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 23:54, 16 February 2015 editMarkBernstein (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,231 edits →Statement by MarkBernstein: great idea! let's discard BLP for talk pages and replace it with a less stringent standard! We'll have even more sex on our talk pages!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:01, 17 January 2025 edit undoKenneth Kho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,031 edits →Statement by {other-editor} 
(999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}


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


== Amendment request: American politics == == Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC) '''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


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


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




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


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


; Information about amendment request ; Information about amendment request
*] *]
:*Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
:*Sanctions as deemed appropriate by Arbcom based on Arzel's recidivism




=== Statement by MrX === === 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.
('''Note:''' The following was moved from ] on {{U|Timotheus Canens}}' suggestion.)
*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)
Arzel has a long, well-documented history of abusive and disruptive personal comments. around seven months ago, Arcom gave a clear warning to Arzel that "continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project." Unfortunately it has had little sustained effect. Arzel spends a great deal of his Misplaced Pages time reverting other editor's contributions, complaining about liberal bias, and making insulting claims about editors' intentions. He gravitates to controversial political and news agency articles, but does very little to collaborate with other editors to actually try to improve the articles.


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
;Evidence
''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)
# "So when Carson is called a hate extremist by the SLPC it is fine to plaster his page with that idiocy, yet when the SLPC retracts the statement it is not fine? Hypocrites." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
# "You confuse ] with ] and do many WP editors wishing to frame a political story. Hell, it is barely 2015 and the silly season crap has started already." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
# "Added response to the tripe. SPLC loses respect by the day." (edit summary - Politicizing a content dispute)
# "Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton.....it is pretty well-known. If anything, it is acting as a propaganda arm of the Obama administration." (Politicizing a content dispute)
# "Please don't wipe the media mentions from the talk page without discussion. You can't simply whitewash this out of existance. Also, please leave your conspiracy theories elsewhere." (Personalizing a content dispute)
# "Your answer speaks volumes about your purpose here. There is no evidence that this has long lasting notability, your statement has no weight. The event was political to begin with even if your man is trying to hide the fact behind stupid words and a cluelessness about reality."(Personalizing a content dispute, and a clear personal attack)
# "Some of your edits appear to be quite transparent in your goals." (Personalizing a content dispute)
# "If you want to attack Emerson for his views on Islam go do it somewhere else." (Personalizing a content dispute)
# "You are an admin, you should help reign this crap in, not propagate it." (Personalizing a content dispute)
# "Why do you feel the need to trash a living person?" (Personalizing a content dispute)


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


=== Statement by Izno ===
There are other milder examples from the past few months. I don't think there is any point filling the page with addition diffs, but will do so if it helps. Thank you.- ]] 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Arzel ===
1. The SLPC makes a really questionable attack on Ben Carson, which was added by MrX when it was noticed. When retracted (which received of attention) we are rewarded with .

2. This is ], yet was added and almost as it happened. and then that a notable fact was way POVish.

3. Truthful, and they did lose quite a bit of respect with this. It would have been nice if MrX had added Carson's response originally.

4. Section was title "Long been accused of left-wing bias" and I didn't start it, so I don't know how providing some examples politicized an already politicized section.

5. Virinditas put forth his about ], I told him to stop.

6 and 7. Maybe a little rough, but MrX's previous was not much different. Heat of the moment.

8. You really need to read the entire to see how a couple of editors apparently really were upset with Emerson while a few of us were trying to maintain BLP standards.

9. Related to Emerson, where it appears that the same story was being pushed into multiple articles as it was happening without any evidence of long lasting ] The article is basically a list of every beef that everyone has with FNC, don't really see how that fits in with WP's purpose.

10. In response to edit. JamesMLane it back twice with two other editors removing. Crooks and Liars is not a reliable source for a BLP.

Sections in which I discussed which were called politicizing were politicized before I became involved. My two statements to MrX were probably a little rough for which I apologize, I just wish editors would not use WP to score political points (not specific to MrX), which oftens appears to be the case.
Note: I didn't have a chance to go back to MrX's page and didn't see that "warning" until just now.

Just want to point out that the so called warning was not on my talk page and that I didn't know it existed until this complaint.

===Statement by Collect===

I retain my dislike of "dramaboards." I do not see the evidence educed as proof of much at all. I suggest Arzel be told ''not'' to make future attacks on editors and that he be told to ''remove'' any which other editors tell him could be so considered. A decent acceptance of conflict is ''essential'' to reach compromise, while removing opponents will result in unbalanced articles. I would rather live with opponents keeping an eye on my edits than with no opponents and the "truth" ruling all articles, especially BLPs. emended ] (]) 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Crooks and Liars" was not and is not a suitable source for any BLP. emended ] (]) 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made a point in my editing never to prejudge ''anyone'' on the basis of ''weak evidence.'' ] (]) 15:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Gamaliel ===

For each of these violations there is likely a reasonable excuse or explanation, but together they and many, many others add up to a long-standing pattern of behavior. It is well established, most recently in the Gamergate case, that a pattern of negative and problematic behavior even in the defense of justice or policy is not acceptable. No one is saying adding poor sources or violating BLP is acceptable, but constantly responding to alleged incidents of such in a manner that is pointy, uncivil, and personalizes disputes is counterproductive and inappropriate. Behavior like this is the reason that political articles are a hornet's nest that many users want to avoid. It poisons the atmosphere of collaborative editing and encourages retaliatory behavior from other editors. We're long past the point that, as Collect suggests, this editor be asked nicely to refrain from such behavior. ] <small>(])</small> 14:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by DHeyward ===
Anything deemed disruptive because of opposing SPLC's listing of Carson as an extremist simply isn't. It's what should be expected of editors that identify a BLP violation. It was pretty well proven that the addition was in fact erroneous and a BLP violation and editors that upheld that high standard on WP should be commended. BLP trumps everything and getting BLP right is the overriding goal. If that means an editor is uncivil or edit warring or violating a ban, BLP trumps that. Ultimately being right is the underpinning of our BLP policy and why it trumps all the other machinations of process. Processes that protect BLP violating material are to be ]. The "ultimately correct outcome" is the objective that improves the encyclopedia. --] (]) 02:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Comment from Harry Mitchell ===
Given the recent inability of the committee to make decision on this page, I suggest that you state that Arzel has engaged in sanctionable misconduct (if you feel he has; I haven't read the diffs) and then refer the matter back to AE for a determination of what exactly the sanction should be. Or even authorise AE to make a determination on whether there is sanctionable misconduct.

ArbCom is good at forcing warring parties apart in complex cases. ArbCom is much less good at handling what are essentially enforcement requests. AE on the other hand is very good at handling enforcement requests, because that's what it does. That's all it does, all day every day. We're also much better at dealing with off-topic comments and other nonsense, meaning that AE requests don't get bogged down in lengthy discussion between non-parties.

The last thing anyone needs is another thread in which thirty people spend a fortnight going round in circles. ] &#124; ] 03:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Courcelles}} After all these years, I'd have thought you'd have worked out that I'm fond of slightly unorthodox solutions! ;) But anyway, it was just a suggestion for a more efficient way of dealing with this. ] &#124; ] 23:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

=== American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Just acknowledging that I've seen this. I haven't got time at the moment to read the links (and it is likely going to be Monday before I do), and this isn't something that I can opine on just from what is presented on this page. ] (]) 17:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*While I note Collect's request for a warning, Arzel has already been warned both by the Committee and, as the evidence submitted here, by an administrator, for aggressive comments. Not a week after the latter warning, Arzel is again calling others "hypocrites". I fail to see how a third warning would be any more effective than those two, and so I would favor a topic ban. I'll propose a motion for such, as the outcome here really is either that we issue a topic ban or don't. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
* In the light of the history, a minimum of a topic ban is required, perhaps coupled with a month or so's site ban to reflect. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*I support imposing ''at least'' a full topic ban. A site ban of 1 month is meaningless, if we're ''going'' to do it, at least six months is the minimum that makes sense, though I don't know if I support that as yet. ] 19:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:*{{reply to|HJ Mitchell}}, I would entirely agree with your sentiment, except that there is no enforceable remedy from this case other than the 1RR, of which I see no evidence of violation. Something, whether the topic ban I've proposed below or another idea entirely has to be passed here to give AE something that is actually enforceable; a warning is, IMO, not an enforceable-at-AE sanction, it requires further action of the Committee. ] 05:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
*There seems obvious reason for an indefinite topic ban. Whether a site ban might be needed I think requires some further consideration. ''']''' (]) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

====Motion (Arzel topic banned)====
:''{{ACMajority|active=12|inactive=2|recused=1|motion=yes}}''
{{Ivmbox|1={{user|Arzel}} is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the ], broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator per the ]. Arzel may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.}}


;Support
:#As proposer. Given how binary this request is, might be easier to just vote. I've chosen "politics of the United States" instead of "American Politics" -- the latter is ambiguous, whether it refers to one country or two continents is entirely a matter of interpretation. I would not oppose a site-ban of some duration, though I will leave someone else to propose that if desirable. ] 03:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:# Minor tweaks to first sentence. Added second sentence about enforcement to make it clear it doesn't need come back to us. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:# ''']''' (]) 04:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:# ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:# --] &#124; ] 21:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 14:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# ] <small>]</small> 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Abstain
:# ] (]) 11:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Eastern Europe ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 23:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Eastern Europe}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|RGloucester}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Coffee}}
*{{userlinks|Russian editor1996}}

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

=== Statement by RGloucester ===
::The following request for clarification is submitted of ], following a report I submitted ].
:Whilst the editor in question was plenty disruptive, I wonder why administrator ] blocked {{user|Russian editor1996}} According to his block notice, he issued the block under ]. However, it was not logged at ] until about it. What's more, the editor was never issued an alert per ]. Coffee has not explained why the editor in question was blocked indefinitely, and I can see nothing that warrants such a block. This seems entirely out of process. Coffee responded that the block was per "IAR", but no reason was given for applying IAR, and I'm fairly certain that DS should not be issued in a willy-nilly manner. The editor in question had been present on Misplaced Pages for quite a while. He made only a few minor changes to Donbass war/Ukrainian crisis articles, and none of them particularly disruptive. I simply do not understand how this user was summarily blocked for no apparent reason. What's more, this was done under ]. The procedure for ] was completely ignored. I request that the Committee determine whether this application of DS was appropriate. If it was not, I request that Coffee be admonished, both for his inappropriate application of DS, and for his ]. ] — ] 23:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::I think the suggestion by Courcelles is inappropriate, to say the least. This is a matter of principle. The block was inappropriately applied. Coffee must be admonished, and the sanction lifted. There were no grounds for a sanction. Ignoring the ARBEE issue, for a moment, can someone please tell me where they see grounds for an indefinite block in the blocked editor's edit history? ] — ] 02:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Again, how is this acceptable? The user has no history of talk page engagement, so it is unlikely they can understand the unblocking process. The user was blocked for no reason. As Mr Davies noticed, no rationale was given other than "arbitration enforcement". If the "DS prohibitions no longer apply", what is the point of this block? Again, there was no rationale other than "arbitration enforcement", and no evidence of any kind of misconduct. How can you let this block stand? This is a travesty. ] — ] 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Coffee ===
I would restate what I had over at AE, but I find that not necessary as I believe most if not all of the Arbitrators here have looked at that. I will say that I was indeed forgetful regarding the proper DS procedure (it ''has'' been a minute since I performed one of those actions), and can assure you all I'll get it right the next time I feel it necessary to issue a block of this nature. The only other thing I'll state <small>(even though I already stated this at AE)</small> is that RGloucester '''''himself''''' stated at my talk page that '''''" was nothing but disruptive"'''''. Therefore, if he has any further questions regarding why that editor was blocked, he should consult our policies on ]. Happy Presidents Day to you all and it's good to see the system here still working. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Oh and lastly, all things taken into consideration, I'm fully behind the below motion made by Roger. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Russian editor1996 ===
=== Statement by Callanecc ===
I'll add what a bit of what I said on RGloucester's talk page:

The issue you want addressed is whether the Committee is happy with IAR being used to impose an out of process discretionary sanction. The sanction being out of process for a few reasons: it wasn't logged (which was fixed after you let them know), there was no alert and they weren't aware by other means, and discretionary sanctions can only be used for "blocks of up to one year in duration" not indefinite. The other issue here is that this block could have been placed as a normal admin action rather than as a discretionary sanction (unlike a TBAN for example). This looks to me like an admin coming back from a break and not familiarising themselves with a procedure which gives them wide ranging powers before using it, obviously that's just a guess though.
:{{ping|Courcelles}} That would be my suggestion entirely. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by NE Ent===
==== Russian editor1996 ====
Could someone provide a single diff of why Russian editor1996 (RE96) is "plenty disruptive"? Looking at the I'm not seeing anything -- no POV pushing, no incivility, no edit warring, no posting to noticeboards -- just edits. Not perfect edits? Sure, but isn't that what we -- or at least used to -- encourage with ]?

If we look at RE96's edit from , we see the addition of a fairly complete infobox, and comparing his additon to the current revision seems to indicate no one has had much of a problem with that.

So the evidence suggests that RE96 is neither an "editor" nor anyone with any malice -- simply a "dabbler," if you will. ] shows us that dabblers have actually performed the overwhelming majority of (67%) of edits to the project. So how is blocking them without prior discussion benefiting the project? If we assume RE96 is a reasonably self-confident person without much of an agenda, why would they bother jumping through unblock hoops when they could simply spend their time somewhere else on the Internet? While I appreciate ya'll's willingness to declare the "arbcom" block an ordinary block, why not do the right thing and simply unblock RE96 until someone can explain why they should be blocked? "IAR" (or "because I felt like it") should not be considered as meeting the requirements of ], nor a legit reason to be blocking folks.
==== Coffee ====
While we're here anyway: Arbcom 2014 stated ]

Coffee's statements to RGloucester , including ''why do you seem have a cactus lodged up your ass? ... Jesus christ, give it a rest. ''<small>Or take it to AE if you like
unnecessary drama.</small>'' ... Hell, not even the editor in question has complained about being blocked. Yet, you're over here advocating for this guy like it's Christmas morning. Whatever floats your boat (I assume, drama)...'' clearly do not meet that standard. Although quite excessively snarky, I wouldn't say they're "egregious," nor am I aware of chronic history, such that I can argue we're in the admonishment zone, but a emphatic word or two (e.g. "Knock it off") seems appropriate. <small>]</small> 19:59, 16 February 2015 (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 case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Eastern Europe: Clerk notes === === Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. ] (]) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*'''Recuse''' since I have commented and am going to. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


=== American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
=== Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*While I'm not particularly troubled by the lack of logging (admins occasionally forget to do that, especially when they're not really familiar with DS and the attendant body of bureaucratic rules, and anyone can log the restriction in their stead), no sanction may be validly imposed if the editor has not been warned or isn't otherwise aware of the fact that DS have been authorised for the area of conflict and it's up to the person asking for the imposition of DS or for the admins actually imposing them to prove that the person was indeed warned or was otherwise aware. Failure to do so should lead to the lifting of the sanction and the bollocking of the admin responsible.<p>While there is a place for IAR in dealing with discretionary sanctions(*), to bypass the need for a warning is not it.<p>{{small|(*)An example being my comment here, in spite of your lack of standing to file this request, since the sanctioned editor has not appealed his restriction.}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
* Concur with Salvio. Absent the mandatory pre-block alert, it's an out of process block. I'd like to hear from {{u|Coffee}} please on this. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 13:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
**I just went to turn this into an ordinary admin block but there's no specific misconduct to point to, either in the block log or the talk page notice so that's that option unavailable. (Unless someone wants to reblock of their own volition with a brand new rationale.) The best route forward now is to alert the editor to DS and overturn the block altogether. Thoughts? &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*It appears that Coffee won't be around until Tuesday, although his comments on his talk page and at AE are clearly relevant. He's stated that the talk page of one of the relevant articles mentions the sanction. But I agree it's an out of process block, although I see no reason to think it wasn't done in good faith. I don't think it's up to us to lift the block, particularly as the editor hasn't appealed. ] (]) 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::RGloucester, there's no rush. Nothing dreadful is going to happen if we wait for Coffee to reply. As for unblocking, again, the editor hasn't appealed. Providing everyone agrees it's within our remit, I agree we can convert it into an ordinary Admin block and let the community handle anything else. ] (]) 09:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*:I also can't see where the editor has edited a talk page, and only one of the several articles edited recently, ], has the sanctions notice, and the article itself has no edit summary. So it's not at all clear how the editor would have known about any sanctions. ] (])
*Fairly clear this is not a valid AE block for a couple reasons. I think we should convert it to a usual admin block, and then toss it back to usual community processes. ] 18:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
*I'm in full agreement with Courcelles. ] (]) 13:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

====Motion (Eastern Europe)====
:''{{ACMajority|active=13|inactive=2|recused=0|motion=yes}}''
{{Ivmbox|1=On 11 February 2015, {{admin|Coffee}} blocked relying on the ]. As a discretionary sanctions block it was out of process as the editor had not been ]. Accordingly, the ] do not apply and the block may be modified by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee is advised to better familiarize themselves with the ] before using this process again.}}

:Support:
:# On passing, this text can be copied to ]'s talk page, under the block notice as well as to Coffee's talk. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# ] 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# --] &#124; ] 17:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 21:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# Works for me. I don't feel like an admonishment would be necessary. ] <small>]</small> 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# Simple mistake. Let's move on. -- ] ] 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

:Comments:
:*

----

== Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Editing of Biographies of Living Persons}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|EvergreenFir}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}}
*{{admin|HJ_Mitchell}}
*{{userlinks|East718}}
*{{userlinks|DHeyward}}
*{{userlinks|EncyclopediaBob}}
*{{userlinks|Retartist}}

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

''Notification of other potentially interested users''
*
*
* <small>added by {{u|Ryk72}}</small>
* <small>added by {{u|Ryk72}}</small>
* <small>added by {{u|Ryk72}}</small>

=== Statement by EvergreenFir ===
There is apparent disagreement among users and admins on the interpretation of ]. This stems from the removal of a link on ] by {{U|NorthBySouthBaranof}} that was originally added by {{U|Retartist}}. Because NorthBySouthBaranof is topic banned from Gamergate, this removal resulted in an ] that was closed by {{U|HJ Mitchell}} with no action per ]. The basis for the removal was ] because the link contained very problematic content, the nature of which can be seen in the enforcement request. There was also an ] for posting the link that was closed by HJ Mitchell with a topic ban. As a result of this enforcement request, the link and other links were REVDELed by {{U|East718}} per ] and REVDEL guidelines.

As a direct result of these enforcement requests, a discussion on ] was opened by {{U| Ryk72}} <small>not named as party due to max of 7 parties, but will be informed of this ARBCOM</small> regarding the interpretation of ].

{{collapse top|Current wording of BLPTALK for reference}}
BLPTALK currently says {{blockquote|Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or ], as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating {{tq| has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?}} The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to ], though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see ].<ref>See ] and its talk page.</ref> Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of ].}}
{{reflist-talk}}
{{collapse bottom}}

Despite the actions of the admins HJ Mitchell and East718, users {{U|DHeyward}} and {{U|EncyclopediaBob}} expressed <small>in my understanding; please correct me if I'm mistaken</small> strong disagreement with the use of BANEX in this manner, suggesting that any links should be allowed to be posted on article talk pages if they are being discussed. I expressed the belief that BLPTALK need tweaking and that not all links are allowed to be posted on non-article spaces (e.g., links from ] should never be posted as they violate BLP policies).

{{collapse top|Exact wording of my interpretation and suggested tweak for reference}}
BLPTALK needs tweaking. The link that prompted this on GG was not just "contentious", it was libel. BLPTALK should reflect that discussion of RS or at least something that approaches RS (which is also key as the link from GG was not RS) is fine. If, for example, HuffPo has an article with some claims about a politician committing fraud, then the talk page is the right venue to discuss that article. However, not all links are covered by BLPTALK, or shouldn't be. Links to Stormfront would never be acceptable. Links that contain libel or highly disparaging content should never be allowed. Folks seem to be misunderstanding "contentious material" and misrepresenting the example in BLP. Let's clarify it so that if (1) matches the rest of the BLP policy's intent and (2) matches how BLP is being enforced.
{{collapse bottom}}

Interpretations of this portion of the BLP policy are clearly divergent. Admins and REVDELers appear to interpret the language differently than some experienced user. Specifically, the current wording of BLPTALK does not explicitly state if some links that would be excluded from articles as BLP violations are also excluded from non-article space. Moreover, it's unclear if BANEX covers the removal of links from non-article spaces. I request that the ARBCOM clarify this issue as part of the BLP decision for the sake of users and admins.

Edit: In response to {{U|HJ Mitchell}}, I wish to be clear that I 100% agree with his and other admins' assessments of the situation and reading of the BLP policy. However, BLPTALK is still rather ambiguous and given the push back from other users I feel that ARBCOM weighing in on this issue and/or suggesting clarified wording of BLPTALK is needed. I chose this venue because of the past ruling and felt an RfC would not be the appropriate way to address this.

:{{U|Rhoark}}'s statement is an example of exactly why this needs clarification. It seems the arbs feel that some links are clearly not okay (which I agree with), but the "cut off" is what's blurry here. If arbs are unable to rule on this, what course of action would be recommended? An RfC invites all users to comment, including inexperienced ones. Given that this topic is (1) one of the most important policies on Misplaced Pages, and (2) the subject of an ARBCOM ruling, it seems that ARBCOM should be the one to clarify it and make substantial changes to it. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof ===
I think it's fairly apparent what the letter and spirit of the policy are intended to do — prevent the encyclopedia from being used as a weapon of character assassination or a tool of online trolls. To that end, policy demands that we treat ''all'' matters relating to living people with the utmost sensitivity and care. A hopelessly-unreliable source (such as, for instance, a wholly-anonymous webpage, a personal blog or a series of putative screenshots) that contains or is intended to present highly-negative claims, allegations or inferences about living people has no business anywhere on the encyclopedia. It cannot possibly aid the writing of the encyclopedia in any way, because it is categorically forbidden from use in any way. Anything which even stems from it is effectively ]. Suggesting, as one editor did, that an inflammatory, anonymous screed full of unsupported attacks, disproven allegations and outright lies about living people (the so-called "dossier") is {{tq|good background reading (for editors)}} evinces a clear and present misunderstanding of ]. This sense is longstanding and core to our policy's ultimate goal: ensuring that what the encyclopedia publishes about living people is well-supported, fair, sensitively-written and unsensational — all stemming from the use of highly-reliable sources and the avoidance of slander, gossip, whisper campaigns and rumormongering. ] (]) 05:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Salvio Giuliano}} You are asking me to give in to an off-wiki-coordinated harassment campaign because it's apparently inconvenient for Misplaced Pages to deal with the ramifications of the committee's actions. Sorry, but no, I will not just shut up and go away, as you and the endless string of trolls demand. I apologize if it's inconvenient for you to be continually exposed to a reminder of how unjust the decision was and how precisely I predicted what would happen in its wake — a continual series of SPAs appearing and reappearing to demand that, in this topic area, reliable sources be ignored, BLP violations be accepted and living people be slandered. That is, as it happens, exactly what is going on now. ] (]) 12:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::Salvio, if you truly believe that an editor's refusal to give into an anonymous harassment campaign aimed at forcing them out of a topic area is "battleground behavior," then you have laid the foundation for the destruction of the project, because there will come a tipping point at which time there will be more anonymous trolls than there are good-faith editors and admins left to defend the project's basic principles in contentious topic areas. The goal of these trolls is simple: raise the personal cost of defending the project's basic policies beyond that which anyone wants to bear. Already I have been subjected to numerous attacks, death threats and harassment methods on and off the encyclopedia, for doing little more than demanding that our articles adhere to what reliable sources say, and that our articles reject anonymous attempts at assassinating the character of living people. ArbCom has taught the trolls that all they have to do is depict those who stand up against them as engaging in "battleground behavior" and they win. Already we've seen them come after JzG and others. If you don't think they'll keep going after every single person who tries to enforce the policies against them, you're delusional. And at some point, everyone with a shred of sanity will throw up their hands and give up — even the redoubtable HJ Mitchell, to whom I will entrust any future BLP violations I identify. ArbCom has written the textbook for destroying Misplaced Pages from within. ] (]) 12:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement from Harry Mitchell ===
I have little to add here. I closed two AE requests where the result was astoundingly obvious (and have been taking flak for it on my talk page since). Posting links to obviously inappropriate material, especially where the source couldn't possibly be considered a reliable source for Misplaced Pages's purposes is, at best, grossly negligent. I note that Retartist says they did it in good faith and I have no reason to doubt their word, but that's not the sort of conduct we need in difficult topic areas.

I don't see anything to clarify. Four admins ({{ping|Gamaliel|East718|Timotheus Canens}} and I) were in agreement that the material in question was a BLP violation. I asked whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern of mis(conduct|judgement) and was presented with evidence of the latter. It would have taken something miraculous for that thread or the one against NBSB to have been closed any other way.

That will probably be the extent of my comments here unless somebody asks me a direct question. ] &#124; ] 02:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:In light of EF's reply and DHeyward's comment, I'll add: I'm not sure this is within the jurisdiction of ArbCom, but if it were my thoughts are that if something couldn't possibly be considered a reliable source, and it contains potentially defamatory claims, it has no business being linked to from Misplaced Pages. Especially not from an article or its talk page. ] &#124; ] 03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

*{{ping|Protonk}} . ] &#124; ] 22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by East718 ===
=== Statement by DHeyward ===
The enforcement request for BANEX is a red herring. The issue is whether links, without any statements about the link content (i.e. "Please look ") are BLP violations in and of themselves on a talk page - ]. No one is repeating the claims on-wiki. There is a very obtuse view that a link can, by itself, be a BLP violation. That's nonsense. We have much stricter policies regarding links in articles, but links provided for discussion can be ignored, or archived without affecting the encyclopedia. There is more disruption by deleting links on talk pages than by ignoring them. Revdel's are even more asinine. The reality is that a talk page discussion that says "Does this link have anything we can use ?" is not the same as saying "This link says Person X did Y, can we use it ?". The latter should be redacted if the claims are BLP violations, the former should be ignored or commented on but it need not be removed. We can't even control secondary content in sources in articles, so why stifle discussion (or worse, punish editors for trying to start a discussion? If we source NY Times in an article and they decide to have an inline link that leads to characterizations that WP would not publish (i.e. say a criminal charge), that doesn't forever invalidate the source. Papers like the guardian have second level links that are "NAtional Inquire"ish type stories on celebrities.

We don't regulate offsite content or links that are twice removed from articles. This is where talk page links are. No one is reading WP and following the link to validate a claim made on WP. If simply following links were bad, without claims, we would need to guard against the side bar content of sites like that have a number of "Don't miss" articles. The fact is, if he claim isn't made on WP, the link is immaterial and certainly not a BLP violation. This is longstanding policy to allow for collegial discussion of subjects without fear. That should continue. Those that only delete links on talk pages are being disruptive, not collaborative. Ignore it per WP:BEANS. WP is not responsible for what others say offsite nor is a link any kind of affirmation. We've learned this with links to articles about the ArbCom committee itself. The stories were false. Portraying them as true on WP is problematic. Linking to them without judgement is not. Witch-hunting for those that dared add the link is disruptive.

The sole exception is "outing" and the simple rule of thumb is if the Oversight committee is not going to remove it, it's not a policy violation and it should be left alone. --] (]) 03:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by EncyclopediaBob ===
Just a quick clarification and summary: I have no position on WP: BANEX and whether NBSB's actions complied. I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of that policy. My disagreement with EvergreenFir (and others) seems to be in the application of BLP policy, whether on talk pages under WP:BLPTALK or in article space under WP:BLP. As I understand it, non-BLP-compliant sources may not be used to source BLP material. As it's been applied by a number of admins, non-BLP-compliant sources may not be used to source '''any''' material, even non-BLP material, and the linking of such sources is sanctionable. I joined the discussion on in an attempt to bridge the significant gulf between my reading of the policy and its current application. ] ] 02:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Retartist ===
All i want to say is that i posted the links in good faith and was stupid in posting so many links without checking each one --] (]) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ryk72 ===
I am working on a statement, which not only addresses all of the principle & policy aspects, but is also below the 500 word limit; in the meantime...

'''Thanks to:'''

:{{u|EvergreenFir}}, for raising this in this forum;
:respected ArbCom members, for their time & consideration of this matter;
:all other editors responding either here or at ];
:and especially, {{u|HJ_Mitchell}} for his tireless efforts in administration in contentious areas.

'''Clarification:'''

The discussion initiated at ] stemmed from my noticing {{tq|a '''number of instances''' of removal, reversion, and revdeletion of links to sources containing contentious material from article talk pages, citing WP:BLP}}. It is not based on one set of deletions claiming ]. See:

I am not concerned by any one instance of this type of removal, reversion or deletion nor by the editors involved. I am concerned by the pattern, and the implications on consensus building if it is to become an accepted practice. I ask those commenting and the Arbitrators to focus on the relevant principles, policies & guidelines. See: ], ], ] (incl. ]), ] (incl. ]) & ].

'''Statement:''' (placeholder)

The concern is that this type of invocation of ] is being used to suppress the normal working of the Misplaced Pages Project; preventing discussion of sources, and improvement of the encyclopedia through consensus. Editors are leveraging ] to remove good faith links to potential sources (and good faith, sourced, discussion of existing sources). Editors should be able to point (link) to a source, and discuss it's appropriateness without fear of sanction. If a source is not reliable, or not usable for any other reason, that should be decided by consensus, which requires that the source be identifiable (linked) for discussion.

In summary:
:''"the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy (]) is not to protect living persons (although this is a pleasing side effect); but to protect Misplaced Pages from slandering or libeling living persons (and the consequences thereof)"'' - ] (as understood by {{u|Ryk72}}) See:
:''"links to contentious material do not violate BLP; unsourced contentious material violates BLP";'' - ] (as understood by {{u|Ryk72}}),
:''"invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion"'' - ]

W.r.t ArbCom action on this request, I would ask no more than the committee affirm that ], as it applies to non-] pages, covers only contentious ''material'', not ''links'' to external websites (where the contents are not repeated on Misplaced Pages).

Thanks again for your consideration of this matter. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by MarkBernstein ===

The attention of the Arbitration Committee is drawn to the circumstance that, last night, this page was widely extolled on Twitter by a variety of anonymous accounts bearing GamerGate regalia and celebrating the expected further sanctioning of ] which is and has long been their stated goal and plan. There, @theWTFMagazine links to an 8chan thread on that distinguished contributor which begins:

:''His persecution delusions are flaring up''
:''His inner white knight is gleaming''
:''He changed into new diapers''

It apparently began twelve hours ago, attracting some 50 posts overnight.

You will be pleased to know that @PalinFreeborn is cheering you on, @FortunateCat is calling on your vigor, @ED_Updates -- doubtless that same people who were so very eager for you to take action against Ryulong that they needed to tell you all about his religious background (avaricious Jew!) and sex life -- is asking User:Jimbo to stiffen your resolve. All are eager to see that you continue steadily on your course and remain firm in your intention.

Look at the progress you have made! Yesterday, a vigorous and lengthy debate on the Talk page has proceeded through an additional 8,000 words of discussion devoted to whether WP:RS shall be disregarded for GamerGate because the entire press is biased against #GamerGate, 2,500 words revisiting the much-discussed question of whether actions associated with the GamerGate hashtag may be excluded because someone says "they were not really GamerGate supporters" and whether GamerGate is a "movement". One of the GamerGate victims had a 550 word libel revdel'd again; as you know, this is hardly a rare occurrence.

You could (and should) have stopped this; instead, you have encouraged it.

I concur with ]: GamerGate has handed every little PR shop a textbook on how to pervert Misplaced Pages. ArbCom has written the textbook for destroying Misplaced Pages from within.

This flagrant effort to pervert Misplaced Pages's disciplinary mechanism is not likely to arouse your notice or evoke your concern. The standard discussed below -- that ''some'' BLP-violating links are OK on talk pages, ''some'' are not, and that the encyclopedia's defender should be less vehement in upholding its rules -- is risible. After all, the matter is a small content dispute: some editors want to use Misplaced Pages to spread claims appearing in unreliable sources that specific women in software development are sluts and whores. Others think this is clearly prohibited by policy. ArbCom in its majesty, it seems, believes that Misplaced Pages will be served well by exhaustively and repeatedly discussing the matter on talk pages, on drama boards, and here.

After all, what's the harm? Just a content dispute!

Misplaced Pages talk pages are a weapon against GamerGates’s victims. Those who object to this continuing outrage are necessarily and inconveniently guilty of battleground behavior and must be driven from Misplaced Pages, leaving the way clear for the trolls.

Meanwhile, the world awaits a sign of your care for the editors who served this project, or for its victims. http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html ] (]) 15:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

{{cot|Dealt with, <small>hatting as it doesn't make sense now, feel free to unhat/remove this if you want Mark</small>. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}}
::@62.157.60.27 takes me to task for "spreading misinformation about the ArbCom case even in his statement above" and for various other high crimes. If 62.157.60.27 has some particular correction to offer, 62.157.60.27 might be so good as to identify it. In the same jeremiad, 62.157.60.27 is apparently outraged that Brianna Wu expressed an opinion in the pages of Bustle with which 62.157.60.27 does not agree and wants ArbCom to do something about it. Like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra la!) this has nothing to do with the case. The paragraph bearing my name is irrelevant, uncivil, and assumes no good faith; it is also very interesting that its “uninvolved” author is so well acquainted with the topic and with intricacies of Misplaced Pages procedure but does not possess (or does not desire to use) a Misplaced Pages account. '''I request it be hatted or deleted by the clerk.'''] (]) 19:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cob}}

:@Roark’s standard of imminent harm creates a new "extra-special BLP" for talk pages. Would (to choose a pertinent example) saying that a software developer has prostituted herself rise to this standard? Would saying that she had slept with more than five men rise to this level? Would saying that the software developer had faked threats of assault, rape, and death qualify? These are three of the BLP violations in question here; they have been discussed many times and at great length on the talk page, as ArbCom members (all of whom have, I am sure, read the entire talk page archives with care and attention) well know. But of course the separate, vague, higher standard for BLP on talk pages is ''precisely'' what is wanted here by those who have so successfully exploited -- and continue to use -- Misplaced Pages's talk pages to punish their enemies and all who stand in their way -- now including, as mentioned above, ]. ] (]) 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Protonk ===
{{cot|This isn't helpful at addressing the central issue here <small>(clerk action)</small>. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}}
Is there a reason we didn't topic ban retartist for three months and block them for 24 hours? ] (]) 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
* {{ping|HJ Mitchell}} It's still more time than you apparently took before topic banning an admin in good standing for stating the central known fact of the gamergate controversy (a statement which was at the time of the block printed in the signpost, FFS). Sorry if my disgust at your appallingly poor block upsets you. ] (]) 00:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cob}}

=== Statement by Uninvolved IP-editor ===
If you are not going to clarify the issue in regards to ] violations, can you at least explain why it is allowed to be one-sidedly used as some sort of hammer to punish ideological opponents?

There seem to be constant revdels and topic-bans for what seems to be some of the most innocuous thing like posting a link to any articles or trying to discuss something on talk pages regarding certain people (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn for instance), but there seems to be a double standard when this applies to other living persons, for instance this personal opinion article from Bustle: accusing someone of criminal behavior of the most vile kind and calling on the Obama administration to arrest and prosecute them has not been interpreted as a BLP violations against living persons.

{{cot|Not helpful <small>(clerk action)</small>. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}}
You also have ] who has previously been blocked due to statements he made, but was apparently allowed back and is blatantly spreading misinformation about the ArbCom case even in his statement on this very page and has called other editors "rape apologists" on the site he identified as his own and called for sanctions against them before and yet he is still somehow allowed to offer his input, while others are topic-banned or blocked for much less? Is there some sort of stipulation that some people or groups of people deserve protection against any kind of violations of these policies, while other living persons or groups of people don't enjoy the same privileges and can be called anything one wishes without recourse or penalties?
{{hab}}
] (]) 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Comment by Newyorkbrad ===

I understand why EvergreenFir brought this here, but the arbitrators have said what needs to be said, and nothing else useful is going to come out of this thread, whether it is closed promptly or a week from now. I suggest the former. ] (]) 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rhoark ===
BLP is for the most part a policy about claims, not about sources. I've brought this up before at the noticeboard ]. I think everyone should be advised to wait for consensus before redacting links - excepting where the content is illegal or in some way liable to cause imminent harm. ] (]) 22:13, 16 February 2015 (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 case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: 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).''
* *


=== Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion === === American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* {{yo|Interstellarity}} I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) ] (] • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'd say changing the wording of BLPTALK is fully ] of the Committee, but I do think the AE admins got this one right, the link served no useful purpose, and BANEX was correctly (and even if you disagree, in good faith) invoked. I'm just not seeing anything for ArbCom to do here. ] 05:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
*BLP applies everywhere; however, it applies to different degrees depending on the location of the offending material. <p>While its application needs to be very strict and proactive in mainspace, which is where most people end up looking and where an allegation may sound like it's made in Misplaced Pages's voice, its application on talk pages and on ] needs to be less strict. The policy indirectly acknowledges this, when it says {{xt|hen material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first}}. Since to restore what someone else has flagged as a BLP violation you need a consensus, it follow that it is permissible to discuss in good faith possible BLP violations in talk space and on the appropriate noticeboard; after the discussion is over, if it's determined that the material was indeed a violation, then the discussion may be hatted or purged of the offending material, but, again, there needs to be a place where such a discussion can be had without hindrance.<p>Removal of material without discussion from talk pages or from the relevant noticeboard should be reserved for cases of egregious and uncontroversial BLP violations. This appears to have been one such case. That said, NBSB, you were right on the merits, but your approach still leaves much to be desired. Please move on. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
**] indef pending changes
**NorthBySouthBaranof, that's exactly the kind of battleground attitude I was referring to by "your approach still leaves much to be desired". <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
**] indef consensus required restriction
*As Courcelles says, it's not our role to change the wording of BLPTALK, nor do I think we should be mandating a specific interpretation, which would have the same practical effect. AS Salvio says, the application of BLPTALK outside of article space isn't as cut and dried as it is in an article, and I agree with his comments on material on a talk page or BLPN - it needs to be possible to discuss at least most suggested BLP violations, which might mean including a link. Hatting or purging may be required after a discussion is concluded. I don't see a role for us here. ] (]) 13:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
**] indef semi
*I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Firstly, BANEX was correctly applied in this case. On the broader point, a blanket statement is not going to help here. It is perfectly legitimate, in almost all cases, to discuss on a talk page whether source X is a BLP violation or not (if consensus is that it is, then some or all of the discussion ''may'' need to be hidden or removed). In a minority of cases though, and this is one of them, the BLP violation is so clear and/or so gross that even including it on a talk page is not acceptable. Every case is different though, so it needs to be left to individual judgement as to when this applies. So beyond reminding everybody to err on the side of caution with BLPs there is nothing more for us to do here. ] (]) 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. ] (] &#124; ]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*As pretty well always, there's no blanket ruling to make here. Appropriateness of material is on a case by case basis, though I would say that discussions as to whether or not certain material is appropriate at all should generally be given relatively wide latitude to take place, certainly more latitude than use in an article due to the difference in visibility. But "wide" doesn't mean "unlimited", and if someone is using such a discussion as a coatrack to push BLP violations or the material is egregiously bad, that is not acceptable and someone is right to stop it. In this case, I think NBSB had a good faith belief enforcement was necessary, and that assessment clearly was not way out of line with consensus on the matter. I therefore see no reason to overturn HJ Mitchell's decision that a legitimate exemption to a topic ban applied here. However, NBSB, I'd strongly advise you to take Gamergate related items off your watchlist. You were quite properly warned that while this instance fell under a topic ban exemption, your ongoing discussion of the matter after the topic ban was in place was clearly not allowed by it, and while that's stale for enforcement at this time, I think you could expect enforcement action if that continues. Topic bans apply to user talk pages as surely as any others. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
*My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ] (]) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
----
*Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like ] still have recurring issues. - ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== Amendment request: Wifione ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 15:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Wifione}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#]


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

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

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


=== Statement by Smallbones ===
The principle seems to say that we do not have a policy on undisclosed paid editing or that ArbCom and admins cannot even consider enforcing the current policy ] and guideline ] (1st section which repeats the relevant part of the ToU), or perhaps not even any part of the ToU.

] is clearly Misplaced Pages policy, stating so itself (since 2009), and being categorized as such, and in a policy navigation box. Denying that this is policy, would be creating policy by fiat, and be a constitutional crisis for Misplaced Pages (i.e. ToU don't apply here). The principle was not needed to decide the case, so there is no need to even appear to be denying that ] can be considered by ArbCom.

The thread at ] discusses this at great length. It says everything that needs to be said IMHO. But do note that IMHO 3 arbs expressed some level of agreement or sympathy with my position in that thread. I'll inform all non-arb participants of that thread, listed above, about this request but don't really think they need to expand upon what they've already said.

:I'm sorry to repeat myself from the talk page thread, but I just don't understand how anybody can say that ] is not currently a Misplaced Pages policy.
:*the page itself states "This page documents a Misplaced Pages policy with legal considerations."
:*it is listed at ]
:*and at ]
:*it is categorized at Category:Misplaced Pages policies‎
:*and at Category:Misplaced Pages legal policies‎
:*and listed on the ]
:*the relevant section here is repeated word-for-word at ], a guideline, and ArbCom does enforce guidelines when necessary.

:I also find it disturbing that folks will say that there is no consensus for the policy when the largest RfC in history was conducted less than a year ago with 80% of the respondents supporting the change to the ToU. The fact that it was conducted, as required by the ToU, on meta rather than en Misplaced Pages, strikes me at best as a technicality.

::Now I don't understand the distinction being put forward between accepting ] as policy, but saying that ArbCom does not have a mandate to enforce it.
::As I understand it ArbCom has the power to enforce any persistent violation of policy. This is supported by ]

:::"In cases where it is clear that a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. In cases where the general dispute resolution procedure has been ineffective, the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive or sensitive situations."

::]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 16:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

{{reflist|group=a}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no need to prove paid editing, and encouraging attempts to do so is to encourage precisely the sort of opposition research that the likes of Phil Sandifer, WillBeback, Racepacket, and others were banned for. There's a reason we ban people for that sort of thing, and we shouldn't be encouraging it—it's entirely possible to push a POV without being paid and to be paid and write neutrally. ] &#124; ] 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} Bad ''editing'' is very easy to prove and is dealt with quickly (that's what I do on Misplaced Pages when I'm not bogged down in explaining what I do to people who, meaning no disrespect to them, spend very little time on the front line and so don't realise just how academic this issue is); all it takes is diffs and analysis. Bad ''motives'' are impossible to prove with on-wiki evidence, and require digging through people's personal and professional lives, which is one of the few things that gets an almost automatic siteban. Yes, it's entirely possible that somebody who is only here to promote a company does it because they're paid to, but while you're all sat round discussing whether or not they're paid and should have disclosed it, I've blocked them for advertising and have moved on to the next one and the one after that. ] &#124; ] 17:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Alanscottwalker ===

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

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

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

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

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

=== Statement by (uninvolved) coldacid ===
Reading through everything out of interest, there seems nothing out of place, incorrect, or policy-setting with the clause under consideration. With all due respect to the request initiator, the proposed rephrasing would not magically change the status quo, either, but it would at a minimum result in an error by omission with regard to the committee's responsibilities and powers. I would suggest that the committee decline the request, and if {{u|Smallbones}} really feels the need for ArbCom to have the power and responsiblity of enforcing ToU, that they use the usual channels for changing enwiki policy. // ] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In light of {{u|Fluffernutter}}'s , perhaps the principle should be revised as follows?
<blockquote>6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for <u>disclosed</u> paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with <u>undisclosed</u> paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.</blockquote>
This would help clarify that paid editing isn't banned on Misplaced Pages, but that undisclosed paid editing can lead to ArbCom actions and remedies. //&nbsp;] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 20:30, 15 February 2015 (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 case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

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

=== Wifione: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*No. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*I've been looking through ] and ] and it's pretty clear that the community can't agree on this. I also thought that someone was going to raise a new RfC. Until the community can agree on a policy, I don't see how or why we should be imposing one, which is what this request would do. ] (]) 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{reply to|Dougweller}}, I don't think we should impose anything. We should, however, simply strike principle six by motion, and thus make no statement on the matter at all. As we decided the case, it was wholly irrelevant to anything; so we have no need to try and rewrite or copyedit it, simply striking it solves all the problems. ] 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
**Oops, I was looking more at the arguments than the request. Striking it would seem ok. ], are you objecting to that? ] (]) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*This is what I got:</p><p>6) While undisclosed paid editing is ], there is not a current mandate from either the community or the Wikimedia Foundation for the Committee to enforce of this policy. Further, the arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. This should not be interpreted as prohibiting the community from enforcing the site policies around undisclosed paid editing, or from creating a framework to allow the committee to do so. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.</p> How does that sound? --] &#124; ] 06:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:*The thing is, insert that into the Wifione case... and what does it add? We didn't pass any FoF's related to paid editing, nor base any remedies off of such accusations. This isn't the place to hammer down the Committee's position on various kinds of paid editing and spend two weeks going around in circles. We sidestep all of this by simply looking at the final decision, finding the part that doesn't belong in the document, and excising it. ] 07:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::*It addresses what was presented in evidence. We didn't pass any FoFs or remedies on it because we don't have the enforcement mandate, not because it was useless to the case. -- ] ] 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*I agree that the statement as written is not incorrect, the only provisions in the TOU or local policies relate to a subset of paid editing (i.e. undisclosed paid editing) not paid editing as a whole. I therefore see neither need nor benefit in amending the remedy as written. It is however true that this principle does not directly impact the outcome of this case - it was included to reference why we were not making any findings regarding the allegations of paid editing that were repeatedly made against Wifione. So, while I would not oppose any motion to strike it from the case, I don't see doing so as an especially productive use of the Committee's time. ] (]) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Fluffernutter}} Leaving aside whether it actually matters whether someone is being paid (I really believe it doesn't - if the are improving the encyclopaedia we want them; if they are not currently improving the encyclopaedia work with them until they either are or it becomes clear they cannot or will not), we are not tying anybody's hands with this - "paid editing" is not prohibited by any policy, the subset "undisclosed editing" is prohibited but is not mentioned in this principle. ] (]) 19:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*I can't add much to what I said at discussion at the case page (and am unsure why this request is here, does it really need said again?) We can't actually tell if someone is editing for pay unless they disclose it voluntarily, and if they disclose it voluntarily, it's not against the TOU. Checkuser doesn't let one peek into a person's bank account. So, at the end of the day, we can handle inappropriate editing (POV pushing, misuse of references, etc.), regardless of motive, but I don't see how we're supposed to figure out ''why'' someone was behaving that way. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*I would support striking this principle. The current wording isn't correct, but the principle itself is also not so necessary to the case so as to make me feel like we need to spend time crafting better wording. ] <small>]</small> 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|Salvio giuliano}} If there's an issue with a principle (which I think there is, here—although I and others interpreted this to mean that there is not local policy about paid editing, the ToU is policy, and the principle currently suggests otherwise), we should fix it regardless of timing. ] <small>]</small> 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
***I disagree on the merits and I disagree on procedure. Arbitration cases {{endash}} coming, as they often do, after years of heated disputes and, as they say, drama {{endash}} need to put an end to the controversy they deal with. If we start tinkering with cases immediately after they close, that goal is negated. The time to raise issues concerning a proposed decision is before it is passed. Not after. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*Question to my fellow Arbitrators: Why, when we passed this at ] is it now completely incorrect and irrelevant? Is it because it's now in the spotlight? Why not fix the issue instead of dumping it to bring it up again in the future? (I already understand Courcelles' objection and I've replied to it above) -- ] ] 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*In a separate point, how did this become site policy? We are looking at a ] in Nov 2009, since when do two editors determine what is and isn't English Misplaced Pages policy? If it's the WMF's, then it should say it's WMF policy. If it's a global one, per the global RfC, then it should say global. -- ] ] 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} Yes, I agree to them, in an legal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation, not the English Misplaced Pages Community. -- ] ] 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} We'll have to agree to disagree then I'm afraid. The first line of the overview in the ToU states ''"These Terms of Use tell you about our public services at the Wikimedia Foundation, our relationship to you as a user, and the rights and responsibilities that guide us both."'' It doesn't mention the community. -- ] ] 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

====Motion (Paid editing principle in ''Wifione'' case stricken)====
:''{{ACMajority|active=12|inactive=2|recused=1|motion=yes}}''
{{Ivmbox|1=Principle 6 on paid editing is stricken from the ] case.}}

;Support:
:# ] <small>]</small> 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:# Utterly and completely irrelevant to the case as decided. Also, at best, a half-true statement. ] 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

;Oppose:
:#The principle is fine as is. Also, I do not really appreciate the fact that we are trying to amend a case so soon after it was closed; even assuming for the sake of the argument that the principle was incorrect, there was plenty of time to raise the issue before we finalised the close. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:#I'm not for sweeping it under the rug and waiting for it to come up again. As several people talked about on the talkpage, we need to amend this, not strike it. The only thing I really ever viewed as an issue was the wording that said the ToU was not policy, and i'm still not 100% convinced that is right either. This needs time for discussion here. -- ] ] 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Latest revision as of 23:01, 17 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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

Amendment request: American politics 2

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

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


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


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


Statement by Interstellarity

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

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

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

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

Comment by GoodDay

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

Statement by Rosguill

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

Statement by Izno

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

Statement by Kenneth Kho

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

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)
  • Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions Add topic