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 14:08, 10 January 2021 editWikieditor19920 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,766 edits →Statement by Wikieditor19920Tag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators128,264 edits →Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion: blocked 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>

= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<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 7: Line 8:


== Amendment request: American politics 2 == == Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC) '''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
Line 13: Line 14:


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#]
#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)



; 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|Interstellarity}} (initiator) *{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)


; Information about amendment request ; Information about amendment request
*]
*Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
:*Change the sanctions to affect American politics to a later date. I recommend 1944, but I am open to other interpretations.


=== Statement by Interstellarity === === 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.
It's been over five years since the ammendment to set sanctions on post-1932 American politics went in place. When we look at historical events from a distant future, we can get a better idea on how the event affected history. I am not requesting to repeal these sanctions, I am requesting that the sanction be lowered to something like 1944. It is easier to write an article on a president such as ] and ] then someone like ] or ] because the news can be too biased to get the big picture. I imagine the news was also biased back then, but we have modern historical evaluations on the event that help us to write better articles. That's how I feel about this in a nutshell. ] (]) 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
*1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
*2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
*4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. ] (]) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:@]: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. ] (]) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by ] (]) ===
1932 really is still the beginning of contemporary US politics. It is when FDR was first elected, and FDR's policy approaches are still a political battleground in the present day. ]'s book ''In the Shadow of FDR'' traces FDR's influence through all the subsequent US presidents up to Obama (in the 2009 edition). I read it for a school requirement and found it enlightening. If there is good cause to restrict someone from editing about post-FDR US politics, they probably shouldn't be editing about the FDR era either. The stuff that happened then is still contentious in today's partisan battlegrounds. ] (]) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


=== Statement by Geogene === === Comment by GoodDay ===
I think any cutoff year you choose will potentially be debatable. But is the current 1932 cutoff already causing problems that need to be addressed? If so, this request would be more compelling with evidence and examples of those problems. ] (]) 18:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC) ''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 Black Kite === === 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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever processed an AP2 dispute or sanction where the locus of dispute was something that happened between 1932 and 1944 (indeed the vast majority are centred on current issues). That's not to say they don't exist, but I think I'd like to see the diffs before changing the cutoff date. ] 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


=== Statement by Dweller === === 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. ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Echoing Black Kite to an extent, I'm eager to see what are the loci of dispute now, but I'll go further. This is incredibly broad brush and doesn't feel like a good measure at all. Having briefly looked into the morass of the case that prompted it, I'm wondering if Arbcom at the time were both rather exasperated and reluctant to issue a huge swathe of personal sanctions. Anyway, that's speculation. More to the point, I feel this measure is bad for Misplaced Pages. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 19:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Statement by Ymblanter (American politics 2) ===
All sanctions (theoretically) must be recorded in the log at ]. For 2020, I see there only two articles which relate to something else than post-1990 politics: ] which I have protected myself (and this is the only time I remember involving AP2 for not contemporary politics, and I am not shy in imposing AE sanctions), and ] which is probably there in error (I do not see how it is related to AP2). In any case, both articles are post-1950.--] (]) 12:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

=== Statement by power~enwiki ===
I support changing this, to some date not after 1992. From a quick glance, with the one exception Ymblanter noted, the oldest topic I found discussed in the sanctions log was ]. The vast majority of American Politics issues relate to current events, but the Clintons are still regularly the subject of contentious discussion. There was a preference for a wide buffer region in the original imposition of AP2 to avoid doubt in marginal cases; I think either 1960 or 1980 would be reasonable choices. ] (], ]) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
: I think it's a stretch to say that Vince Foster would be covered under post-2010 American Politics; we don't have "broadly construed" here and he died in 1993. Sure, Trump talked about him, but having the sanctions be "everything Trump talks about" seems like the wrong way to include topics in the sanctions; in that case rather than a year we might as well just say "current". ] (], ]) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
: I will comment on any RFC, but the difference between 1980/1988/1992 doesn't seem important enough to justify one. OK, if several ARBCOM members feel 1932/1944 or even 1960 is the right year, do an RFC, but if the exact post-Nixon and pre-Clinton year is the issue, I encourage ARBCOM to hash it out amongst yourselves. ] (], ]) 06:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
The difference between starting in 1932 and starting in 1944 is that the period from 1932 to 1944 featured FDR and the New Deal, isolationism regarding involvement in World War II, the attempt at Supreme Court packing, the American Nazi movement and the anti-Nazi boycotts -- '''''all of which''''' have tendrils which connect them to current American politics. Is MAGA isolationism re-born? Will the Democrats attempt to counter Trump's Supreme Court nominations by packing the court? Is the alt-right the re-birth of an American fascist movement? What do we do about the newly powerful populist movement in Europe? How involved should the US government be in controlling the effects of capitalism? These questions are all intimately connected to what happened from 1932 to 1944, which argues '''''against''''' changing the starting point. 1932 does not seem to me to be an arbitrary choice, but the actual beginning of modern American politics. ] (]) 22:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
:Whereas it's arguable that 1944 (1945, really) is the start of the post-war international structure (the UN, NATO, World Bank, IMF etc.), so it would make sense for a discretionary sanctions regime which was concerned with modern international geo-politics. It doesn't really make all the much sense as a starting point for American politics, though. ] (]) 07:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
::Eggishorn's data is interesting. I would only suggest that if the start date is moved up, admins take note of disputes and disruption which would have been covered if the date hadn't been adjusted, if any. I still don't see any real harm in leaving the start date where it is, though, under the rubric "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." ] (]) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Per "range of choices", leaving it at 1932 should not be forgotten. I agree that an RfC should be held before an ArbCom motion, as a content matter. ] (]) 09:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nosebagbear ===
I'm concerned by people stating that Interstellarity should be providing cases of 1932-1944 that this clarification would resolve. Quite the opposite - ''everyone else'' should be being required to provide cases that demonstrate that that set of years should also be covered by DS. It's supposed to cover the minimum possible to avoid issues. I actually think a good case could be made for moving it up to, say, the start of the Vietnam war, and if we're happy to have a discussion on that, that's great, but for the meantime, I'm a strong supporter. ] (]) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

=== Statement by Eggishorn ===
I think everyone is agreed that the cutoff of 1932 is arbitrary and that any year that the ArbCom of the time picked would necessarily be arbitrary. Any other date would also be arbitrary but need not be equally arbitrary; i.e., there may be less arbitrary dates available. It is clear from ] that the ArbCom of the time picked 1932 for no there reason than it was somewhere between the extremes of 1980 (too recent) and all of American history (too far back). If anything, this is a good demonstration of how the ] can guide rational people to suboptimal results. Neither the AP nor the AP2 cases involved anything that reached anywhere near as far back as 1932 and {{u|Ymblanter}} and {{u|power~enwiki}} have already demonstrated that the topics that AP2 sanctions have been invoked for are also recent. {{u|Beyond My Ken}} makes a cogent argument that there is ideological continuity of issues from the Roosevelt presidency era to issues of great controversy today but that is not a reason to keep the 1932 date. If we were to accept the continuity of ideologies argument, then the same issues that FDR faced were faced in recognizable form by his cousin Theodore and that these issues have ideological continuity all the way back to Jacksonian democracy and even to Jeffersonianism and Federalism. The committee implicitly rejected this approach since that would have turned the AP2 discretionary sanctions into American History discretionary sanctions. I think that any argument to keep the 1932 cutoff has to substantiate 1932-present as the narrowest possible range to prevent significant disruption. The record at hand does not present any evidence of this being the case. If anything, it shows that 1932 is far too broad and that this violates the principle that sanctions and restrictions should allow the greatest freedom of editing. ] still has some purpose here, after all. The ArbCom of the time picked 1932 not through detailed inquiry of the best cutoff but through what seems like expediency and abundance of caution. The ArbCom of today has the benefit of a record that shows the 1932 date was overbroad and can pick a date that better matches the evidence shown. Looking through the sanctions log for this year and last, it is difficult to find anything even post-2000, never mind after the 1980 date the original ArbCom felt was too recent. Please consider moving the date forward significantly, to at least '''1988''' (the George H. W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis presidential election). This date would be a better fit for the evidence of disruption that is available and also match BMK's ideological continuity of issues argument while being closer to the idealized least restrictive option and therefore be less arbitrary than 1932. Thank you. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:
#FF7400; color:
#FFFFFF;">Eggishorn</span>]] ] ] 18:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
====Analysis of AP2 sanctions====
At the implicit invitation of {{u|Barkeep49}}'s request for better data and because I'm seeing dates picked based on what looks like speculation of what might or could happen, I thought it necessary to present what has happened under the current regime. Debates, however fierce, in the wider society that are not directly reflected in on-wiki disruption should not be the basis for sanctions. Therefore, the record of sanctions was searched for on-wiki disruption and correlated to the time period that the disruption was directly linked to.
{{collapse top|title=Extended Content}}
=====Methodology=====
The ] was examined for blocks, bans, and other editor sanctions placed by administrators from 2016 to 2020 under the authority of the ] authorized by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the ]. Only restrictions placed on editors were counted, not those on articles. Each sanction as a separate action is counted separately. If an editor was given an edit restriction or topic ban, then violated that and was blocked, then returned and violated it again and was banned, those three separate events are are counted three times. If an editor was blocked or topic banned for violating AP2 restrictions based on multiple edits reported to ] (including, in one notable case, 71 edits) then that one event is counted once.

Community bans are not counted, even if they were related to American politics articles, because those actions are taken under the community's authority and not the committee's. ArbCom bans were included if explicitly invoked under the American Politics 2 case or subsequent motions. Warnings are not counted as sanctions, even if the DS was invoked as a basis for the warning, because warnings do not have the effect of restricting edits through the wiki software. Probations or other irregular and custom sanctions are treated as warnings and so also not counted for the same reason.

Topic bans lifted upon appeal are not counted as sanctions. Topic bans that resulted in a block but which were lifted on appeal were counted as a sanction if the block took place before the ban was lifted. There were a small number of users blocked, unblocked, and reblocked under these sanctions. If the individual blocks were triggered by different edits or there were "new" edits that were significant evidence for further sanctions, then those were considered separate events. Rejected appeals are not counted as separate sanctions.

The time periods are divided by Presidential administration to break the 88 year time period covered by these discretionary sanctions into comprehensible time periods. The time period a sanction was assigned to is based on the edit or edits triggering sanctions. This results the an apparent anomaly that edits related to, e.g., Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign are counted under the "Obama" row and not the "Trump" row. This is inevitable given that each election cycle lasts at least 2 years and there are multiple contestants. Unless clearly otherwise indicated, edits concerning events that took place during the short January lame duck period were counted as sanctions under the following administration for clarity and because politics during this time period are almost entirely concerned with the incoming presidency and not the outgoing one. FDR's presidency was divided into pre-war and war years due to its length and the amendment request above.

Edits triggering sanctions that were to articles not about events (e.g., biographical articles, places, etc.) were treated as follows: If there was a source associated with the edit (either adding or removing) then the date of that source was used to categorize the edit. If the edit was not linked to a source or the source did not have a date then any identifiable event that the edit might have been connected to (e.g., the arrest of a person) was used to categorize the edit. If there was no dated source or identifiable event, then the date of the edit was used to categorize the edit on the basis that edits on political topics are more likely to be triggered by contemporary media coverage than historical coverage.

The data was compiled in a Google Sheets document available .
=====Results=====
The editing restrictions, blocks, and bans placed under AP2 restrictions since 2016 greatly favor the 2016-present time period and there is almost no record of AP2 sanctions for events prior to 1993.
{| class="wikitable"
|+ AP2 sanctions by year and presidency
|-
! Presidential Administration !! 2016 !! 2017 !! 2018 !! 2019 !! 2020 !! Total
|-
| FDR pre-war || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| FDR war years || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Truman || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Eisenhower || 0|| 0|| 1|| 0|| 0|| 1
|-
| Kennedy || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Johnson || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Nixon || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Ford || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Carter || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Reagan || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Bush Sr. || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 0
|-
| Clinton || 0|| 2|| 0|| 1|| 2|| 5
|-
| Bush Jr. || 0|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 2|| 2
|-
| Obama || 42|| 13|| 4|| 0|| 4|| 63
|-
| Trump || 0|| 40|| 46|| 43|| 48|| 177
|-
| Total || 42|| 55|| 51|| 44|| 56|| 248
|}
{{collapse bottom}}

=====Discussion=====
Of the total 248 discretionary sanctions placed in the 4 years since they were authorized under the current ArbCom remedies , 240 or 96.7% were for edits concerning events after 2016. The almost complete lack of sanctions for events in the time period from 1932 to 1988 shows that the current remedies are not currently narrowly-tailored to the actual disruption experienced on this site. Speculation that sanctions need to encompass the period before 1988 are not supported by the evidence of disruption reported. Although the methodology is believed sound, discrepancies would not change that the evidence is very clear. Even if there were massive errors in time period categorization, the evidence of disruption is clustered is so tightly to time periods after 2009 that there can be no rational argument that sanctions have been invoked to curtail actual disruption for fully 86% of the time period currently covered by the DS regime. Although page protections and similar page-level invocations of the authority granted under AP2 was not explicitly tallied, cursory investigation did not disclose results which differed significantly from the results of the editor-level sanctions and so has not been worth the time to compile. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:
#FF7400; color:
#FFFFFF;">Eggishorn</span>]] ] ] 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Guerillero ===
I was one of the drafting arbs for this case and can answer what was going through our heads at the time. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

=== Statement by SMcCandlish ===
In short, I concur with Nosebagbear on burden, and with so many others here in having concerns about how sweeping these DS have been. In detail, I think this should be narrowed to 1960 onward (so it starts with JFK's presidential election campaign – there's always going to be fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense about JFK), or to an even later date, maybe starting with 1988 (George H. W. Bush's campaign), but start no later than 1992 (Bill Clinton; the Clintons are still the subject of a lot of fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense themselves). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

=== Statement by ProcrastinatingReader ===
I wouldn't comment, but some of the arb comments below seem like speculation to me. Rather than guess what years are troublesome, why not look at ]? There's years of knowledge of how DS is actually used (minus the intimidation of templates) in that log - practically everything one needs not just for larger DS reform, but also to make evidence-based determinations in small requests like this.

At a skim, I see no page restrictions based inherently on 20th century politics. Too lazy to check the editor sanctions but I'm guessing same applies there. 1980s or even up to the Clinton era makes sense to me. It can always be changed back if this turns out to have been too restrictive. {{u|Guerillero}} was there a particular reason for 1932? The ] doesn't give much insight. ] (]) 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
:I disagree that this is a content decision, and if it were then the whole thing seems to fall outside AC’s remit. ] (]) 06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by SPECIFICO ===
I am not seeing any problem with 1932. If there is no disruption between 1932 and, say, 1960, then there will be no enforcement. So why take an arrow out of Admins' quiver for 1932-1960 in case it's ever needed? Bigger picture I am not convinced the current setup is worth the trouble in American Politics. Arbcom principles are basically WP policy that Admins can enforce regardless of DS. The page restrictions in AP add little or nothing.]] 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Katie, on 1933ff articles with no problem, I don't see that there are page restrictions or extra notices. For example, ]] 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Objective3000 ===
To get to this noticeboard and create this much discussion; seems to me that a serious problem with the current arbitrary date being any more problematic than a new arbitrary date need be detailed. And, with all due respect to DGG, I won’t believe that Jan. 20 will mark a milestone in ending the current political millstones until that occurs. ] (]) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Levivich ===
I'd support 1992 per Egg's data. "Anybody can edit"/"not a bureaucracy" should be the default position. Any restrictions on that should be only as broad as necessary. The data shows that before 1992 is not necessary, as there has only been one case prior to 1992, out of 248 total. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

----


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
It would be better for the committee to decide this here and now by motion than to take up the editor time required for an RFC. If the range of options are 1960, 1980, or 1992, I submit that it won't make a big difference which date the committee picks. If the community disagrees with the committee's decision, someone can start an RFC to overturn it. But if the committee picks a new date and everyone is fine with it, it'll save a bunch of editors a bunch of time. Setting the scope of DS is a core function that editors elect arbs to perform, so I don't think it's a stretch to say the community would trust Arbcom to change the AP2 start date without requiring an RFC. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
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 Calidum === === Statement by TarnishedPath ===
Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I think pushing it back to 1960 makes the most sense. Keeping it at 1960 rather than 1980 ensures that Vietnam and Watergate would remain under the scope, among other topics. 1980 would be the furthest I would go, because anything later would omit the Reagan years, which have always been a point of controversy. ] 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


=== Statement by Tryptofish === ===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. ] (]) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
We should be cautious about changing the date too much. It's important to consider that, just because recent editing history may show a narrower, more recent, focus to disputes, that doesn't mean that users won't find reasons to dispute about earlier history as events unfold in the near future. There is, in particular, the likelihood of disputes over whether or not Trump represents a short-term phenomenon, or whether he is the culmination of decades of political trends. Does it go back to Nixon's southern strategy? To the Red Scare? To Jim Crow? En-Wiki faces a particular challenge in that there is a significant political movement based upon deliberate falsification of reality. --] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:I'm seeing that Arbs are voting on the motions using language along the lines of using one year is OK in terms of particular political events or figures, but another year is not. Those are absolutely judgments about content, and not about the reported conduct of users, and is the wrong way to go about it. If that's the way the Committee is leaning, then you need to leave it to the community. --] (]) 23:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


=== Statement by Aquillion === === Statement by Aquillion ===
While I definitely think the date could be changed, I'd be cautious about relying exclusively on data about existing disruption or sanctions; one thing to worry about is that if the cut-off is too recent, users topic-banned or restricted in the AP2 area might just shift to disrupting articles somewhat earlier in the timeline. Also, having the restrictions be "intuitive" is absolutely valuable to both editors and administrators - they should be able to guess at a glance whether something falls under it. Based on this I strenuously oppose 1988, which is utterly arbitrary and has no special meaning or relevance to the topic area - if we're going to change the scope, 1980 is a much more significant date and will be far more intuitive. The restriction shouldn't be drastically broader than necessary, sure; but it should also be logical and shouldn't leave things outside its scope that are plainly connected in a single topic area. --] (]) 15:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be ''intuitive'', since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --] (]) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by Atsme===
ArbCom, grab the bull by the horns, and eliminate DS/AE altogether. It doesn't work - it opens the door to ], and there's really nothing that happens in a controversial topic area that an admin cannot handle normally to stop disruption. All DS/AE does is make it more difficult to reverse a bad judgment call - not saying all are bad judgment calls but I do believe POV creep is an issue. Let the admins do their job normally - if one of them misjudges, another admin will let them know and a compromise can be worked out less any wheel warring. Unilateral actions based on an admins sole discretion has created animosity, confusion, has cost us good editors, solves nothing, and wastes our time as we're seeing here now. That's my inflated nickel's worth, and yes, I'm biased because of what has happened to me. ] ] ] 19:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:*Responding to ping - I will certainly vouch for {{u|El C}} and add that from my perspective he is not a biased, hair-trigger admin. He applies common sense, exercises good judgment, and has done his best to comply with NPOV and BLP. I have seen him in action. I also disagree with Bishonen's characterization of {{u|CaptainEek}}. From my perspective, they did nothing "shameful", are not biased or overly critical. I appreciate their straightforwardness in calling a spade a spade. I am of the mind that we have a few admins who are much too close to the AP2 topic area, and may not even realize they are taking sides, or may inadvertently be subjecting themselves to POV creep. Having preconceived notions is not too unlike being prejudiced, and that is a problem ArbCom can resolve with this fresh new team, and one of the main reasons so many of us elected them to ArbCom. Perhaps a good place to start cleaning things up is with a bit of research to validate or debunk what was reported in and quite a few other articles online that have criticized our neutral position. I'm sure the community would appreciate a more focused ear on what {{u|DGG}}, and even {{u|Jimbo}}, has been saying over the past few years. Bottomline - this was merely a warning, and just look at the drama it created. It speaks volumes considering that so many other warnings go relatively unnoticed, and so do some unilateral, sole discretion imposed t-bans. ] ] ] 12:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Valereee ===
From Eggishorn's analysis, 1992 is the issue and almost nothing before that is causing a problem. I almost think it could be 2000 with only a very few concerns before that. And, wow. That is an amazing look at American politics. Someone needs to write a scholarly paper using that analysis. ] (]) 21:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:ETA: Would something like AP-25 work? American politics of the past 25 years? That way it maybe wouldn't need to be adjusted in future? ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} === === Statement by {other-editor} ===
Line 175: Line 66:


=== American politics 2: 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)
*just as a suggestion, perhaps it would be better to discuss this after Jan. 20? ''']''' (]) 06:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
*:With the holidays and new year and new Arbs incoming, I don' think we'll have reviewed this much sooner anyway. Technically, January 20th is not that relevant for articles about events 80 years ago but since this is a pretty active and sensitive area, I would recommend scheduling plenty of time for community comments anyway. Regards ]] 10:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes
*Any cut-off date of this kind is going to be at least a little bit arbitrary. I'd be interested in knowing whether the current 1932 date is causing any practical issues, e.g., are there people being sanctioned for disputed edits or edits being unnecessarily deterred covering the period from 1932 to, say, 1960? Off the top of my head I'd say the major flare-ups have concerned the politics and politicians of the past 20 years or so, but I'd welcome input from the AE admins and the editors active in the area. ] (]) 18:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
*Interstellarity, what is currently covered in that 1932–1944 time period that you think ought not to be covered by DS? I can see the potential argument for adjusting the time frame of the DS topic area, but I don't know if changing it that minimally is really worth the time. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 16:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
**] indef semi
*Looking at the examples given here of older topics covered under this DS area: ] is covered due to a ] of him being torn down in 2020, ] is covered due to a involving the Biden/Harris logo, and ] is covered due to ongoing involving his ]. I think it's fair to say that all three of these articles would still be covered regardless of the cut-off date for discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and instead we should be looking at trying to delineate politics from history. Perhaps the line separating the two could be drawn much closer to the present than is being proposed here. – ]] 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
:All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. ] (] &#124; ]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've always thought that setting a date from which DS would apply was more of a content decision that ArbCom normally makes. Further, the reasoning offered here by some editors (e.g. Beyond My Ken, SMcCandlish) about why it should be certain dates again reads to me more like a content decision making than behavioral determination. The reason why ArbCom does this is pretty obvious - ArbCom owns DS and DS is normally created in the middle of a case, so of course it needs to make a decision around the parameters. However, in this case ArbCom isn’t under the time pressure of a case. Therefore, I would be inclined to want to see a normal content resolution method, in this case an advisory RfC, to justify voting to change the years of DS or else more behavioral analysis (such as what is offered by Eggishorn) in order to support a change. Best, ] (]) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Eek: I think there's a good argument to be made that the onus on us is to limit the scope of extraordinary administrative powers (through DS) to the minimum necessary range and thus a good reason for the 1980 date suggested a couple times above (and also what {{u|Guerillero}} indicated to me was their original proposal). What, beyond what has been presented here by Interstallar and some others, would be a reason for you to re-evaluate the date? My answer is above but I'm curious what yours is because I am not clear. Best, ] (]) 04:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I want to publicly acknoweldge what {{u|Eggishorn}} has done here. The data he has collected is impressive on its own merits and very useful for me in my decision making process. Thank you to him. I remain open to an advisory RfC, as seems to have been supported by Worm, but I'm also open to just deciding it here if there is consensus among editors (and to be clear I'd want more comments made to be clear that's the case) and arbs generated by the data we now have. Best, ] (]) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*:::I'd be OK with 1992 given the data in front of us. I'll note that I went through the article restrictions and found a couple that would be outside the time we're talking about (] and ]) from the last 3 years but this on the whole does continue to support that disruption is from the last 30 years. Best, ] (]) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC) *My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ] (]) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like ] still have recurring issues. - ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*A few thoughts: I can see myself supporting a much more recent cutoff than 1932{{snd}}plausibly I could end up supporting something in the neighborhood of the 1980s. I don't know if it's really worth it to move it up to something like 1944; is there much actual benefit? I could also support an advisory RfC like Barkeep49 proposes, but I'm not sure I agree it's a "content decision". Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (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 would personally support a date such as 1945 (the end of WWII and the beginning of the current world order) or 1955 (the start of the Vietnam war). If the community would like it, absolutely, and an advisory RfC as Barkeep suggests would be a great idea. But I wonder if it is even necessary to revisit the date at this time. It was arbitrary to begin with, and anything we would come up with would also be somewhat arbitrary. I am not seeing a compelling reason that the 1932 cutoff is causing problems, and changing it will result in a lot of bureaucratic overhead. If the adjustment would be minor and have limited effects, I think our energy best be saved for a broader look at DS later this year. ] <sup>]</sup>] 04:49, 1 January 2021 (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)
*:BK: I can buy that the onus is on us to limit extraordinary powers, like DS, and am open to seeing the date move up. But I disagree with 1980 (Reagan's election), I think that remains too recent, and excludes much that remains a sorespot in the American political memory. I see that {{noping|power~enwiki}} and {{noping|SMcCandlish}} both mention 1960 (JFK's election), which I would accept more readily than 1980. I think the date should ''certainly not'' be sooner than 1980, as the Reagan years remain fiercely debated and form the foundation of the current political divide. ] <sup>]</sup>] 05:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
*The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
*::I greatly congratulate Eggishorn's analysis, thank you for the solid data, that has changed my mind. It seems apparent that we could choose 1992 or later and still be fine. ] <sup>]</sup>] 23:06, 1 January 2021 (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)
* Thanks, {{u|Eggishorn}}, for that data – most helpful. I understand the original 1932 date, FDR and New Deal and so on. It's certainly not causing any difficulty to anyone, since there are no sanctions being issued, but if we don't need it, we don't need it, and I don't like having unnecessary sanctions and their notice boxes and advisory requirements and so forth. I'd be willing to amend to 1980, but in no event should it be any sooner than 1992. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 13:54, 2 January 2021 (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)
* I'm on board with moving to a more modern date, limiting the DS area. That said, I'm not keen on the committee ''chosing'' the date, as it does seem to be a content issue. Therefore, I particularly like Barkeeps' suggestion of an advisory RfC, to get community thoughts (also thank you to the community members who have commented so far). ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
* I'm open to changing the date and I agree that "when did modern politics start?" is a content question, so an advisory RFC seems like a good idea but in the end, this Committee has to decide which date to set (but hopefully wiser after community input). Regards ]] 07:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*I'll echo SoWhy in endorsing an advisory RfC to help us make the final decision. --] (]) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
*Eggishorn makes a solid case for ''why'' we should move the date closer (and a potential starting point). The question of ''when'' is somewhat up for debate. On the one hand, I feel like any date we pick will be criticized (though I've seen some fairly compelling reasons for certain dates above). On the other hand, asking the community to decide would likely result in a hundred people all splitting their opinions between every year between 1932 and 2016 (i.e. at the moment I would ''not'' be in favour of some sort of advisory RfC).
:TLDR: I'm willing to be convinced either direction, but at the moment I'm a "yes" for changing the date and a "no" for a community RfC on it. ] (]) 20:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
*I've been meaning to comment here for days but got somewhat distracted by American Politics in real time. I do think we have a responsibility to keep sanctions as limited as is reasonable, and 1932-now is probably too wide a net for the scope of the issues. The idea of asking the community to decide for us does not sit well with me as I expect we would simply be extending the process and would still need to ultimately make the decision ourselves. The data is indeed compelling and interesting, but my gut says we'd be making a mistake by leaving the Reagan years out of it. ] (]) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


== Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal ==
==== Motion: American politics 2 (1988 cutoff) ====
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ivmbox|] of the ''American politics 2'' case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1988 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1988 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.}}

:''{{ACMajority|active=13|motion=yes|inactive=1}}''

; Support
#As proposer (with thanks to {{u|L235}} for drafting the language). ] (]) 00:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
#First choice given the data we've accumulated and Levivich's point about the value of editor time. Best, ] (]) 01:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
# First choice. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
# I don't think this is a critical change, because no one is being sanctioned, or deterred from editing for fear of being sanctioned, in the earlier years anyway. Per SoWhy below, I'd be fine with tweaking the date to 1980 or 1992 also. ] (]) 06:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

; Oppose
# I'm not sure whether any of the dates mentioned are "correct" but if this aims to encompass "modern" politics, it should either include Reagan (1980) or clearly not (1992). I would count ]'s presidency as an extension of Reagan's, considering he kept key policies and personnel in place, so 1988 seems a weird "cut" in this era to make. I still think a RFC would be helpful and I don't agree that not doing so will "save a bunch of editors a bunch of time". No one is forced to participate in such a RFC and if editors want to spend their time on such a discussion, it'll be their own choice. Regards ]] 19:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

; Abstain
#

; Discussion
*I think I'd be on board if this were 1980. I'll keep considering. --] (]) 14:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
**I'm also personally fine with a 1980 cutoff. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
**If we're going to make the decision ourselves I think we need to do it based on data regarding existing disruption. 1988 already provides a buffer against the data suggesting problems begin with Clinton (1992). So I could not support 1980 if we're doing this here. I could support it as a more traditional content decision but for that I'd want the RfC. Best, ] (]) 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

==== Motion: American politics 2 (RfC) ====
{{ivmbox|In ] of the ''American politics 2'' case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)"), the Arbitration Committee authorized standard discretionary sanctions for "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". The Committee is now considering amending the 1932 cutoff date, and invites the community to hold an advisory RfC regarding what change, if any, should be made to it.}}
; Support
#Second choice as I think my original idea that there are elements to content decisions so we should use content decision mechanisms still remains. Best, ] (]) 01:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
# Second choice. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
#Per above. Regards]] 19:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
#] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
#Since this is fundamentally a content question, I expect this will remain my first choice. --] (]) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

; Oppose
#I understand the concept, but a full-fledged, monthlong community RfC on this particular issue strikes me as overkill. If we feel we could use more input, a more direct approach would be to suspend the voting for a week, and announce on relevant noticeboards that we are considering this issue and would welcome community comments here. ] (]) 06:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

; Abstain
#
; Discussion
*This is an interesting idea, and I appreciate the thought behind it, but I have some concerns. One is that this is our responsibility. Whether we agree or not that the previous committee should have set a hard cutoff date, they did and therefore any change is ultimately our problem. More generally, I'm concerned that an RFC is just kicking the can down the road. If we don't get a very clear result we will just be back here in a month having the exact same discussion. I'm not at the point right now while I am outright opposing this idea but neither am I at the point where I would support it. ] (]) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
*:Same here, per my comment in the main section above. ] (]) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:] :]


; 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|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator) *{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)



; Information about amendment request ; Information about amendment request
*] *]
:*2022 changes
:*Relax restrictions.



=== Statement by Crouch, Swale === === 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)
Please replace my 1 article a week AFC submission with a particular number I can create per week, day or month etc.
:{{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)
*Tier 1, all topics such as BUAs and Domesday places that aren't higher.
*Tier 2, former civil parishes.
*Tier 3, current (and recently abolished) civil parishes (as well as Welsh communities and unparished areas) (around 500-600).
*Tier 4, settlement parishes (including those that are as such Welsh communities and unparished areas) (~60).

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Times
|-
! Tiers !! Tier 3 !! Tier 4
|-
| 6 months || ~3 a day || ~2 a week
|-
| 12 months || ~1.5 a day || ~1 a week
|}

I'm not specifying a specific number here since in my last appeal I was advised to "ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions" well I have attempted to do that at ] and although there is a consensus against a bot creating them (unless perhaps someone knows how to correctly program it) there it does seem like as long as the articles have meaningful content people are fine. Please specify how many of such articles I should be allowed to create per week, month or day etc.

Can I also have the appeal time modified back to 6 months please, namely so that I can appeal on 1 July.

Can I also be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages as long as I keep in mind ] and ].

I don't think the move restriction really needs to be removed given I can file as many ] or ] as I want if we do approve the ability to create directly as proposed a move exception should be to move pages from draftspace or userspace etc to mainspace in accordance with such creation limits. If we don't relax the creations restrictions significantly (say only a few a week) then I'd suggest allowing me to move pages as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least 7 days since although I can still do this now people might question if I'm not allowed to move them myself and have to use RMT for move requests I close. However if one of the tier 3 options (or similar) happens then I'd say that this would be unnecessary since I should be encouraged to focus on creating good articles rather than potentially rushing it in order to do other things.
*{{Ping|CaptainEek}} the appeal isn't that complicated its just that I have given multiple options and I'm wandering what one will be successful. ''']''' (]) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} ] and ] for (current) settlement parishes, ] for a non settlement CP and ] for a settlement that was a CP. ''']''' (]) 11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
*{{Ping|SoWhy}} I agree that the RFC isn't positive but as noted there doesn't seem to be consensus that they shouldn't be created at all just that they need decent content. Those examples given above do surely contain decent content. Why shouldn't these articles exist? Why can't England have a full house of its lower level units like many other countries do (I can't find any other than Wales that don't) and why should I be penalized due to my incompetence a decade ago? Yes I accept that English parishes don't have as much significance as some similar units in other countries but they clearly do still meet our inclusion guidelines. What is the problem with one of the lower options like 1 parish a week? Are there any other suggestions like allowing me ask an admin to "approve" articles I draft? Please just something? ''']''' (]) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|SoWhy}} Would a modification of (1) allow a set number or creation or all of them on the condition that there is consensus for it (this would be assessed by an arbitrator after the RFC) and/or (2) allowing me to ask (a specified set of users like AC members or admins) to "approve" an article meaning they can move it into mainspace or remove the redirect. The latter would give peace of mind to you about floods of poor quality articles and it would give peace of mind to in that I know I'm not going to get into trouble for such articles. The latter would work in the sense that would create an article in draftspace (or behind a redirect if a redirect has substantial history) and would go to the specified user(s) talk page and ask about the article and they could either (a) decline or (b) accept, if they accept they would either move the article to mainspace (or for a redirect remove the redirect) or say I can move it. ''']''' (]) 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|SoWhy}} In response to Iridescent's point I'd also note that its the civil parishes themselves not the councils that should be created, I specifically stated at the RFC that parish councils should ''not'' be created also ] said last year that parishes are significant and worthy of articles. ''']''' (]) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
*{{Ping|Worm That Turned}} Seriously? Even with the articles I have produced above? Are you really saying that dispute every effort to get things right you're just dismissing them all not being good enough? Really??? I thought this was supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit? I can't see ''any'' basis in policy etc for why these articles shouldn't exist. Is there really any point in me trying to do the right thing if all you are going to do is dismiss every attempt to do so? Every attempt to try to adjust by behaviour seems to have been dismissed and I feel I'm just wasting my time. No one else that I'm aware of has had to obtain consensus for creating a few hundred articles manually and no other country that I'm aware of has been required to obtain consensus for creating its lowest level units so why have ] here? If these articles already existed or I wasn't banned I have no doubt that no one would rush to delete/merge them or ban me from creating them? We should base things on the merits of the situation not on bad fortune of long past actions. I even had autopatrolled back in 2010 when I didn't even understand how that worked now that I have more understanding and I create much better articles I believe I could use that though I'm not asking for it now. If you're really not happy with me creating these myself why isn't the suggestion that I can draft them and ask you (or another admin etc) to approve them? ''']''' (]) 10:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Worm That Turned}} Thankyou for you're reply, I'm not convinced that if they existed they would be merged, a few probably would but most wouldn't also I still doubt that if I were creating the articles with meaningful content anyone would seriously question it. Regarding the last point this isn't really the case, I'm saying that I can ask you (or some other user(s)) to approve any number of articles. I'm not very keen on the AFC submission process and I though it was only temporary until the next appeal, as was noted 2 years ago AFC is backlogged and I think its babyish for an editor of my experience to use it, can I suggest if this appeal isn't successful that we just revoke the AFC submission access namely something like "The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined furthermore the ability to submit articles to AFC is also revoked". As far as I'm aware requests for loosening can only be made every 6 months (or year in my case) but a proposal to revoke could be made at anytime. ''']''' (]) 17:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Worm That Turned}} If you feel explicit consensus is required to create them then maybe something like "conditional decline" would be more appropriate for if I do gain consensus so that we don't need to wait until next year if I do later succeed in getting consensus. ''']''' (]) 17:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Worm That Turned}} regarding the other things if we agree to a 1 week creation then what about the other things like creating redirects and DAB pages and reducing the appeal time back to 6 months? And what about page moves for closing move requests, as I said above while I can technically close requests if I have to file a RMT to complete it people may wander. Given that I may also need to move drafts to mainspace in accordance with the creation rule would something alone the limes of "Crouch, Swale may only move pages (1) in his userspace, (2) as part of his 1 article a week rule or (3) as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least a week". Note for 2 I use "as part of" since if I am given page mover in the future I may need to move a redirect out of the way to make way for a draft. The 1st, moves in my userspace is already in place, the 2nd would probably be needed as part of the creation process anyway but any views on the 3rd since I have filed so many move requests do you agree it would be helpful for me to be involved in closing some? ''']''' (]) 18:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Worm That Turned}} Given this has remained quiet for a while are you going to propose a motion for the 1 creation a week or are you going to see if anyone has any other views? ''']''' (]) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
*{{Ping|Barkeep49}} By "revoke" I was meaning prohibit me to submit anymore (other than possibly any of my 1 a week that I haven't yet done). I couldn't really see myself editing happily in the future unless we find ways to deal with the missing parishes. I'm a bit unsure why WTT doesn't accept the proposal that I can ask someone like them to approve articles since that would mean the articles would only be approved at the agreement of someone like WTT so as long as the articles were acceptable who cares how many I create? But if the concern is frequency then allowing me to create 1 article a week directly would definitely be better. Obviously if we do find a way to create the parishes I'd still appeal my ban every 6 months or year but I'd be a lot happier and would be far less likely to push for anything. We probably need to ask how the articles can be created then? By bot? there seems to be a consensus against that with respect to technical (and also possibly quality) issues. By me directly? that's the main question here but it seems people aren't allowing that. By approval of an arbitrator (or similar) that's the latest proposal but WTT has rejected it. Another option I can think of is sorting the missing articles by county and users who are interested in general or in specific county could create some and county's Wikiprojects could be notified (or the county articles) to recruit editors, if we got 10 editors each would only need to create around 50 for this to be done and if we got 50 ediotrs each would only need to create around 10. ''']''' (]) 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*{{Ping|BDD}} Note that the ] is still open though the tag has been since it was started over a month ago (now 2 months, I hadn't noticed the tag had been removed!) so I'm not really sure what to do though I suppose I could continue discussing things there but it probably won't get any outside audience. As a side note my appeal wasn't a few hours early I was unblocked at 17:47 (even though it was enacted at 16:49 ]) 31.12.2017 and appealed a few hours late in July the next year because I was at an event and didn't want to cut that short for the sake of a few hours. My other appeals were at 17:48 at the end of December 2018, July 2019 and December 2019, in the last appeal I was told I had to wait until 1 January 2021. ''']''' (]) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


=== Statement by Thryduulf === === Statement by Thryduulf ===
Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Almost exactly a year ago I said (in part) {{tpq|This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place.}} Everyone is one year older and there have been many changes in the world since then, but I am still not seeing any evidence that Crouch, Swale understands ''why'' they were placed under these restrictions and no evidence they understand ''why'' previous appeals were declined. The request to be allowed to appeal every six months speaks volumes to this last point imo. So I recommend that this appeal is declined. ] (]) 02:08, 2 January 2021 (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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

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

=== Crouch, Swale: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*This appeal does not appear to have a glimmer of recognizance about why the restriction was placed, and contains nothing that would incline me to grant it. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
*I agree with Fuchs, and add that this appeal is so complex I think its enforcement and implementation would be a nightmare. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
*Having read through the RfC I don't see any consensus of the kind called for by the current restriction. I'm sympathetic to the frustration of having to operate under an edit restriction but the gulf between Crouch, Swale's desired kind of article and the community's receptivity to those kinds of articles seems to remain. As such this restriction still appears to be appropriate. ] (]) 21:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Crouch, Swale}} let's imagine that we agree to remove your AfC requirement (not saying we or even I will). Could you imagine yourself editing happily with your other restrictions for the indefinite future? By indefinite I don't mean 12 months. I mean 24, 48, 60, or more months. Best, ] (]) 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*::Crouch, Swale: I too am an editor in a ] topic area so I am generally of the "whatever floats your boat" disposition when it comes to how competent volunteers spend their time. Want to add categories to pages? Sure, go for it. Want to make sure dashes and emdashes are used correctly? Have fun. Want to sift through new articles as quality control? Hey me too. The problem here is that your enthusiasm for your particular niche area far outstrips the community's excitement for it. {{pb}}If you think of an excitement scale for new articles that goes from 10 (need to create this article right now) to -10 (need to delete this article right now) you're seemingly at a 10. The community's excitement level seems to be closer to a -1. If you were say at a 2 or a 3 about creating parish articles you could happily go along without anyone bothering you despite the mismatch; in fact that seems to be what the restrictions have done, throttle you back to the enthusiasm of someone who is at a 2 or 3. However, you're still a 10. For me the two options are either for you to find contentment with being at a 2 or a 3 or to find a new way to express your enthusiasm for this topic. I just don't see the community, in any near term time horizon, moving its tolerance level and so I, as an elected representative of the community, can't see myself supporting the kinds of changes you seem to be looking for. ] (]) 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*I've spent a little time re-acquainting myself with this situation and reviewing that RFC and I have to agree with what's already been said, the community doesn't seem to want this, and I find the request rather tone-deaf and not compelling. ] (]) 01:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
*I agree that the RfC consensus seems to be against creating rafts of "civil parish" articles, which as others have noted above, weighs strongly against this request. {{ping|Crouch, Swale}} bearing this in mind, can you point us to the three best articles you've created in the past year that typify the work you would like to do if the restriction were relaxed? ] (]) 02:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
* I'm awaiting more community input here, but at the moment I agree with David Fuchs. Discretionary sanctions aren't as complicated as the scheme proposed here. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 13:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
*Agreeing with David Fuchs here, I see nothing in this appeal that should lead us to a different conclusion than last year. If anything, in the RFC linked to users seem to largely agree that such articles should not be created. Regards ]] 14:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{re|Crouch, Swale}} Whether {{xt|"they clearly do still meet our inclusion guidelines"}} seems to be one of the points where people disagree with you. The RFC you started basically presupposes consensus in favor of such articles but in the last ARCA, it was pretty clear that "clearly" is not the right word to describe consensus wrt to these articles. As {{u|Iridescent}} for example wrote, {{xt|"there's no indication that anyone other than you has ever thought that separate articles for parish councils is a sensible idea"}}. So, before we can consider lifting any such restrictions, this content-related question needs to be addressed first and that is outside our purview. Imho, the correct way to address this would first be to establish consensus on all articles you wish to create (i.e. whether each subject is worthy of inclusion) and only if there is a consensus-approved list of articles that actually need to be created, we can discuss whether ''you'' should be the one creating them. Regards ]] 20:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
*Crouch, Swale approached me on my talk page - I told him it was a bad idea. I'll re-iterate that. The community's views do not match Crouch, Swale's views on creation of these articles. Crouch, Swale has been topic banned due to his actions in this area, and given the distance between the community views and his views - I have no doubt any relaxation of the topic ban will lead to an increase in problematic behaviour. I firmly '''decline''' this request. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Crouch, Swale}}, yes, seriously. We have relaxed your restrictions as far as I am comfortable doing so. Consistently, I have sought to make it clear that you that I would not be supporting you creating large numbers of articles on UK settlements. We have allowed you to create some at a significantly reduced rate, and I am glad you are using that sensibly - however it is still clear that the community does not agree that the large numbers of articles you want to create should exist. As to your arguments:
*:#{{xt|"I thought this was supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit"}}, I'm sure this point is rhetorical, but I will answer it anyway. Yes, anyone ''can'' edit, until they can't. In other words, this is an encyclopedia built by a social group - and if you cannot work with that social group, you can no longer edit. Which brings me to your next point.
*:#{{xt|"I can't see any basis in policy etc for why these articles shouldn't exist"}} - One of out top level policies is ]. The RfC you started showed a consensus that they probably shouldn't exist and that you shouldn't be judging whether they should.
*:#{{xt|"Is there really any point in me trying to do the right thing if all you are going to do is dismiss every attempt to do so? Every attempt to try to adjust by behaviour seems to have been dismissed and I feel I'm just wasting my time"}} I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hoped that allowing you free access to the majority of the encyclopedia as well as limited access to creating articles in the area you have a history of problematic behaviour would be sufficient. However, I go back to my point - "to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby"
*:#{{xt|"If these articles already existed or I wasn't banned I have no doubt that no one would rush to delete/merge them or ban me from creating them?"}} There, we disagree. Articles would be deleted ], and if you were mass creating against consensus, you would be banned. Similarly, I am looking at your appeal on it's current merits, and what I see is "your view does not match the community view" and therefore your appeal to mass create articles against the consensus should be declined
*:#{{xt|"If you're really not happy with me creating these myself why isn't the suggestion that I can draft them and ask you (or another admin etc) to approve them?"}} This is status quo (although not me, or an admin) at a throttled rate of ~50 articles per year, that you may create articles that can be reviewed and submitted.
*:I hope this clarifies things for you Crouch, Swale, but I do not intend to go round in circles, when we have had very similar discussions in the past. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*::I'd like to hear the views of the community and other arbs, but I could accept removing the AFC requirement, as long as the throttle of 1 per week remains. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{u|Crouch, Swale}} you still seem to be missing the point - you have pre-supposed that the articles should be all created, which goes against existing consensus and are unwilling to listen to the many editors telling you that they should not be. No single editor should be forced to check your contributions, especially if you were mass creating articles against consensus. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 13:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*I am open to removing the AfC requirement without changing the throttle level. Crouch, Swale has demonstrated that he can make quality articles in this area. But that RfC is extremely recent, and should have made him think again before requesting a lifting of restrictions the moment he was allowed to do so again <s>(it looks like he was even a few hours early)</s>. Here's my advice to you, Crouch, Swale: impress us. Continue to make quality articles within your restrictions. And take a step back. Understand why the restrictions are in place, why the recent RfC was met with skepticism. I'm not saying I'd automatically decline if you ask again as soon as you're able, but strongly consider not doing so. Let the merits of your editing convince us and the community that lifting the restrictions will be in the encyclopedia's best interests. I genuinely hope you're able to do so. --] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*:@], thank you for the clarification, but the RfC still being technically open just reinforces what I said. In terms of "a few hours early", I was just referring to the most recent appeal and the requirement to wait for 1 January 2021. I could've sworn I saw an earlier timestamp above, but it's possible I was looking at something else. Again, basic point still stands. --] (]) 19:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*I would decline both requests. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Eastern Europe ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Eastern Europe}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|EvergreenFir}} (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. -->


=== Statement by EvergreenFir ===
Does the scope of the discretionary sanctions promulgated by ] or original case include ]? I ask because I recently have noticed an increase in complaints around nationalist editing for and against Turkey, as well as disruptive editing around Turkey and Armenia. Examples include:
*]
*{{diff2|983160102}}
*]
*]
*]

] says the part of Turkey is in Eastern Europe, but only a small portion. ] ] 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Further clarification: If Turkey is included, then would ] be included as well? This is another area full of disruption. The article describes the Uyghurs as a "Turkic ethnic group". ] ] 20:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarification! ] ] 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by MJL ===
The ] of ] were put in place, per ], to deal with cases of ethnic conflicts similarly related to the one of Armenia/Azerbaijan. This would likely include the conflict between Armenia and Turkey, but I can't imagine it would be so permissive to include ''just'' Turkey (and certainly not the Uyghurs). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ymblanter (Eastern Europe)===
I am sure the EE discretionary sanctions do not include Turkey-Armenia relations. They are rooted in ], and Turkey has never been an issue there. On the other hand, recently the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in ] intensified in real life, because Azerbaijan took an offensive against this Armenia-held area with the support of Turkey, and was able to regain control over a considerable part of it (with Armenians being evacuated). This caused escalation of Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes all over the internet, including Misplaced Pages. The reason that Turkey-Armenia issues escalated are in this conflict, and it would be reasonable to add them to the Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions. Furthermore, if we are talking about Turkey-Syria issues, these are neither Eastern Europe nor Armenia-Azerbaijan. They are currently covered by general sanctions, and I believe upgrading them to DS could be a good idea but it would require a full case and can not be done as clarification.--] (]) 10:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
: Uyghurs live in China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, I do not see them being relevant for the EE DS however broadly we interpret them.--] (]) 10:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

=== Eastern Europe: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* ''Procedural comment:'' {{re|Worm That Turned}} One of the forgotten about tools in your toolbox is the review case. I think the last time the committee used it was R&I, but it is an option --] <sup>]</sup> 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{re|Worm That Turned}} I'm just stating options, not advocating for one course of action :P --] <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*I don't believe the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions have ever included Turkey. However, note that there is a separate DS authorization for Armenia and Azerbaijan. ] (]) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
*I agree with NYB and think that if we're going to expand a DS to include Turkey, would be a better candidate. If folks think its warranted, I would also be a fan of just passing a separate Turkey DS by motion, but I'd like feedback to know the extent of the problem so we have a good idea what the scope should be. I find including Uyghurs under either to be...a stretch. Sure there are a few Uyghurs in Turkey, but it is mostly a China issue. The "related ethnic conflict" wording of A&A2 is broad, but I think not broad enough to include Uyghurs. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
*A&A2 did include Turkey for some editors, however I feel loathed to just stick in DS for the area, without giving it a review - A&A2 was in 2008 and hasn't been modified since 2013 - alternatively a fresh case might be an option. I agree with the above arbs that Eastern Europe would not be the best case to link to. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Guerillero}} ''shudder'', do we want to open that box? Pandora seems to be holding it. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*Agreed, Turkey is not included in the Eastern Europe case. I would really like to leave it at that... but it's hard to see how "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" won't ensnare a fair amount of Turkey. Still, the 2013 A&A amendment did ''not'' add "Turkey, broadly interpreted", much less "Turkic peoples, broadly interpreted". --] (]) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
* Agree that EE does not include Turkey. If there are problems that need review and which are outside the A&A scope, it would probably need a full case. Regards ]] 07:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*I think WTT's statement reflect my thinking well on this matter. Best, ] (]) 16:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=999183166#Mandruss

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
*{{admin|Awilley}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Objective3000}}
*{{userlinks|El_C}}

; 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
*
:*Remove the warning to Objective3000 (leaving only a warning for Mandruss)


=== Statement by Awilley ===
This incident is so inconsequential that normally I would ignore it, but as one of the parties has found it unfair enough to retire and the other has explicitly welcomed Committee oversight here I am. Both editors are people I respect who were acting in good faith, so I hope this can be resolved quickly and without any hard feelings or extra drama.

At issue is at WP:AE addressing Mandruss and the editor who filed the AE. Mandruss had been taken to AE for reverting the same content twice in 24 hrs and declining (on user talk) to self-revert. After Objective's comment, Mandruss and Objective3000 . (For what it's worth Mandruss was reverting content that had been recently added to the Lead that didn't have consensus on the talk page. )

El_C saw this as tag-team editing to circumvent a sanction and logged a warning for Objective3000 to that effect over my objections. I think Objective did a Good Thing in trying to resolve the problem in the most efficient way possible, and doesn't deserve a logged warning for that. Also note that the edit restriction on the article does not prohibit Objective3000, who had not made any other edits to that article in the preceding week, from reverting a revert, so O3000 did not violate any sanction or policy. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|CaptainEek}} With respect, I think you're on target with the basic principles of preventing disruption, but I think you got it backwards on whether Objective3000's edit was disruptive.
:*Editor A added contentious ("attempted ]") material to the Lead of a highly visible BLP.
:*Mandruss reverted it with a detailed edit summary.
:*Editor B re-added much of the same material without providing any justification in their edit summary.
:*Mandruss reverts again (violation) then self-reverts (back to no violation)
:*Objective3000 reverts, restoring the status quo ante. (no violation)
:So yeah, that's technically tag-teaming, but is it disruptive? What's the alternative? Leave the contested material in the article until a consensus eventually forms to remove it? That's backwards. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Objective3000 ===
As the Eagles sang: “You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave" I was disappointed to see {{yo|CaptainEek}} and {{yo|power~enwiki}} say I {{tq|threw a fit}} and made a {{tq|threat of retirement}}. I made no threat and had no fit. I simply put a retired template on my UTP and archived the rest so folks would know not to post. I made no suggestion of retirement in advance and no statement of my reasons. That is, no parting shot. I also decided not to file an appeal. Can’t one even quietly retire without nasty comments? I am also disappointed that {{yo|Levivich}} would point to a year-old AE discussion claiming it was prior evidence of me tag-teaming. In fact, SashiRolls made a fallacious claim that five editors were tag-teaming and the result was an indef AP2 TBan for SashiRolls. Attacks against DS editors are extremely common, as can be seen by perusing the drama boards.

Now, as to the situation. DS articles absolutely must have additional restrictions. They are inundated with five-minute old, undigested news (as was the case here), fringe theories, vandalism, and white supremacists, et. al. from the Reddit site de jour spreading hate. But, these restrictions create a very difficult editing environment. Witness the resulting AP2 editor attrition from sanctions ]. When six new editors appear from an off-Wiki site pushing the same POV (real tag-teaming), editors run up against 1RR very quickly. It is commonplace for an editor to request another editor make a revert to avoid a 1RR sanction. It is common to suggest a self-rvt after an accidental or iffy edit and then re-revert. I have even seen admins request reverts from other editors. (Most admins are smart enough to avoid DS articles entirely.) Further, DS rules differ by page and keep changing. That’s not a complaint. It’s a necessity.

I’ve talked to the problem. I don’t know the solution. I would suggest that RECENTISM in some form become a guideline instead of an essay. In this case, repeated attempts were made to add contentious “breaking news” to the lead of a highly viewed BLP with no consensus and no corresponding text in the body. The edit I reverted included the words insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism in a BLP about some guy named Donald. Personally, I agree with the words – but strongly believe this requires ATP discussion and some time to pass. Frankly, this was verging on a vandalism exception, which I think should nullify Mandruss’ warning. My attempt was to deescalate a situation, guide discussion to the ATP, and remove the BLP problem as quickly as possible. We must have a way to stop news from ending up in a BLP that is so new the ink is still wet.

As my retirement has been mentioned, I must say that my retirement was triggered by the sanction as a vague, logged warning along such lines makes editing in DS areas untenable. However, I also need the time IRL. So, reversal of the warning does not mean return. Not that my minor efforts matter to the project. But, I had a totally clean 13 year record, despite spending most of my time in highly controversial articles sprinkled with land mines (which usually results in acquiring some less than friendly coworkers) and would like that record back. I also think such sanctions have a chilling effect not helpful to the DS editing environment. We already walk on egg shells. Let us not weaponize them.

I would like to thank the three admins and Mandruss who have spoken out in my favor here, and apologize for the length. ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{yo|Wikieditor19920}} I say, get a rope.
:{{yo|Black Kite}} Yeah, it is ironic that my only sanction is for removing highly negative text about a man I’ve strongly disliked for a quarter of a century. Then again, I’ve removed dozens of negatives edits about him on various articles. ] (]) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Incidentally, there have been 73 edits to that article since Mandruss and I reverted -- and no one has restored it or added any text like it that I can find. We must have the ability to quickly deal with contentious, highly viewed, negative BLP material -- even if the article is about Mussolini (assuming he's still dead). I still believe that NPOV is paramount, particularly in BLPs. Guess I'm old-fashioned. ] (]) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by El_C ===
After {{u|Mandruss}} explicitly refused to self-revert, {{u|Objective3000}} proposed to them to Mandruss then self-reverted (), followed by Objective3000 reverting back a mere 2 minutes later (). Needless to say, I consider that to be inappropriate, enough to deem noting it in the log to be worthwhile. Note that my log entry () noted Awilley's objection (which, honestly, I still don't really understand) as well as there being mitigating circumstances of an extraordinary nature (pertaining to the ]). Finally, my AE report closure (), which reiterated all of that, also praised both Mandruss and Objective3000 for their long-term high-quality work at the AP2 topic area. I don't at all mind giving this particular violation a pass (makes sense), but to conclude that it wasn't actually a violation, that I cannot abide. Beyond all of that, I was sorry and quite shocked to learn that Objective3000 has retired over this. That's a serious loss to the project. My closing summary at the AE report stressed that I didn't intend for the warning to serve as a "blemish" on their "record," but I guess that wasn't enough. ] 02:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:{{u|Mandruss}}, even though I understand the impetus, I don't really appreciate the snark. Anyway, Awilley was the only admin to have objected, there was no ''admins'' (plural) who did. And, as much as I tried to understand his objection, it just didn't make sense to me, so I acted. Now the matter is before the Committee, which is fine. As for your repeated objections to me having cited the ] essay — again, I don't understand how that is of import. As mentioned, I made use of discretionary sanctions to interpret there to have been a ] violation, which I never argued was intentionally underhanded. But leaving both you and Objective3000 (yes, and Awilley) somehow assured that no violation has taken place, without consequence, thereby leaving open the possibility of it having repeated at some point in the future — that is a problem, I challenge. Enough for me to act unilaterally. As for it constituting a "blemish" on their record — all Objective3000 would have to do if someone were to try to use it against them would be to quote me saying that it ''wasn't'' intended as such. Which is why I said it, in the 1st place. ] 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|Johnuniq}}, I would not have felt it worthwhile to register a warning in the log (because it is, indeed, otherwise trivial) had it not been for both Mandruss and Objective3000 insisting that no violation had taken place. That is the crux of the matter here. My position is that concluding the AE report in such a way would have been problematic. ] 03:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|Newyorkbrad}}, not at all. Maybe I'm failing to articulate this well enough, so I'll give it another go: it just didn't feel like I had much of a choice at the time. Despite the (admittedly) good faith intent behind the action and despite the ample discussion that followed soon thereafter, I was unable to conceive how else to meaningfully express to both Mandruss and Objective3000 that proposing that one self-reverts so that the other could in turn revert back was inappropriate. They were both adamant that it was perfectly fine. And so, my thinking was that if the AE report were to be closed without emphasizing this being otherwise, then what would stop it from repeating in the future?

:::As your colleague {{u|CaptainEek}} noted in their opening sentence: {{tq|it is rare that we actually see tag teaming, but this seems a pretty clear case of it}}. Now, if other Committee members end up subscribing instead to your interpretation of it being only a {{tq|debatable alleged violation}}, well, that would surprise me, but I will of course respect that finding. In a pragmatic sense, it would actually probably be better for the project if the Committee were to recommend for me to rescind the warnings, notwithstanding that I'd still consider that to be a logic and policy fail. Because then, Objective3000 may come out of retirement and Mandruss may end their wikibreak early. Which, hey, to me that's better than some abstract notion of principles.

:::Honestly, the level of vehemence and dismay brought by the warnings took me by surprise. I did not at all see it coming. I thought I was able to draft these gently enough so as to alleviate any serious discord. Obviously not. And, let's face it, the chances that either of them would do anything of the sort ever again seems especially remote now. So, as much as I might go on about the poor example that it would have set, such a thing seems to happen so rarely among established editors, maybe it would be for the best if I were prompted to backtrack. That having been said, in the realm of logic and policy interpretation, I still don't believe I was in error. ] 08:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::::On the matter of this appeal being out of process, perhaps it's worth noting that, for my part, this is <u>not</u> a problem for me. As, perhaps, the most active admin on the AE front in the last few years (which I believe the ] and ] bear out), I not only welcome Committee scrutiny, I welcome ''extra'' Committee scrutiny. To me, that is an essential component of the overall ] imperative. ] 18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}{{u|SPECIFICO}}, there is <u>no</u> "animus" between myself an {{u|Awilley}}. We may often disagree on enforcement policy matters, but always in a cordial and professional way. Not once has it been otherwise. It is no secret that I consider his ] (wow, it took me so long to locate that user subpage!) to be inferior to the ]. And that him going on to supplant CR with EBRD on multiple ''key'' AP2 pages was in error and likely lacked the consensus for such a key change. Now, I don't want to put Awilley on the spot, but as I noted to him yesterday, part of the problem here followed from his half-hazard and inconsistent and novel construction and application of Committee-authorized sanctions. I'll quote from what I told him yesterday on my talk page: {{tq|I think PackMecEng's observation pretty much nails it, Awilley. Beyond that, I echo what others have argued before: that you tend to overrely on sanction customization, which, at times, appears to be somewhat esoteric in nature and unclear, or otherwise less than consistent}} (). I vaguely remember, for example, a custom "no personal comments" sanction of his running into difficulties, I think because other admins couldn't figure out how to correctly enforce it. And don't get me wrong, I've indulged in some spectacular failures of custom AE sanctions. But the point is that I moved on from that (for years and years). Finally, on the whole CR versus EBRD matter, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that, while I had authored the WP:CRP supplementary page as a point of reference (at the request of {{noping|Coffee}}), I was never involved in the formulation of it as a sanction. I actually don't even know how it came about, so if anyone does, please enlighten me. Now, imagine if the Committee was, somehow, prompted to take a close look into the whole CR versus EBRD realm of sanctions that it, itself, authorizes? Ooh, what do you say, incoming Committee? ''Kitty nudge?''{{kitty}} ] 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:{{u|Wikieditor19920}}, it's unfortunate that you attribute favoritism to me without basis, because it's just plainly untrue. I, at least, would have acted ''exactly'' the same way had it been, say, {{u|MONGO}} and {{u|Atsme}}, instead of Mandruss and Objective3000. Which I'm pretty sure both MONGO and Atsme would vouch for (sorry for imposing, you two). ] 22:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|Bishonen}}, in fairness, the log entry does provide a permanent link to my AE report closure which features me saying that. But point taken. ] 23:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by power~enwiki ===

This was extremely blatant tag-team editing, and I don't think a threat of retirement is a good reason to revoke the justified note they were "cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions". ] (], ]) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mandruss ===
I fail to see how such a warning could be NOT a blemish on one's record. But who knows, here where up is down, yellow is purple, and a lone admin can issue a logged warning against serious opposition from both admins and non, while citing nothing written but an obscure essay. I'm not smart enough to understand this. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


I think a good unwritten rule would be: When an editor has established a long history of conscientious good faith behavior, they have earned the benefit of the doubt and should not receive a sanction for a good faith mistake. Not even a logged warning. Such contributors should not be victims of the crazy, convoluted body of scattered, incohesive rules that our revered system of crowdsourced self-governance created and has proven utterly incapable of addressing. Sanctions should be reserved for bad faith, since they affect the editor's reputation and may contribute to future sanctions in a sort of snowball effect. This should be intuitive to any experienced editor possessing any sense of fairness.

A logged warning clearly implies fault, and there is no fault in a human mistake. A logged warning should not be a mechanism for clarification, as it has been used by El_C in this case. If the rules prevented El_C from filing an ARCA request, the rules seriously need changing. If ARCA had provided clarification for future reference without implying fault on O3000's part, I don't think he would have retired.

The appropriate action at this stage is:
* remove the warning{{snd}}today
* post an apology to O3000 at their UTP (unimportant who does this, as long as they speak for ArbCom)
* proceed with clarification
* change the rules so that any editor may file a request for clarification
&#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

{{ping|Jeppiz}} Oh boy.
*{{tq|Mandruss had started to feel 'above the law'}} Unsupported by evidence or other editors (except perhaps Tataral, and he hasn't said that).
*{{tq|I had notified Mandruss about improper talk page behaviour}} You took a remarkably one-sided view of that little hatting skirmish. SPECIFICO was equally at fault there, and he acted first, but you "notified" only me. I've given this some thought and concluded that my recent well-founded public criticism of you likely earned me a place on your shit list that caused you to read that situation in SPECIFICO's favor, giving him a pass. When I correctly informed you about your misuse of a warning template, I expect that only moved me higher on your list and exacerbated the situation. I must be more careful about whose toes I correctly step on. Happy to discuss that with you at my UTP, but I don't think this is the time or place to dissect that "incident" further.
*{{tq|going against discretionary sanctions just because they felt they could}} - Clear misrepresentation, again calling into question your overall objectivity in the matter. I "went against discretionary sanctions" because I didn't understand how they applied in that case, and I think I've made this abundantly clear. I did not consciously go against discretionary sanctions, nor would I. Nobody is more careful about following the rules, and I make a concerted effort to understand them.
*{{tq|ignoring two different users' appeal to self-revert}} Right, neither of whom cited the passage from ] that El_C quoted in the AE complaint. Editors often get such "appeal to self-revert" wrong. I looked at the both the content of the criticisms and the usernames of the editors making them, and I made a judgment call that I was more likely right than wrong, which turned out to be incorrect, and I decided to send this to AE. I did not "dare" you to go to AE. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that ultimately turning out to be wrong does not prove bad faith, and Mandruss's bad faith is how you have spun this entire episode.
*{{tq|the impression of feeling that normal rules don't apply to them}} All things considered, an entirely unjustified and unfair assessment in my opinion.
*{{tq|(I recognize in good faith that Mandruss may only be talking about Objective3000, not themselves)}} - Exactly, and that's crystal clear given that I requested a removal of O3000's warning, not mine.
I don't get how you felt it was appropriate to use this ARCA request about O3000's warning to take further swipes at me. I appreciate the compliments sprinkled throughout your distortions and unfounded criticisms, but that doesn't excuse them in my view. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

{{u|SPECIFICO}} commented about Awilley: {{tq|...and given Awilley's history of supervoting in various venues and with respect to various colleagues, I just think the appearance is obvious to those familiar with his history.}} I can't let that go without comment. First, I'm "familiar with his history" and do not share SPECIFICO's view. And SPECIFICO has a habit of asserting widespread support for his views and presuming to speak for others to bolster his arguments. I have asked him on at least three separate occasions, spanning perhaps three years, to speak only for himself. I would ask him to modify his comment accordingly; if he declines to do so, I trust that readers will take that part of his comment for what it is. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Johnuniq ===
I had commented at the WP:AE case as an uninvolved admin and had made clear my distaste for the request for a sanction. El_C was technically correct but it is very undesirable to sanction people (yes, a logged warning is a sanction) when the incident is trivial and involves an issue where they are right. Their opponents managed to press the right buttons but they were blatantly wrong regarding what should happen in the article (they were padding the lead with not-news violations, no analysis by secondary sources, and nothing in the body of the article). Objective3000 made an honest statement (that Mandruss should self-revert to remove the technical problem so Objective3000 could repeat their edit)—that reflects how all topics under discretionary sanctions are handled. The rules of the game are known by all the participants and Objective3000's only mistake was to speak out loud. Furthermore, Objective3000 made a comment about their ''intentions'' whereas the issue (tag teaming) had already been implemented by their opponents—opponent 1 had inserted the padding; Mandruss reverted it; opponent 2 repeated the first edit after cutting out some of the excess. ] (]) 03:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by Beyond My Ken===
Q: Does Awilley actually have standing to file this amendment request? I thought that third-party appeals were not allowed. ] (]) 05:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:*Just want to be clear that I'm not taking sides in this, as I haven't examined the situation is any great detail. I will say, however, that I am '''''not''''' at all in favor of DS being deprecated, as some commenters here are urging. I think they are a valuable tool that allows the wheels to keep turning, and that Misplaced Pages would become even more of a quagmire than it already sometimes is if they were gone. ] (]) 22:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by ProcrastinatingReader ===
This ARCA seems to be out of process? ]: {{tq|Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction.}}
:It is amusing that this discussion happens so frequently, and every time IAR is cited. IAR is useful in exceptional circumstances, but this isn’t exceptional, it’s fairly standard I think. What’s the point in a rule - one, I might add, I don’t personally think is a good one - if nobody wants to follow it? It should be scrapped. ] (]) 10:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Levivich (O3000) ===

This is not a new issue. A little less than a year ago, O3000's "tag teaming" with other editors (not Mandruss) was raised in an AE report (against another editor: ], see, e.g., my statement and {{u|Pudeo}}'s and also discussion on Pudeo's talk page at ]). (I believe there were other related discussions but I don't remember where they are.) It was clear to me from those discussions that O3000 and others did not believe that planned or coordinated reverting (I'm not sure how else to phrase it) was tag team editing or a policy violation. I think O3000 left those discussions with the belief that his understanding of policy w/r/t "tag teaming" was correct—a reasonable belief given that nobody was sanctioned for it. I think this might help explain why O3000 would think there was nothing wrong with his actions and why he's taking this so hard.

So, although this does appear to be a third-party appeal, it might help prevent this sort of misunderstanding from happening in the future if Arbcom, or somebody, clarified "tag teaming" and edit warring policy, e.g. whether "self-revert and I'll revert" is OK or not. I'll also echo that O3000 wasn't the only editor who repeated another editor's edits: there is also the editor who reinstated a reverted bold edit. I think it's also an open question whether reinstating-after-revert is "tag teaming" (even when there isn't explicit on-wiki coordination).

These questions matter for any page under 1RR (and frankly are unevenly enforced by admins), so Arbcom could help by clarifying what is and is not "tag teaming" at least for DS 1RR restrictions. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 09:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:{{yo|Objective3000}} I didn't claim it was prior evidence of you tag-teaming. Quite the opposite, in fact: {{tqq|I think O3000 left those discussions with the belief that his understanding of policy w/r/t "tag teaming" was correct—a reasonable belief given that nobody was sanctioned for it.}} ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by MONGO ===

Evidence presented seems to clearly indicate that this was tag teaming on one of our most viewed pages, a BLP to boot and the warning applied was not only of the most gentle of ones, but also one of the most necessary, considering the BLP in question in particular.--] (]) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jeppiz ===
As the editor who made the original enforcement request, I wish to acknowledge both ] and ] for their thoughtful contributions. I felt El C made a balanced call in issuing a warning but no block to ] and ]. I also think Awilley has made a balanced request that the warning stays for Mandruss but it dropped for Objective3000. It's not for me to comment on that decision. My concern when filing the request was that Mandruss had started to feel 'above the law', I wish to emphasize that Mandruss has made a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages and I wish they continue their good work. However, my request wasn't based on a single incident. The day before the policy violation, I had notified Mandruss about improper talk page behaviour for (admittedly) hatting a talk page comment by a third user just because a ''different'' user had hatted theirs; I hoped a UTP discussion would be enough.<br> The day after, when Mandruss ignored the discretionary sanctions, I again took it to their talk page, as did a third user. Mandruss themselves more or less challenged us to go to AE (''"I am not going to self-revert. With great difficulty I have stopped short of 3RR vio. If you wish to file at AE, do as you must. One of us would learn something, and learning is never a bad thing."'') . This combination of hatting a third user just because they felt they could, going against discretionary sanctions just because they felt they could, ignoring two different users' appeal to self-revert and even daring us to go to AE combined to give the impression of feeling that normal rules don't apply to them. When I see Mandruss arguing here (I recognize in good faith that Mandruss may only be talking about Objective3000, not themselves) "''When an editor has established a long history of conscientious good faith behaviour, they have earned the benefit of the doubt and should not receive a sanction for a good faith mistake. Not even a logged warning.''", I see the same problem that led me to file the request, the belief that 'some editors are more equal than others'.<br> Mandruss is a diligent editor whose net contribution is overwhelmingly positive; I hope that they stay. On a general level, I don't believe in special treatment and think the policy Mandruss suggests of letting more experienced editors off for the same behaviour that newcomers would be punished for would set a bad precedent with wider implications than this case. ] (]) 16:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mandruss}} For a short reply to your post, I'm happy to say you're mistaken. You're not on my "shit-list", nor do I have one. Your warning to me in November was correct, and I didn't take it badly at all. Quite the contrary, I took a little voluntary time-out. You were entirely right. So no, there is nothing personal here, not against you and not against Objective3000 (with whom I don't recall ever having interacted before). I've already stated I consider you a valuable and constructive editor. I do feel your interactions the last couple of days, including the latest, to be less than ideal. That is not a personal criticism (everyone has up and downs) but perhaps you might consider what I wrote and whether there might some relevance in it. Have a nice day. ] (]) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}}, what has been proposed is to vacate the warning for Objective3000 and to leave the one for Mandruss. Discussion here has focused on whether the tag-teaming also merited a warning, as that was the reason Objective3000 was warned. As for Mandruss, there is also the issue of the original enforcement request for both breaking discretionary sanctions and repeatedly refusing to self-revert when called upon to do so. Presumably this is why the proposal was to vacate the warning for Objective3000 and leave the one for Mandruss. ] (]) 10:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by SPECIFICO ===
There have been many discussions in scattered venues about the need to reevaluate and reform DS and enforcement in American Politics. A tiny fraction of our Admin corps volunteer their time and attention and emotional involvement to the effort. The burden on them, including the ones involved in this case, is beyond what anyone could reasonably be expected to fulfil in a consistent and effective manner. So along with lots of good work, we also have inconsistencies, errors, and omissions.
As has been acknowledged, this appeal is out of process. That's not a good thing except in an urgent situation unlike this one. I hope and expect that Arbcom will address the growing concern about DS and enforcement in general by initiating an orderly and systematic review and a discussion of its options to improve the entire system.
The nature of DS is that it's discretionary. El C, as one of the most active volunteers in the area, makes lots of good faith judgments nearly continually, and I see nothing to be gained by validating Awilley's second guess of an action that was clearly within El C's authority. For the avoidance of doubt, if Mandruss had done the right thing and self-reverted when asked, there were several editors, including myself, who (without any prompting) would have independently removed the offending content. Despite that, to repeat, this "appeal" is out of process and should be declined. It's further complicated by Awilley's possibly animus toward El C, who was one of the Admins and experienced editors who opposed Awilley's unilateral replacement of "consensus required" with his bespoke "24-hour BRD" sanction. Not to accuse Awilley of such motivation, but the background should have been disclosed in this filing.]] 17:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|El C}} I do not think anyone would suggest that you resent Awilley's actions. The ''appearance'' of animus would be in the other direction only. It is more than unusual to ask Arbcom to overturn so routine a discretionary action, and given Awilley's history of supervoting in various venues and with respect to various colleagues, I just think the ''appearance'' is obvious to those familiar with his history. Best practices is to avoid any such possible appearance -- and again, the ARCA request can be considered solely on its merits. Thanks for your note. I have never seen you personalize or improperly involve yourself in any Admin action.]] 19:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by Atsme===
Warnings are minimal, not a biggy to sweat over. Regardless, this case exemplifies why ArbCom needs to revoke DS/AE. I'm not here to criticize any of the actions taken by individual admins or arbs; rather, I would like for ArbCom to look closer at the DS/AE monster that we've had to deal with in recent years. If behavioral disruption was the only issue, a simple admin action would have resolved the problem. If another admin felt the remedy was too severe or undeserved, then a discussion between the two would have likely led to a compromise instead of wasting valuable time here making this into a complicated case. I'm also not taking a position relative to any of the named editors in this case. I admit that I am biased against DS/AE because of what I perceive to be abuse/] and what has happened to me - not that it has happened in this case. Houston, we have a problem. ] ] ] 17:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Wikieditor19920 ===

It's baffling that this is even up for re-discussion. The on-Wiki communications between the two editors and reversions in tandem were specifically meant to do a technical end run around ] limits on reversions. Had any other user engaged in this behavior, it would've led to a sanction, but favoritism and bias lead not only to a ridiculously soft warning at ], but admins actively trying to overturn ''even that'' empty warning. The standards for conduct on Misplaced Pages are slipping towards being entirely meaningless for a small circle of editors, including Objective3000 and Mandruss, who've been editing for a sufficient period of time are friendly with the right parties. These political games and bending of the rules are what turns people away from the site. ] (]) 21:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:Quite a "nice" comment from {{re|Bishonen}}, who's totally ignored whether or not the warning was justified in light of the evidence and simply attacked any editor critical of O3000. {{u|Black Kite}}'s comment about only "conservative editors" having a problem with blatant tagteaming is equally ridiculous.
:I've seen this exact same behavior of repeatedly reverting without accounting for objections from Objective3000 at other AP-32 articles, as with Mandruss at the ] article with regard to changes to the lead. To frame this open coordination in skirting 1RR as an aberration does not ring true, and the excuses being touted ("he's a great editor anyway!" "He was 'right' on the content issue!" "The only editors who have a problem with what he did have an agenda!" "He made the violation in good faith!") are embarrassingly thin. Why is it being assumed that Objective3000 was correct on the content issue? Where was the consensus to establish as much?
:If any newbie editor or someone perceived as "wrong" made those excuses, they'd be laughed out of the room. But as I pointed out, this kind of stuff is too often swept under the rug for certain editors. El_C at least tried to be objective and strike a balance in the "warning," which included far too many qualifications IMO, but Awilley is refusing to even acknowledge the violation and is acting more like an advocate rather than a neutral party. ] (]) 13:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rhododendrites ===
Against my better judgment, I'm editing ARCA for the first time, not because I have a strong opinion about this particular case but because I've been thinking about sock/meat puppetry a lot lately and find the way our ] policy is being interpreted here curious.

My understanding of tag teaming, which is a variety of ], is that it's not when one person who already edits an article in good faith tries to deescalate a situation by offering to take ownership of an edit (one which they may well have made anyway) from someone else who already edits the article in good faith.

If Mandruss went to the talk page instead of editing again and said "this edit should be reverted because XYZ, but I can't," and O3000 saw that and said "ok, I'll do it," would we still be talking about meat puppetry? It seems like standard coordination on a talk page -- the sort that's especially necessary when there are article-level restrictions. If the difference has to do only with the way O3000 phrased it rather than any practical or intentional difference, I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 22:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Statement by Black Kite ===
I agree in thinking that O3000 was acting in good faith here. Let's face it, if another editor had reverted Mandruss's edit and O3000 had reverted back, there would be no issue here. The really ironic thing is that, looking above, there are some more right-leaning editors criticising O3000 here ''despite the fact that they removed excessive negative information from the lead of Trump's article''. If I was a cynic, I'd say that they're basing their comments on who did the reverting rather than the actual circumstances and specific content. ] 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by Bishonen===
{{ping|CaptainEek}} Your comment implies that O3000 by posting a "retired" template 'threw a fit' and 'threw his toys out of the pram' (venerable Misplaced Pages clichés that do no credit to your sense of style). That's shameful in my opinion. If you didn't intend that implication, please take more care when you write.

{{ping|El C}} You say "{{tq|As for it constituting a "blemish" on their record — all Objective3000 would have to do if someone were to try to use it against them would be to quote me saying that it wasn't intended as such. Which is why I said it, in the 1st place.}}" It would be a lot more useful to say it in the log, IMO. Really a lot. I know the log entry is already long, but you could have said it instead of "Sorry for the unusual length of this log entry", because, you know, what use is that?

The amount of assumption of bad faith towards Mandruss, O3000, El C, admins in general, and the entirety of Misplaced Pages in {{u|Wikieditor19920}}'s comment above leaves a bad taste. Everybody can comment here, no doubt, and so we get some low-water marks. Unless an arb or clerk feels like drawing the line somewhere? ] &#124; ] 23:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC).


=== Statement by {other-editor} === === Statement by {other-editor} ===
Line 554: Line 114:
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Warning of Objective3000: 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).''
* *


=== Warning of Objective3000: 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)
*It is rare that we actually see tag teaming, but this seems a pretty clear case of it. I am aware that tag teaming is not policy, but then again, neither is ], and yet the latter is used many times daily in enforcement. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter on Misplaced Pages. So whats the spirit of the law? To prevent disruption. Tag teaming seems to be an especially insidious form of disruption, as it uses multiple people to act almost as one to evade our usual restrictions. I wonder, would Mandruss have self reverted had O3000 not suggested they would immediately revert the edit back? I think Mandruss and O3000 are both excellent contributors, but to evade sanction by ] does not sit right with me. I also note that El C went very light here. By all rights, El C could have easily blocked both of them, but opted to just give a warning. El C also took great pains to note that this warning is not meant as a blemish. And lets be honest, what does a warning really mean? Here on Wiki, it is little more than a reminder. It may make future enforcement easier, but it has little practical impact. I am also hesitant to rescind a warning merely on the basis that it made a user quit. I am sad to see O3000 driven away, and hope they will return. However, if users know all they have to do is throw a fit to get a sanction removed, we'll see a lot more ]. In conclusion, I don't particularly see how this warning was wrong, and am hesitant to lift it. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
**To BMK's point: on a technicality, yes only subjects of a sanction can appeal. But this is already a super technical situation, and I think we can ] as this has brought up a novel and relevant point of contention. Also, O3000 has nominally retired (so they can't appeal), and Mandruss seems to be appreciative of this review. ] <sup>]</sup>] 09:26, 9 January 2021 (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)
*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)
*Awaiting further statements. My preliminary reaction is to say first I appreciate El C's, and other administrators', desire to maintain decorum and order on a difficult article at a difficult time. (I also say to El C that it may look like I'm piling onto you because we disagreed on an unrelated matter a few months ago, but it's just a coincidence, and it's my job to comment here.) On the substance, I believe Objective3000 was acting with good intentions and in good faith, and as El C himself observes, Objective3000's overall editing history is a positive one. El C also observes that any violation by Objective3000 took place at least "somewhat unwittingly." I consistently believe that discussion rather than a logged sanction, even a warning, is the better approach for a first, debatable alleged violation by a good-faith editor with a record of positive contributions in the topic-area. Subject to others' opinions, I am inclined to recommend that El C consider withdrawing the warning. ] (]) 06:32, 9 January 2021 (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)
**Still awaiting further comments, but I'm inclined to move to vacate the warnings. ] (]) 05:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think an appeal by an uninvolved admin who participated in an AE discussion is allowed - I think to say otherwise would be to further cement a first mover advantage. Considering what obligations admins have to achieve consensus is at the top of my priority list when this committee examines DS but I don't see any issue in how El C handled this under our current procedures. The formal warning is a reasonable outcome of that thread even if it isn't how I'd have closed it. Best, ] (]) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Amendment request: American politics 2

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

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

Statement by Interstellarity

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

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

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

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

Comment by GoodDay

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

Statement by Rosguill

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

Statement by Izno

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

Statement by Kenneth Kho

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

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

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


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


Information about amendment request
  • 2022 changes


Statement by Crouch, Swale

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

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