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

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:09, 20 February 2015 editSmallbones (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers59,710 edits →Statement by Smallbones ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:56, 23 January 2025 edit undoPrimefac (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators210,285 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: if I remember correctly, closed requests are hatted not atop'd
(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>
	]		]
			]

	== Amendment request: ~~Wifione~~ ==		== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
	'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 15:56, 15 ~~February~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected		;Case or decision affected
	:{{RFARlinks\|~~Wifione~~}}		:{{RFARlinks\|American politics 2}}

	; Clauses to which an amendment is requested		; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
	#]		#]

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

			<!--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 ]-->
	; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|~~Smallbones~~}} (initiator)		*{{userlinks\|Interstellarity}} (initiator)
	*{{admin\|Fluffernutter}}
	*{{userlinks\|Bilby}}
	*{{userlinks\|Jayen466}}
	*{{admin\|HJ Mitchell}}

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
	*
	*
	*
	*

	; Information about amendment request		; Information about amendment request
	*]		*]
			**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
	:*Please delete this princple, or copyedit it to "6) ... The Committee ...has... a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry ..." where the ... indicate words I've removed.

			=== 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. ] (]) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:@]: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. ] (]) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Statement by Smallbones ===
	The principle seems to say that we do not have a policy on undisclosed paid editing or that ArbCom and admins cannot even consider enforcing the current policy ] and guideline ] (1st section which repeats the relevant part of the ToU), or perhaps not even any part of the ToU.

			=== Comment by GoodDay ===
	] is clearly Misplaced Pages policy, stating so itself (since 2009), and being categorized as such, and in a policy navigation box. Denying that this is policy, would be creating policy by fiat, and be a constitutional crisis for Misplaced Pages (i.e. ToU don't apply here). The principle was not needed to decide the case, so there is no need to even appear to be denying that ] can be considered by ArbCom.
			''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 thread at ] discusses this at great length. It says everything that needs to be said IMHO. But do note that IMHO 3 arbs expressed some level of agreement or sympathy with my position in that thread. I'll inform all non-arb participants of that thread, listed above, about this request but don't really think they need to expand upon what they've already said.
			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 ===
	:I'm sorry to repeat myself from the talk page thread, but I just don't understand how anybody can say that ] is not currently a Misplaced Pages policy.
			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)
	:*the page itself states "This page documents a Misplaced Pages policy with legal considerations."
			<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
	:*it is listed at ]
	:*and at ]
	:*it is categorized at Category:Misplaced Pages policies‎
	:*and at Category:Misplaced Pages legal policies‎
	:*and listed on the ]
	:*the relevant section here is repeated word-for-word at ], a guideline, and ArbCom does enforce guidelines when necessary.

			=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
	:I also find it disturbing that folks will say that there is no consensus for the policy when the largest RfC in history was conducted less than a year ago with 80% of the respondents supporting the change to the ToU. The fact that it was conducted, as required by the ToU, on meta rather than en Misplaced Pages, strikes me at best as a technicality.
			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 ===
	::Now I don't understand the distinction being put forward between accepting ] as policy, but saying that ArbCom does not have a mandate to enforce it.
			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)
	::As I understand it ArbCom has the power to enforce any persistent violation of policy. This is supported by ]

			===Statement by Vanamonde===
	:::"In cases where it is clear that a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. In cases where the general dispute resolution procedure has been ineffective, the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive or sensitive situations."
			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 ===
	::]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 16:15, 16 February 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)
	{{u\|Roger Davies}},
	just a small correction, http://wikimediafoundation.org/Policies does list the TOU as policy:

	"'''Policies'''

	These are all official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation.

	'''Wikimedia wikis'''

	These policies, in addition to the ''terms of use'', apply to all Wikimedia wikis." (my italics)

	{{u\|Carrite}}, I just can't imagine somebody seriously writing "the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing per se, the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding."

	The "WMF's unilateral tweaking" was the largest RFC in history . 1103 users (79.4%) supported the change to the TOU and only 286 against it. That's 4 supports for every 1 against. Folks who say that there is no community support for the TOU either haven't paid attention or want to exclude a large number of the members of our community. If anyone - arbs or otherwise - want to change the outcome so that the TOU is no longer policy, the TOU describe how they can do that. It certainly hasn't been done yet. There's no requirement that another RFC has to be run so that policy can be enforced. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 02:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Fluffernutter ===
	The Wikimedia Terms of Use are English Misplaced Pages policy. That is made clear in a number of places, including , <ref group=a>"A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. '''An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page."''' (emphasis mine)</ref> the ] that redirects to the Terms of Use,<ref group=a>"This page documents a Misplaced Pages policy with legal considerations."</ref> and our own ].<ref group=a>"Wikimedia's Terms of Use state that 'you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.'</ref> The Wikimedia Terms of use prohibit undisclosed paid editing, in very exacting terms. The Terms of Use also spell out exactly how a community would go about opting out of that section of the Terms of Use; none of these steps have been followed - or even begun, as far as I know - by the English Misplaced Pages. That means that, by the terms that we are all agreeing to by using this site, the ToU's paid editing policy is our paid editing policy. Now, perhaps this somehow slipped through without anyone in the community noticing . Perhaps the community would ''like'' to opt out of the Terms of Use using the provision the ToU provide. However, the community has ''not'' opted out of them, which means that, at least for the moment, they are our policy, unless and until the community locally opts out of them in the manner laid out by the ToU.<p>Now, does all of this mean Arbcom has to be the enforcer of All Policies Ever, Including Paid Editing, All the Time? No. But it ''does'' mean that Arbcom passed a remedy which is literally false: " is not prohibited by site policies." Perhaps Arbcom meant "disclosed paid editing is not prohibited", a true statement (which would be odd, in a case centered around accusations of undisclosed paid editing, but hey, it could happen); in that case, the statement needs to be clarified so that it is no longer ambiguous. It doesn't appear, looking at the Arb responses thus far, that that is the case, however. At least some Arbs appear to literally believe the Terms of Use don't apply on the English Misplaced Pages, which is...rather a problem. If this is what Arbcom meant, then I would hope that they would read the documentation they missed and correct their finding.<p>All that said, however, it looks like this clarification request is pretty likely to go nowhere, whether because the Arbs aren't familiar with local and/or global policy or just because they are reluctant to modify a finding they passed. That could be a problem going forward; it could not be. It depends on whether Arbcom actually believes this policy doesn't exist and intends to base future decisions on that, or whether it just wants us all to go away and stop talking about this finding so it can hear itself think. I'm hoping it's the latter, and I hope that once this furor dies down, Arbcom will quietly avoid handling future paid editing issues as if there were no policy governing them.

	{{reflist\|group=a}}

	:{{ping\|Seraphimblade}} I can only speak for myself, but it is not at all uncommon for me to come across new editors (especially at AfC) who are very, very clearly paid editors but who are not disclosing it. To make up a situation by way of example, if someone is creating a page called ABC Widgets, and they have the username JohnUniqueName, and clicking the article's external link to ABCWidgets.com shows that "John UniqueName" is their PR manager...it would beggar belief for that to be a coincidence. Now, if ] is pure G11 fluff ("ABC widgets is the bestest widget producer in Countryistan, call us at 555-555-5555 for low, low prices!"), their status as paid/unpaid is irrelevant, because either way, they're spamming. But if the article is more borderline ("ABC widgets is a widget producer in Countryistan. It has won the Golden Widget award from Widgets 'R Us three years running and is considered the premiere widget producer in Countryistan"), it becomes very relevant whether this is a good-faith editor who's here to help build the encyclopedia, or someone who's here to promote ABC Widgets. It is not necessary to out JohnUniqueName publicly to deal with this; in most cases a quiet, non-specific word with them ("Hey, so our ToU require people editing for pay to disclose, please give that a read and see if it applies to you") will do, and in cases where it doesn't, a blocking admin need only use "undisclosed paid editing" or the like as a block summary (I would add "and forward the evidence to Arbcom for review", but you guys appear loathe to get anywhere near any of this lest you get stuck with yet another job). '''tl;dr: It's not at all uncommon to come across cases where this distinguishing between paid/neutral is relevant if you spend any amount of time in new-page-related areas; please don't tie our hands by retaining a finding saying that we aren't allowed to do anything about them.''' ] (]) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

	::{{ping\|DeltaQuad}} You're looking in the wrong place for the ToU -> enwp policy confirmation. If you read past the beginning, down to , particularly the end of the "Paid contributions without disclosure" subsection, you'll see it quite explicitly: "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. ''An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the ].''" (emphasis mine). The enwp community ''may'' opt out of the ToU's paid editing policy, but it has chosen not to (or has been unable to get consensus to do so, perhaps), which means the global version is our version, and you're (we're) accepting those terms by contributing here. ] (]) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Bilby ===
	When the Terms of Use were changed last year to include a requirement for paid editors to disclose their relationship with clients, this became the English Misplaced Pages's policy. Since being enacted seven months ago, the various projects have had the opportunity to create alternative policies which would override the ToU. Commons has done so, but to date the community here has not agreed to an alternative. Accordingly, it is incorrect to say that the English Misplaced Pages does not have a policy in regard to paid editing.

	The fix is an easy one - strike the principle, (as it had no particular bearing on the findings), or just strike the first sentence, which would leave us with:

	:"The Committee a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy."

	The principle would then be accurate, it would not in any way change the findings, and the principle could then be easily reapplied to future cases. I'm not concerned as to whether or not the committee chooses to enforce the disclosure requirements, but this would bring the principle in line with the current situation on WP. - ] (]) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

	:@Seraphimblade, the community was involved in creating the policy, as it has been expressed in the Terms of Use. Along with the policy are explanations of how it should be applied, clarifying the example you give . The en.wp community can, if we choose, create an alternative policy, but until we do we have the one that was created via the broader Wikimedia community process. I agree that there are questions about how to apply it, but those are separate as to whether or not the policy holds.
	:At any rate, I'm surprised that this is an issue - as far as I'm aware, the disclosure requirements did not come into effect until after Wikifone edited the articles, so a change seems unlikely to have a bearing on the decision. It does suggest some confusion on the part of ArbCom about the current situation with paid editing, so I echo Smallbone's concern about the principal being applied again, but hopefully that won't be a concern. - ] (]) 13:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	:@Roger Davies - I agree that enforcement is a problem, and I'm not asking ArbCom to try and enforce the policy. My concern is only that the current principal is incorrect - whether or not ArbCom chooses to enforce the policy, the statement that there is no policy prohibiting paid editing is in error. If it isn't going to be reused that's probably not a big concern, but the worry is that the principal may be reused in future cases, or people may take it as written. - ] (]) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Jayen466 ===
	The most elegant solution is to strike the principle, as there is neither a related finding of fact nor a related remedy. This leaves the committee free to formulate something more developed if and when a related case arises. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 17:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Harry Mitchell ===
	The principle is correct as written. Even if ToU enforcement were ArbCom's job (it's not, the WMF employs lawyers for that), there is no clear enforcement mechanism and it's not ArbCom's job to come up with one. The ''effects'' of paid editing, on the other hand, (disclosed or otherwise) are very much within ArbCom's remit because there have long been clear policies which enjoy community consensus and specify enforcement mechanisms (for example, we routinely block people for POV pushing or advertising).

	There is no need to prove paid editing, and encouraging attempts to do so is to encourage precisely the sort of opposition research that the likes of Phil Sandifer, WillBeback, Racepacket, and others were banned for. There's a reason we ban people for that sort of thing, and we shouldn't be encouraging it—it's entirely possible to push a POV without being paid and to be paid and write neutrally. ] \| ] 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Alanscottwalker}} Bad ''editing'' is very easy to prove and is dealt with quickly (that's what I do on Misplaced Pages when I'm not bogged down in explaining what I do to people who, meaning no disrespect to them, spend very little time on the front line and so don't realise just how academic this issue is); all it takes is diffs and analysis. Bad ''motives'' are impossible to prove with on-wiki evidence, and require digging through people's personal and professional lives, which is one of the few things that gets an almost automatic siteban. Yes, it's entirely possible that somebody who is only here to promote a company does it because they're paid to, but while you're all sat round discussing whether or not they're paid and should have disclosed it, I've blocked them for advertising and have moved on to the next one and the one after that. ] \| ] 17:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Alanscottwalker ===

	1) Amend your dicta that was unneeded for the case. 2) The TOU is a basis for all kinds of policy on Misplaced Pages. 3) It's silly for the committee to claim it cannot enforce things without confession, it does it all the time (eg notthere, sockpuppets, etc., etc, etc.). ] (]) 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

	HJMitchell's claim of "no clear enforcement mechanism" is plainly untrue, there are only a very few enforcement mechanisms on wikipedia, for all breaches of site norms. There is no need to "prove" any breach (which is what the committee's, "not a court" principal means), there is only the need to have consensus that a duck appears to be a duck. As for whether paid COI runs the unacceptable risk of skewing coverage and making the pedia less reliable, consensus already is that it does (see the guideline), and that consensus is the only one that conforms to the reliable sources on COI and common sense. ] (]) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

	HJMitchell: So? Policy sets out norms. Be neutral, use RS, don't OR are non-self executing norms - but exist for people who don't know what they are doing in writing an encyclopedia. Anti-COI, is just a prophylactic subset, for people unfamiliar with dealing with their own COI. As for evidence that always varies from case to case, suspicious activities and suspicious statements, confession not required. COI rules are not about motive, they are about the appearance of relationship. ] (]) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

	Doug Weller: What policy are you being asked to impose? Your just being asked to cut back on things unneeded for your decision.] (]) 18:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{Ping\|DeltaQuad}} When you pressed save just now and every other time, you ''agree'' to the Terms of Service in WP:TOU. ] (]) 22:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	{{Ping\|DeltaQuad}} It's the agreement we both made when we pressed save and it sets out obligations between us, and every other community member. ] (]) 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC) {{Ping\|DeltaQuad}}:It guides you '''and''' me in using this site that ''is'' Us - (aka, the community) and it sets out responsibilities that are the way we are to act to the other users and readers - it is meant to be a benefit to others. ] (]) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{Ping\|DeltaQuad}}: I'm not sure what you are asking or arguing but ] would be another manifestation of the relevant consensus in addition to the fact that we all in the community agree to the terms set out. ] (]) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{Ping\|DeltaQuad}}: Well. It would be prudent for arbcom not to make statements that are over-broad and unneeded, and so you should go along with the motion, as you suggest, this is a poor place to 'have it out'. ] (]) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{Ping\|Roger Davies}} Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by site policy. "By using this site you agree to the Terms of Use" -- ] (]) 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{Ping\|Roger Davies}}: It's what we all in the community consent to by using this site. There cannot be a more universal consensus than that. (The page you link to says that the Terms of Use apply to the English Misplaced Pages site - as does almost every page on English Misplaced Pages). ] (]) 10:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{Ping\|Roger Davies}}: No one is asking the comitee to ] ]. The purpose of this is in fact to get you to '''not to declare''' the principle under discussion. However, because it just took you that many words to qualify the needless and infilicitous principle, the commitee should either qualify or strike. Strike would be simplest. ] (]) 15:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by (uninvolved) coldacid ===
	Reading through everything out of interest, there seems nothing out of place, incorrect, or policy-setting with the clause under consideration. With all due respect to the request initiator, the proposed rephrasing would not magically change the status quo, either, but it would at a minimum result in an error by omission with regard to the committee's responsibilities and powers. I would suggest that the committee decline the request, and if {{u\|Smallbones}} really feels the need for ArbCom to have the power and responsiblity of enforcing ToU, that they use the usual channels for changing enwiki policy. // ] <small>(]\|])</small> 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

	In light of {{u\|Fluffernutter}}'s , perhaps the principle should be revised as follows?
	<blockquote>6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for <u>disclosed</u> paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with <u>undisclosed</u> paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.</blockquote>
	This would help clarify that paid editing isn't banned on Misplaced Pages, but that undisclosed paid editing can lead to ArbCom actions and remedies. // ] <small>(]\|])</small> 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Konveyor Belt (uninvolved) ===
	While the TOU are site wide policy, I believe the "site policies" referred to in the decision were local policies, which, unless something has very drastically changed lately, do not disallow paid editing, undisclosed or otherwise. If that is the case, then the principle is fine as written.

	As for the WMF policies taking precedence over local ones, sure they do, but as they are WMF policies, they are not for us to enforce. The WMF must do it themselves as it is their policy. And as they seem unwilling to do so except in egregious cases, the point is moot. ''']''' 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	===Statement by Carrite===

	This request for amendment seems a transparent attempt to make "policy" by fiat. The fact is, the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing ''per se,'' the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding. A radical change of policy such as the banning of paid editing needs to come through a community RFC — and good luck with that. The statement on paid editing in the Wifione decision was well considered and accurate, in my opinion. ] (]) 21:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by {other-editor} ===		=== 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.

	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.
	<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->		<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

	=== ~~Wifione~~: 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).''
	*		*

	=== ~~Wifione~~: 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)
	*No. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
			*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
	*I've been looking through ] and ] and it's pretty clear that the community can't agree on this. I also thought that someone was going to raise a new RfC. Until the community can agree on a policy, I don't see how or why we should be imposing one, which is what this request would do. ] (]) 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
			**] indef pending changes
	*{{reply to\|Dougweller}}, I don't think we should impose anything. We should, however, simply strike principle six by motion, and thus make no statement on the matter at all. As we decided the case, it was wholly irrelevant to anything; so we have no need to try and rewrite or copyedit it, simply striking it solves all the problems. ] 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
			**] indef consensus required restriction
	**Oops, I was looking more at the arguments than the request. Striking it would seem ok. ], are you objecting to that? ] (]) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
			**] indef semi
	*This is what I got:</p><p>6) While undisclosed paid editing is ], there is not a current mandate from either the community or the Wikimedia Foundation for the Committee to enforce of this policy. Further, the arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. This should not be interpreted as prohibiting the community from enforcing the site policies around undisclosed paid editing, or from creating a framework to allow the committee to do so. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.</p> How does that sound? --] \| ] 06:34, 16 February 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. ] (] \| ]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*The thing is, insert that into the Wifione case... and what does it add? We didn't pass any FoF's related to paid editing, nor base any remedies off of such accusations. This isn't the place to hammer down the Committee's position on various kinds of paid editing and spend two weeks going around in circles. We sidestep all of this by simply looking at the final decision, finding the part that doesn't belong in the document, and excising it. ] 07:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
			::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::*It addresses what was presented in evidence. We didn't pass any FoFs or remedies on it because we don't have the enforcement mandate, not because it was useless to the case. -- ] ] 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
			::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{Ping\|Salvio giuliano}} et al. Are you actually asserting that the TOU aren't policy? If you are, then are you also going to throw the ], ], ], ] ], ], ], ], ] and ] policies out the window as well? They were applied to the English Misplaced Pages by the WMF/Jimmy without a local community consensus. --] \| ] 01:11, 17 February 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)
	*I agree that the statement as written is not incorrect, the only provisions in the TOU or local policies relate to a subset of paid editing (i.e. undisclosed paid editing) not paid editing as a whole. I therefore see neither need nor benefit in amending the remedy as written. It is however true that this principle does not directly impact the outcome of this case - it was included to reference why we were not making any findings regarding the allegations of paid editing that were repeatedly made against Wifione. So, while I would not oppose any motion to strike it from the case, I don't see doing so as an especially productive use of the Committee's time. ] (]) 13:44, 16 February 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)
	**{{replyto\|Fluffernutter}} Leaving aside whether it actually matters whether someone is being paid (I really believe it doesn't - if the are improving the encyclopaedia we want them; if they are not currently improving the encyclopaedia work with them until they either are or it becomes clear they cannot or will not), we are not tying anybody's hands with this - "paid editing" is not prohibited by any policy, the subset "undisclosed editing" is prohibited but is not mentioned in this principle. ] (]) 19:18, 16 February 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)
	*I can't add much to what I said at discussion at the case page (and am unsure why this request is here, does it really need said again?) We can't actually tell if someone is editing for pay unless they disclose it voluntarily, and if they disclose it voluntarily, it's not against the TOU. Checkuser doesn't let one peek into a person's bank account. So, at the end of the day, we can handle inappropriate editing (POV pushing, misuse of references, etc.), regardless of motive, but I don't see how we're supposed to figure out ''why'' someone was behaving that way. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
			*A quick look down ] and ] enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. ] (]) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I would support striking this principle. The current wording isn't correct, but the principle itself is also not so necessary to the case so as to make me feel like we need to spend time crafting better wording. ] <small>]</small> 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
			*The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
	**{{ping\|Salvio giuliano}} If there's an issue with a principle (which I think there is, here—although I and others interpreted this to mean that there is not local policy about paid editing, the ToU is policy, and the principle currently suggests otherwise), we should fix it regardless of timing. ] <small>]</small> 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
			:The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... ] (]) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	***I disagree on the merits and I disagree on procedure. Arbitration cases {{endash}} coming, as they often do, after years of heated disputes and, as they say, drama {{endash}} need to put an end to the controversy they deal with. If we start tinkering with cases immediately after they close, that goal is negated. The time to raise issues concerning a proposed decision is before it is passed. Not after. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
			*I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 ], which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers '']'' and the ], while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the ]. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.{{pb}}History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. ] (]) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	****We regularly tinker with cases after they close; that's the whole point of amendment requests. We've never spoken of any time restrictions around when amendment requests can be filed, and I disagree that we need some arbitrary time period before amending a case. ] <small>]</small> 15:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
	*Question to my fellow Arbitrators: Why, when we passed this at ] is it now completely incorrect and irrelevant? Is it because it's now in the spotlight? Why not fix the issue instead of dumping it to bring it up again in the future? (I already understand Courcelles' objection and I've replied to it above) -- ] ] 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	:*{{reply to\|DeltaQuad}} I don't give a damn about the spotlight, but we goofed here, plain and simple. It happens, we need to fix it and move on. We can either fix it by striking the principle (we don't have to mention everything from evidence in a decision), or by making the exact change {{u\|coldacid}} proposed above. But merely adding the word "disclosed" would make even ''less'' sense in the context of the case than striking it, as absolutely no one accused Wifione of being a disclosed paid editor. But at least that would make the principle into a statement that is actually true. ] 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	::*Yes Courcelles, I agree with the majority of what you had to say there. I still wish a chance to modify the wording a bit though, even with Coldacid's proposal. I'm still thinking of exact wording though before I motion it. -- ] ] 00:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
	*<s>In a separate point, how did this become site policy? We are looking at a ] in Nov 2009, since when do two editors determine what is and isn't English Misplaced Pages policy? If it's the WMF's, then it should say it's WMF policy. If it's a global one, per the global RfC, then it should say global.</s> <small>Pointless argument, read down</small> -- ] ] 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Alanscottwalker}} Yes, I agree to them, in an legal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation, not the English Misplaced Pages Community. -- ] ] 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Alanscottwalker}} We'll have to agree to disagree then I'm afraid. The first line of the overview in the ToU states ''"These Terms of Use tell you about our public services at the Wikimedia Foundation, our relationship to you as a user, and the rights and responsibilities that guide us both."'' It doesn't mention the community. -- ] ] 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Alanscottwalker\|Fluffernutter}} I see that my point is actually a pointless argument. My objection to this being site policy is the fact that the community can't come to an agreement about it. I feel (and yes, feel, so in legal/policy terms it has no application) that there should have been a provision indicating that a consensus, instead of a policy would be the determining guide. Because this is policy set down by the WMF, which yes we agree to by obligation of using this site, the English Misplaced Pages did not make it's own consensus like in the creation of normal ENWP policy. So while it is site policy, I feel there is a community "will", if you may, to not go with it, because the consensus (for or against) does not yet exist. But again, none of it matters in the grand scheme of things, because were looking at this as letter of the law (or policy, if that fancies you). I do understand that this is site policy, whether I regretfully say yes with every edit or happily say yes with every edit. Are we still disagreeing on the facts at this point? -- ] ] 00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Alanscottwalker}} I'm saying, yes, this is site policy, and I've stricken my above paragraph. My comments above don't really matter in the grand scheme of this ARCA/Motion, so you can just ignore them, or if you really want we can continue on my talk. Was there anything besides whether or not this is site policy we were disagreeing on? I want to make sure i'm not skipping over anything. -- ] ] 00:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|Alanscottwalker}} Over-broad, ok, I can see where that comment comes from the specific wording of whether it's policy or not. As for unneeded, I disagree, see my comments with Courcelles above. And I'm not saying this is a bad place to have talk about the motion. I said it was a bad place for me to place my objection to the way the ToU was written. I've stricken the relevant part from my oppose below. -- ] ] 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
	* Even if I accept that the TOU is policy, the TOU also explicitly prohibits invasion of privacy. I have yet to see an allegation of paid editing that did not include an invasion of privacy in some form or another. Furthermore, there are no enforcement provisions. The idea that it therefore falls to ArbCom to fashion an enforcement process out of whole cloth is bizarre. <p>But, if there is to be a process, it needs to be constructed with the fully informed consent of the community and must not sneaked in like via the back door. In essence, the community needs to agree to each aspect of the following question:<p>''"Do you consent to ArbCom, on the strength of an anonymous email denouncing you, launching a secret and amateur investigation into your private life - to pry into your location, ryour job title and your employer - then to discuss that investigation at length with others on secret mailing lists, and the perhaps site-ban you with no means of appeal?"''<p>Finally, I cannot begin to understand why people are so very keen for ArbCom to create a secret Star Chamber process to tackle paid editing, and then act as judge, jury and executioner when perfectly good and highly transparent processes are already available to deal with POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, battlefield conduct and so forth.  ] <sup>]</sup> 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	**{{u\|Alanscottwalker}}. The TOU is the legal agreement between the WMF and each individual editor. Think of it as ''n'' x individual "contracts". does not list it as a policy.  ] <sup>]</sup> 09:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
	**{{u\|Alanscottwaker}}. Whatever the truth of that, it's not ArbCom's job to declare policy. In fact, we are specifically prohibited by ArbPol (itself ratified with 87% support) from doing so. But much more to the point, this principle refers to the Wifione case and, also per ArbPol, sets no precedent. In the context of the case, the allegations of paid editing refer to articles which the editor stopped editing in 2013, at least six months before the 16 June 2014 TOU amendment concerning paid editing came into effect. Simply put, the TOU stuff is irrelevant.  ] <sup>]</sup> 13:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

			== Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal ==
	====Motion (Paid editing principle in ''Wifione'' case stricken)====
			{{hat\|Appellant has been indeffed by ToBeFree as a normal admin action; rough consensus that no further action is needed. ] (] • she/her) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:''{{ACMajority\|active=13\|inactive=1\|recused=1\|motion=yes}}''
			'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Ivmbox\|1=Principle 6 on paid editing is stricken from the ] case.}}

	;Support:
	:# ] <small>]</small> 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	:# Utterly and completely irrelevant to the case as decided. Also, at best, a half-true statement. ] 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	:# I am honestly shocked that so many of my colleagues do not think that the TOU are policy. I would like to point them to the list of policies that I outlined (above) that they enforce yet weren't created by EN Misplaced Pages. While my personal choice would be my proposed wording, I am in the minority and this is the next best thing. (I agree with Roger that sending Arbcom out on a paid editing exposition will end somewhere between ] and a ]. I hope the community does not tempt fate and add this to our long list of responsibilities.) --] \| ] 23:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	:#: {{u\|Guerillero}} I see where you're coming from on proposed wording but the principle doesn't mention the TOU at all, it only talks about site policies, ie the policies of the English Misplaced Pages. Our own local policies refer to "site" meaning the English Misplaced Pages, and the TOU refers to individual wikis as "sites or Projects" so there's no conflict there. If we really wanted to labour the point I suppose we could add the word "local" before "site policies" but given that "site" has exactly the same meaning in the principle, the TOU and in our site policies, I really don't think it's necessary. And, on reflection, do you?  ] <sup>]</sup> 01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
	:# Seems unnecessary to the case as a whole. While I'm firmly in the TOU=policy camp, I think the wording of the principle is actually legit (''undisclosed'' paid editing is forbidden, paid editing is not), but it's clearly confusing and isn't important to the outcome of the case. ] ]] 15:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

	;Oppose:
	:#The principle is fine as is. Also, I do not really appreciate the fact that we are trying to amend a case so soon after it was closed; even assuming for the sake of the argument that the principle was incorrect, there was plenty of time to raise the issue before we finalised the close. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	:#I'm not for sweeping it under the rug and waiting for it to come up again. As several people talked about on the talkpage, we need to amend this, not strike it. The only thing I really ever viewed as an issue was the wording that said the ToU was not policy, <s>and i'm still not 100% convinced that is right either</s>. This needs time for discussion here. -- ] ] 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	:# I was inactive on the case, so coming to it with fresh eyes, for whatever that's worth: I see absolutely nothing wrong with the principle, and I would dismiss this request. ] ]] 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	:# Even if we accept the rather tenuous "TOU is actually policy" argument, that really gives no idea as to what would be done here. If we're going to prohibit some types of paid editing, we need to hash out what is and is not acceptable in attempting to demonstrate someone is engaging in it, what exactly is prohibited (I presume we wouldn't prohibit a biology professor from updating taxonomies, for example), and how to balance the very real tension between this and the outing concerns that would inevitably pop up. That is, I think, a discussion that needs to happen, but it is something that needs to gain community consensus, not be imposed by us in a haphazard and ad hoc fashion as various things come to us. This is a perfect example of why ArbCom does not and should not make policy. Right now, there is no community mandate regarding paid editing, so the statement is accurate. That doesn't mean the community can't or shouldn't come up with policies around the issue, just that, to date, it hasn't happened. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	;Abstain:
	:#I agree with Salvio that the principle is fine as it is, so I'm not going to support this. As removing it from the case doesn't impact the decision, striking it is pointless but ultimately harmless so I'm not going to oppose it either. ] (]) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
	----

	== Amendment request: GamerGate ==
	'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected		;Case or decision affected
			:]
	:{{RFARlinks\|GamerGate}}

	; Clauses to which an amendment is requested		; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
			#]
	#]
	#]

	; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|GoldenRing}} (initiator)
	*{{userlinks\|MarkBernstein}}
	*{{admin\|Gamaliel}}

	; ~~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\|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)
	*MarkBernstein -

	*Gamaliel -

	; Information about amendment request		; Information about amendment request
			*]
	*]
			:*2022 changes
	:*13) The following parties to this case have been topic banned by the community under the ]:
	::* {{userlinks\|ArmyLine}}
	::* {{userlinks\|DungeonSiegeAddict510}}
	::* {{userlinks\|Tutelary}}
	::* {{userlinks\|Xander756}}
	::* '''{{userlinks\|MarkBernstein}}'''
	*]
	:*12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing {{User\|ArmyLine}}, {{User\|DungeonSiegeAddict510}}, <s>and </s>{{User\|Xander756}}''', and {{User\|MarkBernstein}}''' from editing under the ]. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the ].

	=== Statement by GoldenRing ===
	The effect of this amendment would be to add MarkBernstein to the list of editors whose TBANs imposed under the community general sanctions are converted to arbitration-imposed TBANs under the standard topic ban.

	I believe it was an oversight of the committee not to do this in the first place. The reason that it happened is that most editors presenting evidence dropped sections concerning MarkBernstein when he was handed a community-imposed topic ban (eg , ). However, there is ample evidence available of personal attacks and treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground to add a separate finding of fact and support a separate remedy (eg , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) if the committee thinks that a more appropriate approach.

	The reason this has come up now is that Gamaliel has seen fit to . on the basis of . This seems problematic for several reasons:
	*At the time the TBAN was lifted, MarkBernstein was blocked for violating it (), the blocking admin being of the opinion that {{tq\|you have no intent to stick to separate yourself from the topic area and you will continue to skirt the edges of it and even outright violate it. In addition, your previously stated that you had no interest in continuing to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and almost every edit you've made since has been in some way related to GamerGate}}.
	* The violation for which he was blocked was clearly continuing his battleground mentality
	* He has continued to make disruptive / battleground edits since the sanction was lifted (, , , , , , , , , , , , , ).
	* Over 70% of his edits since the TBAN was lifted have been GamerGate-related (31 of 42, though there is some doubt about a couple of YGM notifications; given the editors to whom they are directed, it seems likely)


	The sequence of events has the appearance and effect (though I don't think the intention) of making an end-run around the arbitration case. By TBANning MarkBernstein before evidence was well-developed, waiting for the case to end and then removing the TBAN, the committee has effectively been prevented from considering evidence related to him. I think the right way to deal with this is for the committee to consider the evidence presented above and to consider making the amendments suggested.

	Lastly, my apologies if this matter was considered by the committee when coming to a decision. If this is the case, I will happily withdraw the request. As it stands, I can see no indication on the workshop or PD pages that it was considered, and several indications from other editors that they considered it moot because of the indefinite topic ban. ] (]) 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{re\|Gamaliel}} To be clear, I named you as a party to this request solely as a courtesy, given your involvement, to invite exactly the sort of comment you have made. I had and have no intention that action would be taken against you regarding this and I do not intend it as an accusation of misconduct on your part. We obviously disagree in our assessment of Mark's editing, but if disagreement was misconduct then where would we be? ] (]) 06:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{re\|Johnuniq}} I don't think that one discussion at Gamaliel's TP, in which I made five edits (not counting the ARCA notification) rises to the level of disruptive chipping away. If the committee disagrees, I will gladly accept a TBAN; I'm not exactly in the habit of bringing these things and don't want to be. I decided to bring this to ARCA rather than AE because I don't think the request fits the pattern of AE, as it requires consideration of what happened around the case itself. ] (]) 07:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by MarkBernstein ===
	<poem>
	Good grief! GoldenRing, greatly aggrieved,
	Grouses at my gallant jests, those galling goads
	That Gawker, Guardian, and aplenty
	All gave to Gamergate, and you. I admit:
	I hold some strong opinions of Arbcom’s acts
	Throughout this case. These I have expressed
	Elsewhere quite clearly, and accurately I think;
	Audiences, alerted, have predominately agreed.

	Generous @Gamaliel patiently posits that
	People who think me pernicious, perfidious,
	And pretty much perfectly putrid would be
	Glad to display my poor noggin on pikes
	Or by preference at Kotaku In Action.
	Anxiously, admins already anticipate
	A trip to AE, where more words may be spent.
	An admin convinced, we may head then to AN/I,
	And wend back to Arbcom. Oh wondrous wiki!

	O’er what? I have had some strong words
	For your actions, and indeed some of you have had some for mine.
	Jimbo writes that I caused all this stuff from the first,
	And Gamaliel writes I am "widely unpopular"
	Throughout Misplaced Pages. I think he means ;
	He might not be wrong.

	But this project’s not purely a contest for praise.
	Policy prefers both firmness and speed
	For protecting the blameless who’re prostitutes called,
	Whose sex lives are subject to endless discussion
	On the project’s talk pages.

	This Baranof did.
	Off-wiki was Baranof smeared and belittled
	Because these benighted he bravely defied.
	He better deserved (and deserves) of you all.

	Before I conclude, one brief issue I'd raise:
	“Behavior” is common to children and beasts,
	Not colleagues, and conflicting views, bringing heat,
	Can better be handled with courteous care.
	“Christian” names, to my ear, can sound rather familiar,
	And I don’t recall that we’ve been introduced.
	Adversaries adopt (in America) address
	That’s more formal. I think Dr. Bernstein is fine.
	I did attend Swarthmore: if perchance you’re a Friend
	Or don’t like to use titles, my names, please, in full.

	<hr>

	(Do you believe these japes should be consigned
	To user space? Once read, I do not mind.)
	</poem>

	=== Statement by Gamaliel ===

	I have already ] my reasoning and my belief that Mark Bernstein has satisfied my concerns regarding the problematic behavior which caused me to impose the topic ban.

	I don't believe there is anything problematic with the way I handled the situation. I had extensive email discussions with Mark Bernstein regarding his behavior, how it would change, and what he would do if the sanction was lifted. This is routine. It would have been impossible to have that discussion on-wiki given the heated atmosphere here and the inevitable sniping that would occur. ] has topic banned one user from discussion of Mark Bernstein because he was following him around the encyclopedia criticizing him and trying to get him sanctioned, and likely more will follow.

	I disagree that this has the effect of "making an end-run around the arbitration case". Off the top of my head, I believe I indefinitely topic banned five users, and I think most of those before the case had started. At least two of those bans became indefinite Arbcom sanctions, so clearly the case provided ample time and opportunity to consider the behavior of any user sanctioned by me. It would be bad form to retroactively sanction a user well after the case was closed. The discretionary sanctions can easily be applied to any ongoing behavior problems from any user editing these articles.

	I find the evidence presented here does not warrant a retroactive sanction nor a discretionary one. As initially presented to me on my user talk page, they included the correction of another editor's typo as evidence of problematic behavior and the inaccurate claim that Mark Bernstein's discussion of anti-Semetic comments about him on Twitter was an attack on other Misplaced Pages editors labeling them anti-Semetic.

	Mark Bernstein is widely unpopular on Misplaced Pages due to his blog posts and the press coverage they have received, and he is even more unpopular on the less savory parts of the internet, who desperately want him sanctioned so they can add Mark Bernstein to their collection of Gamergate trophies and parade his severed head on a pike through the boards of 8Chan. I believe this particular request is sincere and made in good faith, but we can't ignore the context of the request. In this sort of atmosphere, where so many editors are utterly convinced of Mark Bernstein's perfidy and menace, otherwise well-meaning editors are likely to view even the most innocuous statements by him in the worst possible light, as is happening in this request. ] <small>(])</small> 06:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	{{ping\|GoldenRing}} I didn't interpret your post here as a request for action or an accusation against myself, but I do appreciate your clarification. ] <small>(])</small> 06:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Johnuniq ===
	I noticed the lengthy questioning of Gamaliel at ] (]) and added my thoughts, including the suggestion that any evidence to show a topic ban would be warranted should be presented at ]. As GoldenRing has instead chosen to involve Arbcom, my request is that some action be taken—if new evidence supports a topic ban against MarkBernstein, it should be imposed; otherwise, GoldenRing should be topic banned because the persistent chipping-away is disruptive. ] (]) 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Yet another statement from Harry Mitchell! ===
	Gamaliel was within his rights to lift the topic ban. I wasn't privy to his conversations with Mark, but in my own email conversations I found Mark to be much more reasonable than he had been made out to be. We were able to reach a gentlemen's agreement that Mark would avoid personally directed comments and I commuted his block to time served, as is my prerogative as the blocking admin. Any fresh misconduct should be brought to AE with dated diffs and a concise explanation of the problem they show.

	Meanwhile, BLPs in the topic area are still subject to drive-by attacks from autoconfirmed accounts, so litigating over minor squabbles on talk pages seems to miss the point. ] \| ] 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Strongjam ===

	It seems like an inordinate amount of attention is being paid to MarkBernstein's editing. As Bernstien's editing hasn't been disruptive since the TBAN has been lifted there isn't any need for Committee action. — ] (]) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by coldacid ===
	Good grief. There may be nothing actionable in this ARCA request, but I'd be hard pressed to see anything but bad attitude out of Mr Bernstein's current behaviour on Misplaced Pages with regard to GG issues, even in this very ARCA request with his mocking poetry. It's probably not necessary to point this out, but this doesn't seem to be the kind of behaviour that should be expected or encouraged of Misplaced Pages editors. I say trout MarkBernstein, warn GoldenRing, and just forget that this request ever happened. // ] <small>(]\|])</small> 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Newyorkbrad ===
	In response to Harry Mitchell's statement, I suggest that BLPs in this topic-area be placed on pending changes. This was done for a handful of them when I suggested it on the workshop during the case, but it sounds like it needs to be expanded. ] (]) 19:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	:I endorse GorillaWarfare's decision to address clarification-and-amendment requests in haiku. ] (]) 09:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

	===Statement by Bosstopher===
	As someone who has been very critical of Mark's action in the past, I think he's improved his behavior sufficiently for a topic ban to be unnecessary for the time being. While obviously a strongly opinionated person, he is no longer making unfounded attacks on other editors, and is instead taking the much more applaudable and rap battle-esque approach of rebutting their arguments in verse. I am now firmly of the opinion that all statements to Arbcom by involved parties should be written in verse, for the sake of fostering Wikilove, dispute resolution etc. So if we could have a motion declaring that, that would be great.] (]) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by ] ===		=== Statement by Crouch, Swale ===
			Please either site ban me or remove the restrictions completely. If you site ban me please block with account creation, email and talk revoked and also block my IP address(es) with {{tl\|checkuserblock}} including blocking logged in users so that I have no way to contribute to here again and say I can't appeal for 10 years or never, the choice is yours but I'm not prepared to go on as is. And yes unlike last month's request this does count as an appeal but it does include the first option of a full site ban. And yes doing either of these options won't be much effort and would make you're lives easier. Option A motion would say "] is indefinitely site banned from Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All ]'s editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you '''must''' pick one. ''']''' (]) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Just wanted to make the observation that looking at the sanctions log, at ], not all topic bans issued were indefinite and some were just for a period of a week or a few months. Not all editors who were topic ban were included in the ] which clearly identified those editors whose topic bans were commuted into the standard topic ban. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
			:{{Ping\|Theleekycauldron}} Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start ] about other users and myself or I start posting ] content. I could just go on disrupting Misplaced Pages until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. ''']''' (]) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

	=== Statement by ~~DHeyward~~ ===		=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
			Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	But then, just today, MarkBernstein does something to deserve . How many final warnings are there? Please at least log all these as previous sanctions so at least new admins know what they are dealing with. --] (]) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

	=== Statement by {other-editor} ===		=== 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 ===		=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes ===
	:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''		:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
	*		*

	=== ~~GamerGate~~: Arbitrator views and discussion ===		=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
			* Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to '''decline'''. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) ] (] • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*AS I see it, Gamaliel's topic ban of MarkBernstein was converted into a discretionary sanction. Admins have the right to revoke a DS they have imposed at their own discretion. So, without fresh cause for a topic ban, I see nothing to do here. ] (]) 07:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
			*Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Pretty well agreed with Courcelles. One means of appealing a discretionary sanction is to convince the sanctioning administrator that it's no longer necessary. In this case, that was Gamaliel's decision to make, and Gamaliel saw fit to lift the ban. Should Mark engage in new misconduct in the topic area, anyone can request enforcement and any uninvolved admin could reinstate the ban as a DS. If he doesn't engage in future misconduct, well then the ban really isn't necessary any more after all. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
			*Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. ] (] \| ]) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Per Courcelles and Seraphimblade. I'll just add that DS may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator, either by direct request or via a request for intervention at ]. This page, ie WP:ARCA , is not the proper venue for WP:AE requests.  ] <sup>]</sup> 11:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
			* This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a ]. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - ] (]) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	**A learned New Yorker named Brad,<p>Thought unadorned plain prose too bad<p>for use at ARCA<p>though haiku are starker<p>than sonnets or limericks. It's sad!<br/><br/>An inventive young man from Japan<p>wrote haiku-style<p>limericks.<p>  ] <sup>]</sup> 13:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
	* '''~~Abstain.~~''' ] ]] 11:18, 18 ~~February~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u\|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
	* Per Courcelles, Seraphimblade and Roger. Procedurally speaking the topic ban was correctly lifted, and as there are explicitly no requests here for us to consider any action against Gamaliel that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If anyone thinks that MarkBernstein should be topic banned for conduct subsequent to the lifting of the topic ban then they should present the evidence for this at ]. As we have not considered any evidence relating to MarkBernstein's behaviour here, this request should not be considered to limit what evidence AE can take into account if presented there. ] (]) 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	* Per Thryduulf et al. ] (]) 14:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	* Thryduulf puts it very nicely; I've nothing to add to that. ] ]] 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	* (See Courcelles et al. 2015) --] \| ] 22:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	* For a topic ban,
	: File a request at ],
	: ArbCom need not act. ] <small>]</small> 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
	----

Latest revision as of 10:56, 23 January 2025

Shortcut

WP:ARCA

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Palestine-Israel articles 5	23 Jan 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2	none	(orig. case)	15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal	none	none	23 January 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
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.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

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-llists.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

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

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

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

Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation
- 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

@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.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The following actions were taken in 2024 under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
- Cloward–Piven strategy indef pending changes
- September 11 attacks indef consensus required restriction
- The Right Brothers 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?

The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... Cabayi (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 Republican Revolution, which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers Bush v. Gore and the War on Terror, while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the Tea Party movement. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Appellant has been indeffed by ToBeFree as a normal admin action; rough consensus that no further action is needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Case or decision affected Special:Diff/1064925920 Clauses to which an amendment is requested Special:Diff/1064925920 List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Information about amendment request Special:Diff/1064925920 2022 changes Statement by Crouch, Swale Please either site ban me or remove the restrictions completely. If you site ban me please block with account creation, email and talk revoked and also block my IP address(es) with {{checkuserblock}} including blocking logged in users so that I have no way to contribute to here again and say I can't appeal for 10 years or never, the choice is yours but I'm not prepared to go on as is. And yes unlike last month's request this does count as an appeal but it does include the first option of a full site ban. And yes doing either of these options won't be much effort and would make you're lives easier. Option A motion would say "Crouch, Swale is indefinitely site banned from Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you must pick one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start posting personal information about other users and myself or I start posting libel content. I could just go on disrupting Misplaced Pages until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Statement by Thryduulf Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to decline. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. Elli (talk \| contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a false dilemma. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - Aoidh (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Decline, obviously. I have indefinitely blocked Crouch, Swale in response to Special:Diff/1271154047. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Appellant has been indeffed by ToBeFree as a normal admin action; rough consensus that no further action is needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Case or decision affected: Special:Diff/1064925920

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Special:Diff/1064925920

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

Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Special:Diff/1064925920

2022 changes

Statement by Crouch, Swale

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

@Theleekycauldron: Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start posting personal information about other users and myself or I start posting libel content. I could just go on disrupting Misplaced Pages until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

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

Statement by {other-editor}

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Categories: