds of talk page discussions affected by an unintended, wide ranging scope that doesn't match any other ArbCom-related issue. ] (]) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

===Statement by Beyond My Ken===
A couple of very quick points:
*SMcandlish's inquiry is clearly not a general one, but is obviously related to , in which SmCandlish has been active;
*The complaint against Dicklyon centers around an issue of capitalization, which is most definitely a MoS issue, and is specifically related to Dicklyon making controversial changes without using the RM process designed for such changes;
*This appears to me to be, as Andy Dingely wrote on AN/I, a case of SMcCandlish inappropriately forum shopping. I would urge that this complaint be shut down in favor of the AN/I complaint coming to fruition. If, at that time, SMcCandlish wishes to open a further complaint elsewhere, that would be fine. ] (]) 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Calton ===
Based on this ludicrous that ] left in response to , I'd say that it's not just forum-shopping, but a lack of actual understanding of discretionary sanctions in general (and of this one in particular) which should lead to this request being rejected and ] trouted with all due speed. --] | ] 10:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that the fifth item Dicklyon quotes is mine. I also notice that he doesn't mention that it's a direct echo of SMcandlish's own rant, ''I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions (and history of precedent in working out their interaction). How many chest-beating, territorial threat displays have to have cold water dumped on them...'' But I'm guessing some rants are more equal than others and are A-OK. --] | ] 00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dicklyon ===

I don't know if the DS was intended to apply to discussions invoking anti-MOS rants, but if so then the personalization and MOS-related mud slinging in the ] would appear to make the warning relevent to participants who attacked me and the MOS as a unit:
* The MOS:CAPS (and MOS:everything else) army have driven enough editors who were far more productive than them away from Misplaced Pages
* Dicklyon just doesn't see this, he thinks all text strings must conform to some arbitrary MOS rule, no matter the context or consensus.
* I agree with Black Kite's impressions regarding the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors.
* that this thread exists is reason enough to show that Dicklyon's behaviour is disruptive
* ... simply a case of blindly following MOS (almost always a bad thing), ...
* I have to wonder when it will sink in that the MOS is a guideline and not a religious doctrine and that people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith?
* it's high time that admins start to block editors who attempt to enforce MOS guidelines as if they were mandatory, which they are not

This was all posted as alternatives to saying anything that I actually did that was controversial, which I have repeatedly asked for there. It is as if some set of editors think that changes that bring things into closer conformity with the MOS are inherently controversial, even if very few get challenged. The inability of my accusers to say what edits of mine they would consider controversial, and this resort to MOS bashing instead, is rather infuriating, and I think that SMcCandlish meant to get them to think about that, even if he denies the warning was placed in response to any specific posts.
] (]) 16:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to Calton on the fifth one (which is now the sixth one since I added one): yes some MOS-related rants are more equal than others. These are ones that "attacked me and the MOS as a unit", as I said above. There was no call for you to respond to SMcCandlish's by attacking me with yours, even if his was meant to defend me. I have made no pretense of being anything like a "High Priest and Defenders of the Faith", and consider your comment a baseless slur, which matters a lot to me since it was in an AN/I section about me. It appears that you had no actual beef with me, but decided to attack me anyway, personally. That's why I listed your remark here. ] (]) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

===Statement by Thryduulf (re article titles) ===
Firstly a quick clarification: I'm not an arbitrator, only a former one (and the relevant case here predates my time on the Committee). Also the ping didn't work (for whatever reason).

It has been my impression that discussions related to the manual of style, in whatever venue, are covered by the ARBATC DS authorisation, and that at least one editor has been previously sanctioned regarding their editing of requested moves (possibly ] but I don't have time to check right now). This I think would tally with ]'s feelings that the DS apply to RM discussions where the manual of style is a principle issue (e.g. whether railway line articles should be at "X Line" or "X line" per ]) but not to move discussions for other reasons (e.g. that currently happening at ]). ] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Opabinia Regalis}} Determining the scope is very easy - if the rationale given for the move is to conform to a MoS guideline (often, but not exclusively, capitalisation) or the manual of style guidelines are used as a rationale to oppose a proposed move then it is within the scope of the DS. Communicating this should be very simple - (a) notify the MoS regulars via MoS talk page post(s), and (b) notify the participants of the discussions where it is relevant, most easily by a template similar to the ones that are placed on article pages. I do not see how this would be a massive expansion in either scope or intended scope.
:@all arbitrators: Given though that we have arbitrators coming to exactly opposite interpretations of what the intent was and the scope currently is, I have to echo ]'s call for a formal clarification motion. ] (]) 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
::<small>{{ping|Opabinia regalis}} just fixing the ping. ] (]) 01:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)</small>
This seems to have stalled a bit, so please could we have a formal clarification about what the scope actually is - this section has some pretty clear evidence that it is needed. ] (]) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (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 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. * -->


=== Article titles and capitalisation: 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).''
* *


=== Article titles and capitalisation: 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)
*I've just taken a look at the proposed decision page in the original case (which is where arbitrators comment on the principles, findings, and remedies as they cast their votes), and it appears clear that the intent at the time of the case was to apply DS to discussions relating to the policy and guidelines pages themselves, not to individual article and talk pages. The specific question of whether the DS would apply to a move request discussion was not raised or considered. These DS have been in place for almost five years and I'd be interested in whether they have been invoked in that context before, but from what has been posted so far it looks like the answer is no. Whether the scope of the DS should be extended to include every RM discussion is a different question, and the burden of persuasion is on those seeking the change. I'm aware from various AN/ANI threads that there have been flare-ups in this area, including at least one that is ongoing, but would one say that the typical contested RM discussion is more contentious than, say, the typical contested deletion discussion? ] (]) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
*Reading over the PD I see NYB's point, and I think it's in the spirit of the decision to have DS apply to ''discussions''. What's interesting in ] is a short bit of discussion between AGK and Courcelles, though that didn't extend into the wording that's being discussed here. I've seen a few RM discussions in the last years, and none that I recall were derailed or devolved into chaos and incivility because of these specific concerns--but that may not mean much. I do not in principle disagree with the proposal (or a similar proposal) though I am interested in seeing just a few examples to prove the need for it. ] (]) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes
*From a reading of Courcelles' comment at the PD, and also from what is hopefully a commonsense interpretation, the DS seem intended to apply to applicable discussions where MOS issues were the central theme. In this instance the DS would apply to an RM discussion only where the principal issue in that discussion was directly related to the MOS. The DS would not apply to other RM discussions, akin to the way topic bans apply to parts of articles directly related to that topic, but not necessarily to every other part of the same article. That's an interpretation for this ARCA; on a related note we will one day need to consider the advisability of so many DS regimes, collectively applied to so many WP pages. -- ] (]) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
*My take is that DS would apply if the crux of the issue with the name change of an article was directly related to capitalization. ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
**] indef semi
*Hmmm. I expected this to be an obvious one - it seems fairly clear to me that the intended scope was discussions on the MOS pages (and related policies, etc), ''not'' discussions about applications of the MOS in individual cases. I think the latter interpretation would vastly expand the scope of DS in a way that is nearly impossible to apply objectively (how do you decide when a discussion is "directly" related?) and similarly difficult to communicate to editors who are not regular participants in the RM process. Providing such an expansion as a ''de facto'' response to a specific incident involving a specific editor would be an overreaction. ] (]) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (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)
*Looking back at the workshop, it appears {{noping|Guerillero}} introduced the central language around this remedy and it was intended to prevent "''MOS pages from being a battleground''". On the PD talk, {{noping|AGK}} commented, "''the reference to "MOS" is a drafting error; when we say MOS, we mean WP:TITLE''". The wording wasn't corrected to make this distinction, so it was either expanded to encompass and effectively seek to counter a wide range of MOS incidents, or it was simply missed. As it's written now, it states all MOS pages and ]. I would say this ambiguity still narrows it down to the Misplaced Pages space and principally discussions pages, but whether it's confined to ] and ] was not explicitly expressed. It seems to me, if the nucleus of the RM discussion was MOS or TITLE related, then I can easily see how someone could interpret these DS as being applicable. The fact that MOS is so broad is somewhat troubling because it potentially casts this DS net very wide. ''']''' ] 06:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I agree with Opabinia regalis that this should obviously not apply to individual move discussions. Looking at Mkdw's point just above, I interpret this to refer to the MOS with respect to titles and capitalization only. I read "to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy," as a single phrase. If we need to expand this further, we would need to discuss it. In fact, at the AfDs on Infoboxes, we made specific provisions for that part of the MOS. ''']''' (]) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I also don't see this as applicable to move discussions, particularly with no evidence to suggest that there has been a problem related to this PD. ] ] 15:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
*My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ] (]) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like ] still have recurring issues. - ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was ]); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? ] (]) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*A quick look down ] and ] enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. ] (]) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
:The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... ] (]) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 ], which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers '']'' and the ], while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the ]. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.{{pb}}History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. ] (]) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal ==
====Motion: Article titles and capitalization====
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
In ] of the 2012 ] case, ] were authorized {{tq|for all pages related to the English Misplaced Pages ] and ], broadly construed.}} By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual ], ], article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
:'''Enacted''': ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 03:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
; Support
# ] (]) 05:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
# This is my understanding of the existing decision. If a pattern emerges of serious problems in these discussions, an amendment request could be filed&mdash;but I very sincerely hope that won't be necessary. ] (]) 17:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
# ] ] 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
# This was the intent at the time. ] (]) 21:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
#I find it less easy to judge the "intent at the time", but I prefer to play it conservatively and not extend until an amendment is proposed--or, "per NYB". ] (]) 04:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
# ''']''' (]) 03:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
# In order to move this along. -- ] (]) 12:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
# When we are looking at what previous ArbCom's have proposed and passed, I always have looked to the discussion surrounding it. Several explanations have appeared throughout this ARCA, and it's not specifically clear in this case which means we should be going for the strictest application of the motion/remedy/whatever passed at the time. As for any potential DS expansion, I always need evidence that the modified topic area has been disrupted, which we don't have here. The 2015 ARCA was clear, maybe not sufficiently clear, so that leaves me at a support for this motion. I also see a negative light shining in from the ANI here that any addition to the DS would be used to subvert community consensus or lack-there-of. -- ] <small>]</small> 06:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
# Mostly per Newyorkbrad. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 11:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

; Oppose
# We're already at majority but I think there could have been specific and isolating wording allowing ARBATC discretionary sanctions for <u>project space</u> <u>request move discussions</u> where <u>MOS and TITLE is the principal issue</u>. I would have hoped that discretionary sanctions in this context would be only applied where absolutely necessary and appropriately following 'awareness' and other provisions. In the original case, requested move discussions were cited by ''several'' editors as being areas where MOS and TITLE disputes have occurred. In reading the ] and previous discussions, this issue has been brought up more than once and clarified that they were only meant for the project space. It would have been helpful to know if ARBATC discretionary sanctions have been ''routinely'' applied at requested move discussions (in the project space) and whether or not these discretionary sanctions have ''likely'' kept disputes from occurring. Without further input or information, I'm uncertain whether this clarification will re-open a venue for MOS and TITLE disputes to occur. I do think the community did need clarification on this issue which passing this clarifiation will hopefully provide and that "broadly construed" was far too wide and could have been used to implement sanctions well beyond the intended scope. ''']''' ] 07:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

; Abstain

; Comments
:The comments above seem to be somewhat split, so we might as well just count noses. For my part, I can't really see authorizing DS on this broad of a scale as a ''de facto'' response to a specific incident. ] (]) 05:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

== Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:]
:{{RFARlinks|Palestine-Israel articles 3}}
*]


; 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|Hijiri88}} (initiator)


=== Statement by Hijiri88 ===
How does the GP work when an IP or new account makes ''off-topic'' edits relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict in articles that are not inherently related to the conflict? Is permanent (or even temporary) extended-confirmed protection appropriate?


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
This came up recently at ]. I am not sure if my concern technically applies to that article or not, since the article does seem to be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict by definition (even though I recognize that there have been Jews in Arabia for as long as there have been Jews).
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)


But if this hasn't already come up and been formally clarified, it's almost certain to come up at some point.


; Information about amendment request
The discussion on the Arab Jews article involved a number of specific users but I'm not sure if I should name them as "parties" to this ARCA request as I'm asking for general clarification and not asking for sanctions or anything like that.
*]
:*2022 changes


] (<small>]]</small>) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


=== Statement by Crouch, Swale ===
:And I just made two minor tweaks to the article ] before it occurred to me that technically that article is also covered under the GP (it even includes a full sub-section called "Palestinian National Council"). It has been edited by IPs, and probably also new accounts, dozens if not hundreds of times since the GP was put in place, but were these violations? As currently worded, is the GP even technically enforceable? Is putting such a high level of protection on such a broad swath of articles feasible or even desirable? Sorry if these questions have already been answered; I haven't been following this thread. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
:{{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 BU Rob13 === === Statement by Thryduulf ===
Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Long story short, this is the "any page" vs. "any edit" issue of the last ARCA which was pushed to the side so as not to omnibus things. Perhaps it's time to make that small change? I would recommend doing the following two things:

#Expand the prohibition from "any page" to "any page or edit". Note that just "any edit" leaves a lot of room for interpretation with edits on pages that have substantial information on the conflict but where the edit itself does not, so keeping "any page" in there seems necessary.
#Note that extendedconfirmed protection as an arbitration enforcement action is not appropriate for pages that are just victims of occasional off-topic editing. This doesn't necessarily have to be part of the remedy itself, but it should be made plain in the arbitrator opinions below, at the very least. We wouldn't want random BLPs of Israeli or Palestinian individuals to become indefinitely extendedconfirmed protected under this remedy only because a single IP editor makes an off-topic edit about the conflict.

~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 02:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
===Statement by Iazyges===
I agree with BU Rob on the any page vs any edit idea. I also think any unrelated page that come to be the subject of vandalism should only go up to semi-protection, unless the volume of vandalism would be enough to merit protection in its own right. ] ] ] 04:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thryduulf (re Palestine-Israel) ===
If the change is made (I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should) I think it important that Abrcom make it clear the language is that edits made by users not meeting the threshold "can" or "may" be reverted not "must" be reverted. For example a typographical fix, vandalism reversal or unambiguous BLP correction should not be reverted solely because of the person making the edit. ] (]) 11:33, 27 January 2017 (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 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. * -->


=== Palestine-Israel articles 3: 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).''
* *


=== Palestine-Israel articles 3: 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)
*I don't want to see ECP extended to pages where the Arab-Israel topic is not the prime concern of the article, but I would support the suggested change from "any page" to "any page or edit". Probably with the proviso that any editor not reaching 500/30 can be reverted without it being considered edit-warring and that a notice should then be placed on that editor's talk page (whether or not they are an IP) explaining the sanctions. ] ] 15:47, 26 January 2017 (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)
* I still don't like this idea and still haven't seen any evidence that it's necessary. I'd be more inclined to make this change given some examples of cases where IPs or new accounts are disrupting non-PIA-related articles with PIA-related edits in ways that can't reasonably be controlled by normal editing. One or two borderline cases aren't enough justification for such a broad expansion. ] (]) 01:21, 2 February 2017 (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)
*Would support the concept if there was sufficient evidence of a problem. Absent some notable or systemic examples of disruption we don't have enough to justify the change. -- ] (]) 09:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
* This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a ]. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - ] (]) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*While I am not opposed in principle to such an extension, I also don't yet see this as warranted, and it might open up Pandora's box with DS used as a bludgeoning device. I much rather trust the judgment of administrators and the community using the regular means. ] (]) 04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2)==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Palestine-Israel articles 3}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|BU Rob13}} (initiator)
*{{admin|SoWhy}}

''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. -->
*

=== Statement by BU Rob13 ===
See the conversation surrounding ] . Multiple administrators have interpreted the most recent change to ] to mean that extended confirmed protection should only be used on articles in the topic area if edits by new editors or IPs come from multiple sources, are frequent, and are sustained (as we would do for normal disruption). Having been around for the last ARCA, this was plainly not the intent. As {{U|Guerillero}} said last time around "The ban is not optional." Please clarify that the first method of enforcement should be ECP, with other alternatives more suitable to instances where an editor is editing across many articles or where ECP is otherwise not effective or sufficient. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
:Just noting the last (and most recent) discussion posted below by {{U|NeilN}} closed with consensus to protect pages as soon as the restriction is violated, but not before. That's all I'm asking for clarification in favor here - that the pages should be protected if the restriction is violated. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|SoWhy}} The wording states that those secondary options are to be used when ECP is not feasible, not when the secondary options ''are'' feasible. Could you clarify why ECP wouldn't have prevented the disruption/wasn't feasible? ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by SoWhy ===
The current wording of ] is
{{cquote|text=All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is '''preferably''' enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but '''where that is not feasible''', it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.|source=] (emphasis added)}}
Neither this wording nor the two previous ones (which explicitly used "may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters") contains a rule that ECP ''has'' to be used to enforce the prohibition, just that it's preferred. In this case there was only one editor who could have been dealt with individually, without the need to lock down the page.

That said, I have no particular opinion on the topic itself and I'd be fine if ] was clarified to read "has to be enforced". Regards ''']]''' 18:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

*@BU Rob13: The current consensus (cf. the links NeilN provided and also ]) seems to be that ECP should be used "liberally but not automatically" (to borrow {{u|Airplaneman}}'s phrase) when it comes to this particular topic ban, i. e. ] there has been a disruption. At the time of the protection request, the article in question was newly created by a relatively new user and then stubyfied without a disruption in sight. The new user in this case didn't know about the ArbCom ruling and edited in good faith as far I can tell, so it was not a violation and thus no need to apply ECP. If the Committee believes this particular motion should apply to all articles, even before disruption happened, then yes, clarification is required since the current wording allows the interpretation we have seen become consensus (and which I based my decision on). And if your strict interpretation is to be the correct one, ArbCom should just protect all such pages preemptively and be done with it. But since they haven't done so in the past, it was ] by myself (and many others) that ArbCom didn't want to demolish ] before disruption actually occurs. Regards ''']]''' 21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by NeilN ===
Past admin discussions:
* ]
* ]
* ]
--] <sup>]</sup> 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

=== Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*

----

Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Amendment request: American politics 2

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

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

Statement by Interstellarity

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

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

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

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

Comment by GoodDay

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

Statement by Rosguill

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

Statement by Izno

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

Statement by Kenneth Kho

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

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

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


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


Information about amendment request
  • 2022 changes


Statement by Crouch, Swale

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

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