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 16:31, 20 December 2012 editAlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits →Motion: Replacement of "Article Probation" with "Standard Discretionary sanctions": motion enacted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:07, 19 January 2025 edit undoBlasterOfHouses (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions14,655 edits →Statement by Vanamonde: re-add the "{other-editor}" comment header 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{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>
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


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


;Case or decision affected
; Initiated by: Rainer P.
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
;Case affected : ]
#]


; Remedy to which an amendment is requested


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
*{{user|Rainer P.}} indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat
<!--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)


; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

* {{userlinks|Rainer P.}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Momento}} ()
* {{userlinks|Rumiton}} ()
* {{admin|The Blade of the Northern Lights}} ()


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


* Rainer P. indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat. ]

* Request : Rainer P. unbanned.

=== Statement by Rainer P. ===

*I have been indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistant battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge.

* I have never engaged in “battleground behavior”. I regard my influence there as neutral, moderate and conciliatory. About the only comment about me notes “Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction”.

* I have edited Prem Rawat articles less than 10 times in three years. I have made edits only with full consent from all after previous discussion, like my last edit to the article on October 19th.

*Most of my edits have been to the Talk Page because I have extensive knowledge of the subject and want to help the article editors. I have never been uncivil despite being frequently provoked.

* I have never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing.

* I have never been part of an Arbitration action. And so, as per Discretionary Sanctions, I should have received a warning before banning.

* I have never been banned or blocked or otherwise been subject to disciplinary actions.

* I have looked at all my edits and I cannot see what I have done wrong.

=== Statement by Rumiton ===

Thanks for inviting me to comment. I don't understand the reason for Blade's implementation of these bans so I will wait to hear from him before commenting further. ] (]) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, Blade has made a statement. For the record, I am not a SPA. In 5 years, I have made 9316 Misplaced Pages edits to 1138 pages, including helping develop several high-profile articles to FA status (see my Talk Page.)

I have now read Blade's comments 4 times, but I still find them problematic. He says: "What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat." This may be true, but is it necessarily a bad thing? If an article starts off by being unduly weighted against a subject; if it is packed with long-ago trivia and gossip from lesser sources and ignores or minimises the real recent achievements that sources tell us a subject has made, is restoring a balance not what we are supposed to do? OTOH, if someone believes that this is not the case, should they not vigorously present their argument on the talk page?

He then says, "Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two." (Momento and me.) Is this also a bad thing? "Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments now located at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49." Yes, that's true, he did.

"Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article." I don't want to add ''lese-majesty'' to whatever may be my other crimes, but IMO Jimbo's editing was hardly directed at "removing bias" when he added the word "cult" prominently to the lead. The word now appears <s>twice</s> three times in the first paragraph, without even the specific in-line attribution which is recommended in the .

It seems to me that Blade has overstepped the line in deciding for himself what is undue weight, and especially in banning Rainer P. who is one of the mildest and most conciliatory editors I have worked with. ] (]) 11:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Littleolive oil ===

I have a few impressions of the recent dynamics of this article discussion page and editing that includes Blade of the Northern Lights recent blocks. I had very little knowledge of Prem Rawat and of the editors who edit on this article until a few months ago with one exception, a now banned editor. I came to the page because of a comment I saw on Jimbo's talk page which seemed to me to be very uncivil.

Clearly discussion and editing on this page is highly contentious. However, while editors had strong opinions about how policy applied to content and sources, I did not see anything unreasonable in the issues raised. it seemed to me that some editors where intent on protecting past edits and content, while other editors were interested in contesting some content. I don't see anything wrong with any of this. Discussion pages are for discussion. This is contentious and a BLP so there's going to be lots of differing opinion. Once an uninvolved editor (olive) had come onto the page and Blade had made a few warning remarks in reference to civility, I felt things on the page settled down and editors were making a real effort to work collaboratively. I think that general process was ongoing and working. Issues were being discussed and then acted upon and there was little edit warring. The only inappropriate aspect of the process was periodic incivility which tended to degrade the process. I didn't see battleground behaviour in Memento, Rumiton or Rainer. Nor did the three of them always agree with each other. That isn't to say they didn't have strong opinions and were willing to express them. Rainer was always mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory in his positions. (I'm not taking credit for any quieting down on the page. I suspect any outside person requesting quiet above the din could change the long standing dynamic on that page)

It was after the page had quieted down and following a comment on Jimbo's talk page, and when progress was being made in terms of talk page dynamics that Blade sanctioned 4 editors silmultaneoulsy with out diffs to support the sanctions. Blade's ban didn't appear to follow the normal WP process by pointing to diffs of threads showing problematic behavior so I think posting diffs especially within context of the discussion as a whole would be a good next step for the banning admin to take.
In theory, sanctions in WP are meant to improve behavior. One can't improve if one doesn't know specifically what one has done wrong.(] (]) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

*@Sir Fozzie: Editors have been sanctioned already. I may not have understood your statement.
*My points, and I may have not articulated them very well is that It would be helpful if diffs indicating sanctionable behaviour for each editor be shown rather than a simultaneous editor sanction with no diffs.
*@ Commenting Arbs: My first reading of the article when I came to it a few months ago was that it contained, as some contentious articles do, subtle tiny points which together serve to colour the article as a whole. This is an insidious form of editing dangerous for an encyclopedia especially on a BLP article. As is now, the article reads in a pretty neutral way excluding the second sentence of the lead which serves to describe another human being in only one way. Not good and not neutral. My experience with the editors on this page was that there was a genuine effort to improve their editing. The sanction came as a shock, especially the sanction of Rainer, in light of the improvements I saw in editing behaviour. Perhaps the difference with someone coming in, who is aware of the history and contentious nature of the article in general, but has no view of the editors, nor preconceptions about the topic area is that I didn't know or care what Rawat is in a personal way, nor do I care about editor motive. I'm looking at the present situation. I as a reader now, as the article is, sense that Rawat is controversial, has detractors and supporters, and I have a sense of what his tenets are. I no longer feel I am being manipulated to see Rawat in any particular way. The slant when I came in was pejorative. The Nixon article is probably a good example of a neutral article that could have easily been slanted in a pejorative way. This means to me process on the article is starting to work. I have left the article because support of edits was seen as support of editors which left me open for a a lot of abusive comments. Not what I have time for.(] (]) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

=== Statement by EdJohnston ===
In response to Roger Davies, if you want to switch the remedies over to ], and want to find a way to deal with the existing bans, you could decide that any existing bans placed under the old remedies are vacated, but are replaced by new bans of the same duration subject to ]. Once you had made that change, you could deal with Rainer P.'s appeal by having a clerk copy it over to ]. ] (]) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Momento ===
Where is the evidence of Rainer's "persistent battleground behaviour"? I can't see it. Little Olive Oil and Silk Tork can't see it. BOTNL can't provide a single diff. And no one has raised it on Rainer's talk page or Prem Rawat talk. The only person accused of "battleground behaviour" on the Prem Rawat articles this year is PatW. Four separate editors have found it necessary to go to PatW's talk page and ask him to modify his behaviour to no avail. And that doesn't include numerous comments on Prem Rawat talk. As for BOTNL's observation that "it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing", I think this comment from an independent editor who wanted to contribute sums it up nicely - "I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point. PatW and Surdas, if you will work on getting your behavior back in line with WP's policies, I think more page watchers, such as myself, might be willing to get involved in the content discussion". Rainer may be an SPA but he is, as WP:SPA notes "a well-intentioned editor with a niche interest" and "the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject". Rainer's appeal should have been over in five minutes, he has done nothing wrong and "the project" is diminished when "mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory" editors are hounded and sanctioned for their personal beliefs.] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
*Despite Silk Tork's optimism I think it is highly unlikely that, despite that fact the Rainer has done nothing wrong, he will get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at AE" agreeing with that. We've already seen him sanctioned without a shred of evidence. And two Abitrators have already made it clear that simply being an SPA is cause for concern.] (]) 08:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
*Just to clarify. BOTNL says that "he had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first Hurricane Sandy and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas". In fact BOTNL made more than one hundred edits from Hurricane Sandy until he decided to ban me on November 15th, less than 24 hours after PatW wrote on Jimbo's page. He now characterises my edits between November 10 and 15 as giving "the article a very pro-Rawat slant". Have any of you looked at these edits? Here's a synopsis. And note that 17 editors were editing the article in the preceding month and not one of them objected to my proposals or edits. From October 1st to the time of my banning 20 different editors made 72 edits to the Prem Rawat article "hardly an article being stifled" as claimed by BOTNL. So who is turning Prem Rawat into a "battleground"? The editor BOTNL avoids discussing. An editor whose talk page has been visited 18 times by editors asking him to stop his "battleground" behaviour. Not to mention the countless times he has been asked to stop on the PR talk page. And yet BOTNL did nothing until he banned Rainer.] (]) 22:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

===Statement from The Blade of the Northern Lights===
Let me begin by saying I also think a blanket lifting here would be a bad idea; as noted below by Risker, there's something else at work with PatW's situation, and in any event these sorts of issues are normally considered on a case-by-case basis. In early April of this year, an ANI thread brought my attention to the Prem Rawat topic area; since that time, I have been watching over the Prem Rawat article and a few associated articles. From April to August, Rumiton was under an indefinite topic ban, but I was monitoring the other users linked above, and when I lifted his ban I continued to watch him. What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat. Although Momento, Rumiton, and PatW (PatW being the sole voice of opposition) were clearly the most active of the three, Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two; the percentage of edits these editors had to Prem Rawat and the talkpage referred to by Roger Davies below also caught my eye. With the exception of a couple of outbursts from PatW, it's not something that can easily be packaged in diffs, but watching it happen it was becoming very clear what was going on. ] had come in to mediate in August, and he was seeing exactly the same patterns I was. By mid-October, it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing. Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments now located at ] (<s>which for some reason isn't linked in the archive box at ]; someone who knows how such things work may want to fix that</s> seems this has been fixed; many thanks to Hahc21).

As was stated in the messages I gave them each, I had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first ] and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas, and I didn't think it'd be fair of me to topic ban people and disappear for several days; in those couple weeks, I saw from Momento and Rumiton. These edits clearly gave the article a very pro-Rawat slant, and the tone on the talkpage made it readily obvious that was the intent. It was to the point where another editor noted on the talkpage how obvious it was, and even Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article (something he later ); this made it even more obvious to me the continued presence of these users would be detrimental. I knew none of them would want to raise an AE thread because it would almost certainly result in the filer being banned as well, and knowing the article was under article probation I decided to unilaterally do it myself.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether or not to remove the article probation sanction and replace it with standard DS; though the current article probation makes it easier for one administrator to manage major problems without requiring 15 threads in 10 places, I also understand not wanting to give administrators too much power over articles. As to the lifting of the topic bans, I think allowing SPAs who clearly have some sort of agenda back into the article will lead to exactly the same problems there were before. If you're going to replace article probation with standard DS, I'd support EdJohnston's suggestion above. ] (]) 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Roger Davies; thanks for cleaning up the logs. It makes the job of AE admins a lot easier if we're certain we're logging things in the right place.<br>@Newyorkbrad; the case of Rainer P. is certainly a bit murkier than the others, but here's my take on it. Two users, Momento and Rumiton, were by far the most vocal pushing a particular POV; although Rainer P. didn't himself initiate many proposals on the talkpage, I saw that he was showing up to support the other two with an extremely high level of frequency. As mentioned above, I also noticed the extremely high percentage of edits to both the article and talkpage. When considering what to do, I thought given his history that if I were to only ban Momento and Rumiton, Rainer P. would almost certainly pick up right where they left off; given this would defeat the purpose of stopping users from stifling the article, I decided to ban him as well. It's not unlike some AE cases where upon looking at a situation, you not only see a problem with the subject of the thread but with someone else not originally mentioned. ] (]) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Momento; just as I didn't want to hand out a topic ban and then disappear for several days, I also didn't want to come out of nowhere after being almost completely gone for almost a week and do something this drastic. Sandy hit my area Monday, October 29; I didn't get my internet back until the 3rd of November, Sunday afternoon. The very next day, I heard of the snowstorm, and while it ended up not knocking my power out it debilitated several towns immediately around mine and the threat of it lingered until about 4 or 5 days afterwards. I also have some other interests on Misplaced Pages as well, so it wasn't really the ''first'' thing I thought to do once I knew I was in the clear. ] (]) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

===Statement from {other editor}===
:{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.

:Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

=== Clerk notes ===


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.
*1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
*2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
*4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. ] (]) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


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


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
*I've looked back at the contributions of Rainer P. (which are mainly to the talkpage of Prem Rawat) and I cannot find any problematic edits. I think it would help if The Blade of the Northern Lights could identify the problem areas for us. ''']''' ''']''' 05:26, 16 December 2012 (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)
::And would this be better placed at AE? ''']''' ''']''' 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Support replacing the 2008 remedy with Standard Discretionary Sanctions, and then moving this individual's appeal to AE where the other users may also make an appeal if they wish. That a user has most of their edits in one location is not in itself a reason for a topic ban (even if the location is controversial) - it is the nature of the edits that matter (as discussed in ]), and I expect that during the individual appeals at AE it will be the nature of the edits of each user that will be examined rather than the amount. ''']''' ''']''' 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
* I've had a look at this too, but a slightly different perspective. The authority for the sanctions comes from the ]. The 2008 remedy does not require prior warnings, and has no appeal provisions. Whatever else happens, we probably need to consider whether the 2008 remedy needs to be modernised by replacing it with Standard Discretionary Sanctions. If we do go down that road, we could consider replacing the current indefinite topic bans with warnings to bring enforcement into line with current provisions, though probably not for all four editors involved. In any event, I'd like very much to hear from Blade of the Northern Lights before this amendment request gets much older. Parhaps one of the clerks would be good enough to notify ] as well as the other topic-banned editors, ], ] and ]. Thanks in advance, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
** Just looking at the contribution histories, 71% of Momento's edits are either to Prem Rawat or its talk page; 37% of Rumiton's; 86% of Rainer P.'s; and 77% of PatW's. Between them, they've added 11,800 edits to these pages. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
** @EdJohnston. That's a good idea. I'll think on the other mechanics/implications, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
*I'd be fine with bringing the remedy into the modern DS framework, however, a blanket lifting of the sanctions would be a bad idea. This appeal, however, we need to hear from Blade before proceeding further. (A motion on the underlying remedy would be in order before that, though) ] 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
* Would be interested in bringing this into line with the current discretionary sanctions framework. I will note that I recently blocked PatW indefinitely for an attempt to out a user in relation to this topic. I am quite concerned about the fact that we seem to be dealing with several editors whose sole contribution to the project is in the Prem Rawat topic area, and I am unconvinced that any steps that permit these accounts to continue to monopolize the topic area is beneficial to the project. ] (]) 03:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
* I agree that we need to bring this case in line with "modern" discretionary sanctions, but I don't think a blanket lifting of sanctions is workable, nor desirable. I share Risker's concerns that there are a number of SPA's who are very close to the edge of a sanction here. ] (]) 09:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
* I completely understand why The Blade of the Northern Lights perceived problems in the editing of ], but if Rainer P. is correct that he "had never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing," then I can understand his perspective that immediately escalating to an indefinite topic-ban might be a bit drastic. I'd welcome The Blade of the Northern Lights' thoughts on that aspect. I also agree with the suggestion of moving to a discretionary sanctions regime on ] and related articles, and allowing editors who are currently the subject of sanctions based on the 2008 decision (including Rainer P.) to request reconsideration of their status on AE. ] (]) 01:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


===Motions=== === 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)


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


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
By motion, the committee resolves that:<ol><li>] are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to ], broadly construed; this supersedes the existing ] remedy.<li>Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at ].<li>The ''Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions'' at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at ], which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.</ol>
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)
'''Enacted''' - ] (]) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
;Support
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)
:# There appears to be consensus for this in the discussion above. As a bit of gold-plating, I have consolidated the logs for RfAr:PR and RfAr:PR2 as they are currently separated. I should add that this motion is purely an administrative action and is in no way critical of ]. Please tweak if needed. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:# <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 13:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:# ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 13:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:#Appropriate tidying up - including the merging of the logs. ''']''' ''']''' 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:# This makes good sense as an amendment to the two Prem Rawat decisions. If it passes, could a Clerk please answer any questions Rainer P (or anyone else) might have about the procedures, as I expect that the distinction between an appeal to ArbCom and an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement may be opaque to editors unfamiliar with the arbitration pages. ] (]) 16:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:#Good housekeeping. ] 17:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 17:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 07:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
:# Upon implementation of this motion, Rainer's appeal should be submitted in the usual way to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. ] ]] 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


===Statement by Vanamonde===
;Oppose
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 {other-editor} ===
;Abstain
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 ===
;Arbitrator comments
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
:*When this motion is enacted. would the clerks please notify all the users currently under the old sanctions to let them know of the change, given this creates a route of appeal that did not exist prior? Thanks. ] 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
*
::*The only users under current sanctions are those here. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 07:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


=== 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)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
**] indef pending changes
**] indef consensus required restriction
**] 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)
::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)
*My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ] (]) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like ] still have recurring issues. - ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was ]); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? ] (]) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:07, 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 {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