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 17:55, 29 June 2018 editTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,657 edits →Statement by Tryptofish: added comments about AE and DS← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:56, 23 January 2025 edit undoPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators210,310 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: if I remember correctly, closed requests are hatted not atop'd 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>

= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<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>{{-}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
Line 6: Line 7:
] ]


== Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation == == Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|The amendment request is declined --] <sup>] </sup> 19:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)}}
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 09:04, 21 June 2018 (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 ; 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|SMcCandlish}} (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.
:*Repeal
*]
:*Annotate as moot
*]
:*Merge (if necessary) into the DS logs we now use, and delete from the case page


=== Statement by SMcCandlish === === 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.
]'s application of ] (DS) to ], ], and related pages (MoS subpages, and AT's split-off naming conventions guidelines) has never been helpful, and is certainly no longer needed.
*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.
* The DS-related banners at the top of the related talk pages have a chilling effect and aren't conducive to collaborative policy formation. In short, they're ], and reduce rather than enhance community input into the management of AT/MoS.
*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.
* The DS were authorized back when there was an unpleasant squabble going on between a small number of parties.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
** The party most disruptive at the time ({{U|Born2cycle}}) was later narrowly topic-banned, then blocked for further {{plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Born2cycle&oldid=844373970#On_the_indef,_what_led_up_to_it,_and_hopefully_undoing_it_without_the_albatross_being_made_of_lead alleged}} disruption at ] (not as a DS matter, since the DS do not apply to that page). ARBATC didn't restrain this person's "remake title policy in my image" activities; usual community process has done that. Another party, was a ]-evading sockpuppet, later dealt with by standard administrative means.
*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.
** ARBATC did unreasonable damage immediately: party {{U|Noetica}} quit editing shortly after ARBATC, costing us a good editor. (There were no findings of fact about him doing anything wrong, but he was nevertheless accused-by-template of "continued wrongdoing", and resigned in protest.)
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)
** There is no sign of AT/MoS-related pages being subject to any disruptive activity of note since 2016, and that was caused by a single person who could have been dealt with at ANI.
** Before that, the only major issue since ARBATC was in 2014, and resolved by RfC.
* The kind of disruption addressed in ARBATC was short-term and minor compared to what DS are usually authorized for (e.g. "my ethnicity/religion/country versus yours" hate-mongering). It was primarily a four-editor personality conflict. Why do we have DS covering a policy page and {{em|dozens}} of calm, quiet guideline pages for a localized squabble that ended years ago, and which didn't need DS to end it?
* These DS, when applied at all, have mostly been used one-sidedly to punish AT/MoS regulars for minor transgressions, but never applied to critics of our title policy or style manual no matter how nasty they get in their behavior toward other editors. Some of these punitive-not-preventative DS actions against MoS maintainers were overturned by ] as illegitimate.
* The one time the ARBATC DS have been used to restrain a long-term disrupter of MoS-related pages, the DS route was {{em|shockingly inefficient}}, requiring at least four ] reports nearly back-to-back (after previous noticeboard actions, e.g. at ], where ARBATC DS were inappropriately used to punish the filer – this is one of the invalid DS that AN vacated), constant relitigation at ] and AE, and an enormous amount of drama (now entering its third year, still ongoing as of this very month).
** ] would have handled this far more expediently, probably in one to two decisions (T-ban, followed by indef or community ban if necessary).
* In a case where DS arguably could have been used effectively to restrain multi-party, organized disruption, absolutely nothing was done for years, until the community resolved it ] (after two earlier RfCs and a ]). ARBATC was no help at all, and the community didn't need DS in the end. So why's it still there?


:@]: 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)
'''February 2017 re-scoping motion:''' It not only invalidated many of the previous ARBATC DS sanctions as having been out-of-scope, it made these DS so constrained – to only the AT/MOS pages and their talk pages – that they're {{em|]}}. Almost all "style"-related disruptive activity takes place on article talk pages, mostly in ] threads (and most of the rest is at wikiproject talk pages). ArbCom was made aware of this, yet chose to drastically limit the DS scope anyway.


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
The committee themselves clearly recognize that the DS hammer should not be brought to bear on policy- and guideline-interpretation discussions broadly, and that normal community and administrative remedies are sufficient for disruptive activity in them. This was a wise decision, as an earlier ArbCom effectively telling the community that if anyone momentarily loses their temper in a ]-related thread it may result in unusual punishment is ultimately a ] problem, an interference in WP's self-governance. WP policy material evolves over time in response to such discussions; it is not an immutable law no one is permitted to question. This was actually a central point in the ARBATC case itself (see initial comments by {{U|Tony1}}, for example).
''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 ===
'''"Enforcement log":''' It's just a short list of early recipients of {{tlx|Ds/alert|at}}, and there have been many more since. These notices/warnings officially expire after a year anyway. Twice already ArbCom has instructed that any items in that list that need to be retained should be merged into the newer DS logging system and this old "scarlet letter" material removed, yet it still hasn't been done years later.
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 ===
'''Effect on sanctions:''' If the ARBATC DS are ended, this mustn't affect sanctions issued while DS were in effect. Let's not create another wikilawyering angle to exploit! If DS were the prescribed means in 2016 for dealing with AT/MoS disruption then {{em|they were that means}}, and the community should not have to re-re-re-litigate to restrain a disruptor from returning to the same activity on a technicality.
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 ===
'''Standing:''' I was named as a party, despite no connection to the actual ARBATC dispute ("MoS editors" ]). Since then, I've seen and personally felt ] doing nothing but causing trouble for Misplaced Pages and its editorial community – from punitive, disproportionate, and one-sided sanctions, to years of drama-mongering, to a disengagement of the community from its own policy and guideline pages; all while the DS have failed to actually help the community expediently resolve any actual At/MoS-related disruption.
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 ===
The ARBATC DS are probably the single most obvious failure of DS to be a useful solution. Not every problem's a nail, so a hammer isn't the only tool we should use.<br />
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)
<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


===Statement by Vanamonde===
*{{lang|la|Re}} "I've seen how high the passions run in this area": But generally not at the AT/NC or MoS themselves nor their talk pages, which are the only ones covered by the DS any longer. The few times it's gotten out of hand, within an even vaguely relevant time-span (2014 is really pushing it), the standard community/admin remedies would have been not only sufficient but obviously better. And it wasn't because the "topic area" is fraught with drama, but because of a few specific individuals crossing ] lines (with behavior that would be disruptive regardless of the subject, like intentional derailing of RfCs to ] in both the specific cases I mentioned). This simply isn't comparable to ethno-ideological editwarring, or obsessive insertion of fringe medical claims, or constant Trump promotion vs. bashing, and other things where where DS regularly do have a palpable dispute-reduction effect. Everyone may have an opinion about titles and style, but very, very few are on a ] crusade about them (and things don't fall apart even when one such arises; non-DS means routinely deal with it). The AT/MoS DS are simply disused; the community and the admin corps don't find them useful, and when they rarely are used, it's generally a trainwreck of questionable judgement or farcical bureaucracy. Shotguns are effective for hunting ducks, but not very useful for dealing with a mouse in the kitchen. DS haven't even been useful in ]-related disputes; that's come to separate ]s, twice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:50, 23 June 2018 (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)
*{{Ping|Callanecc}} In what way would that incident not have been resolveable with a regular administrative warning or a normal noticeboard action? "There was a problem" doesn't equate to "There was a problem that required DS". Editwarring is already covered by ] policy and has its own noticeboard at ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
*Update: Since 2 Arbs are requesting more input, I've placed neutral notices about this request at the main AT and MoS talk pages. That'll probably be sufficient. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{ping|BU Rob13}} Disruption hasn't decreased in this area {{em|as a result}} of DS, because the DS are almost never actually deployed, and when they are it's not toward the actions that are most disruptive. Rather, AT/MoS disruption has gone down naturally as these policies/guidelines and their interpretation and application have stabilized, same as with the rest of our ] system, plus a more conventionalized approach to dispute resolution today than we had a decade ago. (Anyone remember how "useful" ] was? Ha ha.) Another factor is the smaller and more committed editorial base we have now versus in the first 5–10 years, when it was kind of a torrent of short-term people, mostly from SlashDot, and the entire project had kind of a "this is a crazy open development experiment for geeks" feel to it. The average editor today is more likely to be a writer, an academic, a grad student, a blogger, rather than a computer nerd whose main hobby, aside from fragging strangers in combative videogames, is arguing for sport on webboards.<!--In case no one gets the joke, this is self-deprecating humor about myself when I first arrived here, though it also describes the most common Wikipedian of the era – along with highly likely to be white, male, 20-to-30-something, privileged, in tech work, and probably in California. --> The nature of the place has shifted, ]; we're long out of the early-adopter, wild-and-wooly phase.<p>The chilling effect isn't a chill on disruption. The ARBATC DS are virtually never applied to anyone who shows up to AT or MoS and starts being disruptive; regulars at those pages are more likely to be subjected to boomerang sanctions for daring to complain about the disrupters. This is one reason we virtually never bring RFARB, ARCA, or AE actions against anyone (another is that the regulars at the pages aren't battlegrounders, but shepherds; we're averse to drama, and we seek stability and smooth sailing, even if we don't all agree on things.) The chilling effect is on general participation. People used to engage much more often, and more broadly from throughout the editorial pool, at these pages, but DS immediately cast a pall and it's never dissipated. I go out of my way to draw broader attention (e.g. at ]) to MOS/AT/NC/DAB-related RfCs, but overall the participation in them is markedly lower today than in 2012 when the DS were implemented, even if you account for the smaller overall editorial pool.</p><p>The minor bits of disruption we've seen and where DS were applied (at least in the abstract, i.e. warnings) were all blips that could have be dealt with at ANI or ANEW or with a DS-unrelated civility warning. Meanwhile, the two actually severe bouts of disruption (which I mentioned already) happened after the DS. The DS were not used to prevent the problems; the community resolved the first on its own; and the second dragged on until the situation became so intolerable that someone did finally try using AE, long after much of the damage was done, and then it just turned into three years of additional drama. The only thing like this that happened before the DS was the date auto-linking and auto-formatting squabbles, which were not the ARBATC issue, but handled in an earlier RFARB, ] – and handled without DS.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)</p>
*Boomerang: The ANEW that was reversed onto me then overturned at AN is an obvious case. (The reported editor is the one who was not long after T-banned (largely on the same evidence as presented at ANEW) then indeffed and who's been the broken record at appeal after appeal). The most egregious example was probably when an AE request was opened regarding an editor who'd just been at ANI for the same sort of AT-related disruption, right on the heels of a highly critical RFC/U. Various AT/RM regulars were critical of this editor, based on previously provided evidence, and not in WP:NPA-raising terms. As retribution, the editor opened an AE immediately below the one open about him, to go after his AT critics. Rather than listen to this plurality of editors, AE admins refused to accept the fact that evidence against the problem editor had been supplied in spades at ANI and RFC/U, and instead jumped all over the whole lot (except the subject of the original report, of course). It's two back-to-back threads, at ] and the one immediately above it. Unsurprisingly, the problem editor was very soon after dealt with at ANI. (I'm avoiding mentioning the name of the other editor, per Newyorkbrad, since they were subjected to a long-term block and may no longer be active.) Yet another case where ANI gets it right and DS/AE just end up being a BUREAUCRACY/WIKILAWYER/GAMING farm. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{ping|BU Rob13}} Then please read it again. From the close: "It is clear that this topic ban did not have the support of the community, and it is only procedural delay that let the discussion continue so long." That bears no resemblance to your summary. The central issue was that the ban-issuing admin refused to offer any justification or clarification – at AN, at my talk page, at his own talk page, anywhere – despite multiple editors and other admins requesting those rationales, and despite that admin being actively editing the entire time. It wasn't an oversight, it was a patent refusal. This was obviously grounds for a ] case at ArbCom against the admin in question (especially since it followed on a previous very similar misuse of ARBATC DS by the same admin, applying it to ] which is outside ARBATC's scope, and to only one side of the dispute that was active there). I chose not to file an RFARB, or to even appeal the T-ban until near its end, simply because I'm averse to ] and I wanted to make the point that the T-ban was objectionable on its own lack-of-merits not because I was personally unhappy or "chomping at the bit", or out for "revenge".<p>The perhaps predictable devolution of this ARCA into "find some way to point the finger at the ARCA request even after AN concluded in the other direction, and even though this ARCA is about DS and the topic area not this editor in particular" actually serves to highlight what's wrong with DS in this area in the first place. It's disappointing to encounter what looks like an implication that I must have some kind of nefarious motive in questioning DS's application to AT/MOS. This isn't about me (I haven't had a {{em|personal}} issue with ARBATC DS in years). What happed to AGF, and ARBATC's own instructions to not personalize style disputes? :-/ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)</p>
**{{ping|BU Rob13}} I chose to focus in the appeal on whether the remedy was needed; as you well know, that's virtually the only way to get a sanction lifted, ever. It's "wikisuicidal" to focus on whether one was just/correct. The fact that several AN respondents also focused on this is meaningless except as an indicator of what is typical at ANs. You asked for an example and I provided one, of an admin mis-applying DS one-sidedly (shutting down a legit ANEW request the intent of which was to stop someone disrupting two RfCs back-to-back), who then stubbornly refused to do ] for two months, and whose "discretion" was reversed by AN. If AE's collective assessment of largely the same evidence against the same reported user concluded in favor of a T-ban then a block, but the lone admin came to the nearly opposite conclusion, the latter was clearly a misapplication of DS and of admin authority generally. It's also a principle here that we don't supervote and second-guess a closer's decision years after the fact; if you had an issue with the AN closer's consensus rede, you should have raised that in 2015. More importantly for this ARCA rationale the huge drama pile over the last three years, surrounding that reported editor, might even have been avoided if that ANEW has proceeded as normal; if similar behavior had popped up again, ANI would have dealt with it swiftly and cleanly. The misuse of DS to thwart standard DR process directly enabled continued long-term disruptive editing by that party. The DS had the diametric opposite of the intended effect. All that aside, I also provided a more important, broader, second example, which you ignored, despite it showing ARBATC DS to have been problematic since the start. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 10:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{ping|Callanecc}} By your reasoning, all of WP should be covered by DS, since there is recurrent dispute about virtually every topic. '''Let's reverse this:''' Can you or anyone else provide even a single example of ARBATC DS being applied, to a situation in which a) there were no grounds for an administrative warning (e.g for EW or DE) absent the DS, or b) there were no grounds for a noticeboard action (ANI, ANEW, NORN, etc.), only for DS and AE? If not, then the DS are not serving a purpose here since standard remedies suffice. Combine that with the {{em|dismal failure}} of DS and AE to actually deal effectively with a long-term disrupter when that route was actually attempted in good faith.</p><!--
--><p>This ARCA is obviously going nowhere, so I'll just drop it and wait for another ArbCom. The passage of time, the collection of further evidence of mis-application and of failure of DS to work in this area, and simple cycling out of some committee members seems likely to be necessary to get the nebulously menaching fog lifted off these policypages. DS never should have been applied to this in the first place, given that the rationale for it was just a petty four-editor squabble that would have resolved itself soon enough anyway. ARBATC#Discretionary_sanctions was an over-reaction. By current standards, DS would not have been applied in that case. The reluctance of ArbCom today to impose DS doesn't square with its simultaneous reluctance to un-impose old DS where DS would not have been imposed today. And the fact that ARBATC DS have been invoked for warnings twice in {{em|half a year}} is trivial, in no way suggestive that DS works in this area. This is basically ]. "It rained last night, after I prayed to the rain gods, ergo prayer works." I've offered far more plausible explanations above why AT/MoS see less dispute today than they did in 2011.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 10:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)</p>
*{{ping|Thryduulf}} I've already addressed all that; that party's T-ban, I-ban, and perhaps an indef if necessary would have all happened under ANI, far more expediently than the ridiculous amount of AE litigation that was required. DS / AE were not needed to arrive at remedies, but were a drawn-out impediment to doing so – pretty much the least useful approach we could contemplate. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


=== Statement by Thryduulf === === Statement by Aquillion ===
I find this an odd request, given that within the last month {{noping|Darkfrog24}} had an appeal of their topic ban placed under these discretionary sanctions declined, a one-way I bad against ] (the nominator here) added to that topic ban, and a short block for breaching the topic ban during the appeal imposed. They were indeffed by ] later the same day for breaching their topic ban on their talk page. See ] and ]. Given this very recent history (7 June) of ATC discretionary sanctions being actively used, I would be inclined to say that they are currently still needed. ] (]) 09:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by CBM ===


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 believe that the discretionary sanctions are particularly important on MOS pages, which by the subjective nature of the content are more prone to personal arguments than many other pages. I wanted to post a few links in particular, which may or may not be informative about the continuing benefit of DS. From a MOS-related RFC in December: , from earlier this week ("childish"), and from today . This is the tone with discretionary sanctions in effect.


=== Statement by {other-editor} === === Statement by {other-editor} ===
Line 78: Line 61:
<!-- * 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).''
*
*Quick note about the DS notifications given prior to alerts being a thing: ] directs the clerks to keep the notifications on the main case pages ("{{tq|1=Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.}}"). It's true that some portion of the work from implementing the DS procedure changes remains on the clerks' to-do list, but this is not one of them. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 15:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


=== 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 raised the idea of rescinding discretionary sanctions in several areas on the arb list very recently, but this wasn’t one of the areas I was looking at. I’m open to being convinced, but I’ve seen how high the passions run in this area, and I’ll need to be convinced the discretionary sanctions are a net negative in the area. Awaiting more statements. (As a procedural aside, you don’t need “standing” to appeal a remedy or sanction affecting pages. Any editor can do that.) ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 03:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
**{{re|SMcCandlish}} Can you comment specifically on why you don't feel disruption has decreased in this area ''because'' of the discretionary sanctions? You state they have no positive effect, but you also state they have somewhat of a chilling effect. A chilling effect on disruption is essentially the intent behind discretionary sanctions, and I wouldn't want to revoke discretionary sanctions if they're the reason we've seen less frequent issues in this area. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 15:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes
**It would be helpful to have a couple links to those boomerang results you mention. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
**I don't read the AN thread that resulted in your topic ban being lifted as saying that the ban was incorrect. I read it as saying that the ban was no longer necessary. This is also reflected in what you yourself wrote in the first couple lines of that request, stating the ban was no longer necessary because the underlying dispute had died down. In any event, if the only examples of potentially problematic enforcement are from 2015, I don't find that very convincing. Enforcement has evolved quite a bit since then. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 18:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
**] indef semi
***I'm reading the discussion, not the closing summary. In total, four editors supported lifting the ban. Of those, none said the ban was inappropriate. They focused more on the fact it was no longer serving a purpose (or was vague/poorly defined). It's somewhat unclear the topic ban even should have been lifted, since four editors supporting and two opposing do not usually form a "clear and substantial consensus" required to lift a discretionary sanction. This has nothing to do with the fact that you (as the ARCA filer) were the subject of that ban and everything to do with whether enforcement in this area has been poor. I asked for examples of poor enforcement, and you offered that one up. You shouldn't find it shocking that I looked into it. No-one has stated you have any "nefarious motive" here. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 21:34, 23 June 2018 (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)
**'''Decline'''. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 23:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm definitely not in favour of removing this set of discretionary sanctions. This is an area where passions run very high and disputes are relatively commonplace. In fact, just last month I alerted and warned a few editors who were edit warring on a MOS page. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
**The fact that discretionary sanctions didn't need to be used is a good thing. The knowledge that discretionary sanctions are in force and that an administrator is willing to use them is, in many instances, enough to make editors stop. I'd also note that these discretionary sanctions have already been used against two different editors for two different reasons this year (in my case to calm a situation and as an alternative to a block). My opinion is pretty clear here, if discretionary sanctions have been authorised by the committee they should not be removed unless there is no longer conflict in the subject area and it's not likely to return in the short term. This topic area, from what I've looked at, doesn't meet either criteria. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:26, 24 June 2018 (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)
*I'm with my colleagues above. From my observations they are still necessary. ] ] 10:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
*I'd like to see some more input from editors active on the relevant pages. (But unless really necessary, let's avoid discussing editors who are now banned and can't defend themselves.) ] (]) 13:25, 23 June 2018 (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)
*I've reviewed the information above, and I will agree with my colleagues as well that these sanctions are still needed at this time. ] (]) 14:17, 24 June 2018 (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)
*I agree with everything my colleagues have said above. I'm happy to clear out the cobwebs on disused sanctions - but these ''are'' being used, even if rarely, and it doesn't sound like the underlying disputes have really stopped happening. ] (]) 07:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
*The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
*I would like to hear more comments from the community and editors who work in this area. So far not a lot of outside feedback for or against the continuation of these DS. ''']''' ] 18:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
: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 generally agree that the sanctions are still of use, per the above commentary. Like Mkdw I wish there was more feedback from others in the area, but lacking that I'm prepared to decline this right now. &spades;]&spades; ] 13:25, 28 June 2018 (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)
* Really wish we had more input from affected editors but it's obvious there's recent conflict in this area. I believe they're still necessary. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
----
{{hab}}


== Amendment request: American politics 2 == == Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal ==
{{hat|Appellant has been indeffed by ToBeFree as a normal admin action; rough consensus that no further action is needed. ] (] • she/her) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 19:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:]
:{{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|MrX}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Atsme}} *{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)


; 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. -->
*


; Information about amendment request ; Information about amendment request
*] *]
:*2022 changes
:*Atsme is topic banned from making any edits relating to Donald Trump, broadly construed.




=== Statement by MrX === === 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)
Greetings. I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to ]. The matter concerns the article talk page participation by Atsme in the American politics topic area, that I believe to be disruptive and damaging to the collaborative editing process. As shown in the small sampling of diffs below, Atsme makes a lot of article talk page comments, a great many of which do not positively contribute to building consensus or resolving content disputes. Many of the comments are classic ]. Others are just off-topic screeds, diversions, defensive reactions to other's comments, dead horse beating, and attempts at levity.
:{{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 ===
The most troubling comments are the ones that undermine the credibility of highly-respected sources that are prominently used throughout enwiki. These take the form of characterizing sources like ''The Washington Post'' and ''The New York Times'' as biased, propaganda, clickbait, biased against Trump, rumor, and gossip. She also has a tendency to falsely refer to verifiable facts as "opinion". Her arguments are frequently based on fringe viewpoints typically found on websites like Breitbart, and are often based on fallacious reasoning.
Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

She makes a disproportionately-high number of comments. In the past six months, more than 7 percent of the comments at ] have come from her, out of 93 editors who have commented in the same period. That would be fine if she were moving discussions toward consensus or resolution, but that is rarely the case. What usually happens if the she will make increasingly tendentious arguments, and then when criticized for doing so, she gets defensive. Her arguments usually convey a tone of self-appointed ] and frequently contain multiple shortcuts to policies that almost all experienced editors are very well-versed in. She often rehashes arguments that have already been put to rest.

Atsme seems to be a warm and affable person who is rarely uncivil, and who I believe is sincere in her participation in the project. She has made some outstanding contributions to building the encyclopedia in areas outside of American politics, and I have great respect for her for that. It seems though that she has an ideological blind spot which affects her objectivity, and manifests as large amounts of low ] commentary.

I am hopeful that Arbcom can deal with this without a full case. I know there are a lot of diffs (and I apologize), but since the behavior is cumulative, rather than incidental, I can't come up with a better way to present this. Sections are roughly arranged in descending degree of concern, and sampling a few diffs should be compelling.

Thank you for your time.

;Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources (])
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

;Using talk pages for discussion unrelated to edits: (], ], ], ])
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

;Dominating discussions with excessive and often incoherent rambling (], ])
#
#
#
#
#] - Not even sure what to call this mess. She made 12 comments, but adavanced the discussion very little.
#
#
#

*Although she often complains about clickbaith sources, she is apparently OK with using source like ] , ], ], ], and ]

;]
# (User talk page)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#] - Insists that local consensus is not sufficient for restoring a section heading to the status quo version.
#

;]
Frequently adds multiple, irrelevant policy shortcuts to he comments
# - POV, NOTNEWS, WEIGHT, BALANCE, SOAPBOX,
# - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:TOOMUCH, WP:RS AGE, NOTCRYSTALBALL,
# - IDONTLIKEIT, BLP, PUBLICFIGURE, CONTENTIOUS LABELS, BALANCE AND WEIGHT
# - NPOV, V, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL, WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE
# - WP:RGW, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NEWSORG
# - WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, RIGHTGREATWRONGS
# - NOTNEWS, NPOV, DUE, BALANCE and OR.
# - SOAPBOX, UNDUE, NOTNEWS
# - NPOV, NOTNEWS, ADVOCACY, SOAPBOX

;Previous attempts to resolve. (also ])
Numerous attempts have been made to get Atsme to follow ] and and to participate more constructively in content discussions. She has rebuffed all of these efforts.
# - Hint
# - Mild warning
#] - Discussion
# - Warning
# - Warning
# - Request
# - Hint
# - Hint
# - Plea
# - Request
# - Mild warning
# - Hint
# - Discussion


;Misunderstands or distorts policies
# - Says "material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage" " and seven days later contradicts herself.
# ?
# - Improper use of rollback in a content dispute. Her explanation
#
Frequently misuses ] in content disputes.
;Making false claims
# - "We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice," - No one was proposing it, or even suggesting it.

;Repeating arguments ad nauseum (])
#
#

;Defensiveness (])
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

*{{re|User:BU Rob13}} Do you speak for the entire committee, or are those your views?- ]] 🖋 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

*AE does not take cases with more than 20 diffs, and this case can't be made with that few diffs. I brought this here to save everyone the effort of full Arbom case, but it's entirely up to Arbcom to as to whether to adjudicate this here or take on a full a case. My work is done, so it makes no difference to me.- ]] 🖋 03:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Atsme ===
I am respectfully requesting that the admins reviewing this case please forgive me for not being able to respond to this case. I am feeling more hurt by what MrX just attempted to do than I am upset over it. I'm not sure if what Drmies concluded hurt me more...but it cuts to the core. For me to respond to these allegations, I would have to provide diffs showing their bad behavior...we all know how that game is played, but I am not here to hurt other editors, or to try to silence them because I disagree with their POV or the material they've added or removed. I have always honored consensus - I am here to build an encyclopedia - to participate in collegial debates and present reasonable arguments. I believe that is exactly what I have done, and if the admins who are here to review my behavior will look at the full discussions and not just the cherrypicked diffs, I believe they will agree. I have always tried to include RS with my comments, but...again...I am a bit overwhelmed right now. I don't have it in me to fight this because in order to defend myself, it will be at their expense, and I don't have the heart to do that. <sup>]]]</sup> 21:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't sleep thinking about this very sad state of affairs, and the intent behind it. I don't see how it can be anything else but a deceitful, premeditated plan to eliminate editors they consider the opposition, and because it couldn't be done any other way, MrX chose to game the system, and inundate ArbCom with months of cherrypicked diffs taken out of context to create a false impression. This is clearly a case of ], thinking it was the only to stop a productive, collaborative editor who never showed ill-will or wished any harm on anyone.

Please keep in mind that the articles in question are subject DS restrictions/1RR-consensus required; therefore, editors have no choice but to participate in relentless discussions on the TP in order to achieve consensus. The process involves nearly every single piece of material that is added or reverted. Of course you will see more input on the TP of those articles, and far more disagreement - just look at the sizes of the Trump articles. The WP:OWN behavior of MrX and others who share his POV, have made the editing environment at those articles very unfriendly with a noticeable resistance to collaborative editing with those whose views differ from their own.

;Examples of disruptive behavior, bullying, and incivility:
* Drmies encouraging AE
* Drmies f-word bombing and labeling
* Drmies response to the N. Korea deal.
* MrX & his f-word rant
*] - 06/19/2018 Drmies - (RfC) swears angrily at another editor
*] - 06/19/2018 Drmies - (RfC) his chilling response to me & unwarranted threat of a TB
* - MrX - “And why the hell are you quoting Trump, a known liar”
* MrX calling it “bullshit”
There is no indication of any incivility on my part; rather there is an indication of ] by MrX and those who support his POV. Worse yet, the threat by Drmies to me in ] speaks volumes about this case now: ''"someone somewhere is marking this down to gather evidence for a topic ban”''.

* I had to revert MrX because he tried to edit a quote from a RS, which speaks to how he pushes his POV.
* I was the one being gaslighted, & shared my concern with another editor who stopped by offer comfort;
* - my response to Drmies which demonstrates the thought & xtra steps I take in an effort to reach consensus;
*] - one of the fun interactions I've had with MrX, and why his filing of this case set me back on my heels.
* - an apology from Mpants who now wants me to stop editing political articles

;I know RS and the difference between fact & opinion:
* - I was pointing out questionable sources
* -
* - need statements of fact, not opinions
*] - MrX joking about someone transcluding a Breitbart article on my TP - a dig against another editor whose views he opposes.
*] - MrX responds to my concerns of media bias, and '''agrees''' there is a problem with the current state of the news media. It is nothing like what he is trying to portray about me now.

I tried to avoid this - it cuts deeply - but the deceit and the intent to cause me harm when I've tried so hard to do the right thing was simply overwhelming. I believe the evidence I've provided justifies a TB on all Trump-related articles broadly construed for MrX and Drmies, both of whom have demonstrated an obvious disdain for Trump that effects their ability to edit those articles in compliance with NPOV. Their bias is overwhelming, their behavior is shameful, especially that of an administrator I once trusted, and there are several other editors who harbor the same disdain for Trump who also need to be included in that TB. <sup>]]]</sup> 09:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

*Bishonen's TB against me was pure retaliation - she imposed the ban right after I posted the diffs. She has threatened me in the recent past, has shown extreme bias toward me dating back to 2015 when she overturned a trout slap at ANI and imposed a 3 month block against me without one diff to support any of the allegations. She just gave a repeat performance. <sup>]]]</sup> 10:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

*Providing further evidence regarding Bishonen's behavior in the past and how she repeated it again here in retaliation in very much the same manner:
* - Slap with a trout - Failure to identify actionable disruptive behavior other than the acusations back and forth themselves. No good is coming of this. Everyone gets a Trout. ] (]) 8:58 pm, 4 August 2015, Tuesday (1 month, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)}}
* (→‎Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK: Atsme blocked) - pure railroading - not one diff ever presented to show disruptive behavior as what GWH stated above. I don't think Bishonen even consulted him before she did what she did out of retaliation for....see the diffs below - retaliation against me for taking an Abuse of COIN case to ArbCom.
* Closed July 13, 2015 - Bishonen used my ARBCOM case as one of the reasons, calling my actions "vexatious litigation”. Look familiar? Her response below is not convincing, and something needs to be done about her behavior. Her ban should be overturned and Bishonen considered for desysopping, an action that should have happened when she blocked in retaliation back in 2015. <sup>]]]</sup> 11:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
* Bishonen showed up at Sandstein's TP after he closed an AE against me for mistakingly reverting a blocked editor. She wanted to overturn Sandstein's decision and TB me from AP2.
* I challenged her request, and explained about Bishonen's past actions against me.
* She decided not to file but stalked me for a while after that...nothing has changed. <sup>]]]</sup> 11:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mr Ernie ===
Very disappointing to see this posted here. I would encourage ArbCom, if they are to look into this matter, to look at the whole topic instead of focusing on one editor. For example, over the past year MrX has been very effective removing editors with a different POV than theirs from the topic area. This sort of diff stalking, collecting, and deep diving is somewhat troubling and chilling at the very least. MrX was recently warned about this - see . Some of the diffs presented here are from a while ago, so it is really disturbing to think there are editors out there holding on to this stuff for months and even years.

Arbcom should dismiss this, or open a full case to look at the entire topic area. ] (]) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tryptofish ===
Commenting ''purely'' about procedural aspects, I don't see what the Committee can do here, in the form ''of an amendment or clarification''. This is the sort of thing that AE, based on the DS from American Politics 2, ''should'' be able to handle. Now having said that, it has been my recent experience that AE has been failing miserably at dealing with AP2 cases. It tends to look like the AE administrators can't make up their minds about whether or not they are being asked to resolve content disputes, so they keep punting. Sorry to tell you this, but you are eventually going to have to take an AP3 case, and in the meantime, the AP2 content area is a toxic waste dump that does not come down to just one or two editors. --] (]) 20:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:As much as I value Atsme as a wiki-friend, I think that Bishonen did the right thing here. But nobody should think that the AP2 problems are now solved. There are other editors who are significantly more harmful to the topic area, who have to date not been held to account, and the problems in the topic area are ongoing. In a way, it's almost unfair that Atsme has been singled out here.

:In this overall discussion, ''I cannot emphasize strongly enough'' how the present situation has arisen through a failure of AE. At least Bishonen has now applied the DS the way that they are supposed to be applied, at least for one editor. But the admins at AE, as a group, really need to take a serious look in the mirror. DS do ''not'' mean take a minimalist approach. The ''entire point'' of ArbCom issuing DS in a topic area is to empower admins to act quickly and decisively in a topic area where all other forms of dispute resolution have failed. (Hey, this board is for clarification, so maybe ArbCom should clarify ''that''.) After the GMO case was closed, disruption kept right on happening. So a few admins took DS to make ] happen. That was a ''big'' reach. And it worked. The GMO content area has been stable and peaceful ever since. Admins: when DS exist, ''your hands are not tied''. And this isn't about a content dispute.

:The one way we can avoid an AP3 case is for AE admins to continue to hand out topic bans in AP2. Lots of them.
:--] (]) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Winkelvi ===
MrX wrote in the opening of his statement: {{tq|"I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to WP:AE"}} I'm curious about (1) What this is supposed to mean; (2) Whether it means administrators have approached him either on- or off-Wiki to lobby him for bringing a case against Atsme here. I would like the statement clarified. I would also like to know if there have been administrators encouraging him to bring a case against Atsme - and if that's the case, (a) it's very troubling that there has been a coordination of attack by admins against an editor, and (b) who are these admins?

For the sake of transparency, this statement needs to be clarified and the community needs to know what communication off-wiki has taken place that was a precursor to this case being brought.

Aside from this, I agree in total with {{U|Mr Ernie}}'s statement above. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''Note''' It has been brought to my attention that the opening portion of X's statement ("I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to WP:AE") is referring to at AE. That in mind, someone - preferably MrX - needs to clarify that. As it is, his comments give the impression that administrators have endorsed this case against Atsme. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 20:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

::{{U|NeilN}} That in mind, why is this not really an amendment request rather, what seems to be a backdoor way to bring grievances against another editor and ask for sanctions in violation of the 500 word limit at AE - in other words, is it an abuse of the process? Am I totally off base here or am I seeing this correctly? (I don't want to make accusations if inaccurate) '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 20:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Drmies}}, a few things you've said below need to be addressed, especially since several who've commented here have mentioned the AP2 articles in general and have suggested topic bans for a number of editors at those articles. The statement I'm going to comment on is this:

{{tq|"this cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media leads to an erosion of trust and in a community that wants to produce an encyclopedia we cannot have that. It takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Misplaced Pages. In return, other editors are chased out of the area because it is just not worth their time and energy"}}

*"cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media" For one thing, that cynicism runs both ways -- many of the heated discussions at AP2 article talk pages and reversions have been in regard to reliable sources that are considered conservative (overwhelmingly !voted to be removed and/or dismissed) and unreliable sources ala Hollywood gossip sites defended to support questionable content that supports anti-conservative wording/content. Such behavior has definitely assisted in eroding trust as well as a collegial editing environment and didn't help produce a neutral encyclopedia article.
*"takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Misplaced Pages" I couldn't agree more. The arguing, the back and forth, the introduction of trolling-type comments looking for reaction... it's way out of control. Editors use the 1RR as a way to ] and ] does occur. It's all ruined an cooperative editing environment looking for consensus and talk pages have become a place of obstructionism and ]ing. Not completely, of course, but far too often. And I, too, believe that the attitudes and commentary we see far to often in social media has bled into Misplaced Pages. It's toxic, plain and simple and ] as well as ] vios are ignored. By editors and admins alike.
*"other editors are chased out of the area" Yes, editors are staying away. But some editors who stay are working very hard to chase away editors trying to keep the behaviors I've mentioned here from happening and articles being ruined with ], ], ], and ]/].
None of this is Atsme's fault. None of this is one editor's fault, or even the fault of a couple of editors -- probably not even most. It's the fault, in large part, of however it all spun out of control. No fingers being pointed by me -- but it has to be solved not by topic banning editors, something more meaningful and long-lasting than a bandaid needs to be applied. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by NeilN ===
For {{u|Winkelvi}} and others: ]. No editors were specifically mentioned and I was unsure if a group of editors was going to be reported. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{ping|Winkelvi}} Admins were not opposed to extending word/diff limits at AE so this not an end run to avoid those limits. That being said, I'm not sure why this is at ARCA instead of being a full case request. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by Drmies===
"Atsme seems to be a warm and affable person who is rarely uncivil, and who I believe is sincere in her participation in the project. She has made some outstanding contributions to building the encyclopedia in areas outside of American Politics, and I have great respect for her for that. It seems though that she has an ideological blind spot which affects here objectivity, and manifests as large amounts of low signal-to-noise ratio commentary." I couldn't agree more, and the list of diffs, and their analysis, bears this out. I'm sorry it has to come to this, but esp. the constant misunderstanding of fact vs. opinion and the attendant casting doubt on reliable sources (and the very concept thereof) is highly disruptive. ] (]) 20:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
*Atsme, for me this is in large part about your attitude toward reliable sources. If it hadn't been for that I might not have weighed in there, but this cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media leads to an erosion of trust and in a community that wants to produce an encyclopedia we cannot have that. It takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Misplaced Pages. In return, other editors are chased out of the area because it is just not worth their time and energy. But these things I have said before, in individual threads and subthreads, and they are frequently answered only with an attempt at levity--and then we do it all over again. ] (]) 22:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
*Winkelvi, I am not aware of people using Hollywood gossip sites (I am not quite sure what those are--gossip tabloids like EW?) in these articles. Nor am I aware of editors dismissing ''reliable'' "conservative" sites, and I won't stand for it: I have no patience for poor sourcing, no matter from which side--not on Facebook, and certainly not here. But if what is being suggested here is that this case against Atsme is without merit because everyone is doing it ("bad people on both sides", I dispute that: it is not for many editors that one can draw up such a long list of edits that counter policy, thwart progress, disrupt editorial processes. ] (]) 02:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by SMcCandlish ===
Concur with Tryptofish (and with the topic-specific comments in ]). It's not just a couple of editors, and it is across a large number of articles. I've gotten to where I studiously avoid entering the topic area other that to quickly post a !vote in an RfC I get from ], then leave quickly. Even aside from factional PoV-pushing and a general degradation of civility, there's a massive ] / ] problem. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC); revised: <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)<p>PS, about the Atsme stuff: Fyddlestix correctly articulates the problem with all the "NPOV and NOTNEWS and FRINGE" stuff. We have policy shortcuts for good reasons; the problem isn't in using them, it's in repetitively ignoring arguments against the editor's personal interpretations of the policies and guidelines in question. That said, I agree that the editor is productive in other areas. As noted above, I don't think the problems is this topic area are particularly to do with this editor, though. <small>Un-disclaimer: I'm a political centrist, so I'm not taking an ideological side in this mess.</small>. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Statement by MjolnirPants ===
<small>].</small><br>Atsme is one of a very (very) small number of Wikipedians I would like to consider my friend, but I strongly urge the arbs to take this case. I have written my entire response ], so as not to post a giant wall of text on this page. I strongly encourage the arbs to read it in it's entirety before deciding whether or not to take this case.

{{u|Atsme}}, I hope you don't take my support here as a betrayal, because it's not. You are not the only editor I think should get the hell out of AmPol, and I don't think you're entirely to blame for why you should get out. So I encourage you to take my advice: let the Arbs take this case to try and fix the cesspool that is AmPol, but in the meantime, do as I did and just unwatch every directly political page on your watchlist. At the very least, doing so would essentially remove any reason to sanction you, regardless of what ArbCom thinks of the evidence above. If you don't think you can do that, or you can't accept that you should, then I'm afraid I would need to strongly support any proposed topic ban for you. Please don't make it come to that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 21:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{ping|Alex Shih}} Thank you for taking note of that. In all honesty, I really think that all that's needed is for a few admins to wade into the swamp, ban hammers swinging. Done right, it would solve the problem. Done poorly, it would still be a step in the right direction. I'd be completely on board with doing an AP3 case, if that's what it took. But something really needs to be done. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 05:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{ping|Atsme}} That apology was for me blowing up at you, telling you that I'd lost all respect for you and ignoring you for several days. The things I said about your arguing tactics prior to that and since then are all things I stand by: Your argumentation in political articles has -in my experience- overall been unoriginal, illogical, polemical, ill-informed and ultimately ineffective. You know very well that anti-Trump POV pushing pisses me off just as quickly and thoroughly as pro-Trump POV pushing, and that I'm more than happy to say good things about something I despise, so long as they're true. I ''could'' have been convinced of a lot of things, but you ultimately failed to ever make a good case. Even when we were in agreement on something, such as the existence and troubling nature of an Anti-Trump POV-pushing faction, or individual matters like the inclusion of the donation of office space to the pro-African American group on the racial views page, I rarely commented on or added to your own arguments because I found them weak, and wanted to distance my own from them.
:Meanwhile, we've interacted over dozens of smaller issues at user talk and a few bigger things, as well. In every one of those cases, you struck me as a competent, rational and very thoughtful editor. In the end, it was like there were two people behind your account; the lovely (and I'm sure, devastatingly beautiful) lady who knows how to keep a conversation heading towards a consensus and has a keen eye for improving this project, and the partisan pro-Trump shill who repeats arguments from ''Breitbart'' ad nauseum and responds to any legitimate criticism with deflection. I really, ''really'' like that first person, and want to see more of her. She's the one I apologized to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 13:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
I am unsure as to why MrX received the advice to bring this complaint here, as it obviously seems to be suited to AE as it has been presented here.{{parabr}}I've read the full statement by MjolnrPants linked to just above, and they certainly have a valid point, that the American Politics subject area is a quagmire that drives away editors and needs to be cleaned up. However, I disagree that this requires a full arbitration case, and I can't imagine there's any great enthusiasm on the party of the community -- or Arbcom, for that matter -- for an AP3 case. I do agree with cleaning up the subject area, though, and a start on that can be made by dealing with individual editors who may be part of the problem. If these editors are topic banned, it would, presumably, reduce the number of disputes, and would send a message to other disputatious editors.{{parabr}}So, the end result is that I fall in with the idea that this request is not properly suited to ARCA, since it involves a single editor, and is not calling for specific changes in the discretionary sanction regime. It seems clearly to be an AE case and should be closed here and brought there, as should any similar complaints regarding other editors. ] (]) 23:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:Just a word to day that I think that determining the boundaries of a "Donald Trump, broadly construed" topic ban, should one ever be issued, would be extremely difficult, as the controversies surrounding Trump, his policies and politics, his appointees, his relations with Congress and the Courts, and, not the least, the ongoing investigation of possible wrongdoing connected to his Presidential campaign, have fairly well overwhelmed almost everything else in current American politics and become the central issue of the moment. Although American Politics discretionary sanctions have the boundary of being post-1932, the actual active hot spots that cause the problems pointed out by a number of editors all really revolve around Trump and current issues, so that a "Donald Trump, broadly construed" topic ban becomes, in essence, an American Politics topic ban. Since that is the case, it seems to me better just to issue post-1932 American politics topic bans instead of Trump topic bans, to prevent gaming, and also to avoid the problem of disputatious editors simply slipping back in time to create the same chaos around Barack Obama, the Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan. ] (]) 04:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by Fyddlestix===
Procedural questions aside, I'd just like to encourage admins/arbs to not be ''too'' quick to dismiss this and to take the time to look at the pattern of behavior and how much disruption it's caused over time. Atsme really does have , and a tendency to repeatedly spam ] as if they were an automatic "i win" button in AP debates, while ignoring other editors' earnest explanations of why the policy might not apply/why it might not be that simple (ie, IDHT). This is a pattern of behavior that has remained unchanged for a long period of time, despite repeated pleas/warnings from others - RFC from over a year ago, for example, shows much the same type of disruptive behavior displayed in MrX's more recent diffs. ] (]) 22:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
: To add: I agree with others' comments that the whole topic area is a bit of a shit-show: if arbcom wants to take on an AP3 case to resolve the broader issues, more power to them, but that is a ''massive'' undertaking and a huge challenge. If not, then the fact that the roof is on fire doesn't mean you should ignore the gas leak in the basement: I'd echo BMK's suggestion that even if taking care of one problem doesn't solve ''all'' our problems, it's a start and a step worth taking. ] (]) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by OID ===
I suggest you turn this into an actual case request, as this is on Atsme's part, and it has never been limited to American Politics, as Atsme either has a competence issue (they dont just have a problem with NPOV and sources, they have had ongoing issues with the BLP as well), or a deliberate misunderstanding of policies and guidelines when other editors disagree with them. When you have problems going on for over 3 years, its not going to be suited to an AE request - as they usually result in a short block/ban from a topic. And while AN can (and does) handle ongoing editor behavioural issues, its probably not suited in this case. ] (]) 00:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:Just to point out, the link I have included above is the discussion Atsme is referring to RE Bish. I would suggest people read the comments there by Guy especially. ] (]) 10:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by power~enwiki ===
This should be a case request and not at ARCA. I assume the clerks will move this if there is interest in a case. ] (], ]) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a case: I don't see a strong need for an "American Politics 3" ARBCOM case at this time. Content disputes are often very heated in the area, and the project would benefit from several editors observing a page-ban from ] and its talk page. But that can be handled under existing discretionary sanctions. ] (], ]) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding clarification: I feel there should be a generally-understood scope for a topic-ban on "Donald Trump, broadly construed"; when these have been issued (as opposed to a page-ban or a full AP2 topic ban) they have turned into excessive wiki-lawyering. I have not been able to come up with any specific proposal that is an improvement, and the committee may want to simply discourage the use of a "Trump TBAN", and that admins should use a full AP2 topic-ban when that is necessary. ] (], ]) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bishonen: topic ban placed ===
I don't see anything preventing me from acting on MrX's diffs per the AP2 discretionary sanctions, no matter where the diffs have been filed, so long as I've seen them. I have therefore topic banned Atsme indefinitely from post-1932 American politics. The ban is a regular discretionary sanctions ban per single admin discretion, and can be appealed at AN, AE or ARCA in the usual way. It can be appealed right away, certainly, but after that, no more frequently than every six months. I thought at first a topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages might do it, but Beyond My Ken's argument against Donald Trump bans convinced me against that. I institute this ban per all MrX's categories: wikilawyering, long-time persistent resistance to good advice, repeating arguments ad nauseum, filibustering and dominating discussions without bringing them forward, and, most of all, for repeatedly discrediting reliable sources. Drmies has the harm the last point does. Not all MrX's diffs are impressive, but together they paint a pretty appalling picture of an editing pattern that drains the time and energy of other users and is a persistent negative on talkpages. I should say that Am Pol is no rosegarden even if we disregard Atsme's input, and probably won't be one even if my ban is upheld. Several people have recommended an AP3 case to deal with the chaos on Trump-related pages. Personally, though, I feel that AP2 does give admins the ability to act decisively. Anyway, whether or not such an arbitration case is brought, or indeed an individual case to deal with Atsme's Am Pol editing, I don't see why I shouldn't try to take care of ''this'' gas leak. As Fyddlestix says, it's a start and a step worth taking. Atsme is an OTRS volunteer; I ''believe'' this topic ban precludes her from having anything to do with e-mails that concern American politics, but that's a little too arcane for me; perhaps, as long as we are on the ARCA page, the arbitrators would like to clarify that matter?

I too want to express my regret. Atsme is a fine contributor in other areas, and I'm a great admirer of the photographic art she contributes to the project. Like several previous years, I've voted for one of her amazing pictures in the ongoing contest. ] &#124; ] 09:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC).
:{{yo|Alex Shih}} Atsme rather unexpectedly posted a full response, 12 hours after having originally stated that "I am respectfully requesting that the admins reviewing this case please forgive me for not being able to respond to this case", and "I don't have it in me to fight this because in order to defend myself, it will be at their expense, and I don't have the heart to do that". While I was fiddling with my own post preparatory to hitting "Publish", it turned out she did after all have the heart to call for topic bans for MrX and Drmies, in a post that edit conflicted me. Of course I read it (that was the nine minutes) but it didn't change my mind. I'm not going to argue with you, Alex, as to whether that reflects badly on me or not. So heated and polarized as discourse in the area is, I naturally expect criticism from some users. You started with saying "personally I think" and then segued into a generalizing passive: "is not going to be perceived well". I could wish you stayed with your own, in fact personal, perceptions and the active voice, rather than speaking for — the community? the committee? I'm not sure, because with the vagueness of the passive, one never knows. As for the ARCA request remaining open, I completely agree. It's not like I placed the sanction in any sense ''per'' ARCA (how could I?), and more things than a possible topic ban have been discussed here. My post was intended more as a courtesy notice, to explain to people watching the discussion that the situation is now a little different. It needn't affect the arbitrators, or affect anybody who wishes to request arbitration. Thank you for clarifying the OTRS matter. ] &#124; ] 10:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC).

=== Statement by MONGO ===
Well, if an arbcom case were opened, not sure where to begin. The problem with any politics, especially the most recent ones, is all we really have are news clips, written almost always in an audience satisfying manner, as sources. Of course these sources, if we are talking about major news networks, are deemed reliable. But they are, a great number of them, also geared to grab attention, not peer reviewed and lack the journalistic integrity of scientific papers. This sourcing for recent politics is going to suffer the inevitable bias of writers who are seeing things through the lens of immediacy, and not through the lens of hind sight. The inevitable outcome is articles about recent events and people that are far below quality levels of the website's best articles. Arguing, even forcefully, about whether a news feed is neutral is, a worthy effort. Comparing subpar articles to FA level articles is a worthy effort. ''Fighting'' to make sure articles, especially BLPs, are neutrally covered, is a worthy effort. I write ''fighting'' in a figurative way...in that protecting BLPs is paramount and I have long felt very disturbed when editors clearly state, not only in words but also in actions, how much they have a distaste for a subject, then turn around and blatantly fight to add all the negativism they can and work to eliminate all the positives they can, and use noticeboards to try and eliminate their editing adversaries and the same noticeboards to defend their editing allies. But far more chilling and despicable than that, is when those in positions of higher trust and power, also insult, ridicule and bully those they disagree with politically both on the article talkpages and the user talks and noticeboards as well. Indeed, were an arbcom case filed, not sure where to even begin as the problems are so pervasive here and some actions so obvious, that any neutral party recently arrived at this website and seeing how this all unfolds would surely declare that all this is insanity and fully noncompliant with any semblance of neutrality or fairness.] (]) 12:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by WBG ===
*AFAIR, one upon a time (when I regularly used to close RFC(s) in the topic-area), I've asked Atsme to step down from APOL, (voluntarily), for the <u>very</u> reasons that have been mentioned above, (quite many times by multiple users).She seems to have a good-faith but fatal misunderstanding of key policies and is too willing to stick to extremist interpretations of policies which often reaches to the level of extreme bludgeoning and tendentious debating.That, she paid no heed and had continued in her ways, I'm afraid Bishonen's T-ban is well-deserved.
**As someone who considers Atsme to be one of the most polite and resourceful editor over here, I regret to post the above statement but the T-ban ought to do some real good.
*I disagree with Alex about the perception(s) of the T-ban.
*Whilst Atsme claims to have got some history (INVOLVED-->??) with Bish, I fail to spot any relevant issue(s), per our ].]] 12:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
**@Alex:--I was careless to put the second part in the same line. Sorry,]] 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Alanscottwalker ===
Although initial reaction from Rob, et al. was understandable, it's time to realize this has moved on, well passed that.

Atsme has accused a person, and relevant here, an admin of '''stalking''' and abusing admin status (an admin action, '''ban''', predicated on the diffs in this very filing by Mr. X). Per ], treat this as an appeal of a ban to be heard here, or the ctte should motion it into a case. DO NOT send this anywhere else for more (disruptive) process. You are the only ctte set-up that deals with precisely this stuff. -- ] (]) 13:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} === === Statement by {other-editor} ===
Line 398: Line 115:
<!-- * 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).''
* *


=== 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)
*If the situation is too complex for AE, it’s too complex for ARCA. Your two options are to file a report at AE or to file a case request, in my opinion. For now, I decline to comment on the merits of the report to avoid prejudicing a potential discussion at AE. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 22:48, 28 June 2018 (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 can’t speak for other arbitrators, only myself. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:13, 29 June 2018 (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)
*I agree with {{noping|BU Rob13}}; if this is too complex for AE, then the only option is to file a full case request. I understand why it's being taken here: Like {{u|Tryptofish}} said, it's difficult for many AE administrators to make up their mind in this topic area (about whether or not the dispute is related to content or user conduct). But if the purpose of not filing a full request is to not upset a certain editor, filing this request in the form of a full case request ''without'' actually filing one makes little sense to me. Removing {{u|Atsme}} from the Donald Trump topic area may reduce some of the issues in these American politics discussions, perhaps. But I think there is a emerging sentiment here that this involves more than just one editor; ] is the key issue here I think, and the principle as currently worded is far from sufficient in my opinion, and a better principle/remedy is likely needed to better deal with persisting issues in American politics pages, and to encourage more administrators to work on mediating disputes in this topic area. ] (]) 02:34, 29 June 2018 (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)
**{{u|Bishonen}}, OTRS is governed by a separate body in which I do not believe the English Misplaced Pages community have any jurisdiction; you can certainly make the recommendation to ]. No comments in regards to the topic ban, but personally I think enacting such a discretionary sanction 9 minutes after Atsme posted a full response () is not going to be perceived well. It is definitely within your discretion as uninvolved administrator however, but this ARCA request should probably remain open to allow for more input and discussion. ] (]) 09:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
***{{u|Winged Blades of Godric}}, I am not sure if I mentioned anything about involvement; I was surprised to see Atsme responding after initially declining to respond, and equally surprised to see the topic ban enacted right after her follow up post. That was the sum of my thoughts. ] (]) 12:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*I'm also with Rob - this should be at AE or a case request. I see a lot of discussion already (12 editors not counting MrZ or Atsme), mainly either saying it should go to AE or that a case request be made, or that the single editor involved, Atsme, be dealt with by someone. That's now happened. ] ] 11:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
*Allow me to pile on and agree with Rob. This case needs to be handled as a case request or at AE itself. ] (]) 13:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
* Per Rob. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
*Decline. In a self-serving way, I can appreciate the intention to save us the efforts of a full case, but if this cannot be resolved at AE then a case seems warranted. ''']''' ] 16:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
* I don't quite agree with the reasoning above - "too complex for AE" means "too complex for self-selected volunteers who aren't actually obliged to do fuck all", whereas "too complex for ARCA" means "too complex for the people who specifically volunteered for and were elected to deal with complex problems and are as obliged to do things as anybody can be in an internet hobby". But I do agree with the conclusion that ARCA as a venue is a poor fit for this problem, especially following Bishonen's topic ban. (I agree with Bishonen's comments above that Atsme is a nice person and an excellent editor on other topics, and suspect that having to step away from editing about American politics for awhile would be, for just about anyone, a blessing in disguise.) ] (]) 16:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', without prejudice to Atsme's right to appeal the topic-ban imposed against her in the usual way (though I suggest she allow things to settle down for a few days before deciding whether she really wants to). ] (]) 16:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:56, 23 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Palestine-Israel articles 5 23 Jan 2025
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 23 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

Appellant has been indeffed by ToBeFree as a normal admin action; rough consensus that no further action is needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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