Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 05:08, 4 November 2011 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers286,414 edits →Statement by Piotrus← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:45, 19 January 2025 edit undoAquillion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,968 edits →Statement by {other-editor} 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}
== Request for clarification: ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> '''at''' 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
*{{userlinks|Piotrus}} (initiator)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
=== Statement by Piotrus===
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I am seeking clarification of ] ("The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Misplaced Pages, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.").


;Case or decision affected
Let me state, clearly, that I have no desire to interact with Russavia, and that to my knowledge, he has not commented on me. This is, in fact, not about Russavia at all, but about the interpretation of ] (if I was to put it simply, how close can I get to a discussion in which Russavia is involved?).
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
Here's the short sequence of events that lead to me posting this clarification requests:
#]
* ; I have no interest in it, have not read it then or even now;
*; I have no interest in it but as he is a fellow editor I respect for ], I read his post there. Of further note for my eventual involvement is the part where VM notes that he found an article edited by Russavia by following edits of other editors;
*discussion grows and brings an increasingly large peanut gallery; I still have no interest in joining it, nor do I read most other comments, beyond admin's;
* makes a comment on the futility of interaction bans in general, suggesting that admins should not enforce them. That makes me concerned, as I credit them with lessening the amount of hostility directed at me since they were put in place. Next, comments that VM "went there after him ". At that point I decide to post , stating that as a party to the bans, I've found them helpful, if in need of some clarification; I also point out to FSP that VM has already explained how he became involved in this issue. I also noted that if any admin considers my comment in this thread to be a violation of an i-ban, to let me know that and I'll remove it. Please note that I have not commented on Russavia, only on the i-bans in general, and on VM comment in particular;
*almost at the same time I posted my comment, SarekOfVulcan blocks both Russavia and VM for a week. I expressed my disagreement with his action on his talk page in ], pointing out to my comment and suggestion for i-ban clarification, and suggesting reducing blocks, in particular for VM who I believe has been involved in much lesser violation of the ban. I also note on SoV's talk page (]), again, that if any admin believes my involvement there is in violation of the i-ban, to let me know and I'll remove my posts. (Having been blocked once by a trigger happy admin who misunderstood a topic ban, and unblocked through AE appeal, I prefer to be very careful with regards to such restrictions, and ask for clarifications, rather than an unblock);
*approaching the end of this story, an admin (FSP) , suggesting that my involvement in that thread was a violation of an i-ban (I also note that he has not responded to either of my two comments directed at him w/ regards to his posts in that case). In any case, I have self-reverted my three relevant posts (one to AE and two to SoV page), in a show of good faith (when in doubt, self-revert and ask for a review).


So now I am asking for a review and clarification. I do not believe I have breached the i-ban: I am not concerned with Russavia, I am not commenting on him; at AE I was simply commenting on i-bans in general (an issue of interest to me since I am under one), and later, on SoV's page, commenting on a block of VM (with whom I have no i-ban, of course). VM's ban was related to Russavia, but that is of no concern to me, I am concerned that an editor (VM) was treated unfairly, and I believe I have the right to express my opinion on this (he was not treated unfairly by Russavia, so I am not commenting on any action of his). After all, we have freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages, and I believe we are allowed to comment on anything that is not explicitly prohibited (I am explicitly prohibited from commenting on Russavia, but not on VM's block, whatever its circumstances are). To put this in a wider perspective, I believe that if editors A and B are under i-ban, and editor A becomes involved in something - like designing a policy, or is part of an arbitration, or an enforcement that results in a policy change, or block or such, editor B has the right to participate in the discussion (policy discussion, etc.) and/or comment on the outcome (a policy change, or a block of editor C, with whom B have no i-ban), as long as he does not comment on editor A or interact with him directly. Or am I wrong?


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I'd appreciate Committee's thoughts, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
<!--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)


@SirFozzie and Colchicum: I am puzzled what kind of clear topic ban would be an improvement here. Who would you topic ban and from what? Now, I am not following the edits of most i-banned editors, so for all I know some of them may have main space topics they clash on.


; Information about amendment request
@Everyone: I am also afraid that '''this request for clarifications is being hijacked to discuss other issues than I asked for'''. In the example given above, which ''did not involve me editing any mainspace article'', how on earth would any t-ban help? I'd kindly request that those who want to discuss changing the nature of i-bans in general make their requests somewhere else, and clearly indicate which editors' i-bans need revision. This clarification request, with regards to me, seeks to answer a simple question I posed above (was my commenting on i-bans and VM block a violation of interaction ban with R. or not?). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
*]
:*Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


:@Everyone: I would assume that Russavia is allowed to comment in this forum and in this request in particular. I do, however, repeat my earlier question (still unanswered), taking this new development into account: if he is allowed to comment here (Which I am fine with), why was I (according to FSP) not allowed to comment at AE (in a request NOT started by Russavia, and where I DID NOT comment on him, only on another user, and on i-bans in general)? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 05:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


=== Comment by Biophys === === 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.
I think that interaction bans are important and usually work, unless some people do not follow their editing restrictions (not sure why FPS was so skeptical ). Please note that I do not have interaction ban with Russavia, or at least this is my understanding. It was clear that Russavia did not obey his interaction bans almost a month ago, but that only involved him reverting my edits in the area where he is a good contributor. Therefore, I simply left him the article in question and did not report anything at the moment. However, he later started doing the same with other contributors and in other areas. I asked him to stop, but he refused, which forced me to bring this matter for administrative review (diff by Piotrus above). Of course I could ignore Russavia and others, but that would only make their conflicts worse. There was no one else to do it, because administrators apparently decided to ignore Russavia, exactly as FPS suggested (diff above). That brought me a lot of trouble. I tried to explain . We later had a discussion with Greyhood about this .
*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)
So, with regard to question by Piotrus, I believe he did not violate the letter and even the spirit of his restriction, because the instruction tells exactly this: ''"Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other"'', and that is what he did. By the same token, two mutually i-banned editors can easily edit the same article, as long as they do not conflict. Actually, they are only required to conduct the ordinary non-controversial editing. Editor ''A'' makes an addition to article X. Then ''B'' comes to add or modify, but not revert something. Two i-banned editors can easily collaborate in the same article without even talking (if they really want collaboration!). But if one of them jumps to revert a legitimate edit of another, this is a reason for immediate sanction. And it does not matter who of them edited this article first, who knows this subject better, or who contributed most to this article. Really, I do not see anything complicated in i-bans.


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
As about question by SirFozzie, I think we should not introduce t-bans only because some editors do not obey their i-bans. Violations happen all the time. That's why we have AE. Instead, the existing i-bans must be strictly enforced, . In fact, I asked already at AE for i-enforcement, and thanks to AE administrators, it has been properly enforced so far. If the problems continue, then ''topic'' bans are in order, but that should be decided at AE using the existing discretionary sanctions. On the other hand, if Arbcom wants to intervene here (which I am not sure), then the proposal to submit an amendment with t-bans may have some merit. ] (]) 04:27, 28 October 2011 (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 Rosguill ===
:Main question to be clarified here is as follows: should the mutually banned editors A and B be allowed editing the same page as long as they do not interact with one another, or they should not? If they are not allowed to edit the same page, then version by NW would be a good approximation. Otherwise, I agree with improvement by Collect, except that his last phrase ("No editor under any interaction ban...") seems redundant. ] (]) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Comment by Colchicum === === 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)
Enough is enough. I am about to request an amendment which would replace i-bans with topic bans. FPS now thinks (somewhat inconsistently, to the point that it is beginning to look like he is taking sides here, but whatever) that i-bans are not enforceable. Very well, topic bans would be. ] (]) 11:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Statement by NuclearWarfare === === Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. ] (]) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
This is how I envision interaction bans to work:
{{quote|1=Imagine there are two editors, editor A and editor B. They have been mutually interaction banned from each other. If A edits ], a page B has not edited before, then B is expected to make no more than insignificant changes to Foo. If B wishes to make substantial changes to Foo, they should first clear their decision with an administrator. They should also not revert A's edits or engage in talk page discussion. At the first hint of conflict, B is expected to leave.<p>Now we have editor C. Editor C has been interaction banned from editor A, but A has not been interaction banned from C. Editor C is expected to follow all of the same rules as B above. In addition, if C is editing ], a page A has not edited before, and A comes along and makes substantial changes to Bar, C should cease editing Bar. If they feel that A's edits were made for the purpose of harassment, they should informally speak with an administrator and ask them to speak with A. Modifications to the ban can be made, as appropriate, by that administrator.}}


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
That's not an ideal, in my opinion, but is it at least an adequate understanding of how things should work in cases where the two editors' edits overlap? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
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)


=== Comment by Collect === ===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)


=== Statement by Aquillion ===
Interpreted strictly, interaction bans appear to be a far greater problem than they are a solution. By the time one gets to "6 degrees of Interaction Bans", one could ''conceivably'' be unable to post on any noticeboard or talk page at all.


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)
Therefore, why not reduce what it means to what we actually wish to prevent:
:''No person restricted from 'interacting' with a specific other editor shall make any post directly to any such editor, or referring to any such editor by name except where required by Misplaced Pages procedures. No person under such a ban shall make any edits clearly affecting specific edits made by the other editor, whether on articles or on any other Misplaced Pages page, including, but not limited to, redacting or refactoring of any such edits. No editor under any interaction ban shall post to 'any' other editor requesting that the second editor undertake any action which the first person is barred from doing.''
Thus reducing the absurd situations the committee has seen in the past regarding the multiple-ban-combinations which do, indeed, occur. Cheers. ] (]) 12:46, 1 November 2011 (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. * -->


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes ===

=== Statement by Nug (aka Martin Tammsalu) ===
Since the previous AE cases, and a subsequent and some emails, I had hoped that Russavia and I had come to some kind of understanding to focus on content. However in this latest AE case (which I have not involved myself in) brought against Russavia, his very first response was to attempt to implicate me as possible "collateral damage" by pointing to an edit I made, which unfortunately was a breach of the spirit of the understanding I thought we had. I have since removed that edit. In that light I should note that Russavia appears to be continuing the same behaviour as before, following edits of his perceived opponents in articles for which he has not any real interest and making contentious edits like placing tags. In the ] he tags my edit as dubious, how am I suppose to respond? In ], an article Russiavia has never edited before he removes a reference. I also note that Russavia continues to breach his iBan by continuing to comment upon Volunteer Marek despite for being currently blocked for breaching his iBan. Just recently he unilaterally moved an article of interest to me, but I cannot respond due to this iBan. I don't go tagging, moving and AfDing aviation articles he has worked on, so I don't know why he feels he must persist with this. Clearly this iBan is not working. Can the Committee please clarify and/or ammend this into something workable for all. --] (]) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Greyhood ===
] by Russavia outlines two problems:
*Interaction bans, if in place, should be mutual. If user A is placed on interaction ban with user B, than user B should be placed on interaction ban with user A as well. Otherwise this does not work. It allows one editor, for example, to comment the other's actions, prompting some kind of response, or even to post on the talk page of the other, which collides an interaction ban with a need of a common courtesy of an answer.
*Off-wiki activities of the editors with known identity, when they comment on the editors with whom they have interaction bans, at least when such comments are obviously provocative, should be considered breaching the interaction ban. ] ] 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:To make my position clear, I do not exactly like the idea of interaction bans in principle and I'd prefer to see the involved editors able to interact in a normal way without any prohibitions. But if such a measure is taken, it should be mutual, or not taken at all. ] ] 14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:Some editors here are talking about more loose interaction prohibitions, allowing editors to talk which is other if they follow certain rules. This very well might work, but still if both editors are placed on the same level of restrictions. And of course, an editor A should have a right to request editor B not to post on A's talk page at all, if A doesn't find interaction possible or desirable. ] ] 20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Vecrumba ===

My preference for what an "interaction ban" means is clear and unambiguous:

# One does not contact the other i-banned editor on their talk page (I won't keep repeating i-banned)
# One does not mention or discuss the other editor in any manner on any talk page, their own, the other editor's, or an admin's or ArbCom member's or refer to them in any administrative proceeding unless as part of an action instituted by another editor specifically regarding the other editor (NB, dredging up the past, re #3 following, is prohibited)
# One does not mention or discuss past administrative procedures, actions, etc. regarding the other editor in any manner on any talk page, their own, the other editor's, or an admin's or ArbCom members or at proceedings except as noted at #2; ''the editor does not have to be specifically mentioned'', group mention is sufficient for violation of the ban
# One does not file AE enforcement requests, notifications, et al. regarding the other editor; if someone's conduct is egregious, there are plenty of other editors to report inappropriate conduct
# One ''may'' request arbitration clarification in the event of ''questions''
# One ''may'' interact on articles, article talk, project pages, etc. with the other editor, providing:
## Discussion focuses on content (one ''may'' address @editor on talk without violating the i-ban)
## Discussion avoids comments regarding editors' past conduct, perceived POV, "teams," "tag-teams," "sides," "XYZ-puppets," et al. (that violates #2 above)
## Reverts are discouraged, but <u>not prohibited</u>; prohibition encourages predatory edits; 1RR enforced INCLUDING the precipitating edit; that is: (a) editor A makes (predatory) edit, (b) editor B reverts edit = one revert (c) editor A reverts back to their edit = 1RR violation. Similarly, (a) editor A makes (predatory) edit, (b) editor B reverts edit = one revert (c) editor (not i-banned) C reverts back to editor A's edit (d) editor B reverts editor C = 1RR violation; however, if editor C is also under an i-ban with editor A, their original revert counts as a 1RR violation.
# Uncivil conduct including disparaging commentary regarding the subject matter or editors at a topic where the "other" editor is also involved violates the i-ban regardless, immaterial as to whether or not directed at the other editor or an identified group they may be considered part of.
# Interaction bans are bilateral and do not ascribe guilt to either party, meaning, they do not get to be cited as evidence of wrongdoing in other proceedings except as directly pertains to a violation of said i-ban.
# Editors (i-banned pairs) may jointly petition for the lifting of a mutual i-ban after sufficient evidence of collegial interaction.

Anything else continues to allow waging content control via administrative actions and creates article ownership for whoever gets there first.

Lastly, a single central repository who is i-banned with whom is essential as it's too easy for editors or admins or ArbCom to lose track, causing needless recriminations and drama. Quite frankly, I'm not clear who<->who is i-banned at this point with regard to the community of editors active in Eastern Europe, Soviet legacy, and contemporary Russia geopolitics articles.

An i-ban is put in place, ostensibly, to promote a more collegial atmosphere. Clearly, as currently interpreted, something else is being produced. An i-ban should NOT be used to prevent collegial interaction ''regarding WP content'' between two ''otherwise'' i-banned editors. If we're going to learn to play together, the opportunity must be presented. ]<small> ►]</small> 17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:@SirFozzie, your analysis of effective topic ban => topic ban easier to enforce is a gross accusation of bad faith on the part of i-banned editors and ups the ante/reward for editors to provoke other editors into poor conduct to get them out of the way (i.e., no more i-bans, go directly to topic ban). ]<small> ►]</small> 18:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Russavia ===

**The comments below have been sent to arbcom via email and have also been placed on my user talk page**

In relation to where I am to post anything onwiki, can someone please advise me where this should be done?

Also, I would like to request the committee to consider that there are 3 distinct issues that need dealing with and/or clarifying here. As such, I would like the committee to deal with one at a time, and in doing so forbid the usual peanut galleries from both sides from commenting.

Issue #1 -- following of my edits by Biophys, his using of a one-way interaction ban as a weapon to lock me out of articles I am clearly editing at the time, and his following my edits in the obvious hope of finding something he can report me for. Only Biophys needs to comment in relation to this -- no other editor has anything of any use to add in relation to this, due to their uninvolvement. There is still an open request at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia in which FPaS is looking at the placing of discretionary sanctions on Biophys forbidding him from interacting with myself. Whilst I thank FPaS, is this still able to be dealt with at the AE level? Or would the Committee prefer to do it?

Issue #2 -- following of my edits by Volunteer Marek, his claiming that he wants me to stay away from him, yet outright reverting of any of my edits, his overly combative attitude (not only directed towards myself, but other editors as well), and successful claim of ignorance of what interaction bans entail, and other information at ] - no-one else can add anything in relation to any of this due to uninvolvement, except perhaps with the exception of Miacek (now Estlandia), who I know has been attacked continually by Marek (as per the links on my talk page)

Issue #3 -- interaction bans between myself and Martintg aka Tammsalu aka Nug, and to a lesser extent Vecrumba. No-one else has anything of use in relation to this.

I am requesting the above because editors who are not involved directly in the issues above have unfortunately resorted to misrepresentation of issues, either possibly due to their not being involved, and in a couple of cases, due to long-stated desires that I should not be dealt with on a collaborative basis and trying to get me sanctioned for things that are based on pure hogwash. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by other editor ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

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

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Generally, interaction bans mean that one should take every opportunity to NOT seek out areas where you would likely interact with the other side. This area is contentious enough that it could already be considered a topic ban as there's not many areas that one or the other is not involved in, and once one side of the interaction ban is involved in a topic/discussion, the other is defacto not to get involved. Would it best to formalize this and remove all chance of these interactions by placing topic bans? I'm waiting for more statements, however, before proposing anything and am just musing out loud here. ] (]) 18:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
*I agree that some clarification is needed here. I have not personally interpreted an interaction ban between A and B as prohibiting A and B from editing the same article that is within their common area of interest (unless the decision expressly provides for that), though I would interpret it as meaning that they should refrain from edit-warring with each other. So we may want to do some clarifying here. I would also like to suggest (as a general matter, not a finding in a particular instance) that where it appears a user may have made an edit that violated a sanction, but he or she apparently acted in the good-faith, reasonable belief that the sanction did not apply to that edit, then a warning rather than a block will usually be the more proportionate response (at least the first time it happens). ] (]) 00:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
* Recused on main EEML case, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
*Much like Brad above, I agree that ''in general'' an interaction ban does not preclude editors editing the same article. That said, reverting each other would be, and given that editing a more controversial article is likely to to require discussion on the talk page to settle on consensus, editing those can turn out to be immensely delicate as well and probably best avoided.<p>As with all sanctions around topics (or, in this case, editors), some judgement and reasonableness is presumed from all parties. Avoid seeking out potential interaction and conflict, but don't go out of your way to find some where none can be reasonably said to exist simply because two edits occurred in proximity. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: Arbcom-unblocked editors ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|Timotheus Canens}} (initiator)
*{{admin|MuZemike‎}} (previously involved in dealing with TLAM)
*{{admin|EdJohnston‎}} (as above)
*{{admin|Sandstein‎}} (as above)
*{{admin|HelloAnnyong}} (as above)
*{{admin|Hersfold‎}} (as above)

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by Timotheus Canens ===
Under what circumstances may an individual administrator block an editor previously unblocked by arbcom?

In particular, if an account X is first blocked as a sockpuppet, then unblocked by arbcom, and then new evidence of sockpuppetry is alleged, what action, if any, should be taken by an individual administrator? Can the admin take action on the request alone, or must the matter be referred to the committee? If individual admin block is permitted, how is the admin supposed to weigh the evidence? What weight should be accorded to the previous unblock by the committee? Is there any way for the admin to ascertain the evidence considered by the committee in reaching the decision to unblock? If not (because committee deliberations are private) how is the admin supposed to reach an informed decision?

See of mine at an AE thread for the case that motivated this request, although this request is not limited to the particular editor. ] (]) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Russavia ===
As I said at the AE, and I will say again here. Let's "try again", because as it stands now, we are dealing with an obvious sockpuppet, and the inability for anyone to give a straight answer is allowing this sockpuppet to "take the piss" out of the community?

What we have a case of here is the Arbcom overstepping its bounds by totally disregarding behavioural evidence, and the knowledge of editors and admins who have dealt with these sockpuppets in the past. There is not a single admin out there who has dealt with Marknutley sockpuppets that does not believe that TLAM is not a sock of Nutley. This is based on behavioural evidence and obvious editing traits. I provided one such trait to the Committee, and it stuck out like dogs balls when I saw it, and the more one delves into the evidence, the more and more ] evolves that it is quite obvious this is a sockpuppet. And I am told by the Committee "we are not convinced".

As I said in the AE, we have the opportunity to right a major wrong here...and it is a wrong, given that this sockpuppets disruptive behaviour has somewhat led to a long-term editor in good-standing being topic banned for 6 months, whilst the obvious sockpuppet gets a 3 month topic ban...go figure. So without blame and without shame, the following needs to be very clearly answered for the community.

Who made the decision to unleash this sockpuppet on the community? Those Arbs who reached this decision need to explain to the Community a few things, such as: Upon what basis was this decision reached? Why was this done in secret, and why was the community not involved in this process? Given that it is the community that has dealt with this disruptive user in the past, and there is not a single admin who has even so much as considered unblocking this sockpuppet. Did those who looked at this appeal totally disregard behavioural evidence, and concentrated only on technical evidence? Such as IP addresses? One can easily change their IP and ISP, but behaviour is much harder to change.

Is the Committee willing to turn this issue back over to the community to deal with? And without further involvement from the committee? The fact that there are many admins who are of the opinion that this is a sockpuppet, and yet none will do anything about it, for fear of the Committee, is quite daunting. No-one should be fearful of the Committee, it is the Committee that should be fearful of us. There has to come a time when someone will stand up, say straight that the Committee has ballsed up, ballsed up in good faith, but ballsed up all the same, and correct the mistake that has been made. This is even moreso needed as the Committee itself doesn't seem to know what to do, so it will likely be up to an admin out there with some spine to make a relatively easy decision of right over wrong. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:Just a quick note. I have 2 laptops and 2 desktop PCs. I have Bigpond broadband, Optus mobile broadband and 3 mobile broadband, in addition to Optus internet on my mobile. I also have Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7. I also use a combination of Firefox and Chrome - and versions can differ according to which system I am using at the time. If I wanted to, I could easily sockpuppet and not be caught on technical evidence. But my behavioural traits and editing preferences would soon give me away. Would anyone like to challenge me to this? I'll be more than happy to give it a go in order to prove a point to whoever unblocked this sockpuppet. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::In actual fact, there is no need to challenge me to do anything, one can merely CU me, and they will see that I already currently edit from a range of PCs, and a range of ISPs, and with different browsers. So I will withdraw the ] comment, and let other comments stand on their merits. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a great saying...If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. I see a lot of attempts at the latter from Arbs below, but baffled I am not. Questions have been asked of the committee, and they need to be answered.

When I corresponded with the Committee I was told that further evidence of sockpuppeting can be taken back to, and dealt with by, the community. However, the Committee would appreciate a heads-up. I see the heads-up only a courtesy, nothing more.

But now we have Arbs saying that the community needs to defer back to the Committee on sockpuppeting. So what is it to be guys? Dazzle me, but don't make me put in a ] to have this moved to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Biophys===
I think such cases are easy to handle. If there is any ''new'' evidence of sockpuppetry, anyone can submit an SPI case (based only on this new evidence), and checkuser can make a judgement, after consultations with Arbcom members if appropriate. Let's not renegotiate decisions by Arbcom, whatever they might be. Remember, that was a general policy question by TC, not a quest to sanction an editor. ] (]) 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Vecrumba===
Per Biophys. Neither is there need for invective or disparaging remarks. Over time, I have had occasion to communicate with both editors regarding the case precipitating this clarification request and personally have no indication to believe they are the same person. Is there some reason for rushing to obvious guilt? As for the interaction by other editors here with both, clearly, I am at the low end of resorting to threats of enforcement, requests for enforcement, etc. while other editors ''on both sides of the aisle'' are less inclined to deal with what they consider POV pushing by debate only. To observe that on any day any editor may raise the hackles of multiples of others would be a statement of the obvious.]<small> ►]</small> 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
* The conversation here is degenerating. If there is no incontrovertible evidence of MN/TLAM sockpuppetry we are done. Anything else is speculation which pretty much looks to be along party lines (regardless that it may also all be in good faith, certainly mine is, based on my interactions) and therefore irrelevant. The ravenous appetite exhibited here to convict editors based on allegations of "smells like, at least to me" evidence is appalling and revolting. ]<small> ►]</small> 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
* I would also note that IP address geo-location can be notoriously unreliable. Witchita, Kansas, is, for example, a popular destination. ]<small> ►]</small> 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement The Last Angry Man ===
Why was I not informed of this? Of course if at first you don`t succeed Of course I already pointed out how I am taking the Quick now, lets block all these sockpuppets. Regarding Mathsci`s other behavioral evidence mentioned on the AE page, "@" being used in response to other editors. also uses it. As does , and Paul Siebert has also used it. The usage of @ in responding to other editors is not quite so rare as Mathsci believes but is no doubt being hailed as the second coming in the "evidence" currently being e-mailed all over by Russavia. ] (]) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

* "One can easily change their IP and ISP" Yes one can, but of course it would be rather strange to have two IP`s two providers and two computers at the same time? Nutley blocked four days after I began to edit. First checkuser in the words of T. Canens is an ] found no connection, the second SPI was a farce with the checkuser basing likely on the fact that Nutley used chrome as do I. He got it wrong as have those here. I fully realize what I write here will not natter a damn to those wishing to see me gone, but at least the truth will have been told. ] (]) 00:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

===Observation by Short Brigade Harvester Boris===
I took only a very quick look at TLAM's edits, but it was enough to convince me that if this is ''not'' Marknutley then TLAM should be sanctioned for impersonating another editor (thinking ] here). He has Marknutley's verbal and stylistic idiosyncrasies locked solid. I have no idea what the arbs may know (or think they know) that would argue against re-blocking, but I hope they are keeping in mind that it is trivially easy to sockpuppet so as to avoid providing technical evidence. ] (]) 04:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by NuclearWarfare ===
Regardless of the meta-issues, I'm hoping that we can have ArbCom comment on this specific case. So far, we have had one checkuser (Hersfold), three administrators/SPI clerks (HelloAnnyong, T. Canens, myself), and one ex-admin (and likely more, haven't really gone looking) call this an obvious ] case that needs no further investigation. That's a bit too many experienced editors to simply dismiss I think. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tammsalu -> Nug ===
This issue arose after ] attempted to have TLAM indefinitely topic banned on ] ostensibly for incivility. When it seemed apparent that Igny himself was going to be hit by ] due to his own battleground behaviour, accusations of socking was then levelled at TLAM. Now it appears that particular people, who as the Committee will recall from a prior amendment request claimed wanted to focus on content rather than editors, are pushing hard to have TLAM site banned. I have to wonder why Igny and his friends are pushing so hard for this banning, while appears that TLAM may have a low tolerance for certain Russian nationalist POVs, I don't understand why some would take that so personally. I see no new evidence of disruption by TLAM warranting a ban, in fact he was about to participate in content mediation, which I think we can all agree is more desirable than attempting to get editors banned in order to win content disputes. Now I do not know the full circumstances behind TLAM's unblock by the sub-Committee, but I do know that Mark Nutley was a real identity who )was smeared during a proxy farm investigation where his identity was odiously linked with certain external sites. Now I see no evidence that TLAM is Mark Nutley, but those that claim there is a link may well be ] him for all we may know. Given that ArbCom have permitted former socks to return after a period of time, given that no evidence has been presented linking TLAM with Mark Nutley and given there is no new evidence presented suggesting TLAM has been disruptive, I do not see any need for the Committee entertain the need to reblock TLAM. --] (]) 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

*To those claiming TLAM is Mark Nutley based upon nothing more that shared topics, I would point out that Mark was extensively involved in climate change topics while TLAM is not. --] (]) 19:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

====On the recent comments====
In regard to the recent comments from Paul Siebert and others, what's the point? Attempting to ban a content opponent on some wiki-lawyered technicality, I thought the EEML only practiced this kind of thing? Looking at TLAM contributions since he was unblocked, I see no ongoing disruption, in fact he recently was awarded a barnstar and has been productively expanding this encyclopaedia since this clarification request. I see no point in continuing on whipping this dead horse, so perhaps this should now be archived now. --] (]) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by the Four Deuces ===
I was involved in all the SPIs relating to mark nutley. In each case, mark nutley, Tentontunic and TLAM were blocked only on their second SPI. mark nutley made great attempts to disguise his identity, for example by using open proxies. In fairness, no one claimed that the people using these open proxies throughout the internet were mark nutley, instead examples were provided in order to demonstate that the IPs were open proxies. Both mark nutley and TLAM are from Wiltshire, and mark nutley edited from a range of locations across the south of England. Given all this, it would be hard to disprove that these accounts were related. ] (]) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Collect - that is my point: "it would be hard to disprove that these accounts were related". ] (]) 16:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sander Saeda - your reference to people who opposed mark nutley's edits as "pro-communist" is a personal attack that you should withdraw. ] (]) 05:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Collect===

SPI does ''not'' require "proof of innocence" and actions undertaken by ArbCom regarding an SPI result can only be undone by ArbCom. The ''reasonable presumption'' is that the committee, in fact, have information which can not be just divulged in open posts - that is why they do ''not'' give such information out. There is, however, a history at SPI of ''various'' editors making ''iterated claims'' there in the hope that eventually an admin will say "well - maybe" and perform the block. Using a "well the accusation was made several times therefore it must be true" fails any course in logic ever given <g>. Cheers. ] (]) 13:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@TFD - the "south of England" covers a ''lot'' of people.
@PS - that one has numerous content disputes with people does ''not'' mean they are socks. Cheers. ] (]) 16:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Paul Siebert===
Frankly speaking, since a probability to find more than one anti-Communist person in vicinities of Wiltshire is definitely far from zero, I initially didn't believe TLAM is a sock of MarkNutley/Tentontunic. However, some recent events forced me to change my opinion: the more TLAM is editing, the more his behaviour is resembling that of Tentontunic.
:# MarkNutley accuses me in formal violation of 1RR on ] . This accusation was purely formal (there was one intervening, but totally unrelated edit made by a third user), and although that eventually lead to my only block, the blocking admin (EdJohnson) conceded later that this 1RR violation fell into the "gray zone".
:# Tentontunic accuses me in formal violation of 1RR on the ] article and requested to self-revert , although this violation was also purely technical.
:# TLAM accuses me in 1RR violation on the same article . Again, the accusation was based on the totally artificial ground (my second edit was not a revert, the only intervening edit between my edits was made by the AnomieBOT, and the users Anonimu and Noetica edited other sections of the article )

Both articles are the areas of MN/Tentontunic and TLAM's interests, and in all three cases I see quite similar tactics. I face such tactic very infrequently when I deal with other users.<br>Another example is a story with anti-colonial and anti-authoritarian insurgencies in Indochina.
:#I had serious dispute with Tentontunic over the labelling of these movements (e.g. Viet cong) as terrorists in the ] article. My arguments were based on the fact that, although some sources, mostly British and American official sources did describe them as terrorists, much more sources describe them otherwise, and the mother WP articles do not use the terms "terrorism" as a primary term for their description.
:#The same dispute has started recently with TLAM (, see the bottom of the section), so I see the same arguments and have to re-iterate the arguments I already used in the dispute with Tentontunic).

The more I am interacting with TLAM, the more I am having a ''deja vu'' feeling. --] (]) 15:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)<br>PS It is probably necessary to mention that most users who left the comments in support of TLAM were defending Tentontunic against ''false'' accusations in being a sock.--] (]) 16:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)<br>PPS I have to agree with Russavia that the usage of different computers is hardly an evidence of anything. I myself use different computers when I edit from home (Windows XP and Linux Fedora), and different browsers; sometimes I use a VPN connection through my university server; I use my university computers in different parts of the campus, each of which has different browsers and different Windows or Linux based operation systems. I also know that I am not the sole person who edit Misplaced Pages from the computers of my university campus. In this situation, the hardware based evidences would have a little weight.--] (]) 16:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
====On the last Russavia's post====
Although the post is somewhat emotional, I see some rational points there. The ArbCom made some decision based on some evidences that were not available for wider WP community. In that situation, it is hard to speak about any new evidences, because we simply do not know what the ''old'' evidences were. In my opinion, the ArbCom should clearly explain what kind of evodences have been taken into account by them, and which of them appeared to be decisive. We do not need to know any details, but we have a right to know if that was the CU data, which appeared to be more convincing than the behavioural evidences, or that was some private information that convincingly demonstrated that TLAM was not a sockpuppet.<br>In other words, we have a right to know if TLAM is a suspected sockpuppet, which has been unblocked simply because the evidences of sockpuppetry appeared to be insufficient, or that the ArbCom had been provided with some convincing private evidences that TLAM and Mark Nutley are different persons despite the obvious similarities in their editorial styles.<br>I believe, a direct answer on that question violates noone's privacy.--] (]) 20:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
====@Nug====
Obviously, the attempt to present the issue as someone's attempt to ban TLAM for ideological reasons is not acceptable. Moreover, it is based on absolutely faulty logics. Martin argues that TLAM and Mark Nutley are two different persons, and that even if that is not the case (i.e. if TLAM ''is'' a MN's sock), we do not need to block him, because he behaves well. However, these are two quite separate arguments. If TLAM and Mark Nutley are two different persons and ArbCom has unequivocal evidences of that, we have a right to know about that (I mean we have to be aware of the very fact of the existence of those evidences). However, if no such evidences exists, and TLAM is a well behaving MN's suspected sock, I am not sure that any references to his good behaviour can work: in this case MN is supposed to ask for unblock on behalf of himself.<br>In addition, I would like to point Martin's attention at the fact that the reference to "''some wiki-lawyered technicality''" is insulting and offensive, and, therefore, should be immediately retracted (with apologies). The reference to EEML is also redundant, especially taking into account someone's own history. I strongly suggest Martin to use less inflammatory terminology.--] (]) 18:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement Sander Säde ===
I haven't had all that much interaction with Mark Nutley or TLAM, but I've presumed them to be the same person. I figured the ArbCom subcommittee decided to give MN one more chance, esp. after the nasty slights and witch-hunt by pro-communist editors, which most definitely could cause real-life issues to someone using his real name on Misplaced Pages. I don't think administrators or non-involved arbitrators should do or decide anything hasty here. --] 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hersfold ===

I'm not totally sure of the background behind this other than I've blocked this guy in the past (and tbh have little interest looking into the backstory), but my opinion on ArbCom involvement in blocks has always been that ArbCom (read: Ban Appeals Subcommittee) is the court of last appeal on Misplaced Pages - if they review your block and refuse to unblock you, you're out of options and effectively banned for life (that is, until the next ArbCom elections). If they accept your appeal, however, you are free to go and there is no-one (save Jimbo acting as Founder) with the authority to override their ruling ''in that particular case''. To do so would in effect be ] - the former blockee has been "acquitted" (or at least released from jail as time served) and can't be tried again for the same case. Should other facts arise, however, and it turns out that the blockee is violating policy again, then they can be blocked as appropriate for those violations. Should that happen, I would also assume that ArbCom would be less forgiving when the appeals came up to them again. A successful ArbCom appeal should not be interpreted as a blanket pardon for all crimes past, present, and future - if you cross the line again, you can expect to be blocked again with little chance of appeal. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Steven Zhang ===
Personally I would appreciate some clarification on the reason for the unblock in the first place. As I've filed an amendment request to TLAM's topic ban, one thing I am not clear on, is that has there been more alleged sockpuppetry by TLAM since his block was lifted by ArbCom (i.e. a new user) or whether it's more evidence that TLAM is the sockmaster that was originally suspected. If the latter, I assume that this should be sent to arbcom-l as opposed to on-wiki again. I would like to know some details on the reasons the block was lifted, whether they received an agreement that TLAM wouldn't sock anymore, or whether it was that ArbCom found TLAM innocent of said socking. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 01:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Prioryman ===

I've interacted with TLAM on ] and thought there was something familiar-looking about his comments. Looking at his contributions, as someone who had extensive interactions with Mark Nutley before his ban, I'm in no doubt whatsoever that the two are the same individual - his language and editing style are very distinctive. ] applies in spades. ] (]) 07:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== 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).''
*


=== Arbitrator views and discussion === === American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* {{yo|Interstellarity}} I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) ] (] • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* I dont think there is an easy answer for this one. The successful ban appeals are sometimes announced with wording that gives an administrator a clear picture, and other times they are not. Also, the situation after the unblock may be different than at the time of the unblock. For example, the arbitration committee may have been monitoring the unblocked user, and may have received new information after the unblock. The simplest solution is for an admin to notify arbcom (via {{nospam|arbcom-l|lists.wikimedia.org}}) of an ongoing discussion if they feel that the user should be reblocked, and arbitrators should comment onwiki if they believe the reblock would be inappropriate. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
** Some people have asked for specifics regarding our decision on TLAM. The committee did not unban Marknutley. Prior to the unban of TLAM, several arbitrators reviewed the evidence that TLAM was Marknutley, and didn't find it conclusive. That, combined with the appeal from TLAM, resulted in the committee unblocking an account who they believe is a new user. In this specific case, the community should not read our unban decision as vacating the admin decision of the original block. There was a good component of "show good faith" in our unban. We rarely unban accounts which have been linked to banned users via sockpuppet investigations. ArbCom has been sent more evidence than was publicly provided, however it is broadly similar, and within the committee there isn't a consensus to overturn the unban. However we keep hearing about more evidence that isn't being shown to us. We've said that if there is better evidence, we're happy to be overruled in this instance. Whoever has the 'complete' evidence should make a decision, or send it to us and accept our decision. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes

**] indef consensus required restriction
*In general, I agree with John's comment, that is under those circumstances, it would be prudent to inform ArbCom of an ongoing discussion about a possible re-block. I also agree that arbitrators who took the decision to unblock should, after being notified about the discussion, comment onwiki. This particular unblock was handled by the Ban Appeal Subcommittee, so I think somebody from the subcommittee should comment in regard to the ongoing discussion. ] (]) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
**] indef semi

:All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. ] (] &#124; ]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* I suppose, as a rough rule of thumb, it would be unwise to reblock for "more of the same" (for example, more socking) without first contacting ArbCom. This is simply because there may be some pertinant backstory or material that only came to light off-wiki. But this is unlikely to be necessary if the second block is for different activity (for example, incivility or personal attacks when the first block was for socking). &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* I'm of two minds here. Personally, I have argued in the past that behavioral quirks (the DUCK test) need to be just as prominent as Checkuser info. However, considering the multiple reports from checkusers that these are different people, I'm hesitant to reblock here. However, I said a while back that the Buck Stops Here at ArbCom.. so on the balance of behavior versus IP, I'd have to '''weakly support''' a reblock. ] (]) 04:57, 9 October 2011 (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)
* On the general question, I agree with those commenting above that these situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Onthe specific case, in the first instance I will defer to my colleagues who dealt with this at the BASC level to comment. I would also point out that unblocks by the Committee or BASC of those who have been blocked for sockpuppetry, on grounds of mistaken identity or insufficient evidence, while sometimes controversial, are relatively rare. We look at appeals on this basis with a view toward providing the independent review that blocked users are entitled to, and once in awhile we find an obvious mistake, and other times we find the evidence equivocal; but everyone should understand that the Committee winds up agreeing with the checkusers and administrators who implement these blocks significantly more often than not. ] (]) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (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 agree that such situations need to be addressed case-by-case. As SirFozzie has pointed out here, the checkuser evidence is pretty strongly that these are two separate people. This reminds me of a previous situation where there were calls to name a user as the sock of a banned user, and Arbcom could not agree to that particular sanction because it was contradicted by private but fairly definitive evidence. What we could do was point to the fact that the behaviour may be sanctionable for other reasons, which were within the scope of the community to apply. In this case, there are other sanctions available that could be applied by arbitration enforcement administrators, completely separate to the question of sockpuppetry. The editing area in question is covered under discretionary sanctions. Many of the behaviours that would raise sockpuppetry red flags are also the kinds of behaviours for which sanctions would be appropriate irrespective of the socking issue. I support the principle of administrators using the range of tools available in the toolbox; a topic ban or other limitations may be issued, as could a block for different reasons. ] (]) 03:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

* I'm going to opine here that an appeal that was received and granted by ArbCom should be brought to ArbCom if new material information has been found that indicates that the appeal should not have been granted. Unrelated misbehavior or new incidents do not need this, however. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
*Along with Coren, I think that unless specific mention of extenuating circumstances is given via unblock notice or notification, there's no reason for an admin to wait on reblocking for egregious behavior or sockpuppetry (not that it's not helpful to also notify ArbCom.) Information related to a reason the ''original'' unblock should not have been lifted ''should'' go to ArbCom first, and the admin should hold on a reblock. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
*Indeed, the others have said most of what I would on the subject--I'd just like to reinforce that yes, if an ArbCom-unblocked editor gets him/herself reblocked for other behavior, we should be notified. If nothing else, ArbCom needs the feedback for process improvement purposes: something went wrong with the original unblock. Either that was a failure to inform the community of administrators of the nature of the unblock, or we failed to accurately judge the editor's likelihood to engage in appropriate conduct upon his/her return. ] (]) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 18:45, 19 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
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
  • Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


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)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions Add topic