Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:13, 30 May 2012 editCourcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: cmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:59, 15 January 2025 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators61,264 edits →American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion: fix sig 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
==Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough==
'''Initiated by ''' '']&nbsp;]'', <small>23:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> '''at''' 23:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Rich Farmbrough}}
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Finding 8


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
* {{userlinks|Rich Farmbrough}} (initiator)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
; Information about amendment request
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
* Details of desired modification
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of , ).


;Case or decision affected
Amend to
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}
Rich Farmbrough has on a number of occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot, where this was uncontroversial, and generally with pre-approval of the blocking admin. In addition he has been scrupulous in ensuring that he has remedied any problems, or claimed problems, for which he is to be commended.


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
===Statement by Rich Farmbrough===
#]
This is a more accurate statement of the situation. For the existing wording to stand the Committee would have to show that many (I would assume more than five) unblocks did not address the reason for stopping the bot. They will not be able to show this because it is not the case. It is a matter of regret that the committee would wish to publish such falsehoods without even the most cursory examination.
:'']&nbsp;]'', <small>23:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />




; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
@Arbs. One, or even several is not many.
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)


@Corcelles: Firstly it was established in the case that there is no such thing as process. Secondly in the case you cite the blocking admin had ''explicitly'' permitted a self unblock. Thirdly we are going back over a year to find one example, which fails.


@Fozzie: Since I was denied a chance to rebut the case at the time, the committee has left this the only on-wiki avenue available to me. To deny that would not only be ''ultra vires'', and contrary to natural justice but counter productive. Moreover the Committee has ''added false statements to the case post closure''. This is something the committee should want to rectify.

Additional notes. Fram continues to pursue me here. If that is not disruptive I don't know what is. Note that Fram refused to answer my questions on the case, and even changed my posts. Fram says I did not contribute to the case, I made over 500 edits (and I am still waiting for an answer as to how many hours a day I should be expected to dedicate to a case who's trolling tenet was debunked on day 1.

@Fram. Of course hiding the fact that you - like the other parties, are great at lip service to collegiality, but totally unable to put any actual effort into it is not fine. And redacting part of my post to an ArbCom case would seem very foolish, if not downright abusive. Note that another party suggested questions I should ask, I added them and still no response was forthcoming.

@Silk: You seem to have missed the part of the case where it was decided that unblocking one's own bots was totally within process ''per se''.

@NewYorkBrad: You were more active than any other arbitrator, and, going by evidence, paid more attention to the content. AGK was also inactive, and had promised not to vote, but hat has not stopped him voting either on the main case or here.

@PhilKnight , I would be happy with striking the FoF altogether or a compromise wording.

Rich Farmbrough has on a number of occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot, where this was uncontroversial, and generally with pre-approval of the blocking admin. While Fram takes issue with one of the unblocks, almost all are uncontroversial, and all were made in good faith and the spirit of collegiality and cooperation we have come to expect from Rich.

@Beestra, It appears that ArbCom have collectively dug in and adopted a position of infallibility. I sincerely hope this is not the case. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>12:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />

===Comment by Fram===
Rich Farmbrough is still using out-of-context facts to defend himself, even though the actual full context has been presented to him again and again. For all readers unaware of that context, "Secondly in the case you cite the blocking admin had ''explicitly'' permitted a self unblock." should be continued with "under strict conditions". The actual self-unblock did not follow these conditions at all. The self-unblock edit summary "Vexatious disruptive block" is quite clear as well.

As for "Since I was denied a chance to rebut the case at the time", this is a rather slanted reading of what actually happened, i.e. that he had every chance to defend himself, but largely ignored discussions (even though people like Dirk Beetstra, Hammersoft and Kumioko found the time and tried hard to do his work for him instead), often failed to provide evidence for his claims, and in general waited until the very last moment, after the proposed decision had been open for quite a while (since 5 May) and arbitrators started voting to close the case (12 May); then he suddenly needed a few more weeks to be able to present his case (14 May: "I started drafting my comments on the new material in the proposed decision yesterday." and "I will need at least a week, possibly two to respond to these matters."). This tactic failed. Like Kumioko said, "he spent a lot of time editing and not enough time discussing and defending". You were not "denied a chance", you choose to spend your time on other things and waited too long before starting your rebuttal; you shouldn't be blaming this on other people or on the ArbCom. ] (]) 08:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: "Additional notes. Fram continues to pursue me here. If that is not disruptive I don't know what is." You are making claims about a block of Smackbot I made, and the unblock conditions I gave. I think it is only natural that I give my version of that block, as a directly involved party. This has little to do with "pursuing". Apart from that, I was a party to the case, so amendments and clarifications to that case are of natural interest to me. I don't see you complaining that Beetstra and Hammersoft, who weren't parties to the case and not involved with these blocks, comment here, so apparently you are only bothered by people "pursuing you" when they don't support you, which is of course a good method to end with only supportive comments...

@Rich Farmbrough: "Note that Fram refused to answer my questions on the case, and even changed my posts." I presume you refer to my removal of the empty section "Replies by Fram" ? That's hardly "changing your posts", we shouldn't keep sections which will remain empty. Note that the final page still has two other such empty sections, since in reality no one answered your questions there. Perhaps the problem was more with the questions than with the refusal? I can't remember any instance where I actually changed a post you made.

@Rich Farmbrough: "Fram says I did not contribute to the case, I made over 500 edits (and I am still waiting for an answer as to how many hours a day I should be expected to dedicate to a case who's trolling tenet was debunked on day 1)." I did not say that you didn't contribute to the case, please don't make such incorrect claims. ] (]) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: if you consider an edit summary of "Vexatious disruptive block." (your words at the unblock) as "the spirit of collegiality and cooperation we have come to expect from Rich." (your words used here to describe these unblocks), then I have nothing more to add, really... ] (]) 12:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

===Comment by Beetstra===
As I asked the last time for the previous amendment - could the members of the ArbCom please specify ''which'' of the unblocks were out of line, and how they were out of line. This still suggests that ALL of the unblocks of Rich Farmbrough were out of line. A member of the ArbCom provides below ''one'' example, SilkTork now defines it as 'several' (which is ''also'' not the same as 'many'); I am sure that they can specify more examples to back up their statement 'on many occasions'. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich: As usual. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Comment by Hammersoft ===
It is clear from the wording Rich proposed that there is no way this amendment would ever be supported by any arbitrator. It is equally clear that ArbCom has failed to make its case for the revised FoF. So here we have one FoF wording that seems absurd being proposed by the target of an ArbCom case, and another FoF that seems absurd that has the backing of ArbCom. Not surprisingly, the body that wrote the latter refuses to consider modification of its version, and has (with SirFozzie's comments) threatened the writer of the former should he continue to make additional requests.

ArbCom has desysopped Rich. They have banned him from any automation (though, can't agree on what automation is). ArbCom considered banning him from the project. Rich has been pushed to the very edge of the precipice on this project. This, for one "wholly out of process unblock". I concur with Beetstra. Please show us the evidence that supports your finding. Please tell me there's more than one or two unblocks where Rich erred. Please. --] (]) 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

===Clerk notes===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
===Arbitrator views and discussion===
*The proposed amendment is false, full stop. One prime example of a wholly out of process unblock was the "15:56, 2 February 2011 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) unblocked SmackBot (talk | contribs) (Vexatious disruptive block.)" one. ] 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
*Agreed. And speaking as an arbitrator who was inactive due to real life issues during this case, it may be time to classify Rich as a ] and formally restrict him from wasting the Committee and Community's time with these requests. ] (]) 00:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' There are several cases of SmackBot/Helpful Pixie Bot being unblocked inappropriately by Rich Farmbrough, and of other admins reblocking with a comment that he should not be unblocking himself, or that issues are still not resolved. I am disappointed that at this stage Rich Farmbrough still appears not to understand why his conduct has been a cause for concern, and that his ongoing behaviour is not helpful to himself. ''']''' ''']''' 00:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
* I would decline the proposed amendment. ] ]] 11:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
*Abstain as I was inactive in the voting on this case. ] (]) 13:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
* The current wording may not be perfect, however Rich's proposed version isn't an improvement, being too far in the opposite direction. ] (]) 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

----

==Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough==
'''Initiated by ''' '']&nbsp;]'', <small>22:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> '''at''' 22:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Rich Farmbrough}}
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Principle 1
# Finding 2
# Remedy 3
; Information about amendment request ; Information about amendment request
*]
:*Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
Allowed to use Femto Bot to archive own talk page, as no other archiving solution has the required responsiveness, nor the ability to split-archive to to-do lists.
=== Statement by Rich Farmbrough ===
Allowed to use Femnto Bot to archive own talk page, as no other archiving solution has the required responsiveness, nor the ability to split-archive to to-do lists.


No. Listen. You turned it down because a standard archiving solution would do the job. I have explained that it would not. The request was closed and archived (without informing me - as usual). Given the extra information makes your previous reasoning moot, you should reconsider.


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
The suggestion was that the matters that were concerning "the community" applied to repetitive edits to many pages. This is an Arb's opinion. this does not fall in that category and should therefore be allowed without quibble.
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)
@Casliber: Archiving my talk page was the key issue? I must have been in a different case.


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
@Jclemens: You remarked "We can deal with specific requests for clarification that pose real problems. In the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession." On that basis this should be a speedy approval. Lets see if consistency rears its beautiful head.
''2015'', would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, ''2016''. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. ] (]) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Rosguill ===
@AGK " No, it is too early, and I see some value to giving the whole issue some time to settle down." yet you wouldn't give me time to prepare a proper rebuttal?
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 {other-editor} ===
@ArbCom Saying it is too soon is meaningless. The only thing that is likely to change between now and next week, is that one of us dies. Vague doomsday scenarios where the bot goes berserk and "vandalises all of the Misplaced Pages" are not helpful. The blanket application of the "remedy" to areas where it is not intended does not help anyone. Moreover, coupled with the committee re-writing the case it creates a bad impression of the committee to deliberately force a user's interaction with other users to be more awkward, for the sake of bureaucracy. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>19:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
@Risker: thank you for being the first Arb to approve. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />

@Silk: That "let them eat cake" response wholly fails to address the point. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>03:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />

=== Statement by Headbomb ===

I support this. It's completely unrelated to the behaviour that lead to the case, and Misplaced Pages gains nothing by disallowing Rich to manage ''his own userspace''. This is utterly uncontroversial stuff, and one of the reasons ] says bots editing the operator's userspace usually don't require approval.
<blockquote>
ny bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user page, user talk page, and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval.</blockquote>
I hope ARBCOM realize that their "Really, you just asked for some derogation and it was declined... Therefore ]DENY per ]!" does no one a service here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 13:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

===Arbitrator views and arbitrator discussion===
*Really? We just turned this down a few days ago. Asking this soon is something bordering on, if not meeting, the idea of ] -- asking until you get the answer you want is highly unlikely to work here. ] 04:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
*As a noted sage once said.. "it was deja vu all over again.." we JUST declined this and the answer is the same. ] (]) 05:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
*No. And Rich... really. You need to step back and internalize why you were sanctioned and the best way forward for you. Repeated requests like these are not demonstrating that you can adapt to your sanctions, modify yourself, and emerge stronger. Your various posts questioning how the committee conducts itself aren't helping any, either. At any rate, my advice to you: go write some content. Demonstrate that you are most concerned with making the English Misplaced Pages the best repository of human knowledge you can, even without the automation to which you are accustomed. Just avoid repetitive or trivial tasks, and do something marvelous that will compel the committee to reconsider your sanctions. Please--it's the best way forward for you and the project. ] (]) 05:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
**Rich, my sincere apologies that you weren't notified appropriately. I'll find out what happened there. However, the rest of your responses are not particularly helpful. Please read and internalize what ] said before continuing on your present course. I share his views on possible outcomes and their relative desirability. ] (]) 07:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
*Sorry, not straight after the case where this was a key issue. ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
* Per Casliber, but to clarify for Rich: ''This key issue'' is not "talk page archiving", but "automation of any kind", and by extension you cannot be trusted to run unsupervised tools. I imagine something like a talk page archival bot could be a first step towards regaining access to automation, if you ever wished to pursue such a route, but at this early stage I am not comfortable having you near a script, bot, or other doo-dah—even if it were to edit only your userspace. Supposing it messed an edit up (these bots always do at some point), you would be required to engage with an editor or even participate at a noticeboard, and then the whole sordid cycle would repeat itself. No, it is too early, and I see some value to giving the whole issue some time to settle down. '''Decline.''' ] ]] 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* Concur with Jclemens in particular on this matter. ] (]) 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. Manual archiving will do what is required. ''']''' ''']''' 00:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
*As I said when this request was previously before us, my initial reaction is that Rich Farmbrough's using a bot to archive ''his own talkpage only'' strikes me as entirely harmless, and my inclination would be to grant the request; however, I defer to the consensus of the other arbitrators who have commented, and who have the advantage over me of having been active throughout the case. ] (]) 13:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Scientology (Lyncs) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Scientology}}
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
see ]

Suspension of site ban: User:Justanother / User:Justallofthem

Your indefinite site ban is suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and compliance with the following restrictions:

Single account limitation

You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason. You may rename that account provided (i) you immediately notify the committee of the rename; (ii) the redirects from the prior account name remain in place; and (iii) you display a link to the previous account name on your user page.

Interaction ban Cirt

i) You may neither communicate with nor comment upon or make reference to either directly or indirectly to User:Cirt or their contributions on any page in the English Misplaced Pages. You may not edit Cirt's talk or user pages though you may, within reason, comment within other pages providing your comments do not relate directly or indirectly to Cirt or their edits. The sole exception to the interaction ban is that you may respond civilly on matters explicitly pertaining to you raised by Cirt or any other editor in any dispute resolution or enforcement context.

ii) Should you violate the letter or spirit of the restrictions above, you may be blocked without prior warning via the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard: on the first occasion for up to one week; on the second occasion for up to one month; and on the third occasion for up to three months. Appeal of any blocks is to the Arbitration Committee.

Topic banned from Scientology

You are indefinitely topic-banned from Scientology on the standard terms outlined here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger talk 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Lyncs}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Cirt}}
; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* Would someone viewing this please be so kind as to inform Cirt; I am not able to under the terms of the reinstatement. Thanks --] (]) 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
* Cirt . --] (]) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

===Amendment 1===
* Remove all account restrictions based on over one year of good behavior.
=== Statement by Lyncs ===
I was conditionally reinstated well over one year ago with the comment at the time that I could ask to have the restrictions lifted following some period of good behavior. I believe that statement was in an email from an arbitrator and can try to find it if needed.

It is now well over one year and I think that I have evidenced my good behavior and good intentions. I do not edit all that much but might edit more in the future. I would prefer to 1) have access to a subject, Scientology, that I am extremely conversant with and 2) not have any live mines that I might inadvertently step onto vis-a-vis interaction bans or the like.

It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and it is currently not my intention to edit Scientology articles but I do not think there is any need to bar me from either at this point. If I do edit in Scientology (which could happen) or interact with Cirt (which is unlikely), I would still be bound by the rules and norms of Misplaced Pages with the added factor that I will be subject to certain scrutiny so I think it is not inappropiate to grant this request. Thank you.

1. Response to Newyorkbrad: Lifting the one account restriction is the least of my concerns and if that is a deciding factor or a factor of concern then I have no problem continuing editing solely from this account. --] (]) 12:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Response to AGK: I could make argument on the merits of the original sanctions and possible injustices but I am not interesting in rehashing that nor, I imagine, is the committee. The fact that I have been back for well over one year and have not had any problems is indicative of the fact that I am not into causing problems. That is an important point. Troublemakers cause trouble. They do not stop because they are now excluded from one area or another. They make trouble where they are. That is not what I am about.

On second thought, I will say one thing of a general nature related to my sanctions. When I started editing here, I edited the Scientology articles as that was something I had been involved with for many years. If you are familiar with that territory prior to the arbitration, the Scientology articles were a battleground of anti-Scientology zealots warring with Scientology zealots with the antis well in control of the situation. But it was noisy nonetheless. I arrived as a non-zealot Scientologist just trying to add some balance and the benefit of my knowledge. While there were and are plenty of non-zealot folks that do not think highly of Scientology, few seemed to accept that there could be a Scientologist that was a not a zealot. To most, especially the antis, all Scientologists were programmed, brainwashed, and agents of the evil ]. But that is how zealots see things. I made many thousands of edits. My edits were never much of an issue. What was the issue was that I screamed pretty loudly when getting stuck with pins. I think that the project is wiser now on the subject of Scientology. I hope it is wiser on the subject of wiki-bullying in general.

I could discretely canvass my wiki-friends and ask them to speak for me but I am not going to do that. They are, of course, welcome to speak on my behalf if they care to; I am just not going around asking anyone to do so.

I think the fact that no-one feels strongly enough about my request to come over here and object says something also. I think the fact that it is so quiet here speaks for my request, not against it.

In other words, I present the case that my request is almost a non-issue and I am simply looking for the sanctions to be lifted as "time served" with a warning to watch my step in the future or as appropriate. --] (]) 00:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by NuclearWarfare ===

I took a quick look at . The edits seem to be fine, but they go back quite far (Aug 2011) and aren't incredibly substantial so there isn't a lot of history to examine. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by {yet another user} ===
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Question to Lyncs: Does your request include termination of the one-account restriction? ] (]) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting statements from the community that what Lyncs believes is appropriately acceptable behavior is indeed so perceived by the community. ] (]) 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
* The argument to end the unban restrictions is not compelling, and given the absence of discretionary sanctions for this topic I am therefore reluctant to allow Lyncs' (Justallofthem) appeal. However, I too will await statements by the community (if any are to come) before adjudging. ] ]] 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
*I have to admit the lack of contributions to base the solving of past issues concerns me greatly. If I had to vote now, it would be to decline, but waiting for more comments first. ] (]) 04:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Decline for now''': ask again when you've made substantially more edits perhaps? &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* While I would prefer to see more editing in a range of topics, I believe that the ARBSCI discretionary sanctions would apply in this case, and would likely be sufficient. ] (]) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Speed of light (Brews ohare) ==

'''Case link: ] '''

'''Initiated by ''' <small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> '''at''' 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

=== Statement by JohnBlackburne ===
It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but ] has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case, {{la|Wavelength}}, because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today , as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again).

My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: the RfC was the place to discuss content. This is neither the time or the place. I made on the content during the RfC, there is no point doing so again. You the RfC, after only a week, so it seemed you were happy that the discussion had run its course and consensus had been reached. It's your to argue and after that that's the problem. It was the RfC that drew me in, as a site-wide notice on a topic I'm interested in. As always if you find fault with my contributions please provide diffs not vague accusations. The link to find them is in my signature.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@] You do know that about editors that they have not volunteered themselves is ], don't you? If I cared to keep my identity private I would not use my real name here but it is still strictly forbidden.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: the problem is suggesting something to Brews ohare doesn't work. Asking politely doesn't work. Asking pointedly with links to relevant policies doesn't work. It's not that he doesn't understand such suggestions and requests: he just refuses to accept them, and has instead written essays saying ] and ]. Even arbitration didn't work. The only thing that stopped him disrupting talk pages and wasting many editors time by creating multiple RfCs
(
, all this year)
and was a block.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: I would like to clarify that this is not a content issue, though it would suit Brews ohare if it were. My presentation above is perhaps not clear on this, so here's the detail again, chronologically:
: Brews ohare first proposes an addition. Two editors object, discussions ensue
: Not accepting that the consensus is against him Brews ohare starts an RFC referencing the previous discussion. More editors join in, including myself. The text is rewritten multiple times (), breaking other editors replies. The consensus turns even more clearly against the additions, however phrased.
: Brews ohare closes the RFC, presumably happy with the result or at least resigned to not convincing other editors
: He continues to argue with other editors over the article
: Dicklyon asks him to stop
: his reply blames Dicklyon
: he continues to argue about the RFC content
: and again asks for "reconsideration" of the RFC content
: I, Srleffler and Dicklyon ask him to stop
: he dismisses these objections as "cheer-leading" and "missing the point".

The text but is the same material throughout: even Brews last attempt says it is for "reconsideration", and ] can be compared with the ]. I've not tried connecting this to the 2009 discussions that Dicklyon mentioned as I was not involved with them. It's also hard to find them: Brews ohare made the edits on this talk page, more than twice that of the next most frequent contributor, often rewriting his own contributions.

This reminds me of my observations : ''this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration''. Only a few months after that block ended and exactly the same is happening.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: That was the subject of the RFC, which is now closed as noted above and archived since, so it's too late to participate. Though even if you had it seems very unlikely given the overwhelming consensus against including it that it would have made any difference.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dicklyon ===
The problem is not so much "incorrect material", but tangential, poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information, and a few bits wrong, too, combined with refusal to hear or understand objections. When I was defending the ] article against his bloat and nonsense in the summer of 2009, I thought he was probably an overreaching grad student; turns out he's a prof emeritus and fellow of the IEEE, so no dummy. But in the years since, he demonstrated repeatedly an inability to collaborate, or to even understand the objections of other editors to what he is trying to do. This blew up more at ] because there were plenty of other serious editors there. I'm very happy that JohnBlackburne and a few others have been recently helping out at ], because I don't have the time or energy to take on that defense again. I have no idea how to convince Dr. Brews to take on a workable style, but this is a drag. The arbitration was supposed to help put him back on a tolerable track; I hope the arbs will look at how to help here. ] (]) 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the technical argument is Brew's claim that "the Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that". That's nonsense. The Fourier series is one tool used to analyze periodic functions, primarily in the context of linear systems for which a decomposition into sinusoids allows easy solutions and characterizations of behaviors. This is not the case in the situation where he is introducing the Fourier series into the wavelength article; none of the (relatively few) sources that mention the connection show any way that it is useful. It is a red herring, a dead-end tangent. Decomposition of waves into sinusoids is indeed important, but least so in the context of periodic-in-space waves; the wavelength article is hardly the place to get into this. ] (]) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Headbomb ===
Not this crap again... that's all I have to say. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Brews_ohare ===
The gist of Blackburne's complaint is that I have attempted to insert "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths". The text so-described is presented on ] as a proposed addition as follows:
{| cellpadding="2" style="border: 1px solid darkgray; background:#E6F2CE;" align="center"
|The wavelength, say &lambda;, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself. Sinusoidal waves with wavelengths related to &lambda; can superimpose to create this spatially periodic waveform. Such a superposition of sinusoids is mathematically described as a ], and is simply a summation of the sinusoidally varying component waves:
|-
|.. "''Fourier's theorem'' states that a function ''f(x)'' of spatial period &lambda;, can be synthesized as a sum of harmonic functions whose wavelengths are integral submultiples of &lambda; (''i.e.'' &lambda;, &lambda;/2, &lambda;/3, ''etc.'')."<ref name=Schaum group=Note/>
|-
|'''References'''
{{Reflist |group=Note|refs=
<ref name=Schaum group =Note>
{{cite book |title=Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Optics |publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ZIZmyOG-DxwC&pg=PA205
|page=205 |author=Eugene Hecht |year=1975 |isbn=0070277303}}
</ref>
}}
|}
If the direct quote from the cited source fails to convince, here are three others:
*{{cite book |title=Optical physics
|author=Ariel Lipson, Stephen G. Lipson, Henry Lipson |page=94 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2010 |isbn=0521493455
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aow3o0dhyjYC&pg=PA94 |quote= Fourier's theroem states that any periodic function ''f(x)'' can be expressed as the sum of a series of sinusoidal functions which have wavelengths that are integral fractions of the wavelength &lambda; of ''f(x)''
}}
*{{cite book |title=An Introduction to Mineral Sciences |page=65 |quote=''Fourier analysis'' is a mathematical method of expressing any periodic function with wavelength &lambda; as a sum of sinusoidal functions whose wavelengths are integral fractions of &lambda; (''i.e.'' &lambda;, &lambda;/2, &lambda;/3, ''etc.) |url=http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mineral-Sciences-Andrew-Putnis/dp/0521429471#reader_0521429471 |isbn=0521429471 |year=1992 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |author=Andrew Putnis}}
*{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=o7sXm2GSr9IC&pg=PA78&dq=%22As+Fourier+demonstrated,+complex,+but+periodic%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Aw-1T8PdOcqsiAK0jomzAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22As%20Fourier%20demonstrated%2C%20complex%2C%20but%20periodic%22&f=false |title=Introduction to Macromolecular Crystallography |chapter=Figure 4.1 |page=78 |author=Alexander McPherson |isbn= 0470185902 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |year=2009 |edition=2nd}} This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.

I believe this sets aside Blackburne's claim that I attempt to "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths", and also Dicklyon's claims that this text represents "poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information" or of inserting "bloat and nonsense". It also refutes mistaken that "wavelength" is not applicable to functions periodic in space ("And your statement that ‘''The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself'' ’ is contrary to typical usage of the term ‘wavelength’ " ] (]) 23:29, 15 May 2012).

At this point, it is established that content is not the issue here, and smearing this proposal as an example of bloat, flawed understanding, and idiosyncrasy is wide of the mark, and reflects poorly upon the grasp of the text by its critics. As is a self-professed "research engineer in Silicon Valley" and a declared mathematician, one may wonder how these basic misconceptions have arisen. On any other WP article a minor sourced quotation making a connection between one topic ('']'') and others ('']'') on WP would attract no attention whatsoever. I am forced to speculate that the primary source of the extreme response here is that Dicklyon and Blackburne have a prior history with me, and it is their lingering objections to my contributing to WP that drives them to bizarre claims contrary to sources, not this particular content. ] (]) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If further support for the content presented is required, I can supply an unending list of texts describing Fourier series and its application to periodic functions, and a case can be made that Fourier series ''is'' the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that.

What remains is the general claim that my ''Talk-page'' discussion insists too much on adding this aside to the reader, over "objections" of other authors. I'd suggest that these objections have been largely based upon misconceptions about the content of the proposed text and its purpose. My attempts to explain that this is an aside pointing out the applicability of the mathematical machinery of periodicity to the topic of spatially periodic waveforms has been addressed by Dicklyon using the argument that Fourier series is not useful for this purpose, which seems to me to be patently absurd. The entire history of functional analysis begins with Fourier series applied to periodic functions, and it is the subject of innumerable textbooks.

My interchange with Dicklyon on ] extends over several topics, and not just this particular point. Sometimes such discussion gets somewhere, and sometimes it doesn't. That is what Talk pages are for. ] (]) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example of a fruitful outcome, a discussion on ] led to my authoring of the article ] when it appeared that this topic could not be addressed within ] itself. Other discussions led to the inclusion of the topic of ''local wavelength'' and a figure, the inclusion of the section on ''crystals'' and the notion of aliasing with another figure, and to the sections on ''interference and diffraction'' with two more figures (all figures created by myself). In fact, seven of the figures in ] were contributed by myself and accompanied by additional text and sources arrived at through discussion. ] (]) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the comment by Count Iblis. I believe he has a point in a way. I recognize that most of my interactions with Dicklyon prove difficult, and the proposed text was clearly one of those. I modified my proposal several times to make it a more and more minor addition, hoping to get some recognition that ] in some form should be mentioned in ]. Some formulation of this point could be acceptable to all if the point were developed jointly in a constructive manner. But the practical approach is for me to keep in mind the limitations upon what is possible with Dicklyon and Blackburne, and recognize that Blackburne will adopt every opportunity to drag AN/I or some Administrator into what would otherwise settle itself. ] (]) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Count Iblis: Thanks for the added remarks. Dealing with Dicklyon at length has succeeded sometimes, but Blackburne's intolerance makes this more unlikely than in the past. My efforts to widen opinion using ] hasn't worked. Your recommendation of ] as an alternative mechanism to get other editors involved, and to limit my own participation, is worth trying in the future. ] (]) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@Count Iblis: You raise the very practical question "''how can you actually get something done here while facing opposition?''", and suggest an approach bases upon aggressive revision of the article Main page that, if properly crafted, will force Talk page objections into a productive framework. It is unfortunate that so often Talk pages must be viewed in this light as struggling against opposition, instead of joining collaboration. In particular, if some of the editors interested in a page perhaps do not share even the same concept of what a WP article should be, or view exchange of ideas as survival of the fittest, or see WP as a venue to establish who counts, that is the result. ] (]) 23:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
:::@Count Iblis: I believe you are right that where I have made new articles or added large sections I have been more successful. For example, ] developed when arguments by Dicklyon and others prevented exploration of periodic envelopes on ]. By creation of a new article, these editors were faced with a wide open argument about deletion, which they did not attempt. Likewise, with Blackburne on ], as you mentioned. In that case he tried for deletion and lost in the wider community. Also, ] avoided the controversy portions of this topic caused on ]. Any approach that widens the number of editors that might become involved in a dispute proves beneficial. ] (]) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to ''My very best wishes'', I gather that you pose a query to me that can be narrowly expressed something like this: "Assuming that Brews_ohare is completely correct in stating that a sourced quotation has pertinence to the article ], and assuming further that opposition to its inclusion is not well founded, would you, Brews_ohare, nonetheless agree to desist from pursuing this particular attempt to include this material in ]?" I'd answer that the posited assumptions reflect how I think about this matter, but, as stated above in my response to Count Iblis, I also see that there is little point in pursuing the issue on ] under the prevailing circumstances. So, yes, I'll move on. Your question, however, is posed more broadly, not restricted to this episode on ]. In a broader context, regarding discussion in general, I'll have to consider carefully to what extent Dicklyon is open to discussion should he appear on another Talk page. I'd point out the paragraph above detailing positive outcomes for ] in interaction with Dick. These were the result of useful but difficult discussions with Dick. Now a further difficulty to weigh in future is that any extended discussion with Dick will draw in Blackburne, who will use any detailed discussion as an opportunity to invite Administrator attention, even using a pretext such as this supposed query about "clarification" of an expired sanction. I will doubtless be more careful in the future. ] (]) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:@''My very best wishes'': Thanks for the remarks. Yes, there is no general answer to these kinds of problem. The answer appears in this case to depend upon my exercising more care in dealing with these two, regardless of the topic or the merits. ] (]) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@''My very best wishes'': I interpret your added remark as a suggestion that I be topic banned to reduce clamor on ]. If your suggestion is a page-ban, it is hardly necessary, as it is clear to me that the present discussion is over. If your suggestion is more general, I would strongly object that such a serious action goes far beyond anything suggested by ]. ] (]) 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
::@''My very best wishes'': I'd add to these remarks that many past prolonged discussions on ] have proved productive, as evidenced by the discussions attached in ] to the seven figures I have contributed there. Not all prolonged, and even heated, discussions are useless, although they may not generate a glow of satisfaction. Of course, the atmosphere on Talk pages is not always ideal (to say the least), and results often stem from debate as much as from collaboration. However, if the discussions on ] had been inhibited by the threat of sanctions, the article ] would not be as good. ] (]) 14:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Srleffler, the proposed text in the green box is not merely rehash. The proposal narrowed in scope and purpose over time to become what it now is, a simple cross-reference between ] and ], a much more limited reference than that found in the four sources cited above. However, your objections never addressed this change, as explicitly to you. ] (]) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Blackburne's objections to my "outing" him: I was unaware that referring to a link to your photo would prove upsetting, as it is immediately available from the posted on your . My apologies. I also was unaware of any policy in this regard. I have removed the link. ] (]) 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Blackburne: I'm gratified to see you read my two essays , though surprised at the tone of your reaction and your invented titles for them. You now are using this "clarification" as a foot in the door to squeeze in a smear campaign. ] (]) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to ''Jclemens'': Although it may appear from Blackburne's perspective that simple head-butting took place on ], in fact the discussion did evolve. It ended with the text in the green box that makes the connection between ] and ]. As pointed out by direct quotes from published sources, objections that this text contains improper content are wrong. The objections actually are only a matter of taste: the value of a digression. Nonetheless, at this point I recognize that even this limited proposal has been rejected.

You have advised "all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question". One might wish that interactions between myself and Dicklyon, with occasional participation by Srleffler, were less confrontational. Nonetheless, improvements to ] have resulted from our past interactions, leading to eight figures contributed by myself and their related content. One such discussion led to the new article ]. So, although our relationship is imperfect, shall we say, it can have positive results, and it does not require Arbitration. ] (]) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to ''Kirill'': There is nothing complicated about this case at all, if you look at it closely. The proposed text in the green box is nothing more than a straightforward quote from a reliable source, backed up by further sources for the purpose of this case. Bringing it forward here as a "clarification" of a dead sanction is only pretext, as you have noticed. This action simply is harassment by Blackburne, who was involved only peripherally in the discussion of this proposal. The real discussion was between Dicklyon and myself, and we frequently disagree about how a topic should be presented or even whether it should be presented. These differences are often just a matter of taste, as in the present case where the actual content is beyond reproach, and the only issue is evaluation of pertinence to the topic. Our joint history shows that we can sort these matters out without the intervention of Administrators. See, for example, , and as an example of one of our extended discussions that ended equably with positive results for WP. This whole matter should be thrown out in its entirety. ] (]) 15:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved My very best wishes ===
I am not quite sure why the overall atmosphere in Physics is significantly more hostile than in Biology and Chemistry. It could be that articles in this area are better developed and therefore more difficult to improve, or it could be that some editors want everything to be described exactly as in their favorite textbook (although there are alternative interpretations) and in their favorite version of article, so they should be reminded of ] and ]. What I mean is not the editing by Brews, but the overall opposition to making changes in this area (including changes proposed by Brews). Actually, editors in the area of Physics and Math (including Brews) made an outstanding work. Now the real challenge is to make some of these articles more understandable and even interesting for students and general public. This can be done by using introductory textbooks and ''good'' books on ] that prove scientific concepts by explaining them. Unfortunately, such RS are frequently and unfairly dismissed merely on the grounds that they are not "academic" (even if written by experts with PhD degrees), and not only in the area of Physics.

In this particular situation, I do not think that returning to old subjects was a problem because consensus can change, but Brews must carefully avoid to be engaged in ]. I do not see any proof of WP:DE by Brews at the moment - ''agree with Silk Tork''. ] (]) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Brews. Please consider the following situation. There is certain perfectly sourced information that you think must be included, but there is also a couple of other people who do not want it to be included, and they are wrong. Would you agree to drop the issue and edit something else? Please read ] before response. (<small>Just to clarify, I am not telling here that "opponents" of Brews are wrong).</small> ] (]) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@Brews. Thank you. I think there is no general answer to this, and it well could be that the "other guys" are engaged in ], paid advocacy, or a personal crusade against an editor, even if they form majority (once again, I am talking generally here, not about people in this particular incident). This is a situation when ] sometimes comes in a contradiction with WP:NPOV and ]. But unfortunately, there is no other choice, but to follow WP:Consensus if we do not want to be sanctioned. ] (]) 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:::@Brews. No, I do not have an opinion that people who continue civil discussions even when they are in minority should be topic-banned. But I am not sure about our policies in such cases and therefore asked to clarify. In a couple of cases I looked at (Pythagorean_theorem and Wavelength), I think that your suggested changes do not significantly improve these pages (although there is nothing wrong with your materials to be included), so you could spend your time more efficiently by switching to other articles in the area of Physics, as you did during the initial period of your editing here. <u>However, in , you were absolutely right</u> , and there is now a constructive discussion on this article talk page. ] (]) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
*This looks to me as prolonged disputes on numerous talk pages, such as and now . The arguments by Brews are not unreasonable, and he provides some valid sources. At the same time, I can agree that such discussions are frequently fruitless, distract people from making productive contributions, and therefore can lead to sanctions. But we have much longer and even less productive discussions in many other subject areas, for example . Should we just look who contributed most in such discussions and topic-ban the leader? Please clarify. ] (]) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
*@ I think this is an excellent point by AGK ("I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea"). Indeed, an administrator frequently can not judge if a user contributes positively to the project or makes a disservice to reader (as Helen said ), unless he knows the subject. Actually, the biggest mistakes can be made in cases when an admin thinks that he knows something (because he follows "common sense" or read about it in newspaper - usually in the areas of history and politics), but he actually does not. Unfortunately, ''not knowing the subject is an official policy'': all admins are prohibited from ruling in the areas where they edit and therefore read a lot about. ] (]) 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
*:@JohnBlackburne. I did not read the entire discussion (], sorry), but the question that Brews asks in the beginning is this: "''Comment is sought as to whether a reference to Fourier series is appropriate under the heading general periodic waveforms''". Yes, it is. Certainly there is nothing wrong here. ] (]) 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree that Brews would be much better off by immediately dropping any issue that meets opposition, and I am sure he realizes this by now. ] (]) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis ===
Brews is making the mistake of trying to get his way by posting more RFCs. Thing is that being right on the issue doesn't give you the right to edit your way. The first time, I did see the RFC Brews posted, and I wanted to comment, but I abandoned that due to lack of time. I did not agree with Brews' proposal, but I had an idea about an alternative text that would mention Fourier transforms.

What struck me also was the lack of such contructive efforts, because obviously, Fourier transforms does in principle have a place in an article about wavelengths, regardless of how flawed Brews' proposal was. So, there is also something wrong about the general editing climate if the issue isn't properly debated. If editor X raises an issue and he has a point, then one should discuss the point that does exist and steer the discussion toward that, and not focus on opposing by ignoring the real points that exist and only focussing on where the editor goes wrong. Because then that editor will eventually correct himself and you end up dancing around the central point for a long time, causing everyone to get irritated.

So, I would suggest Brews to limit the time he spends online here editing and arguing on the talk page. Try to get it (almost) right the first time you propose something, or when you edit something in an article. To the others, I would say that they should be more positive about any proposals. This doesn't mean that you have to accept something that is bad, just that you would in that case end up rejecting in a way that would more likely conclude the debate. E.g. on the ] page I see too much opposition for proposed edits while in the end you had to accept the proposal. Surely, that could have been agreed to weeks earlier by acknowledging that the proposer did have a legitimate point here? ] (]) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Brews, by limiting the time spend here, what I meant was the time you spend here in some uphill effort to get something into the article. I would recommend that as soon as you experience any difficulties like in this case, you drop a line at Wikiproject physics instead of letting the issue fester for many weeks. But then, after briefly explaining your point, you should let others take a look while you reduce your input significantly. There is, of course, nothing wrong with spending a lot of time editing and arguing constructively on Misplaced Pages.

Don't think that everyone at Wikiproject physics is going to oppose you, because of the past history. I remember that Headbomb asked for input there because he was having difficulties editing the Planck law article last year. He got support on some points, but on some other points he did not get support. So, this isn't some rubber stamp procedure where the people who you got difficulties with in the past, always get their way.

I think this is better than posting RFCs, because this is more likely to lead to new editors actually getting involved in the article. What matters in the end is if some text is going to be seen to be appropriate for the article by the larger community and eventually by the readers of Misplaced Pages, not by any particular editor. ] (]) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne, you have been de-facto patrolling Brews edits the last few years. You do this with the best of intentions (and that not necessarily actively, you may simply see Brews' edits on your wachlist), but in practice this leads to problems of the same type we've seen in quite a few other ArbCom cases. Your Wiki-philosophy is too much at odds with Brews'. Where there are two completely opposite but legitimate points of views regarding edits, you two end up preferring the different options, and ].
If you then also find yourself having to cite Wiki-policies to Brews on other occasions when its more serious and you intent to go to a noticeboard if he doesn't listen, he may not take you serous, even though the issue may now not ambiguous, i.e. Brews is wrong and you are right.
I guess Brews also needs to see examples of how you can actually get something done here while facing opposition, instead of only being told not to do something here whenever there is opposition. The example given by My very best wishes is a good thing to explore. So, the lede of the Fourier transform article now says that:
"The '''Fourier transform''' is a mathematical operation with many applications in ] and ] that expresses a mathematical ] of time as a function of ], known as its ]; ] guarantees that this can always be done."

I have to say that I find this definition mentioning time completely unacceptable too. The question is then how to go about changing this definition, without having to fight some uphill battle on the talk page. If I imagine how things are likely to go wrong with Brews insisting on the relevant issue on the talk page, it's actually because Brews will be "too nice" at the start. He will make the most minimalist of proposals you can imagine. He thinks by doing that he can avoid stepping on people's toes. But then, because he went out of his way with such a proposal, he will argue fanatically for it, ending up annoying people after a while.

My style of editing is completely different, I would completely rewrite the introduction of the article to make room for a more general definition. That creates far more room to deal with legitimate opposition than some minimalist proposal affecting only one or two sentences. I would not engage in arguments with people who oppose me but have no good arguments, who have ] issues. I gave them less room to exploit other issues to argue about. So, my starting position is much stronger than that of Brews. But this does require more work, as you have to rewrite a lot more of the article. ] (]) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews, for the articles you have been involved in it looks like that way. Now, I'm not saying that you have always been right in disputes, just that you have ended up being opposed with what you wanted to do quite often. Then, you can look at what you have been successul at doing here. I think that the larger editing efforts by you have been more productive, like the large sections of some classical mechanics articles (e.g. about curvelinear motion). I have the impression that whenever you engage in editing well developed articles here on more minor points, that this leads to problems.

So, perhaps you should think about creating new articles, or edit complete new sections in articles. That will automatically move you toward articles that are not well developed yet, and then you are less likely to encounter editors with strong ] feelings, plus you have all the benefits I wrote about above. My editing here is more focussed on these sorts of articles, see e.g. my recent edits to ].

If someone were to object to these edits, and start a discussion about that, then the ball would be more in his court than mine, because the formula and the proof should be in either this article or somewhere else. So, simply reverting and deleting the edits because, say, it is too textbook like, or because no sources are given, isn't really an option. These are issues that can be fixed by including sources or rewriting to make it less textbook like. But such discussions are less likely to happen in the first place.

Note that when you created the Idee Fixe article, it was put on PROD and then on AFD, so the opposer of that article had to argue with the larger community, not you, and he lost his argument. While you also argued a lot on the AFD page, you could have left only a brief comment there and then completely ignore the opposer. ] (]) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Srleffler ===
The fundamental problem here is Brews' persistent, tendentious style. In ] Brews introduced some weak material relating to nonsinusoidal waves and Fourier series decompositions of them. After much discussion, some of his ideas got reworked and put into the article and others did not. He just can't let go of the concepts that didn't make it in, though. No matter what arguments are raised or how many other editors object, he just keeps bringing forward the same ideas over and over and over again, with slight variations of form. Every now and then he files an RfC, and when his proposal is rejected he immediately resurrects it in yet another slight variation and starts all over again. It is tiresome, and a waste of time that could be put to better use editing other articles.--] (]) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Looie496 ===

I am a bystander with no involvement other than being appalled at how much disruption one editor can cause. I would like to note that Remedy 2 of the case was ''Brews ohare is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Misplaced Pages.''. If that remedy has any specific meaning at all, it ought to mean that Brews ohare is subject to sanctions via some sort of expedited process. ] (]) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Request for clarification by Dr.K. ===
AGK made a supplementary statement on 21 May 2012 at 10:42 (UTC) as follows: {{quotation|Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. AGK 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)}}

Yet almost a week after AGK issued his supplementary statement, arb after arb quote AGK in wanting to open a new case or review the existing one. But in his additional statement AGK essentially nullified his original statement and declined the amendment request. Why quote AGK then in conjunction with reopening or reviewing a case? ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: Thank you Roger. I was suspecting that much, hopefully this incongruence may end now. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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


=== Arbitrator views and discussion === === American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* {{yo|Interstellarity}} I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) ] (] • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Awaiting statements''', particularly from Brews Ohare. At first (brief) sight, any sanctions have expired; no discretionary sanctions were authorised; and the original case was sufficiently long ago (autumn 2009) to be left to lie. If there is misconduct, and if it very closely mirrors the 2009 case, and obviously I'm not expressing an opinion on either of those points, it might be possible to persuade arbitrators to re-open the 2009 case as it is within ArbCom discretion to re-open any prior case at any time. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
:* I too am happy to see this as either a case or a review, and (unless someone else beats me to it) will put proposals with the options.<p>@Dr K: I suspect people are picking up on the first, rather than the second, of AGK's comments. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes
* I have concerns that Brews is returning to ], but if that is the case, we can probably resolve this with a motion re-restricting him from the topic area. ] (]) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
* Having reviewed this dispute, like SirFozzie I am concerned. However, I am minded to open a review of the original case, and would be uncomfortable with remedying this dispute by motion. We need a proper case (if an abridged one) with suitable mechanisms for evidence submission—not a Pop-Up Hearing on this page. ] ]] 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
**] indef semi
:: Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. ] ]] 10:42, 21 May 2012 (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)
*Too soon for another case or motion, and would encourage other dispute resolution first. If via dispute resolution there is clear consensus of ], and Brews Ohare is warned and clearly ignores the warning, then it could be returned to us and we might be able to deal with this by a motion rather than a full case. I would suggest to Brews Ohare that it is OK to raise an issue once, but if consensus is against him, then he needs to wait 12 months before raising the same issue again. I think all of us will admit to having areas where we feel our views are the right ones, but consensus is against us. It can be frustrating, but it would be very damaging to the project if we all repeatedly raised the issue, so we move on, in the greater interests of the project as a whole. ''']''' ''']''' 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
*My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ] (]) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm of a mind that if previously sanctioned editors cannot return to a topic and garner consensus for specific content modifications, and, upon failing to do so, cannot even take "no" for an answer, there is a small likelihood that their future interactions in the area will be constructive. I would encourage all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question, appropriately representing minority views represented in RS'es per NPOV. ] (]) 00:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
*The response to the clarification request is clear as far as I can see - the sanctions have expired, discretionary sanctions were not put in place. If Brews is returning to the behaviour that occasioned the first sanction, then he is in the position of a man up once again before the beak, charged with the same offense he was sent down for last time. I can see no merit to reopening the original case - he did his time for it. He's (continuing the metaphor) charged with breaking into a different house this time, and needs to be "found guilty in accordance with the law." At that point, his previous offence will undoubtedly be taken into account in sentencing. I apologise for the extended legal metaphor, but I hope it makes it clear. John Blackburne/other parties will have (in my opinion) to either open another RFAR or potentially make a case at AN for a topic/siteban, if they believe it is possible to evidence the problematic behaviour without requiring a knowledge of post-doctoral physics. The community generally has little sympathy with a previously sanctioned editor who returns to their problematic behaviour, so Brews might be well advised to take the counsel of ] and "learn when to walk away, and learn when to run."] (]) 16:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
* Per AGK, I think that the best way to proceed would be to hold a new hearing, either as a full new case (which I prefer) or as some form of review of the original case; the dispute here appears to be sufficiently complex that simply resolving it by motion will likely be impractical. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* Concur with Kirill and AGK. ] (]) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
*I am not happy with this situation in which an editor who was banned for disruptive behavior in a topic continues, by all evidence, to continue to edit disruptively (albeit perhaps a bit less disruptively) on that topic. I do not believe that other users should be required to go through the entire dispute-resolution process, from beginning to end, all over again, to deal with such a situation: that strikes me as a sure-fire recipe for driving editors away. Hence I would support either a motion or a review here. ] (]) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
* Similar to Risker, Kirill, and AGK, I'd prefer either a review or full case. ] (]) 15:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
* After going through the R&I one, I think the difference between a review and a new case is almost purely one of terminology, so, fine with either. ] 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

== Amendment request: Scientology (Prioryman) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Scientology}}

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Prioryman}}

===Amendment 1===
* Request lifting of binding voluntary restrictions

==== Statement by Prioryman ====
''Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBCC appeal above. The discussion there has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal above, and this ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.''

In the ] case in 2009 I agreed to a set of binding voluntary restrictions. These were that within the topic area (i) I limit my edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) I make no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) I refrain from sysop action of whatever nature. The findings against me concerned conduct as a sysop, which is no longer relevant as I no longer exercise that function, and errors in the sourcing of articles. I acknowledged error at the time and voluntarily proposed the restrictions under which I currently operate.

The case came about due to concerns about COI editing and role accounts . I was not involved in those issues and was only added to the case at a very late stage. There was no suggestion at the time that I was involved in any ongoing issues; all of the findings against me related to a small number of historical edits, the most recent of which had been made a year before the case and the oldest of which went back all the way to August 2005, over four years before the case.

Remedy 3B of the case provides that:

* Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Misplaced Pages and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

The current situation is that:

* Since the case I have brought two articles in the topic area, ] and ] up to GA standard. In other topic areas, I have created four more FAs, two more GAs and over 60 DYKs. My editing has been entirely uncontroversial and widely praised, earning 16 barnstars in the last 18 months alone.
* My current involvement in the ARBSCI topic area is negligible and is limited only to minor maintenance (vandalism reversion etc) of articles that I've written. My editing in the topic area in the last three years has been entirely unproblematic and has not resulted in any disputes with any other editors in the topic area.
* I inadvertently breached the restrictions with a couple of minor edits in July 2010 to articles that I did not know were covered by the topic area. This was resolved without further action in discussions by email with arbitrators on 13 and 14 August 2010.
* The issues raised in the original case are ancient history now - the most recent diffs relate to edits made five years ago, and the oldest relate to edits seven years ago. I submit that this is more than long enough for a reconsideration to be due.
* Although I have not conflicted with any editors in the topic area, the ARBSCI sanctions have been (ab)used by individuals associated with Misplaced Pages Review to snipe at me repeatedly and make unsubstantiated false claims about my editing. I deeply regret that although I asked at the outset of this appeal for topic-banned or interaction-banned editors to observe their restrictions on participating in this process, this has not been respected and has resulted in unnecessary controversy. As Roger Davies has rightly said, the ARBSCI sanctions are now "more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth".
* The BLP findings against me in this case relate to two articles: {{article|Barbara Schwarz}} (deleted in December 2007, 18 months before the ARBSCI case) and two edits to ] made in September 2006 and December 2008. That is the entirety of it. Even going by the findings, it's 3½ years since any of my BLP edits in the topic area have been deemed faulty. At the time of the case there were no ongoing BLP issues of any sort.
* Since I created this account I have edited multiple BLPs using reliable sources with no controversy whatsoever, including those in sensitive topic areas; example include ] (Northern Ireland), ] (crime), ] (crime), ] and ] (Balkans) (and note the BLP enforcements and ). I've collaborated successfully with multiple editors, including Jimbo himself, on BLPs. Jimbo highlighted and praised my contributions to ] in .
* There has not been a single dispute about the quality, neutrality or sourcing of any of my contributions to the topic area since the case.
* I'm not involved in any off-wiki activism related to the topic area, nor have I been for a very long time (in fact since well before the case).

The sanctions are no longer necessary for the following reasons:

* I have more than demonstrated my commitment to the goals of Misplaced Pages and my ability to work constructively with other editors in this topic area over the last three years. I've also demonstrated an ability to edit positively on BLPs.
* The restrictions have become actively counter-productive and are hindering my efforts to improve the topic area. (I remind the Committee that the restrictions were specifically intended to focus me on improvement work.) There has been no dispute whatsoever about the quality of the content that I've contributed, but the sanctions themselves have become the focus of controversy. As mentioned above, individuals associated with Misplaced Pages Review have used them as a pretext to wikilawyer and snipe at me. If the Committee wants to reduce controversy, the best way to do this is by lifting the restrictions and so remove that pretext.
* There's no reason to believe that lifting these restrictions will cause problems. Nor is there any reason why the existing discretionary sanctions should not be sufficient in future.
* It also makes no sense to continue sanctions related to very old edits when there is no ongoing problem with my involvement in the topic area, and there is no suggestion from anyone that the problems which led to the sanctions are either continuing or have been repeated since May 2009.

I would also like the Committee to note that the restrictions were voluntarily proposed by myself, and I request that I be given credit for this. I therefore ask for the restrictions to be lifted.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBSCI or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Jayen466 ====
I would advise against lifting the ARBSCI BLP restriction at this time. I would like to see a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first. No objection to lifting the remainder of the restriction. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Count Iblis ====
Similar to what I wrote about Jayen466's request, the restrictions should be lifted for Prioryman also in this case. The entire BLP topic area has come under much stricter oversight than just a few years ago, and this system also works quite smoothly. And I don't think Prioryman will behave as a troublemaker in this area, given his record in the BLP area outside this particular topic area. ] (]) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Youreallycan ====
−
I oppose lifting of this users Scientology arbitration restrictions - The user is one of the twenty notable people attacking Scientology - I strongly oppose his reintegration to the BLP sector in this topic - non ] I would not object to - I would prefer him to be honest and connect himself to . - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 04:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Nomoskedasticity ====
Another editor writing above hopes to see "a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first". I think that's exactly what we *do* see at this point, and I would support lifting the restrictions -- this is clearly a productive and intelligent editor, an asset to the project. ] (]) 06:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Further discussion ===
:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
* '''Comment''': these sanctions should probably go now as they are open to misunderstanding/wiki-lawyering and have themselves become a source of contention. This defeats the purpose of having them. I note that discretionary sanctions are in place for the topic, which means that clearer and/or more comprehensive sanctions could be imposed if problems occur. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
* I disagree strenuously with Roger and think lifting the sanctions would do more harm than good. ] (]) 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
* Given that this individual sanction is superseded by standard ARBSCI discretionary sanctions, I am minded for that reason alone to grant this appeal. ] ]] 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* As in the ''Climate change'' case, I think the available discretionary sanctions are sufficient to allow the older restriction to be lifted, and will propose a motion to that effect below. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Motion: Scientology (Prioryman) ====
1) The restriction imposed on {{User|Prioryman}} by Remedy 17 of the ] case ("]") is hereby lifted.

; Support
:# Proposed per discussion above. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Sure, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# I believe the discretionary sanctions are sufficient in this case. ] (]) 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Per Risker. ] (]) 17:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Per Risker. ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

; Oppose
:# While I'm probably going to be out voted, my concerns about how Prioryman deals with drama (even that not of his own makng) does not give me the necessary confidence to support this request. Considering that Prioryman was restricted in two areas under his prior account, I do '''not''' think that "discretionary sanctions are sufficient" in this case. {{unsigned|SirFozzie|11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)}}
:#The disc. sanctions here are not the standard ones, and only give admins the binary option to topic ban for 3 months. If that was brought into line, I'd be willing to let this restriction elapse, but not while admins have so limited options available to them. ] 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
:#: Yes, you're right. I'll propose replacing them with the standard ones shortly, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 13:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
:#:: Motion to update the Scientology discretionary sanctions now ], &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
:# With the same thinking as Courcelles. ] ]] 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

; Abstain
:#

== Amendment request: Climate change (Prioryman) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Climate change}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Remedies 3.1, 3.2

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Prioryman}} (initiator)

===Amendment 1===
* Request lifting of topic ban

==== Statement by Prioryman ====
''Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBSCI appeal below. The discussion has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal here, and the ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.''

I wish to request a lifting of the ARBCC topic ban on myself, passed 18 months ago. I don't particularly wish to return to the topic area in a major way, but I would like to be able to contribute the occasional new article (filling in red links and suchlike) and the odd bit of wikignoming on existing articles in the topic area.

I acknowledge the validity of the case findings that I had edit-warred and made incivil comments. I recognise that I responded badly to the battlefield conduct of others. In so doing I helped to reinforce the battlefield mentality that existed at the time. This was due to frustration with incredibly blatant BLP violations, persistent tendentious editing and a lack of outside intervention to deal with either problem. I don't believe such problems are likely to arise again in the foreseeable future due to a combination of the current arbitration sanctions, a stronger focus by the community on BLP enforcement, and the topic- or site-banning of the worst offenders. I've not followed the topic area at all since 2010, but the case sanctions log suggests that things are pretty quiet now.

Remedy 3.2.1 provides that "Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Misplaced Pages and their ability to work constructively with other editors."

The current situation is as follows:

* Since the case I have been extremely busy as a content contributor: I have made nearly 10,000 edits and have had three Featured Articles on the Main Page in the last six months alone, as well as contributing two Good Articles, 65 DYKs and over 270 images to Commons. The FAs, GAs and DYKs are all linked from the top of my ].
* My contributions have been widely recognised by others, with 16 barnstars in the last 18 months. I have been described as a "model Wikipedian" for my contributions.
* I was briefly blocked in March 2012 for an inadvertent violation of the topic ban, which was logged .
* I have been working closely with Wikimedia UK, which provided a grant to support the development of a series of articles to commemorate the Titanic centenary weekend in April. This has so far resulted in one featured article and sixteen DYKs, with the new and expanded articles attracting nearly 1 million page views over the weekend of April 14-15. I think this speaks well for my ability to work constructively with others.

In response to the specific concerns of the case (i.e. edit-warring and incivility) and a few other issues, I'd like to note the following points:

* In my approach to resolving these specific concerns, I've followed the example of {{user|Jayjg}} in concentrating on producing "audited content" and demonstrating that I meet the remedy's requirements. This approach resulted in restrictions on him being lifted in January 2011 (see ). I have so far produced 70 items of audited content which have been widely praised for their quality.
* I've acknowledged making errors in my approach to these articles and have not repeated them in other topic areas since the case.
* As a way of demonstrating that I had changed my approach, I specifically sought out a highly charged topic area area to bring an article up to FA standard - namely ] - and entirely avoided conflict, dealing in a sensitive way with the complexities of the issues involved, for which I was widely complimented (and was awarded five barnstars).
* I'm not under any BLP restrictions in the ARBCC topic area, though this occasionally been incorrectly claimed by others - perhaps through confusion with the ARBSCI below where such a restriction does exist.
* The ARBCC sanctions have not resulted in conflict with other editors since the case.
* I've sought to avoid conflict and, where conflict has arisen as a result of the actions of others, to find long-term solutions. When an interaction ban relating to me was recently violated, I sought the assistance of other editors to find a permanent solution, which resulted in an agreement on a more robust enforcement mechanism and stricter terms for the ban. This was a positive outcome, definitively ending an ongoing conflict situation. More recently I've helped {{user|Youreallycan}} to find an acceptable way forward to resolve issues that have seen him repeatedly getting blocked (see ) - another positive outcome that will benefit the community going forward.

I believe this record shows that I've met the requirements of 3.2.1 several times over and that I'm more than capable of re-engaging in the topic area without further problems. In the extremely unlikely event of any future issues, there is no reason to believe that the existing discretionary sanctions in the topic area will be insufficient. I therefore request that the Arbitration Committee consider one of the following options:

* A full lifting of the topic ban (the simplest option).
* A half-way house, under which I would be permitted to contribute DYKs to the topic area for a period of six months, following which the topic ban would be lifted if there were no further problems. This would have the advantage of allowing me to demonstrate an ability to contribute constructively to the topic area in a limited capacity. As Casliber is a DYK regular, he would be in a good position to keep an eye on my DYK contributions.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Count Iblis ====
Prioryman's editing record begs the question: Did Jimbo hire Prioryman as a professional editor? Obviously, Prioryman should not have any editing restrictions; if he isn't a good enough editor to edit somewhere, who is? ] (]) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect: The problem in general with this is that ArbCom restrictions come with a reversal of the burden of proof. So, e.g. I'm not under any ArbCom sanctions and I have to misbehave quite badly before I'll be blocked. If there are some editors who are very critical of my editing who are mnitoring me, they will hve to present a strong case in an RFC/U or ArbCom case against me.

If, on the other hand, I were operating under some ArbCom restrictions, then any hint of a violation of those restrictons by me implies guilt, unless I can prove that I'm innocent. E.g. Prioryman had to explain himself here about his editing of BLP pages. So, there was a hint that he might have violated an ArbCom restriction, and he had to explain that this was not a violation of a restriction he's under.

Then with Prioryman being monitored by quite a few editors, Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces. This is extremely distracting, so one has to consider if the restrictions are necessary at all. This would be the case even if the critics were always acting in good faith, but obviously that's not always the case here. ] (]) 21:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect & Prioryman, what I mean is that you have to defend yourself, obviously with good arguments, not in some negative way. When I was under a stupid advocacy restriction imposed by ArbCom which barred me from defending an editor here, that caused me a lot of headaches, even a long time after that restriction was lifted, ]. I ended up at AE twice ''after'' that restriction was lifted, because of misunderstandings by editors about that restriction. ] (]) 03:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


;No relevant objections have been raised so far.

What is relevant here is whether Prioryman can edit CC pages without problems. Both in case of William's amendment request and Cla68's request, the discussions here were centered around that question. I was in favor of lifting the topic ban for both editors with some restrictions (BLP restriction for William I think, although that may have been a compromise I supported, in case of Cla68, I argued for a 1RR or 0RR restriction).

Basically, one considers the editor in question back into the topic area and discusses what problems are likely to occur based on current editing behavior or very recent editing history. ] (]) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

====Statement by Collect====

PM has been quite evident on several noticeboards, incuding a current extensive discussion at AN/I. I would humbly suggest he get down to a "no drama" level for a month or two before pursuing this. Cheers. ] (]) 11:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM -- I know that you were the "victim" and that you had ''nothing'' to do with the "drama" evinced at AN/I. Yeppers. The way for you to have avoided the drama was to ''not'' promote the drama. And as others have noted, your problems in the past were heavily imbued with "drama." Ergo - a couple of months more with a cup of tea will not harm you. to be sure. Cheers. ] (]) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM - Last I looked, you quite appeared to be ''actively seeking'' the "drama" per notceboard postings and also per your posts on ErantX's UT page. Hence my suggestion that you swear off the "drama" for a couple of months before pursuing this further. Have some tea - the "deadline" is not yet arrived. ] (]) 15:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@ST My overall impression is that those who ''routinely'' complain on noticeboards as the "victim" generally do not emend their behaviour therein without being rather specifically urged to reduce such actions. ArbCom has seen a number of editors who seek "arbitration enforcement" aganst their perceived "foes" and I have seen no cases where such behaviour has been improved by simply removing sanctions thereon. Thus my suggestion that a couple of months without such drama would make me more convinced that the initial behaviours have possibly been ameliorated. Is this more clear? I would hold the same position, for what it s worth, on any "amnesty" acts where full and open discussions, not sullied by any "false consensus", led to the initial restrictions. Cheers. ] (]) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@CI
:''Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces''
Exemplifies the drama problem. There is no need to "go on the attack" - that sort of battleground mentality is precisely one of the major problems on Misplaced Pages, and I am aghast anyone would say it is right to engage in battleground acts. If you feel your post should work in PM's favour, I regret to inform you that it is more likely to redound to his handicap in my opinion. Your mileage appears to differ. ] (]) 20:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note further PM's apparent love of drama at . Suchh claims as
:''He is often absolutist in his views and appears to consistently see things in black and white.
:''His judgement is often faulty.
:''He personalises disputes to an excessive degree, regarding problems as a personal affront.
:''He has an excessive willingness to escalate, which we've certainly seen on this occasion.
:''He has an insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions, again which we've seen on this occasion.
Are used by PM as a rationale to seek a 1RR restriction and a draconian civility restriction:
:'' '''If Youreallycan makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Youreallycan otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week. ''' ''
on an editor who ''appears'' to have aroused PM's personal animus. As ''all'' of the above claims seem to suit PM fairly well, I suggest "goose sauce" should be considered here as well. Cheers. ] (]) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM - the issue is ''not'' whether you are pals with YRC, but whether you ''routinely'' jump to noticeboards seeking ''punishment'' for others. I note that the evidence is fairly clear on this - that you do so routinely run to the noticeboards seeking ''punishment'' for others. Cheers - you make this very clear indeed. ] (]) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(noting that the comments by PM to which I herein replied have apparently been redacted, making it ddifficult for others to see precisely to what I replied and for what reasons) ] (]) 18:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Jayen466 ====
{{hat|Drama}}
Prioryman, did you write the L. Ron Hubbard featured article, as ]?

I am asking because at the time of that article's FAC, I was quite certain, having observed your (outstanding) work on the Inner German border article during that article's FAC, that you were the author. Not just from the (equally outstanding) quality of the work, but for many other on-wiki and off-wiki reasons as well.

Of course, under ARBSCI you were and are allowed to work on articles in that topic area to bring them to GA or FA status. I supported the FA nomination in recognition of that fact, and indeed assumed that the arbitration committee were most likely aware of your operating the Helatrobus account.

However, I later learnt from Cool Hand Luke that they were not aware of the Helatrobus account, and indeed would have been disappointed to find it was yours, given your previous socking after invoking the Right To Vanish. Could you clear this up, once and for all? '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

* Prioryman, I am sure you are well aware that answering this question does not require you to make reference to any other editor. It's a simple yes-or-no question. For what it's worth, I took part in and supported the Hubbard FAC, and came to my conclusions quite independently of any user you might have in mind. It was blindingly obvious. If you want all your sanctions lifted, I would recommend that you come clean first, as otherwise this stuff will just continue to hang around you. And if you aren't prepared to do that, then I have no confidence that the factors that led to your being restricted in the first place are in any way resolved. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 13:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
**I think we can call a here and assume that's a Yes then, shall we?
**You were sanctioned in ARBSCI because you considered yourself above the law. Your recent behaviour, claiming the right to vanish during arbitration and then immediately returning as a sock, and then with your present account when the first sock was found out and blocked, and with the Helatrobus account as well, seems to indicate that you still do.
**Battleground mentality, along with incivility and edit-warring, was the finding in , in late 2010. And battlegrounding is how you chose to respond right here, to being asked a not unreasonable question. You refuse to give a straight answer, and instead turn the matter into a pissing contest over whose sanctions were worse, or . ;) '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 02:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you are able, under the present sanctions, to perform GA and FA improvement drives on non-BLP articles. No change is required for you to write another five GAs or FAs. What you aren't able to do is to edit any BLPs in the topic area, or get involved in routine spats with other contributors.

I honestly think that's the best of both worlds. This topic area has mostly remained quiet since ARBSCI, one of the most successful arbitration cases of its kind in the history of Misplaced Pages, and is mercifully free of activists now. Some outrageously slanted biographies or other articles with BLP impact have been deleted or fixed, and the important articles in the topic area are stable and in reasonable shape. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you really see some clanger in a biography, you are very welcome to drop me a note with suggestions; and there are other editors in the topic area who would look into any such concern for you too. Regards. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 12:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you're in attack mode again. I said, "No change is required for you to write another five GAs or FAs. What you aren't able to do is to edit any BLPs in the topic area, or get involved in routine spats with other contributors." That is correct, and surely was the intent of the remedy, which read:

17) {{Admin|ChrisO}} has proposed a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet ] and ] criteria, using ]; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to ]; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.

:''Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And it has worked, because as you say, you haven't been in spats with other contributors. But instead of acknowledging that, you bristle, " It's absolutely, unequivocally false to claim that I was 'involved in routine spats with other contributors'" – as though you had never been in any such spat, which is complete nonsense. When you were active in the topic area, in editing BLPs and general editing outside GA and FA drives, you were involved in such spats. One two-year "spat" is mentioned in the ARBSCI FoF:

13) {{Admin|ChrisO}} significantly edited, between August 2005 and September 2007, a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion. In his sysop capacity, he protected the article; declined a CSD; and blocked the subject of the article herself. and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material from an ] to a ]; and restored ].

:''Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There may have been periods where you weren't involved in any spats in this topic area, but I doubt that you were editing the topic area much in those periods. Your unwillingness to give a straight answer on the Helatrobus account, your bristling, and your nibbling at the topic ban now, before it's lifted, like , are warning signs to me. I don't expect anything good to result if the ban is lifted and you go back to editing BLPs in the ARBSCI topic area, or do routine editing outside GA/FA drives. Focus on the latter – you have the demonstrated ability to take articles to that quality level, and your temperament doesn't equip you well for the rest. Your opponent is interaction-banned, so don't worry about him. I personally am generally a fan of your FA work, and the FAC process is a much better, more controlled setting to fine-tune an article. Regards. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

:You mean you've violated your topic ban regularly for the past three years? I can't say I've noticed, despite having a good few pages in the topic area on my watchlist, but if you have, then I don't think that inspires added confidence that you are committed to editing BLPs and other articles within policy if the ban were lifted formally. I see a continuous and worrying history of you thinking various policies and guidelines don't apply to you like they do to other editors – whether it's RTV, acting when involved, citing your own self-published writing, violating BLP, returning to areas your previous account was topic-banned in under new identities without disclosing prior sanctions and identities, etc. (Your BLP ban in the ARBCC topic area was as recent as a year and a half ago – so there is a more than five-year continuous history of you getting banned from BLPs in topic areas you are passionate about.) I also see some great work, but frankly don't understand why you can't simply do good work and drop all the games. Cheers. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 00:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this is now getting ridiculous. Prioryman is me of having violated my ARBSCI sanction by commenting here. For reference, my ARBSCI sanction is, in total, per ]:

21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

If you want evidence of the risk of drama, or battleground editing, it couldn't come clearer than this. A bull in a china shop comes to mind! '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 01:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==== Statement by Youreallycan ====
Just a note to comment about my relating with Prioryman. I was pointed here in email by the user after I was mentioned in the comments. He has been suggesting topic bans and edit restrictions for me but generally/imo in a goods faith manner to help me stop repeatedly getting blocked for silly stuff before i get myself perma banned - I have been in dispute with him previously but I/we have been attempting to improve our working relationship so I wouldn't want any of his interactions with me to affect the outcome of this request, which I have not really investigated but it is generally my feeling that we should not be overly severe in our restrictions on editors contributions for excessive lengths of time unless there are clear related issues with a users contributions - if they improve we can give them a chance and if they need restrictions again they can easily be replaced. - I would add that clearly the - it was a year ago and he shouldn't have written that , ... I wish he would fess up and be honest about that, denying such clear realities just removes all good faith NPOV support. The users that violated BLP in the climate change area held/and still hold very opinionated vocal positions , those have not changed at all and living people were attacked , perhaps a position of non BLP contributing to the sector such as ] is allowed would be a good start to see how it goes.<font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 02:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

====Query from Short Brigade Harvester Boris====
SirFozzie has voted on several requests related to ], but was from the original case. I am curious as to what circumstances have changed so that his reason for recusual no longer applies. ] (]) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie, thank you for the clarification. I do not recall your having explained this previously but then there's much that I do not recall. Regards, ] (]) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. I am neutral, leaning oppose on the request, but I'm willing to listen to comments either way before I make a formal "decision" on which way I'd go. ] (]) 03:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
*Per SilkTork, I think I would need to formally oppose any lifting of the sanction at this time. ] (]) 03:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
**As previously explained to you, Boris (or at least I certainly remember explaining this before), I recused on the original CC case because one of the main parties, WMC, had filed a RfC against me several years ago. I could have just recused on the WMC related questions (as is now the process), but that does not create a case for recusal on non-WMC related CC issues, even under my liberal recusal policies. ] (]) 17:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' we've used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one's belt. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Willing to consider this; if things don't go well, the existing general sanctions would probably be sufficient to address issues. ] (]) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
* I would support a motion to vacate Prioryman's topic ban. ] ]] 13:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I have no particular problem with lifting either this or the other extant historical sanction, which seem to me to be more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth. It is not as if this editor will escape scrutiny in either area so if the event that there are fresh problems in either topic area, they can be handled perfectly well by discretionary sanctions. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Update''': My take is that the sanctions themselves have become the issue, with the bickering switching from content to who is in breach of what. This view is confirmed by recent events. I still have no problem with lifting the existing sanctions because discretionary sanctions are in place and thus sanctions can be re-imposed if problems arise. Lifting the sanctions now will I think help everyone move on. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*<s>Under the historic sanctions from Prioryman's prior account (which he now also wants lifted) he agreed to make "no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people", but a look through recent contributions shows edits to ], ] and ]. Am I right in thinking that edits to those articles would be a violation of the sanctions if the sanctions are applicable to this current account? Could Prioryman provide an explanation for those edits - and offer up any other BLP articles he has edited as I only went back through contributions as far as the ] edit. ''']''' ''']''' 10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)</s> My bad, I misread the sanction.
:*This seems a reasonable request. Prioryman produces good contributions and acknowledges the poor conduct from the past. I am unclear regarding Collect's points - is the suggestion that Prioryman reduce general involvement in noticeboards, or is there a particular concern about the focus or tone of the involvement? ''']''' ''']''' 17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::OK. I note , , and ]. I'm a little uncomfortable at the amount of drama that has unfolded and I'd like to see what other Committee members feel about what has happened. ''']''' ''']''' 21:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I would feel more comfortable supporting this if there was no associated drama. I am prepared to be convinced otherwise by colleagues, though my inclination would be to decline this for now, and hear an appeal again in six months, and if Prioryman sees at that time any provocative posts that he show an ability to ignore it/rise above it, allowing others to deal with the matter if they feel it significant enough. ''']''' ''']''' 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*Per Roger, I'm OK with lifting the individual sanctions if discretionary sanctions would cover any new misconduct in the area. ] (]) 06:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
* I think the discretionary sanctions argument is a convincing one; if any problems do recur, additional sanctions can very rapidly be imposed. In that light, I'll propose a motion to lift the older sanction below. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Motion: Climate change (Prioryman) ====
1) The restriction imposed on {{User|Prioryman}} by Remedy 11.6 of the ] case ("]") is hereby lifted.

; Support
:# Proposed per discussion above. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Sure, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Per my comments above. The discretionary sanctions remain in force and apply to Prioryman. ] (]) 16:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Per Risker. ] (]) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:# Per Risker. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
:# ] ]] 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
:#Willing to go along with this, but wouldn't support much rope at AE if problems re-appear. ] 19:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

; Oppose
:# While I'm probably going to be out voted, my concerns about how Prioryman deals with drama (even that not of his own makng) does not give me the necessary confidence to support this request. ] (]) 11:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

; Abstain
:#

Latest revision as of 22:59, 15 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Amendment request: American politics 2

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

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation


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


Information about amendment request
  • Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


Statement by Interstellarity

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

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

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

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

Comment by GoodDay

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

Statement by Rosguill

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

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