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 16:12, 11 March 2015 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,376 edits →GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion: covered (edit conflict so inserted it where I planned it to be← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:54, 19 January 2025 edit undoCabayi (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators142,383 edits →American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion: q x2 
(999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
] ]
]


== Clarification request: GamerGate == == Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 16:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC) '''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|GamerGate}} :{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
#]
*{{userlinks|MarkBernstein}} (initiator)




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




; Information about amendment request
=== Statement by MarkBernstein ===
*]
On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams on . Two days later, I was topic-banned by {{ping|Dreadstar}} under the standard AE sanctions, over his concerns regarding this discussion of that article at the Gamergate talk page.
:*Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


I had requested clarification by email about the intended scope of the standard topic ban. Receiving no pertinent response, I asked on my talk page.


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
:@Dreadstar: Is it your intent that this topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender? One might say that opposition to rape is uncontroversial, but doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, or controversy of some sort. (Then again, one might assume that commenting on other editors involved commenting on actual editors!) I ask only to advise an organization seeking my advice on promoting wider participation by women in the areas of its expertise in the wake of recent press coverage of Misplaced Pages.
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)
This evoked a vituperative response by email, which I believe to have been sent to you as well, and which is now being discussed at , which I believe is the appropriate forum. '''I do not wish to enquire further into that here.'''


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
I do not believe the topic ban was proper, just, or expedient. '''I do not wish to enquire further into that in this place and at this time,''' though of course you may discuss whatever pleases you.
''2015'', would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, ''2016''. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. ] (]) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Rosguill ===
The underlying question remains: an activist had contacted me that very day, seeking advice for a Misplaced Pages initiative among her membership and concerned -- not unreasonably -- over the sort of repercussions that were detailed in ''Think Progress'' and previously in a number of other newspapers and magazines .
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 ===
Is it your intent that the standard Gamergate topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender?
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. * -->
<hr>
Administrator Masem makes an ''interesting'' proposal that the committee find that Campus Rape does ''not'' fall under the standard sanctions in general, but it ''does'' for me. DHeyward and Thargor Orlando apparently share this fascinating view. This is, of course, a bill of attainder, and is incompatible with the notion of the rule of law.

My question addresses your intent in writing the decision you wrote.

It's not clear to me that the assistance of third parties, involved or otherwise, is helpful for you to determine what you meant to say a scant six weeks ago. Nothing else is at issue here -- although now that the question has been raised so forcefully below, by such august Wikipedians, it might be useful to state whether Misplaced Pages policy applies alike to all, or whether it can be changed so flexibly to afflict our foes and benefit our .

=== Statement by Bosstopher===
This isn't actually related to what Mark's said, but it's such a minor and uncontroversial issue that I don't want to create a separate RCA for it. Apologies to Mark for partially hijacking his ARCA. ArmyLine's topic ban (despite what's incorrectly been written on the GG General sanctions page, was actually given under ]. This means ], as is ]. Could these be ammended to note that ArmyLine was banned under BLP discretionary sanctions, as opposed to GG general sanctions? ] (]) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom===
Given the overly broad topic area and the directive that it be "broadly construed", we were obviously going to be back here. This time around, I would hope that the ArbCom members carefully consider the actual ramifications of whether their actions are going to ''minimize disruption'' in the long term or will ''provide a blueprint for how outside canvassing can be used to disrupt Misplaced Pages to drive editors away''. I hope that any support that comes their way in this dark hour will help them come up with a decision that is ''actually'' likely going to do the former while maintaining the basic principles of creating an encyclopedia that everyone, including women, can edit without fear of arbitrary sanctions.-- ] 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:Really {{ping|Courcelles}}? that seems to lead down the path that {{ping|Guerillero}} assured {{ping|Risker}} wouldnt happen. -- ] 00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::But then again, we have already learned how much value we can put into what the ArbCom says on a PD talk page -- ] 00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
So the ] /] and the ] the ] ] and ] are obviously covered as well, since they have well documented controversies involving gender? -- ] 03:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For "topic bans" it may or may not be as clear cut as people seem to think, but per {{ping|Courcelles}} "If something is covered by the DS, it is covered for all editors equally, there can be no "this set of topics for editor X, and this set for everyone else"." so, as soon as ''anyone'' mentions "the NFL cover up of wife beating by players" the DS tag goes on the NFL talk page and people get their alerts? -- ] 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thargor Orlando===
Not to speak for Dreadstar or the Arbs, but the topic ban, as written at MarkBernstein's talk page, is in part for "any gender-related dispute or controversy." This is an incredibly controversial topic anyway, and Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes. The goal of the topic ban is to keep him ''away'' from inflaming these topics, not to try and drive him to other ones. I hope the arbs and admins here clarify that this article and his involvement would fall under the relevant sanctions, and perhaps extend this topic ban toward MarkBernstein indefinitely as it should have been back at the original ruling, as he has continually shown himself unable to collaborate constructively in the space due to his personal feelings on the relevant topics of Gamergate, feminism, and Misplaced Pages's governance. The continued allowance of MarkBernstein to disrupt the proceedings at the relevant articles is a problem that is in need of an overdue solution.

Also, this continued spamming of his blog posts and the ThinkProgress blog post is becoming exhausting and self-promotional, and is arguably becoming an issue of a conflict of interests in and of themselves. Since we're here, it is worth a mention. We wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else.

=== Statement by Strongjam ===
Clarification on the exact scope of the GG topic ban is needed. This isn't the first time this has been brought up, previously in the {{oldid|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|649374731|Spudt3r case}} this came up. Personally I feel the wording is too broad, but I appreciate that might of been intentional. — ] (]) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof ===
Thargor Orlando's statement appears to be yet another attempt to silence dissent and sweep this issue under the rug. It is hardly "spamming" to suggest that a significant media article be included in the In the Media section. The fact that the article is significantly critical of Misplaced Pages's processes and response to this issue derives the inevitable inference that Thargor's decision to engage in an to remove it from the In the Media section is intended to cover up inconvenient truths. (I believe the usual term for that is ].) While leveling accusations of a "conflict of interest," Thargor interestingly fails to note his own conflict of interest here, in that the article is critical of the position he has relentlessly pushed on-wiki. What he calls "drama" is no more and no less than a thoroughly-justified belief that the encyclopedia's own processes failed those who stood up to defend the project's basic principles from vicious, organized abuse. ] (]) 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:ArbCom: There is a quite simple solution to these issues, and that is to acknowledge that you have made a mistake in imposing broad and indefinite topic bans on users who did nothing more than defend living people from slander. As the peak of Gamergate-related activities recedes further into the past, the reliably-sourced historical narrative about what it was, what drove it and what it intended is only solidifying, and the historical narrative of how Misplaced Pages responded can still be changed for the better. I challenge you to examine how you might turn about the public perception that your actions constitute a collective capitulation to an anonymous hate campaign. Injustice has been done to myself and others, and silencing those who would speak out against such injustice only compounds the problem. ] (]) 10:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by ForbiddenRocky ===
"Broadly construed" really needs to be explained better for this topic.
The categories listed for ] currently :
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
Does a Gamergate controversy topic ban include articles sharing these categories? ] (]) 18:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Courcelles}} So, a GGC topic ban does ban people from most feminist topics? ] (]) 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Masem ===
I would argue that Campus Rape would not fall under the GG general sanctions as IDed by ArbCom, for any other editor. But I will argue that in the specific case of Mark, who in the past has been quick to label editors as "rape apologists" tied to the GG situation (, that this clearly shows a strong COI in the area, and that in this specific case for Mark should be an area to avoid, if even voluntarily. --] (]) 19:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by (unrelated) coldacid ===
From the case remedies: {{quote|(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.}}

Campus rape is a touchy subject in gender issues and civil issues groups, and because of the spectrum of opinions and how vehemently holders of those opinions can be when they are challenged on them, I think it's safe to say that it would fall under the (i)(b) subclause of the Discretionary sanctions remedy. Whether or not the GG discretionary sanctions should include pages on the subject of campus rape is another issue altogether.

Depending on the size and/or membership of the set of editors both active on pages regarding campus rape and those regarding GamerGate, it may or may not be worthwhile for the arbs to consider making an exception to the GG DS. Honestly I'm not interested in making that determination, nor suggestions towards it, but looking into that may be the way this request should go, if the arbs decide to take any action. //&nbsp;] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|ForbiddenRocky}} I'd argue that yes, GG topic bans ''do'' include feminist topics, and I'd even posit that (i)(b) and (i)(c) exist to prevent the GamerGate battleground from spilling out into those topic areas. //&nbsp;] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Masem}} I'd love to know why you think that campus rape as a topic wouldn't fall under the sanctions. I agree that this is definitely an area that {{ul|MarkBernstein}} should avoid, but unless I've been misreading something, somewhere, it seems pretty clear that campus rape would be covered under the areas included in the GG topic bans. //&nbsp;] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Squiggleslash}} A topic that is prone to raising controversies is by virtue of the frequency of those controversies, controversial itself. As I already mentioned in my reply to {{ul|ForbiddenRocky}}, it seems obvious that topics such as campus rape were intentionally scoped into the discretionary sanctions clause for the GG case to avoid the behaviour from the ] article spilling out further into articles covering gender-related issues. I didn't participate in the GG case, but I did observe it; from those observations I drew the conclusion that the DS scope was intended to keep sanctioned editors from disrupting anything gender issues related.

By the way, a look at your recent ], and especially raises the question of whether or not you're back to actually contribute to Misplaced Pages. I hope the former, but that notice certainly implies ]. //&nbsp;] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Squiggleslash}} I'd actually argue that bringing the topic of murder into this is ]. People don't debate whether or not there's a murder phenomenon, even if particular accusations can be considered controversial. On the other hand, there are groups that argue that campus rape is a large, widespread phenomenon and others who argue that isolated incidents of rape are being tacked together as one big issue. The subject itself is controversial because people are debating the actual meaning and/or the existence of campus rape as an issue or phenomenon in the first place.

:By the way it's not those "first two words" that has me considering you as ]. It's the rest of your statement that has me raising this flag, since it implies that you may only be here (or logged in) to ] about "sexist extremists". Perhaps if you hadn't phrased your notice in such a way that assumes bad faith, I wouldn't have seen it as an issue of note wrt your participation in this ARCA request and other edits you've made logged in since December. //&nbsp;] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 15:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by DHeyward ===
MArkBernstein's topic ban was for continuing to comment on contributors and not content. This was noted by two admins on his talk page and has been noted elsewhere. Notwithstanding his strawman argument about campus rape, of which I can find no substantial contribution by MarkBernstein, his topic ban has nothing to do with it. This is a canard put forth only to muddy the waters. MarkBernstein doesn't appear to be ] to build the encyclopedia. --] (]) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by NE Ent ===
Since ] references both ] and ] logically it would fall under the topic ban. <small>]</small> 23:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rich Farmbrough ===
I am very concerned that we should not waste the talents of someone like MarkBernstein. While he apparently has trouble disengaging from personalities, or at least understanding how others might perceive what he writes, when working in areas about which he feels strongly, he has a wealth of expertise in the statistical field which can be very productive on Misplaced Pages.

I don't see ] as being the pacific topic which MarkBernstein hopes. There are fraught conversations about double jeopardy, the role of campus police, notable hoaxes, alleged rapists being "punished" by having to write an essay, how ill-suited campus committees are to understand even the mechanics ("I had to draw a diagram"), whether those who sue universities for wrongful punishment are "entitled", and on, and on.

If this ''is'' covered by the sanction under which MarkBernstein finds himself, it is not an area where I would imagine there is any guarantee that the conflict would not recur, especially so soon after recent issues, so a special dispensation would probably be unwise.

I would suggest that other areas such a medicine, climatology and pseudo-science might well benefit from MarkBernstein's statistical expertise.

All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>02:37,&nbsp;11&nbsp;March&nbsp;2015&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />

=== Statement by Cailil ===
I'm glad this kind of request has come to ARCA - there was a ] where admins expressed uncertainty as to whether the WP:ARBGG ruling applies to issues that, to my mind, fall within the definition of gender related controversies (in that instance it was the Men's rights movement, a <b style="color:red">controversial</sup> <b style="color:orange">gender politics</sup> movement). I said it AE then and I'll say it here my reading of the WP:ARBGG ruling is that <blockquote>''...any gender controversy is covered - so controversial backlashes against Feminism, the USA bills/laws ] & ], and other topics like ], as well as any future issues like the ] conflict etc etc are already preemptively covered. It is as I understand it a preventative measure so that nothing ever gets to the GG level of disruption on WP again. The Men's rights issue is highly controversial a) in RL and b) for the Men's rights online community's reaction to wikipedia's coverage (exactly like GG).''</blockquote> I (and frankly the reliable sources out there) see issues like campus rape (and a whole panoply of other gender issues that are given high profile in the media ''due to gender politics'' around them) fall into the category of gender related controversy. <br>Furthermore Thryduulf's contribution to that AE case seems to me to have muddied waters here. Issues like Campus Rape or Men's rights or feminism or Women's studies are always already about gender, and any controversy about them or if they are a controversy, puts them firmly into the range of the ARBGG AC/DS. If I'm wrong about this I'd welcome correction by Arbs because as it stands the ARBGG ruling seems very clear to me--] <sup>]</sup> 09:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:Just further I understand where TRPOD is coming from and it would be my reading that topics like the NFL etc are not covered in total but just like any topic ban - sub issues relating to gender are. However my point above is that isssues that are ONLY about gender politics will always be covered if controversial, and there's no two ways about that under the current wording--] <sup>]</sup> 11:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved editor Squiggleslash ===
Apologies in advance, I have a severe TL;DR problem I'm trying to overcome but frequently misjudge in both directions.

I'm seeing the direction admins are going with some concern, as I don't think there's an understanding as to why this is brought up.

* The sanction is "any gender-related dispute or controversy" with the vague phrase "broadly construed" which generally would be interpreted as meaning "any definition of controversial" or "any definition of gender-related".
* Campus Rape, by survivor count and by the involvement of feminist groups campaigning on the subject, can be described as gender related.
* However Campus Rape is entirely uncontroversial and not a dispute - all WP:RS are opposed to it. You will not find a single article or even opinion column in any reliable source saying we should tolerate it. Indeed, a mindboggling silly Misplaced Pages incident just occurred because someone apparently thought they being accused of supporting campus rape by Bernstein.
* There are disputes and controversies that involve incidents or alleged incidents of campus rape.
* There are also disputes and controversies that relate to the arguments being used by those advocating solutions to campus rape.

The literal wording of the sanction says that Campus Rape is not covered. The sanction requires the topic itself to be controversial. It isn't. None of the disputes and controversies covered by the topic make the topic itself controversial.

Similar example: Murder is uncontroversial. Numerous people have been convicted of murder only to be found later to have been completely innocent. Does the latter make the former a dispute or controversy? Of course not. Likewise there are controversies with murder statistics, with the role of guns both as a weapon available to murderers and a means of self defense, and so on. Again, none of the people arguing for or against gun control, or interpreting the different statistics, support murder.

I would have assumed from the ban's wording that a sanctioned editor could edit the article in question, but might be forbidden from touching, for example, a section on the recent Rolling Stone fiasco. If clarification were needed, it would be on the latter.

It seems however, from what admins are writing now, that Arbcom didn't intend the literal meaning. Most are arguing that the topic should be off limits. I'm guessing that, while none of you consider the topic controversial (you're not pro-rape), you have concerns about controversies related to the topic (such as the Rolling Stone article, or controversies related to statistics.)

Change the wording so it's clearer. Make it clearer what "Gender related" means here, and reword and state explicitly, because virtually every topic has a controversy associated with it, the relationship between the PAGE or PART OF THE PAGE covering the topic and any dispute or controversy as it relates to the ban.

tl;dr - I'd have expected answers to be one of:

1. (BAD) (apparently an accurate reflection of where you stand right now) Our intention was to cover subjects like Campus Rape. We are changing the wording of the scope of the topic ban to "All articles that focus on issues frequently addressed by feminists where any element of the article is disputed, no matter how tenuous the connection with the underlying subject, by one or more involved editors, with the dispute ongoing at the time of any edits."

2. (BETTER) Our intention was not to cover subjects like Campus Rape though sanctioned editors must be careful to stay clear of controversies when editing articles such as this. We are changing the wording of the scope of the topic ban to "those parts of Misplaced Pages pages that cover specific disputes or controversies related to issues frequently brought up by Feminists".

3. (BEST) Arbcom recognizes there were problems with our decision concerning the Gamergate decision and intends to review it.

Not:


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
0. (TERRIBLE) It's "obvious" what we mean, "of course" Campus Rape is banned. Everything stays the same and we'll act surprised when we get asked this question fifty more times...
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. ] (]) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
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)


===Statement by Vanamonde===
--] (]) 14:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. ] (]) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Aquillion ===
@coldacid - As I said in the comment you quoted, I do, actually, still occasionally make AIP edits. I just don't do it often, because I'm aware I don't have the temperament for Misplaced Pages disputes. I'm logged in right now for two reasons: 1. So the fact I am a long time editor, albeit one who has cut back on editing, is known, and 2. Because I want my IP private given some of the parties concerned. As an aside it is depressing that a comment that contradicts the notion I'm WP:NOTTHERE is being used to attack me as NOTTHERE. Concerning the rest of your comments, you're, if I understand you, claiming that Campus Rape is controversial because there are controversies that relate to the topic. That doesn't really address my point: none of the controveries actually change whether the topic itself is controversial. I've yet to see a single controversy relating to Campus Rape that's made people change their minds from "No, we think it's a bad thing" to "Well, maybe it's not so bad after all." There have been even more controversial cases of people being accused of murder, even more controversial statistics relating to murder rates, even more controversial theories on how murders can be prevented, and yet we would never in a gajillion years suggest Murder itself is controversial. Or would you? Would you consider ] to be a controversial topic on the basis of the number of false convictions, for instance? --] (]) 15:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be ''intuitive'', since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --] (]) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@coldacid - If you read the rest of that quote to imply I'm WP:NOTTHERE, and worse still now apparently are using them to claim I'm acting in Bad Faith, then my English skills must be even worse than I thought, and I don't see a lot of point in continuing the conversation. Regardless of what has been read into what I wrote: I am here in Good Faith, I do make edits from time to time and have done for years. It's also obvious that my comments explaining the principle by using a different uncontroversial topic are not being understood, or being mistaken to mean I think that Rape is Murder or something else I don't quite get, so at this point I guess I have to hope somebody can make the same points I'm making in a way everyone else understands. --] (]) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


=== Statement by {next person} === === 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 case request or provide additional information. Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== GamerGate: Clerk notes === === American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* *


=== GamerGate: 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 think the topic of campus rape quite clearly falls inside the scope of the DS authorization. I think we should also reject Masem's idea in his statement. If something is covered by the DS, it is covered for all editors equally, there can be no "this set of topics for editor X, and this set for everyone else". As to Bosstopher's comment, they are clearly correct, and we should correct this by motion. (rewritten slightly to clarify what I meant, but the substance is the same). ] (]) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
:* TheRedPenOfDoom, this isn't some dramatic expansion of DS, Campus rape is, to me, so clearly a gender-related controversy that it surprises me we even have to discuss it. As to what one arb says somewhere, it doesn't mean the other 14 agree or endorse it, that said, this particular issue of campus rape is not that broad, and is inseparable from gender controversies that the broadly construed language isn't even necessary to have it within the scope as written. ] (]) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes
*The question is the scope of "gender-related dispute or controversy," not the validity of the specific topic-ban or the issue of Gamergate itself. The scope is straight-forward - any article, or section of an article, which is controversial or in dispute and is fundamentally related to gender issues. By definition, "Campus rape" is a gender-related issue. Regrettably its prevalence, definitions and demographics are issues of societal controversy (I dont think they should be, but they are). Therefore "Campus rape" is covered by the Gamergate DS and people topic-banned under those DS should edit elsewhere. -- ] (]) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
:* Addendum: On this issue I also agree entirely with {{u|Rich Farmbrough}}. -- ] (]) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
**] indef semi
::*{{replyto|TheRedPenOfDoom}}, where an article is only partly related to gender, the topic ban only applies to those specific parts of the article. So if there was a section in the ] article that was about (say) sexual harassment by Congressmen, that would be covered by the ban. The next section on (say) the hours of operation of the Congress, would not. But really there is no need for hair-splitting if the ban is observed in good faith. Anyone with a topic ban should simply not make edits about gender-related issues. There are millions of other articles to work on. -- ] (]) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. ] (] &#124; ]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm puzzled about why we even have to discuss this. Is campus rape gender a controversy? Yes, obviously. Is that controversy related to gender? Yes, given many reliable sources about the topic focus on one gender and the rates of perpetrators and victims differ very significantly by gender, there is no way this could not be. As such campus rape is clearly within the scope of all gamergate topic bans (not just Mark's). {{reply to|MarkBernstein}} ] offers good advice here. {{reply to|TheRedPenOfDoom}} Euryalus' reply is absolutely correct. ] (]) 10:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{replyto|NorthBySouthBaranof}} This is explicitly not an appeal of Mark's topic ban, let alone yours, merely a request for clarification regarding its scope. If you wish to appeal your topic ban from GamerGate you may do so at the end of January next year or to Jimbo at any time. Your comments as they stand are not helpful for determining whether the topic of campus rape is or is not a gender-related controversy. ] (]) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*What Euryalus said. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:01, 11 March 2015 (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)
*Yes, what he said, but also noting that it isn't whether anyone supports campus rape, it's that it is both gender related and controversial - a number of colleges have tried to cover it up in various ways. That's clearly controversial. ] (]) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (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)
*I essentially agree with the above. Campus rape is a gender related issue in terms of prevalence, and is also a controversial subject, so it is covered by the topic ban. While it is true that reliable sources all agree it shouldn't happen, there is a great deal of social controversy over how to best address it and the like. As to a subject like the NFL, brought up by {{u|TheRedPenOfDoom}}, if a controversy that the NFL is involved in is gender related, that particular subject would be covered by the topic ban. If a controversy is not gender related (for a recent example, the controversy over its status as a nonprofit would be one such), that is not covered. And certainly, updating win-loss records for a given season would not be prohibited, since that's likely neither controversial nor gender-related. The entire subject certainly is not covered just because some facets could be, as is true of any topic ban. As MarkBernstein has indicated that he does not intend this to be an appeal to the topic ban itself, I intend this as general comment for anyone subject to such a topic ban, not an opinion on the validity of this particular instance. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
*Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was ]); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? ] (]) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
----
*A quick look down ] and ] enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. ] (]) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
:The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... ] (]) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:54, 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)
  • A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... Cabayi (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions Add topic