Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:50, 18 January 2019 editMiniapolis (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators72,011 edits →Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion: Enacting motion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:56, 23 January 2025 edit undoPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators210,182 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: if I remember correctly, closed requests are hatted not atop'd 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>

= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
Line 6: Line 7:
] ]


== Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal == == Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC) '''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


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


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#]
#The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.



; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: ; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Nilfanion}}
*{{userlinks|Euryalus}}

; 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
*]
*The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
:*Remove page creation and page move restrictions.


=== 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 Crouch, Swale ===
Can I have my page creation and page move restrictions removed please. I have made more to article as was pointed out in the previous review. I have expanded ] and also created ]. I realize that it is important to create articles which are notable and have a good amount of content. At ] I have identified pages that need creating, although not all have been identified as being notable, thus I won't necessarily be creating them all. I therefore suggest that as I have had these restrictions for a year now, I should have them removed with the same conditions as the July removals (per ]), that they can be reinstated if needed, although I don't think that will be needed. I have ] with {{User|Euryalus}} this appeal to get advice, however unfortunately {{User|Nilfanion}} hasn't been active here since July. My priority is to finish of creating the ] civil parishes in England, of which I should (at least for the villages) be able to add location, distance, population, Domesday Book, name origin, surrounding parishes and church. I have contributed sensibly to naming discussions, although I have had a few disagreements, I haven't received any warnings about it and the main purpose of RM is to discuss controversial (or at least reasonably likely to be controversial moves). I have also contributed (and initiated) some non-geographical moves such as and .
* (reply to AGK) Yes I frequently make move requests to move an article and DAB, usually this involves moving "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo" and "Foo" to "Foo, Location" (). Moves to move to "Foo (city)" are less common. I don't understand what the point about my question of the existence of a place is, my existing restrictions don't relate to that. Obviously some of the RMs have involved disputes since that's the main purpose of RM (as noted above) If I was making RM proposals that were always being closed as clear consensus to move, then that would be a sign that I should be boldly making those moves myself, not using RM. In response to the last comment, I would quite happily have a 1RR or 0RR with page moves, although I have never edit warred over moves anyway and wouldn't have a problem with such restrictions on any edits, but I don't have restrictions elsewhere so that's unnecessary anyway. ''']''' (]) 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
* (reply to AGK) If I am questioning the existence of a place then isn't that a good sign, people have often complained about the lack of sources and notability in my articles. Most of the time the DAB page is at the base name, see ]. is an example of a move the other way round and the Noss move is moving to a different name (in this case calling is "Isle of Noss" rather than "Noss") The usual rule of ] would apply to moves I make, if a move is objected to and there is no agreement with me and the other person, then I revert the move and start a formal ] discussion. ''']''' (]) 13:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
* (reply to ]) Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia. I the PROD with the reason that it should be merged. A prod can be removed by anyone, even without explanation, but I always either explain or the article if removing. It is not a case of you are prohibited from removing unless you immediately resolve the issues (see ]). You're reason "''Not remotely ] enough for a standalone article and full of ]. The short paragraph at ] is more than sufficient.''" in its self indicates it should be merged and ''not'' deleted. Since the content was already covered at the proposed target then converting it to a redirect (to target the short paragraph) would have been entirely appropriate. I then made an !vote to merge and a reply to the fact that I had removed the PROD, hardly stonewalling. In any case the article couldn't have been deleted via PROD anyway since it was unanimously kept at ], even though that was a long time ago (2007). Per ]C4 merging as suggested would have been better since it had been around for more than a dozen years, its quite likely that it would break external links, linking to it, which a redirect would take care of. If you'd asked me on my talk page to list it at proposed merges or help with the merge, I would have done so, I understand that I maybe didn't make it entirely clear what I was doing but I think opposing to removing the restrictions is inappropriate. I shows that I understand that there are alternatives to deletion (and creating standalone articles). ''']''' (]) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
* (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was saying that the title should be ''redirected'' (instead of deleted completely), thus merged, the opposite of a spinnoff. I don't know enough about the notability guidelines in that area to say if the articles was notable enough to have a standalone article, but I do know that assuming it isn't appropriate to have a separate article it should be merged, not deleted. Also linked from the 2007 AFD is ] which was closed as merge. ''']''' (]) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
* (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was not intending on keeping it as a ''separate'' article, just that it should be merged assuming its not notable. Usually ] is only about ''standalone'' articles, not topics that are merged into another. In other words I was saying that while I don't object to Swarm's point that there shouldn't be an article, I do object to deletion (completely), since merging/redirection is available/reasonable in this case. We would probably only delete if the parent article (]) shouldn't contain the content per ]/]. As long as content on "The Students' Union at UWE" exists at ] its a valid merge candidate. ''']''' (]) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
* (Reply to Beyond My Ken/Swarm) Yes I hadn't made a distinction between "merge" and "redirect", but as pointed out if the appropriate content is already covered in the target article (and the other content at the source article is unsuitable) then the source article can just be changed into a redirect. I think that appeared to be the source of the confusion here, where I was arguing that the source article should be redirected to the target article, but the relevant content was already there. ''']''' (]) 07:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
* (reply to Swarm) Well I have made reasonable efforts to explain to you why I did what I did and removing a PROD as noted can be done by anyone, it is not a you must immediately resolve the issue. No indication that I should remain topic banned from creating pages (and I've never been banned from removing PRODs anyway). My conduct was well within the spirit and letter of our PROD (anyone may contest) and deletion policy (merge/redirection should be used if possible). ''']''' (]) 07:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
* (reply to Swarm) The principal of BRD applies more with deletion that other actions (since deletion can't simply be "reverted" by anyone, stricter conditions are generally in place for getting a page deleted than making a change to a page). In this case you boldly suggested deletion of the article, I removed that suggestion with a "watered down" suggestion that it be merged/redirected. This would likewise apply to page moves and creation. If I preform a move that is opposed it can be reverted and then discussed and that I should take on that feedback for similar cases. Likewise if I create unsuitable articles then I should take the feedback that I should not create similar pages without discussion with the user who questions them. In the PROD case you have feedback that such cases where a merge/redirect is useful, it should be done ''instead'' of deletion. Anyway my suggestion of 1RR or 0RR would surely address the potentially controversial moves. ''']''' (]) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
* (reply to ]) Well I have has an entire year with the restrictions, which is plenty long enough. But if only 1 can be removed then I'd strongly favour the page creation, not the page move restriction. A missing article in my books is far more of a problem that an incorrectly titled one. I usually only take pages to RM that are controversial/disruptive (or are uncontroversial but don't know the correct target etx) so the number of unsuccessful RMs is not necessarily a good indicator. Those that aren't controversial I have been waiting to have the restrictions removed to preform myself. For example it would be possible to send 100 blatant attack pages to AFD and have all of them successfully deleted but that would be inappropriate since such pages should be speedily deleted instead. I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved. As noted I would be happy with a 1RR or 0RR with moves and/or an expectation that I revert any moves that are reasonably challenged. That restriction would be workable. So yes the number of unsuccessful RMs is not a good indicator because they are probably ''not'' moves that I would be making myself, this is because we are talking about moves that I thought were problematic/controversial/disruptive enough to go through RM V those that I didn't think were controversial. In response to "It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests." I actually think I have already done my most controversial move requests since its like removing a cork from a bottle under pressure, I hadn't been able to make such requests for years and suddenly could, thus I don't expect I will be making a significant number of controversial requests in the foreseeable future, although there will probably still be a few from moves that I think are too controversial to make myself. Also note that I was only formerly banned from geographical naming convention, not non geographical naming conventions. However I decided to stay away from it entirely because I wasn't happy with excluding myself from geographical ones and it would be easy to "step on the edge" of the restriction.


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
* So lets go to the page creation which there hasn't been much discussion here. If the move restriction continued but I could still create new pages, it would be a pain since disambiguation is often needed of existing titles and while creating, I will also find articles that are incorrectly names (when checking missing articles that are only redirects, sometimes this is because an article is named incorrectly rather than it doesn't have a standalone article). My priority is the ] civil parishes in England. Civil parishes are legally recognized census areas and thus clearly should have articles. In this case a ban that only allows me to create civil parishes (current and former and the handful of ] Welsh ones than need articles/redirects) may be workable since there are still a large number. The inability to create other articles would still be a bit of a roadblock but it may be the least bad option, particularly if there is a way I can create other pages such as by asking an admin that I know or through the AFC process (see ] for example). What opinion do you have on this? ''']''' (]) 20:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
''2015'', would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, ''2016''. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. ] (]) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* (reply to SilkTork) I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%). Its the number of controversial ''undiscussed'' moves that I preform. Making requests at RMT might be seen as evasion if I did many, see ] for example of a user who was banned from making moves. However I did make a few (6) and all were completed. IMO that anyway suggests that there isn't a problem there and I would be more likely to make a request that I thought was marginly controversial at RMT that making it myself since RMT involves another pair of eyes. Consider for example, you're an admin doing NPP, you come across 3 articles, the 1st is a blatant attack page, you can see clearly that it meets G10 and delete it you're self and add {{tl|Huggle/db-attack-notice}} to the author. The 2nd is an article that appears to meet A7 but you're not sure so you tag it with {{tl|db-bio}} and add {{tl|Db-bio-notice}} to the author for another admin to assess. The 3rd has a credible claim of significance so you do ] and ] it. The same applies with move requests, some are clear that you can do you're self, others may be considered controversial and some are likely (like Noss) and some are clearly. As a further point if the move but not page creation restrictions are removed then shouldn't I be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages since they fit in more along with page moves than page creation since if I move "Foo" to "Foo, Qualifier" then "Foo" needs to become a DAB page.
* Indeed I have created drafts in my user space, another one is ]. However I thought that waiting until I can create the pages myself was more suitable as long as I created a few good ones in my user space. The new articles on civil parishes may end up clogging up AFC with many new articles that are clearly suitable. I was mainly thinking that could be used for other topics that may not meet out inclusion guidelines. ''']''' (]) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
* (Reply to SMcCandlish) Well as noted the few RMT requests I did make all were done so the point about the ~30% failure rate at RM is still pretty irrelveant. ''']''' (]) 09:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
* Well I have produced the ] which is an example of a CP. CPs are clearly notable and WP should have had them all created years ago, similar to municipalities. I think it is unreasonable to continue the restrictions as is. Can we ''at least'' allow creating new CPs in mainspace please with the same point as before that it can be reinstated. {{ping|Opabinia regalis}} ], ] and ] among . I think the suggestion about AFC would be reasonable for topics other than CPs. See ] where I have asked if there is more coverage for ]. ''']''' (]) 17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{ping|SilkTork|Opabinia regalis|GorillaWarfare}} Most of the "failed" RMs have been closed as non consensus, not many have been closed as "non moved". In any case this isn't much evidence for keeping the move ban. I'd say that if we were to only count those that were closed as clear consensus against, it would be more like 5%. ''']''' (]) 17:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{ping|SilkTork|Opabinia regalis}} I don't see how this is viable or fair, I have numerous pages to create and just taking into account the current missing civil parishes, this would mean it would take over 50 years to create them all! I have not <nowiki>{{subst:submit}}</nowiki> to my drafts since I was waiting until I could freely create them but I don't think the current restrictions specifically prevented that anyway. I deemed creating a few in my userspace as sufficient. Why at least can't we exclude ] from this? ''']''' (]) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{u|SilkTork}} I understand that in the past I had many problems but I have continued and continued to change my behavior and become much more accepting and agreeing with the points made by others but unfortunately it never seems to be good enough. Doesn't the drafts that I have created and some of my other statements show that I have improved my conduct greatly since 2011. Its incredibly frustrating to still be denied after all theses appeals over all these years. Would you say that my expectations are not viable and it would be better to just get rid of me from the project altogether (and reinstate the sit-ban), rather than continuously having this that fails? I don't want to continue to push for something that isn't going to happen or will take ridiculously long. ''']''' (]) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{ping|BU Rob13|AGK}} Well the drafts that I have provided in my user space ''are'' already this step or creating suitable content. I didn't ask for review at AFC because I thought that the few drafts were sufficient in this step. I even asked prior to this about what I would do. I feel I have been hugely let down yet again. I have tried and tried to do as others have asked and it seems that its never good enough and I get denied time and time again. Why can't we except ] from the article creation restriction? ''']''' (]) 11:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{re|BU Rob13}} Yes I am willing to take this step. The question however is why weren't those steps suggested after the previous appeal? Why wasn't it suggested that I should get a number of articles created that way before? Anyway wouldn't you agree that ] and ] are suitable? and demonstrate the ability to create suitable content. ''']''' (]) 20:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{ping|SilkTork|BU Rob13}} Do you have any advice on the 2 drafts or my page creation in general? That was one of the points of creating those drafts. That's the kind of feedback that would be helpful in moving forward but I haven't received any since July (although some of that will probably come from AFC), if I don't have any feedback then its far more difficult in working with the community in finding a workable way of creating the missing articles without disruption. ''']''' (]) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
* Thanks SilkTork, the AFC should help with that, maybe I should also ask some projects for advice, for example ] for South Huish and ] for Riaga. ''']''' (]) 14:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{ping|SilkTork}} I have started a few more drafts. Hopefully they will be accepted. ''']''' (]) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


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


=== Statement by Euryalus === === Statement by Izno ===
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Swarm ===
I have serious concerns about this user's level of competence, clue and ability to communicate reasonably based on recent interactions, so I'd advise against lifting the restrictions based on that. The user has needlessly and irrationally obstructed reasonable, uncontentious editing on my part. I had PRODed ] with the rationale that the subject was not notable and was already sufficiently covered in the parent article. This was, by all accounts, an uncontentious situation, but the user stonewalled attempts to have the article deleted anyway, first via PROD, when they apparently wanted a merge but failed to state any rationale or follow the ], and then subsequently at AfD, where they continued repeatedly insisting on a merge, yet failed to, in any way, to present any argument against, or understanding of, my assessment that a merge was unnecessary due to the relevant content already being in the parent article. As an admin I often encounter this kind of obstructionism in users with problems with collaboration or OWNership, and this kind of conduct thoroughly discourages users, and if I were just some random newbie just trying to contribute to the project in good faith, and then encountered this kind of bizarre obstructionism from someone who won't even acknowledge my arguments, I'd probably be thoroughly disillusioned. My experience suggests a lack of ability to communicate and/or resolve disputes reasonably and effectively, and those are essential in the areas the user is asking to be unrestricted from. Regards, ]] 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
*Having reviewed CS’s replies to both myself and BMK, I’m simply stunned at the surreal detachment from simple editing concepts. ]] 05:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
*I'm still wholly unsatisfied with the "word soup" the user's spouting, which shows no reasonable understanding of why their conduct was disruptive and unreasonable. I have even less faith then I initially did that the user can effectively understand and communicate during simple incidents of contention and/or dispute. ]] 07:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
*The user's defense has fallen on the procedural point that anyone can contest a PROD for any reason, showing no indication of clue as to how they impeded uncontroversial bold editing, which is encouraged as a matter of policy. The user admits that they simply wanted the title to be ''redirected'' to the parent article, which makes their insistence on obstructing an uncontroversial deletion in favor of a non-needed "merge" all the more bizarre. I'm going to stop responding, so as to avoid derailing this request, but I think it's quite clear that this user struggles with straightforward editing concepts, procedures, and acceptable practices. This lack of competence is unacceptable from a user who's requesting to be allowed to perform potentially-controversial actions such as page moves. Frankly I'd be more inclined to argue in favor of a tightening of restrictions. ]] 08:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Question from Beyond My Ken ===
I would like to ask Crouch, Swale to explain their statement:
:
:'''Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia.''''
:
It would seem to me that if it's already adequately covered in a parent article, there is no necessity for a spin-off article, and if there is a modicum of additional information, it can be added to the parent article. The only situation I can see is if there is a '''''great deal''''' of relevant information to add, at which point the subsidiary subject is in danger of unbalancing the parent article. Under those circumstances, a spin-off article would be appropriate '''''but only if the subject of the new article is notable'''''. Being part of a parent article does not automatically confer notability on the subsidiary subjects within the article.{{parabr}}In any case, I would like additional explication from Crouch, Swale concerning their statement. ] (]) 14:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
:Incidentally, just an irrelevant side comment: even though I know that "Crouch, Swale" is the name of a place (because I looked it up), every time I see the username, my first thought is that it refers to a law firm. ] (]) 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
::@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for the explanation, that wasn't at all clear to me from your prior statement.{{parabr}}I would note that a '''merge''' an d a '''redirect''' are not quite the same thing. In a merge, the material from the subsidiary article is added to the primary article, and then the subsidiary article is replaced with a redirect; no (or little) information is lost in the process. In the case of a redirect without merge, the subsidiary article is simply blanked and replaced with a redirect; any information in the subsidiary article which is not already in the primary article is lost. Thus arguing for a merge is not the same as arguing for a redirect. In the argument for a merge, reasons have to be brought up for saving the information that would be lost in a redirect, and also for the merging not unbalancing the primary article with too much information about a subsidiary topic.{{parabr}}As for you claim about not being familiar with notability guidelines in the area of discussion: how can you argue the notability of the subsidiary article, or the need to save the information in it, if you don't know what is and is not considered notable? ] (]) 15:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Statement by SMcCandlish ===
{{lang|la|Re}} "If the ]<nowiki />] page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area": Just for the record, contested RMTR requests are often (perhaps in the majority) contested by non-admins; anyone can contest a speedy rename, in which case it goes to full RM discussion. It's more of a consensus thing than an admin judgement thing.

As to the request, I agree that a ~30% failure rate at RM is iffy. (I don't have any particular opinion otherwise; I don't recall interacting with Crouch much, and while I'm frequently active in RM discussions, it's not often about placename disambiguation.)

I'll also add that I learned the hard way (with a three-month move ban several years ago) that {{em|returning}} to manual, one-editor's-judgement page moves in the same topic area in which one's moves have been deemed controversial is a poor idea. It is best to use full RM process (or RMTR when it seems very unlikely to provoke any objection from anyone) in such a case, not only for drama reduction, but to actually establish a solid consensus record for the ] being proposed for those articles. Even if some of the opposition seems to be personal rather than fact- or policy-based. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
=== Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Clerk notes ===
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. ] (]) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*You contribute to Misplaced Pages predominately on articles about "places".  Accuracy and oversight in this topic area is low, and I would not grant an appeal unless it was free of risk that you would not need your contributions heavily monitored.
:*You frequently request moves (eg ]) so that (i) the title classifies the place, eg ''Sometown'' &rarr; ''Sometown (city)'' and (ii) the disambiguation page takes over the bare title, eg ''Sometown (disambiguation)'' &rarr; ''Sometown''.  These requests are governed by extensive rules (cf ]) because each case is unique.
:*You also make editorial judgments about whether places exist or do not (eg ), which are important to get right. Misplaced Pages has had "places" articles that are wildly divergent from reality, eg location, or indeed document places that simply don't exist.
: Your passion for this area is clear, and I note you have patiently borne these restrictions for a year.  I also sympathise with your in late 2017 that your singular interests make these restrictions taxing.  However, I would not loosen the restrictions simply because another year has gone.  And I am not moved to agreement by your submission here.  Your edits are large in quantity, but seem to generate more dispute than I'd like to see. How can we be sure it's safe to permit you the ability of moving place-related pages?  <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
:: {{tq|point about my question of the existence of a place is}} – I think it helps us to understand the quality of your judgment as an editor in this topic area.{{pb}}Thank you; but I understand what contributions you are making (eg renaming articles so that the place is disambiguated in the title). The point is that, so far as I can see, these contributions are not always helpful. Granting your amendment request would involve giving licence to do more of that. Would you please comment on this? <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

*In order to minimise potential problems, I think if we are to lift restrictions we should follow the example of the previous appeal, and lift just one of the restrictions to see how that goes. As the restriction previously lifted was involvement in page move discussions, it seems appropriate that the restriction we should consider this time would be making page moves. In order to help us decide if this is the right time to be lifting this restriction could you give us the figure of how many page move requests you have started in the past six months, and the percentage (or number) of those that have been successful and unsuccessful. As you note above, it is to be expected that a number of those would be unsuccessful, but if that number is too high that would be worrisome because those would be moves that with page move restriction lifted you'd be doing yourself with, as AGK points out, little oversight because of the low interest in place articles and in page moves. The problem with making inappropriate page moves is that they can set a precedent - users tend to follow what is already there, so one inappropriate move can result in a number of new articles with inappropriate names. Now, the exact percentage of unsuccessful move requests you have made that individual Committee members may find acceptable is going to vary, though in my mind I have a figure of less than 5%. It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests. ] (]) 13:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
*Given that around 30% of your RM have been unsuccessful, I wouldn't be comfortable lifting the restriction on page moves. I take on board that RM discussions are for potentially controversial moves, but you could use the Uncontroversial technical requests format, given that you are unable to complete the moves yourself. If the page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area.
:As regards page creation - again, I'd like to see some evidence of successful page creation requests before lifting that restriction. The rules on your page creation do allow you to create articles in your own userspace, as you have done with ]. What I'd like to see, in agreement with other Committee members, is you utilising ] to have these articles moved into mainspace. If we can see a period of you having a series of articles successfully transferred into mainspace that would be encouragement to lift your article creation restriction. ] (]) 03:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Opabinia regalis}} The figure comes from Crouch, Swale: "I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", later "I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%)". ] (]) 09:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Crouch, Swale}} Re: " I don't see how this is viable or fair". That's not an encouraging statement for you to be making, as it indicates you are not yet understanding the community's concerns with your behaviour. This motion is the best chance you're going to get of having restrictions lifted, and even then it's likely to be a close call. Indeed, that very statement of yours is giving me pause for thought as generally we lift restrictions for people who show some understanding of the concerns that led to them having restrictions imposed. There is this sense in you of wanting things to be done your way, and seeing it as unfair if things are not done the way you want them to be. ] (]) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
*I will not vote to lift any restrictions on this user. ] (]) 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
* On the positive side, no one felt the need to re-impose the topic ban during the suspension period. For page moves - I'd agree that there's been more dispute than I'd expect about some of these requests, but {{u|SilkTork}}, where did you get the 30% failure rate on RMs? For article creation - the draft articles in your userspace look OK to me (knowing nothing about their topics) but I don't see much substantive content editing in mainspace recently (if I'm wrong, can you point to examples?) I'd prefer to see some examples of content development on existing articles before letting you start new ones. AfC is overloaded as it is, but I could also see allowing ''one'' submission at a time to AfC, possibly with a size minimum to correct for the past issues with very short articles lacking in context and covering questionably notable topics. ] (]) 07:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
*At the present time, I'm not comfortable with lifting the restrictions in place. ] (]) 12:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
*I'm also curious where the 30% number came from, ]. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 01:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
::It came from Crouch, Swale himself in his comments above. Crouch, Swale said: "around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", then he later clarified that to: "probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%". ] (]) 02:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Ah, thanks! ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
*I see the page moving sanction as very minimal, simply requiring this editor go to ] due to their demonstrably poor judgement in this area in the past. I don't see the rather high percentage of failed requested moves to be a shining endorsement that this sanction should be removed. As for the page creation sanction, I'm more open to its removal but agree with my colleagues that I would want to see a substantial history of successful drafts going through ] first. '''Decline''' from me. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 00:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
*Right now, I don't see a compelling reason to entirely remove the restrictions, given the history. I do like OR's suggestion of one AfC submission permitted at once as a compromise between zero creations permitted and a flood of one-line place stubs. &spades;]&spades; ] 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
*I would also support OR's proposal for one AFC submission at a time. ''']''' ] 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
*Thanks {{u|SilkTork}}, I thought you'd found some kind of cool tool :) I don't think I can judge the success rate of RM requests just based on CS's self-estimate, without knowing either how accurate it is or what the baseline rate is for other participants. In any case I'm more inclined to ease the page creation than moving restrictions - having to get your move proposals reviewed is, as Rob says, a very light sanction. In the interest of moving things along, motion below on the AfC idea. ] (]) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

====Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion====
:''{{ACMajority|active = 11 |inactive = 1 |recused = 1 |motion = yes}}'' <!-- KrakatoaKatie inactive, BU Rob13 active, Mkdw abstained (counted in recused parameter) -->
{{ivmbox|1=The restriction on new article creations imposed on {{user|Crouch, Swale}} as part of their in January 2018 is modified as follows:
* Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles ''only'' by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the ] process for review. <del>He is permitted to have no more than one article at a time under consideration by AfC.</del> <ins>He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days.</ins> This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
* The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.}}

'''Enacted''' - ]] 17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

:'''Support'''
:# ] (]) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
:# One per seven days seems reasonable. We can always readjust if it causes problems down the line. &spades;]&spades; ] 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:#: <s>~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 02:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)</s>
:# &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:# This is a good offer, and I'd like to see Crouch, Swale take full advantage. I wouldn't be concerned at the occasional rejection by AfC, this can happen, especially as AfC are very precise in what they accept. ] (]) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:#:Restoring my support based on Crouch, Swale's more positive response and the new evidence provided: . ] (]) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
:# <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:#:I'm just going to re-affirm my support here. I'm willing to allow Crouch, Swale the opportunity to create articles and I believe the motion is a good option of 1 per week. However, I'm not willing to endorse, now or in the near future, large creations of articles by Crouch, Swale - in other words, I do not see me voting for a wholesale removal of restrictions in the next few years. {{ping|Crouch, Swale}} to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:# ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

:'''Oppose'''
:#Letting this user back at all was a colossal mistake, one I will not vote to relax any restrictions on. ] (]) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:#The recent comments by this editor have convinced me to oppose. I don't believe the attitude displayed is consistent with a return to productive editing in this area. I'm very worried that it sounds like the desired "endgame" of this editor appears to be the rapid creation of about 1,000 articles in a narrow topic area. I don't think there's a true understanding here of why past behavior was problematic and why this Committee and the community are understandably hesitant to roll back these sanctions. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 21:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:#: I too am concerned {{re|Crouch, Swale}}'s continued protests, particularly as the latest outbursts have come after I cautioned him regarding his attitude. I feel that BU Rob13's concern that Crouch, Swale is mainly interested in rapidly creating hundreds of civil parish stubs is correct. If we had evidence that Crouch, Swale could be relied upon to follow our inclusion criteria and find and read reliable sources appropriately and intelligently, that would ease our concerns, but he seems unwilling to do this (and a handful of draft articles and a note to a former arb are far from sufficient evidence); and I am reminded of the errors he made in ], in which he was relying on a distorted search of his own invention on a user-generated website to establish notability for a page title. ] (]) 00:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:#:Moved to support based on Crouch, Swale's more encouraging positive response, and starting to provide more evidence of the work he plans to do. While the intended civil parish articles are likely to remain stubs, they do fulfil the gazetteer function of the ], and the examples provided () appear to meet our inclusion criteria. ] (]) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
:# I feel like doing this would be a huge net negative for the project, and a lot more work for our already overworked AfC volunteers. ] (]) 15:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:'''Abstain'''
:#The arose in July 2018 where an easement process to lift sanctions in an incremental process was not willingly accepted by the individual. Editing is a privilege, not an entitlement or inherent right. When an individual's past actions have resulted in ''several'' and sanctions as a result of disruptive editing, additional care and precaution must be taken to protect the project and limit the risk of further disruption. While undoubtedly frustrating for the individual, it is without question a situation of their own making. Comments like seem to undermine the willingness required to take responsibility for their past actions and adhere to the rules and policies that govern Misplaced Pages, including patience to try lighter restrictions in place of blocks and more severe sanctions. ''']''' ] 20:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:#:I am moving my oppose to abstain as the motion is currently held up by a procedural issue relating to the exact number of active-voting Arbitrators. Rather than waiting days for an activity measure to kick in, this will effectively allow the motion to pass by inevitable majority vote. ''']''' ] 15:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

:'''Comment'''
*I was considering a motion along these lines, but with a restriction of one submission a month because the speed at which AfC moves we might be waiting for years before Crouch, Swale has enough submissions considered for us to make any kind of assessment if he's only allowed one at a time. At one a month the odds are better that in 12 months there'd be enough submissions either accepted or rejected for us to make a meaningful decision. ] (]) 10:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
*:That's not a bad idea. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
*::I'd go even more frequent than that. At least seven days between submissions does what we want (avoid a flood at AfC) while being a minimal restriction on the activity of an editor creating high-quality articles. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
*:::Well, if the concern is about the slow rate of progress through AfC due to their long backlog, we need a balance between CS getting some articles through and not overloading the queue. There are currently 1209 articles in the queue, and I don't see stats on average-time-to-review, but it looks like the oldest ones still waiting are about 5 weeks old. So once a month is closer to steady-state, but could actually be slower than "one at a time", guesstimating from the submission-time distribution on the AfC page that most articles are reviewed by 3-4 weeks. (In looking into this, not for the first time I find myself ''really'' wishing that AfC would start categorizing drafts by topic, but never mind...) I suspect that whatever rate we specify, articles will be submitted at close to the maximum (that's what I'd do). Given that 7-14 days seems reasonable, with no prejudice against another ARCA (or a community action) in the hopefully-unlikely event that the articles do end up failing repeatedly. Edited as above. ] (]) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
*{{re|Crouch, Swale}} It's important to acknowledge that these restrictions exist due to substantial disruption in the past. I understand you're trying to move past that, and I commend you for it. This isn't a permanent solution. It's a temporary one to give you an opportunity to show us that we no longer have anything to worry about. The alternative would likely be a declined appeal, since we don't really have a basis on which to remove the sanctions at this time. If all goes well for a period of time (6 months, say), I would certainly invite an appeal of this loosened restriction, at which point we could further roll this back. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 06:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
**{{re|Crouch, Swale}} Because passing articles through AfC isn't that extreme of a restriction and allows you to show there will not be disruption when we allow you to create articles freely. The fact that you seem unwilling to accept steps toward reducing your sanctions less than a full allowance to create as many articles as you wish is giving me pause. Your intransigent attitude here is starting to feel similar to the attitude that led to the initial ban, and I'm especially unimpressed with the victim mentality evident in your latest comment. Are you willing to try this as a step toward removing this sanction, or is this an exercise in futility? ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
*{{reply|Crouch, Swale}} I sympathise with your frustration, but agree with BU Rob13 above. The committee is cautious when peeling back sanctions. As I said to you at the beginning of this appeal, sanctions are not terminated merely because some time has passed. Please treat this motion as an opportunity to contribute in more ways than before – rather than as a set of extra restrictions or the granting of less relief from restrictions than you requested. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 10:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
*{{reply|Crouch, Swale}} Rather like Boris Johnson just before the Brexit referendum, I am veering about in all directions like a supermarket trolley on this issue. On the one hand there is the possibility that you are just biding your time in order to unleash hundreds of civil parish stubs on Misplaced Pages which will need to be examined by someone to check if they are worthwhile; on the other is the possibility that you will be able to produce articles of merit rather than meaningless stubs. What is lacking here is solid evidence either way. At the previous it was pointed out that simply waiting 6 months is not enough, that you would need to be providing evidence (such as that you understand article creation criteria and that you understand article titles). It is highly likely that you are a good faith editor who is not quite grasping what has already been asked of you, and you are truly bemused by this process. You were told last time that two examples would not be enough ("An appeal from you won't succeed if it's merely one or two examples of good conduct in each area. You will need to show that you have evidence of this over a number of months; not just amount but also consistency".) And yet that is what you are falling back on here. If you had a body of those civil parish articles in your sandbox to show us, all of which were securely cited to reliable sources and consisted of several paragraphs, then I wouldn't be hesitating. What you have to show us isn't enough, though, which is why I suggested we consider asking you to go via AfC. Given the lack of evidence it seemed a reasonable offer, but you have resisted the offer, as though we were in effect imposing more restrictions on you rather than allowing you to create an article a week. Now, my first impulse in response to your question ("Do you have any advice on the 2 drafts or my page creation in general?") was to suggest that you take them through AfC, and then I realised that by doing so you would be infringing your restriction. Which gave me pause for thought. We are caught at this point where we lack the evidence required to comfortably lift your restriction. But the reason we lack the evidence is that you haven't taken on board the advice from last time. If we do allow you to create articles via AfC, will you just submit the two you keep offering us, and then return in six months and request (or expect) your article creation restriction be lifted? Really, I'm not seeing a huge difference between allowing you to submit via AfC or you creating those articles in your sandbox, as both ways we'll end up with the evidence we need, except that by allowing you to submit via AfC you might feel more motivated, but an overworked community has to deal with your submissions. I'm still not entirely sure where I am with this because I am in favour of helping you contribute positively to the project, but hesitant about allowing you to waste the community's time. I am reflecting that by allowing this we are not allowing you to create hundreds of stubs, but giving you the motivation (and possibly enough ]) to provide for us one way or the other enough evidence to make a more meaningful decision down the road. On the other I'm thinking this is another step towards edging off the lid of Pandora's box without you having done anything significant since your last request. My supermarket trolley is still pointing toward opposing this, but only slightly, and only with the notion that it is in your hands to provide us with the evidence we need to make a secure decision. ] (]) 14:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Race and intelligence ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Race and intelligence}}

; 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|Ferahgo the Assassin}} (initiator)




; Information about amendment request
*]
:*Requesting lift of race and intelligence topic ban.


=== Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin ===
I would like to formally appeal my topic ban from the “race and intelligence” topic area. I believe it is appropriate for this ban to be lifted for three main reasons: 1) The topic ban is quite old now, and I have engaged in no contentious or otherwise inappropriate behavior since I returned to editing four years ago; 2) I am now acquiring professional expertise in an area adjacent to this topic, which has been considered under the ban, and 3) I have fulfilled the requirements given to me by the arbitration committee when I first appealed the topic ban about nine months ago. Details below:

Last April, I made a ] about the bounds of my topic ban. I made this request in order to understand whether I could use my professional expertise in behavioral genetics—as I am now more than halfway through a Ph.D. in this area—to improve the encyclopedia. ArbCom concluded that I should not be editing articles about intelligence or behavioral genetics in general, even if they don’t involve race, as long as I'm under a "race and intelligence" topic ban. They also weren't willing to lift my topic ban at that time, but said they would reconsider the request after six months of productive and issue-free editing in unrelated topics.

I have now met these requirements: It is over eight months hence, and during this time I have made over 500 edits, mostly to topics related to paleoartists and especially to the ] article, which I have recently raised to "Good Article" status.

It has been quite difficult to research and improve these articles while simultaneously studying an unrelated topic in graduate school. My graduate work has involved doing research, attending conferences, and publishing papers related to behavior genetics and intelligence research, with others in press (please let me know if you’d like to see examples of my research privately). I humbly submit that with my topic ban removed, I could help to improve many articles in these areas that have been off-limits to me since before I began my Ph.D.

For example, one of my projects, just completed after 2 years of data collection, relates to mental chronometry. Misplaced Pages’s ] article is one of the articles that I was told last April not to edit as long as I’m topic banned. I wrote the first half of it in 2010, beginning with the early history of MC, and left the article in an unfinished state when I was topic banned in October 2010. In the time since then other editors have made minor additions, but the article is still in substantially the same state that I left it in more than eight years ago, because no one else has had the ability and motivation to add a complete summary of modern MC research. For a long time, the article was .

I think that when considering the necessity of a topic ban, ArbCom should take into account the effect that an editor’s absence has on encyclopedic coverage of topics that only a few people are both motivated and knowledgable enough to write about here. Other examples I provided last April of articles in great need of improvement include ] and ], both of which are also topics on which I’ve done research.

Happy to answer questions, provide detail of my history in this area, and further credentials if requested. Thank you for your consideration.
:@ Beyond My Ken: When this came up last April/May, you suggested a sort of probation period, which I thought (and still do) would be fair. : “On lifting the ban, I think that would be OK, as long as FtA was made aware that she was on a very short leash, and that the topic ban would be restored at the first sign of a problem in her editing.” The only things that've changed between now and then is that I've edited productively in other areas and that I've published a bit more research, none of which borders on fringe theories. As stated, if the arbitrators would like to see some of my research privately or evidence of my enrollment in a Ph.D. program, I am happy to provide it. -] (]) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

:@ SilkTork: No, we haven't shared an IP since I returned to editing in 2014. I've lived in several different states since then. -] (]) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

:@ Opabinia regalis: Just sent email to the mailing list. Please let me know if there's anything you'd like clarified. -] (]) 00:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

:@ AGK: Here are some specific changes I'm hoping to make to articles in this area. As you'll note from my email, these all relate to research I've participated in (though of course I will abstain from citing myself!).

:*]: When I last worked on this article substantially in 2010, I was relying heavily on '''' for structure and organization, as it was the only recent overview I was aware of. Now, however, I own what I believe to be every major, modern secondary/tertiary source that overviews mental chronometry research, including , , , and others. The article as it stands has little information about modern models and applications of response time data. It only has one citation to the Posner book and two short paragraphs about Posnerian methods, when he is one of the most famous researchers in this area. It has a motley, random collection of paradigms. It needs to be organized, and it needs detail and citations on topics covered by Posner, e.g., attention, orienting, and code coordination. Luce, by contrast, takes a technical and mathematical approach to mental chronometry. The article needs to explain core concepts addressed in depth by Luce such as stochastic accumulation of information, model differences in discrete vs. continuous time, random variables and mixture models. Vernon's overview includes chapters by different researchers in different areas. Some of these authors disagree with each other; e.g., Robert Sternberg on a triarchic perspective on MC's relationship to cognitive ability stands in contrast to a more one-sided view the article currently takes. The article should report such differing views. Some modern models that have become very influential, such as , are entirely absent from the article. Diffusion modeling is what I'm using for the MC study I reference in my email. This term as it relates to mental chronometry is likely to warrant its own Misplaced Pages article. I would be happy to expand this article with all of this, based on my collection of well-known overviews and textbooks on MC (none of which mention race or group differences).
:*]: Note that the majority of this article refers to things we've learned about this phenomenon from quantitative (twin, adoption, and so on) studies, many of which were conducted in the '70s, but very little on molecular genetic studies. The most recent sources cited in this article are from 2007. Since then, there has been an important and promising burst in molecular genetic studies that have had a huge impact on this field in just the past year. This "genetic nurture" effect has been reported on by , , and others in press. This is completely absent from this article. I would update this article with explanations and rationale for this exciting new area, including criticism and limitations where sources mention these.

:*]: This is a short article with motley redlinks and more "further readings" than article text. It has two sections, one of which is a somewhat random collection of correlations. I would expand this article by explaining in greater depth how polygenic scores are mathematically calculated, the history of regression models and predictive improvements over the years, how these scores can be practically beneficial, and published criticisms/limitations of these scores and their usage.


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
:*Articles on a variety of software and techniques used for polygenic score construction, biological annotation of GWASes, and the handling of linkage disequilibrium. For example, ] is now a promising stub that needs a lot of expansion. Its lede paragraph quotes descriptions of the technique directly from articles, such as ''Here, the "linkage disequilibrium score" for a SNP "is the sum of LD r2 measured with all other SNPs"'', without explaining what any of this means. Most of these concepts in statistical genetics are technical and complex, and—if they have articles at all—often written in a way that is inaccessible to laymen. I could help a great deal in clarifying many of these topics. -] (]) 00:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Beyond My Ken === ===Statement by Vanamonde===
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. ] (]) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The OP's basic case is that the topic ban is old, but indefinite topic bans are not generally lifted because of their age. The OP has -- and apparently still has -- a strong personal POV concerning the topic, and in the past has shown that she is unable to edit without bias because of this. There is no reason to think that anything would be different now. The awarding of a PhD in a subject is no guarantee that an editor's contributions will not continue to be ] -- after all, most scientific fringe theories are promulgated by subject experts who happen to disagree with the consensus view of their colleagues. Whether or not this is the case -- or even whether the OP has in actual fact earned a legitimate PhD in the subject area -- is unknown to us.{{parabr}}I strongly urge that the topic ban be left in place. ] (]) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:@Ferahgo the Assassin: The April/May clarification request was about whether you could edit in the narrow subject of "heritability of psychological traits", and was not a request for the lifting of your topic ban. Thee's a significant difference with being OK with a probationary period of editing in a fairly restricted area that was at the edge of your topic ban (but still inside of it), and being OK with a probationary period of editing in a broad subject area (which encompasses the '''''entirety''''' of your topic ban) in which your were sufficiently biased and disruptive to be first site banned, and then allowed back with a topic ban instead. Because of that categorical difference, I remain strongly opposed to lifting your topic ban. ] (]) 06:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
::For the convenience of the committee:
::*Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.5:
::*Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.6:
::*Race and intelligence case: Remedies 2.1:
::*Race and intelligence case: Modified by motion 2:
::*Clarification request (May 2018):
::] (]) 06:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Regarding the list of potential edits you posted above: what about your current topic ban -- in your understanding of it -- prevents you from making those edits right now? ] (]) 05:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Sorry, forgot to ping. {{ping|Ferahgo the Assassin}} ] (]) 05:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


=== Statement by Doug Weller === === Statement by Aquillion ===
{{re|Ferahgo the Assassin}}, last year you mentioned a prestigious award, which I believe was from
the ] (ISIR) which
on the face of it is a respectable organisation. But our article
doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, this book
mentions its 5th conference in 2004, saying
{{quote|text=For much of their time the attendees listened to talks about how general intelligence might differ in men and women, blacks, whites, and Asians.}} Of course that's just one author discussing something that occurred 14 years ago. But then there's the lifetime achievement award given to ],
a major figure in ]. And then there's an article this year in the New
Statesman
about the "London Conference on Intelligence" held several times at University College London and now being investigated at
UCL. which led UCL's ]
to comment {{quote|text=I personally have no support for eugenics and I regard it as complete nonsense. I am appalled by the concept of white supremacy and will not tolerate anything on campus that incites racial hatred or violence.}} The New Statesman article says
{{quote|text=The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly. Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence, helped to organise recent ISIR conferences. Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund grantee and former president of the ISIR, famously authored a letter in the Wall Street Journal defending Charles Murray’s assertion that black people are genetically disposed to an average IQ of “around 85”, compared to 100 for whites.}} The article is worth reading. The involvement of ] and the ], Richard Lynn is to say the least not encouraging. I'd like to know what you think of their views. It would probably help if you could give us details of any other awards or grants you've received.


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)
:I've just found ] and updated it slightly to note that its speakers seem to have included white supremacists and someone advocating child rape. ] ] 15:49, 17 January 2019 (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 amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Race and intelligence: 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).''
* *


=== Race and intelligence: 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)
* ], do you still share an IP with ]? ] (]) 00:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
::If I recall, your article edits have always been fine. During the ], it was your non-article edits that were a concern. Are you able to give us some background to those edits, in particular those . There was speculation about those edits, and you were site-banned as they were indistinguishable from those of CO. You may email the Committee your response if you prefer. ] (]) 15:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes
::* Given that Ferahgo's article edits have been constructive not problematic, and that the previous concerns were in regard to the non-article edits in support of Captain Occam, a situation that it appears is unlikely to occur again, I am inclined to supporting lifting the topic ban. Serious concerns have been raised regarding members of ISIR, and these do relate to the topic area. Though I'm not seeing that those concerns relate to Ferahgo herself, it would be appropriate for Ferahgo to explain her connection to ISIR, and how she views that going forward. ] (]) 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
* I said at the last clarification that I would support lifting the topic ban (with perhaps a 6 month probationary period), and I can't say I've changed my opinion. I'll wait until more community members have commented, but I am heartened to see Ferahgo has done good work in a different area. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
**] indef semi
* {{ping|Ferahgo the Assassin}} yes, I'd be interested in examples of the research you're referring to, thanks for offering to pass it along. (FYI the arbcom email has changed, it's now {{nospam|arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}}.) ] (]) 08:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
:All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. ] (] &#124; ]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment:''' {{u|Ferahgo the Assassin|Ferhago}}, what are some examples of content changes you would make, if unbanned from the topic? The appeal only specifies what sub-topics you would edit. Without a more compelling submission, I would deny this appeal. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*After reading Ferahgo's comments here, I would be happy to lift the topic ban they currently have, with a 6 month probationary period to ensure all is well. Their edits have been constructive and they do show a willingness to work with the community in improving the encyclopedia. ] (]) 13:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
----
*My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ] (]) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like ] still have recurring issues. - ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was ]); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? ] (]) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*A quick look down ] and ] enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. ] (]) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
:The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... ] (]) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*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)


== Amendment request: Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months == == Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal ==
{{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)}}
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected ;Case or decision affected
:] :]
:]
:<small>'''Note:''' This appeal is of an enforcement action under {{arbCase|Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions}}. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)</small>


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



; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: ; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|FkpCascais}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Sandstein}}


; 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
*]
*
:*2022 changes
:*Suspension of the topic ban or at least allowing me to edit football, an area I am highly active and productive and that had nothing to do with the cause of this problem,


=== Statement by FkpCascais ===
Dear Wikipedians, for the ones that don´t know me, allow me to shortly introduce myself. I am 39 years old proud Wikipedian from Portugal, with Serbian and Czech parents who grow up in Mexico. As only child, encyclopedias were my company since I remember. When I discouvered Misplaced Pages it was love at first sight. I have been around for more than a decade and I have created over 900 articles. Although I work on something completelly different, my main hobbie has been editing football here on Misplaced Pages. My passion for football has nothing to do with hooliganism or tendentious editing towards teams I support, but rather about history of football, specially in Yugoslavia and Austro-Hungary, with lists and statistics, and with migration of footballers. I also edit history, aviation and automotive industry, ammong others. I got involved in a content dispute at ]. I presented numerous sources to back my point. My intention was just that the view expressed in those sources was properly added in the article, not even highlighted, but just not dismissed as obscure theory as it was pretended by the other editors. When the other editors decided to dismiss my concerns, I tried to ask for help at ANI (). ] had an extremelly constructive approach, however ], with which I had several disputes in the past, made a total turn and sugested boomerang, which was imposed by Sandstein. I can admit I could had been more patient, I could have dropped it earlier, I even troughout the ANI showed regreat. It was a content dispute, I had numerous reliable sources, it was just needed someone to help us solve it. I believe I was punished too severily. I asked several times Sandstein to at least allow me to edit football during the 6 months, an area I never had problems and had nothing to do with the issue in hand here, he denied me that as well. This was a content dispute basically solved by punishing me for not giving up. And the punishment is way too excessive, 6 months in which I am forbiden to work on the numerous projects I am working at. I ask please the community to reconsider what happened here.


=== Statement by Crouch, Swale ===
:May I just say that the sandbox text is not mine neither reflects my views. I found that text oarticularly interesting cause highlightes how the myth of "centuries long Serbian-Albanian conflict" is a modern-times fabrication. It is a text from a different oeriod with some views which may differ from nowadays ones, but regarding the history of Albanian-Serbian relationshios is correct. It uses unfortunate language from the time it was writen, as saying as "unfortunate" the choice of crating a Muslim country in Europe, or giving Istabul/C9stantinople to Turkey. Those were all matters that at certain poiint were being discussed. I found the texyt interesting and brought it to a sandbox. It doesnt reflect my personal views neither I have forced them at any article. It is not fair that I have a 6 months ban based on on some sandbox of mine that users just guess what I use them for. I am actually a very much peacefull editor with good collsbotation with many nationalities as seen by my barnstars and talk-page.. Presenting me as nationalist is extremelly unfair. ] (]) 09:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
:{{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 Thryduulf ===
::I want to thank ] for having tryied to help. After all, this was all a content dispute in which I presented numerous reliable sources and once opposing editors started restoring their prefered version which ignored my concerns, I went to ANI to ask for help. Certain admins interfered directly in the dispute by punishing me with a 6 month topic ban which they perfectly know unables me to work in all projects I am involved to. Since the content dispute was no reason enough for a sanction, they came up with this brilliant idea of digging in my sandboxes a text I have there, which is not mine by the way. The text is simply a text ammong many I have and doesnt represent my view. I just found interesting certain aspects in it. Presenting it as if that was my political belief was a brilliant strategy to get me punished. Nevermind. I will not edit eating habits of chinchillas despite likeing them. I will abandon this project for at least the next 6 months. Thank you all. ] (]) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you SportingFlyer, you are a testimony of how absurd the occusations of me being Serb thus being biased are. You followed my edits, you followed the numerous creations of articles on Croatian footballers, my contribution to historical Croatian clubs, despite being Serbian I made all those contibutions with pure passion. The insinuation some here are making without even knowing my editing historial are really insulting for me, and hurt a lot my feelings and leave me sad. ] (]) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have sockpuppets making fun of the situation at my talk page because I was the editor who fought against their insertion of POV edits. Misplaced Pages cannot deal with socks of indef-banned users, but decides to ban me for 6 months. Thank you for showing how litte serious this project is. I will not edit chinchillas. Good bye. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

:To clarify, when I refered as "mosqueteers" to the editors, I had no bad intention besides indicating it was again the ones same editors creating a conflict. English is not my primary language and I often use expressions translated from other languages I speak better. In Portuguese it is often used for pointing out when a particular group hangs and acts always together. What I meant by that was that it was always the same editors that opposed me all time at Albanian-related articles. I had already pointed out prior that that a problem regarding ] was present with those same editors acting as group in order to control the content in the articles that are prioritary for WP:Albania. Having called them mosqueteers had no other intention on my behalve than just pointing out how their editing style was militaristic and how they acted in group. Other administrators often noteced this same pattern of behaviour and call it ], an expression I find much more offensive because (in)directly suggests editors are clowns.

:Even so, I apologised at ANI to the other editors for the expression "mosqueteers". I promised to stay away from controversial matters (an editor from Balkans certainly knows which they are), but any of these seems to have been taken into consideration.

:I have to point out a major flaw that I find in the way Misplaced Pages works. I cannot believe people here are naive to think there are editors without bias. Of course, I can have no bias when I wrote ]. Why would I? There is nothing controversial there. However, articles such as ] obviously are complicated articles in which events are seen trough different perspectives depending on one editors nationality, and even ammong the ones of same nationality often there are different fractions. Editors are inevitably biased, that is a fact Misplaced Pages would work better if assumed from the very begining. The problem is that at present, Misplaced Pages favours the ones that act and hide better their bias, against the others that believe things they were told that way, and are honest. I am fed up of seing good actors faking their unbiasness having their way. Editors from all Central and South-Eastern Europe are biased in favour of their nations. The lowest behavior is when editors group themselves by the rule "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Then ironically a false perception of consensus happends, with the other side accused of battleground mentality. We set this project to be a collaborative one where decitions would be made troughout consensus. We also highlight that what counts are the arguments, not the numbers. But what in practice happends more often if that becomes easier for a group pushing its POV to get the lone annoying guy eliminated from the project rather than accepting his valid points. Besides, the issue often becomes a matter of pride where winning or loosing becomes a matter of honour. In my decade long history I never e-mailed an admin, but I noteced certain groups when in trouble make a huge fuss off-wiki, something which becames notorious even if they think they are being discrete.

:I am not OK with this. Most of this cases have been solved by force. Higher number of editors wins, they can perform more reverts, regular admins run as a devil from a cross when they see this cases, and the ones involving are the ones already having a long historial, with clear (unofficial) preferences. Sources are ignored but suddently a word someone used in a edit-summary is what decides the dispute. While often clear disruption is dealt with warnings, this cases are sealed with hardest punishments, of the kind "you are not welcome here and dont you ever dare to touch that issue again even when you return". This is wrong. Very, very wrong. This is not the proper way of solving the issues and sooner or later something will have to change. Misplaced Pages credibility is what is the main subject here. If Misplaced Pages is just a tool of the strongest, well, its entire purpose comes under question. Instead of the admins reacting badly by calling circus to this disputes, they should understand this disputes are real, and instead of just punishing the participants from "making problems" they should just ask for sources from both sides and after seing them crating a text that would properly represent the view historiograohers have over the events, even mentioning all options historiographers consider.

:I think that if there was real good will, this project would be easy to run, and even unite opposing sides by creating eways of displaying realities where the views of all sides would be considered. RS, NPOV, Verifiability, UNDUE, ammong others, they all gives us tools make fair solutions that would be as fair as possible. All other behaviors seem suspicious and tendentious. ] (]) 22:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sandstein ===
I recommend declining this appeal.

Insofar as the topic ban as a whole is contested, the comments by FkpCascais in the and in the appeals to me (I remember several, but can now only find ) and ] leave me with the impression of a person who is more emotional and impulsive than most other editors, and who is set on portraying Balkans history from a particular point of view. As such, they are not well-suited to edit in this tension-laden topic area.

Insofar as an exception for football-related edits is sought, I am of the view that it should not be granted, at least not initially, because football in the Balkans is often a focal point for political tensions. As I wrote in the ban message, I would like to see a relatively long period of collegial, productive editing by FkpCascais in other topic areas before I am open to relaxing the topic ban, first as relating to football and then entirely. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
Just to note, an appeal of this ban was filed by FkpCascais at WP:AN on 22 December. It was archived without being closed. ] (]) 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:@SportingFlyer - Some of the commenters on the AN thread supported allowing editing in the football subject area, but changed their minds when FkpCascais made edits in that area '''''while the lifting of the topic ban was being considered'''''. When the appeal was archived without being closed, only two people had made formal bolded !votes, and both of them opposed lifting the ban ''in toto'', without an exception for football. ] (]) 06:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Statement by SportingFlyer ===
It's difficult to defend this editor based on those sandbox posts, but they have contributed positively to the football WikiProject over the years, and I see no reason to extend the ban that far. As many of the users on the ANI thread supported not blocking football articles, I would modify the TBAN to any Balkan-related topics (any topic relating to: Slovenia; Croatia; Albania; Bosnia & Herzegovina; Serbia; Montenegro; Albania; Macedonia; Kosovo; Bulgaria; Greece; Turkey; and Romania - and if I missed anything obvious, my lack of listing that country is not an excuse) with the exception of any Serbian-related football article for an arbitrary amount of time, possibly shorter than the six-month TBAN (in which case any football article would be fair game for editing.) Historical Yugoslavian articles would be okay as long as the player or team is Serbian; edits on Yugoslavian leagues or cups would be okay; edits on any non-Balkan league, player, or cup would be okay. as they would be currently. Any violation of this restriction during the time frame would result in a full ban for disruptive editing. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 06:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
::@Beyond My Ken - I saw that. It's a terrible look. That being said, I'm satisfied the week long block handled the situation properly. I see this as a situation where we either lose an editor, or give the editor one final chance to comply. That's why I'm setting the restrictions to be crystal clear and proposing a total site ban if there's any non-compliance. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 06:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Just as an aside to some comments above regarding the politicalisation of football in the area, I edit primarily football articles, especially Croatian football articles, and am familiar with the region. I see absolutely no problem with what I've proposed above with regards to politics. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} === === Statement by {other-editor} ===
Line 317: Line 115:
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months: Clerk notes === === Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* Updated notifications so they are Permalinks/Diffs, and included both the AN implantation and the --] <sup>] </sup> 17:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*My default position for this sort of thing is that "decline where an uninvolved administrator has acted within the bounds of their discretion". Simply, I do not see that Sandstein has acted incorrectly here, and I am not willing to overturn his decision. Although I am willing to consider further, at present, I'm a '''decline''' ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
* Seeing as Sandstein said, that football related articles can be a flashpoint for Balkans related issues, I do not feel it's wise to lift the topic ban for this area. Therefore I must '''decline''' this request. ] (]) 15:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as within administrator discretion. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 19:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' both requests. The ban was within Sandstein's discretion and has community consensus behind it to boot. FkpCascais has given us no good reason to lift it and indeed seems to have little understanding of why it was placed in the first place. I see no pressing need to make an exception for football. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' ''']''' ] 23:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
* Decline as above, this is within normal admin discretion. As a piece of advice, {{u|FkpCascais}}, the idea behind topic bans like this is to encourage editors to direct their efforts to other, less contentious topic areas, and to appeal the topic ban after accumulating a history of unproblematic editing elsewhere. Not editing at all for six months is unlikely to result in a successful appeal at that time. But if you like chinchillas, editing about chinchillas would be perfect :) ] (]) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
* '''Decline.''' Amongst the misconduct that led to sanctions, {{u|FkpCascais}} even adopted a nickname () for the opposing disputants. Clearly, this topic ban was necessary and proportionate. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 13:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: The Troubles ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|The Troubles}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|Thryduulf}} (initiator)


''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''<br>
As there are no specific other people involved, I have left notifications at:
*]
*]
*]
*]:


=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
In ] arbitration case the committee authorised a remedy that was effectively discretionary sanctions (this was before standardised discretionary sanctions as we know them today had evolved) and as part of that a general 1RR restriction was imposed. Later, the old remedy was replaced by discretionary sanctions, incorporating the 1RR restriction. However, because of the way these sanctions have evolved the scope of the DS topic area is stated differently in different places and this is causing confusion (see for example ]). What I believe to be the full history of the scope(s) and where I found them is detailed at ] but what I understand to be the differing scopes presently in force are (numbered for ease of reference only):
#Pages relating to ], as well as the ], broadly interpreted
#ll articles could be reasonably construed as being related to ], Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland
#Pages relating to The Troubles and the Ulster banner ('']'')
#] is transcluded on] along with other articles relating to ].
#All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

British Baronets were formerly part of some of the scopes, but that was unambiguously removed by a previous committee.

I am asking the committee to:
# Clarify this whole mess by defining a single scope for the discretionary sanctions and sanctions placed under its authority (the general 1RR is the only one I know that will be affected).
# Formally and explicitly end the restrictions imposed in the related ] as superceded by the discretionary sanctions authorised in The Troubles case. This is de facto the case anyway, but while tidying we might as well spend another 2 minutes to tidy this as well. (note that the ] article was moved to ] after the case concluded)

Request 1 does lead to the need to determine what the scope should be. In my view, formed following some discussion at ] and ] and looking at various articles and talk pages is that there are only two that need considering:
:A "Pages related to ], broadly interpreted."
:B "Pages related to ], Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland." with both geographical and political meanings of "Ireland" being within scope.

The Ulster Banner does not need to be separately mentioned - the ] article is quiet and is not even tagged and while the ] article would benefit from continued inclusion in the discretionary sanctions regime it is firmly within either scope suggested above.

The ] topic area is unquestionably within the scope of suggestion B and is reasonably interpreted as also being within the scope of suggestion A as crucial background to it.

Whether the ] is within the scope of either A or B is less clear, nor is there clear consensus whether it should be - more input than I was able to attract prior to the request is needed here. ] (]) 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Black Kite}} It's been a while since I've been involved with any disputes regarding the term "British Isles" but I can't imagine anything serious that wouldn't be covered by a reasonable interpretation of B. Whether it would be covered by A would be more dependent on the exact nature of the disruption, but if it is completely unrelated I don't think we should be using the sanctions of this case to solve that problem. ] (]) 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{replyto|BU Rob13}} While the topic area is relatively quiet at the moment discretionary sanctions are still desirable for at least as long as Brexit is an active political issue as any changes to the status of Northern Ireland or the Irish border could get quite messy quite quickly (history shows that the heat of conflicts on Misplaced Pages related to real-world geopolitical issues correlates pretty well with the heat of those issues in the real-world). Whether the specific 1RR restriction is still needed is a different question that's independent of what the scope of the DS authorisation is. It could be made narrower, but what that narrower scope should be is not clear (it's tricky to predict what the flashpoints will be), although when this ARCA is resolved I will be (proposing) removing the notification template from the talk pages of most of the few Northern Irish footballer articles it is currently transcluded on (from memory only one of those articles even gave any indication of any political or nationalist activity by the subject. ] (]) 19:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
::{{replyto|BU Rob13}} You are conflating two separate issues here (1) the scope of the topic area discretionary sanctions are authorised for, (2) the scope of the 1RR restriction imposed under that authorisation. The aim of this clarification request is solely to clarify what the scope of (1) actually is, not whether the DS regime is still required: it is, and because Brexit is on the horizon now is a good time to clarify it. (2) is a question that cannot be usefully answered until after (1) has been clarified (because the scope of any restrictions imposed under DS must be equal to or wholly contained by the scope of the DS authorisation) and in any case is not a question that requires arbcom - the purpose of discretionary sanctions is to allow administrators additional flexibility to make, adjust and remove remedies without needing to consult the committee each time. ] (]) 20:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|BU Rob13}} While a review might be useful it cannot sensibly happen until ''after'' the scope of the DS is clarified, and it doesn't require the Committee to do it - it can be done at AE or even a relevant WikiProject page, while the DS scope clarification ''does'' need to happen here. FWIW though I think it would be silly to remove the 1RR at the current time and that setting the scope to A or B above (to match the DS authorisation) would be about right. ] (]) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Opabinia regalis}} The most recent confusion I'm aware of is at ] (this is where I intended to link above but I see now I forgot to include the page name, sorry!), and I've seen other confusion previously but cannot immediately recall where. ] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
::{{replyto|GoodDay}} Indeed, I'm not proposing to remove the 1RR at all (that's BU Rob13's confusion), simply clarifying the scope of the discretionary sanctions it's authorised under and, if necessary, adjusting the scope of the 1RR to match it. ] (]) 10:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{replyto|SilkTork}} My reading of the intent of ]'s statement at ] is that the 1RR is a standard discretionary sanction appealable in the normal manner but a statement making that explicit certainly wouldn't harm. ] (]) 16:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Statement by Black Kite ===
(B) would be better, in my opinion ... one could argue for the second section to specifically include the use of the term "British Isles", but that will probably be sufficient.

If I remember correctly, the issues with the Ulster Banner weren't particularly on that article itself, but edit-warring to include the Banner instead of the Irish flag / Union Jack (depending on context) and vice-versa on BLPs and other articles that included flags and flagicons. ] 17:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Statement by GoodDay ===
I would caution that 1RR may need to be kept in place, during the Brexit process which effects the British/Irish border & thus related articles. ] (]) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

=== Statement by EdJohnston ===
Per , the 1RR which is currently in place for Troubles articles is due to the decision by an administrator to impose it under discretionary sanctions. (Most likely it is due to by ] in the fall of 2011. The idea of a blanket Troubles 1RR didn't originate with him, it used to be a community sanction before that). So, if anybody thinks that the blanket 1RR should be adjusted they could (in theory) appeal it at AE. Personally, I can see the advantages of single-page 1RRs that could be applied by individual administrators.

According to Canens, the scope of the case is "..reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.." In my view, this is an adequate description of the scope and I wouldn't advise the committee to get really specific as to which articles are in or out. Admins shouldn't take action unless the nature of the edits suggests that nationalism is at work in the minds of at least some of the editors. Modern nationalism can cause problems with articles that seem tangential, as when editors who are warned about ] get into wars about Alexander the Great, since the word 'Macedonia' occurs there. Yet the ARBMAC decision did not mention our article on ], nor should it. Even so, the ARBMAC sanctions would reasonably apply to any nationally-motivated editing of that article. ] (]) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


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

=== The Troubles: 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).''
* *


=== The Troubles: 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)
*Before we do anything here, I would invite views on whether the 1RR in this topic area remains necessary. Is there still active disruption that warrants applying 1RR to an entire topic area indefinitely? Can that be reduced to just those pages actively undergoing disruption, as is typical? ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 19:20, 15 January 2019 (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)
**{{re|Thryduulf}} That is an excellent point about Brexit. It may be worth holding on this request for a couple weeks to see if that situation changes in light of May's defeat in Parliament. In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on fully overturning the topic area wide 1RR (rather than providing it with a new scope) in favor of encouraging uninvolved administrators to apply 1RR to specific pages at their discretion as disruption occurs. I think that would be the preferred route so long as the number of articles facing frequent edit wars is relatively small, say, no more than a few dozen. Could you comment a bit on that? I'm not set in that view right now; just trying to understand exactly what's going on to form a comprehensive opinion. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 19:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
*Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. ] (] &#124; ]) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
***To be clear, I'm not misunderstanding your request. I just think a review of the 1RR is worthwhile at the same time as we're reviewing the discretionary sanctions. To my knowledge, it's the broadest sanction ever imposed under DS, and it's persisted for quite some time. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 14:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
*This case played out while I was inactive on Misplaced Pages, so I'm not familiar with the history. {{u|Thryduulf}}, can you point to an example or two of the confusion? (Your link isn't working, and probably I'm being unobservant but I can't find which discussion you meant to refer to.) ] (]) 07:02, 16 January 2019 (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)
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* I think this is a sensible request. Of the two options I feel Option B seems to more clearly cover the areas of concern, though "broadly construed" should be applied. I'm comfortable leaving 1RR in place as I'd prefer users in a contentious area to use more of the discussion and negotiation style of editing and less of the blunt and inflammatory style. The question of who is procedurally responsible for the current 1RR and can therefore lift it seems a bureaucratic mess, but if we want a separate formal ruling (for clarity) then I'm comfortable with clarifying that the current 1RR is within the jurisdiction of AE admins to lift or amend as appropriate. ] (]) 15:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
{{hab}}
----

Latest revision as of 10:56, 23 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Amendment request: American politics 2

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

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

Statement by Interstellarity

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

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

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

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

Comment by GoodDay

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

Statement by Rosguill

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

Statement by Izno

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

Statement by Kenneth Kho

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

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
  1. Special:Diff/1064925920


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


Information about amendment request
  • 2022 changes


Statement by Crouch, Swale

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

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