Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 131

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131


Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal (December 2024)

Original discussion
Consensus among arbitrators that they will not reinstate the site ban. Crouch, Swale is welcome to consider asking an admin to place a self-requested block, using the WikiBreak Enforcer, or requesting a courtesy vanish. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Special:Diff/817961869
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Special:Diff/817961869


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


Information about amendment request
  • Restore site ban.


Statement by Crouch, Swale

A week from now could you please site ban me either permanently or temporarily. I don't think I should be on here anymore. Please note that this is not an appeal rather the opposeite to reinstate the site ban.

@CaptainEek: We've banned other users like User:Lugnuts who created many new articles but weren't of good quality and User:BrownHairedGirl who has made many contributions but had civility issues. If I want to be banned I don't see why that can't be done. Additionally I'm not asking for any negotiations here such as a promise to remove my restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac and L235: What would be grounds for a site ban then? If I was to make personal attacks would that be grounds? BHG was banned for personal attacks by adbcom, if I did the same would you do the same for me? You can block me with talk and email revoked and block my IP addresses with blocking logged in users so that I have no chance of contributing again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: A block is just a block, nothing official and can be removed by any admin while a site ban is formal and official. From what I can remember my IP addresses geolocate to places like Colchester, Danbury and Maldon and I don't think are used by anyone else so could probably easily be blocked as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Cabayi: That would be global and not a formal ban for example I should still be able to contribute on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Just Step Sideways: But why not do something silly. Clearly doing the right thing hasn't got me very far. Clearly this project is sickeningly unreasonable. Clearly this project has lots of arbitrary rules that aren't even written and if you violate them or not is often down to chance. This project claims to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit not the project that wants to exclude many articles from Crouch, Swale or exclude a few hundred units from Crouch, Swale's country. The project appears to have some kind of agenda against my contributions or places in my country. But yes its not just things that have happened to me its also silly things like the ARBECR which targets new users who probably don't have a clue how this project works. So why not just do something silly and get banned clearly this project is cracy so I've probably not got that much to loose anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Kenneth Kho

Thank you for over 100K edits to Wikipedia, thank you for your service. However it is best to provide reasons why your editing restrictions can be lifted in part or in full, if that is what you are looking for. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

User:Crouch, Swale why does it need to be a site ban? I respect someone who wants to go out on their own terms, but a site ban is still an ugly ugly way to do it. If you ask me next week I am willing to put an indefinite block on your account without talk page and email access, which is what would also happen with a site ban. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by QoH

+1 to what Barkeep said, I would also be willing to place a self-requested block. charlotte 👸♥ 23:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Crouch, it is highly unlikely that any admin would just randomly decide to undo a self-requested block. It would be logged as such and nobody would have any reason to unblock. Please, don't try and get banned by doing something foolish. If you did it would probably still be a single admin who blocked you anyway. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It has occured to me that if the issue here is trying to break Wikipedia addiction permanently, vanishing is probably a better option for you. It's a voluntary agreement between you and this project that you are going away for good. It's not a sanction, and it provides a clean break. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

Crouch, Swale, the best way to do this is to get a self-requested block, have talk page access revoked, and then scramble your password. If you are worried about scrambling your password, have Google or some other service create three passwords, mash them together, copy and paste into the change password field, and delete your clipboard history and saved passwords for Wikipedia. That would make it extremely difficult to regain access to the account, especially with email revoked.

As my statement should make clear, amendment should be denied. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3

Original discussion
Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by SimpleSubCubicGraph at 18:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Olympian ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan


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


Information about amendment request
  • I request a modification to the probation period, and want the probation to end immediately and for all pages involving Armenia-Azerbaijan, except the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wars to be downgraded to Autoconfirmed Protection.


Statement by SimpleSubCubicGraph

A recent statement was made by Armenia offering condolences to Azerbaijan which has almost never happened, I believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages blanket protection of Extended Confirmed should be lowered to Autoconfirmed protection, with the exception of the wars between the two sovereign nations. Additionally, relations are getting better between the two countries. For nearly 30 years, relations were rock bottom, diplomats were not found in Azerbaijan nor Armenia and tensions were at an all time high. However ever since the 2020 war the two nations have started to make amends. This first started with the peace deal ending the war between the two nations. Turkey whom is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan has started to resume direct flights from Yerevan, the capital of Armenia and Istanbul, the largest city in the Republic of Turkiye. In 2023, Armenia and Azerbaijan entered into extensive bilateral negotiations as well as a prisoner exchange between the two countries, and Armenia supported Azerbaijan for being the host of the UN climate change forum. Finally, last year the two countries solved many border issues and created a transport route between the two countries which is a symbol of peace. The two nations are much better off now than they were just 4 years ago and can be seen as having a cooperative/reconciling attitude. That is why I propose an amendment that will immediately downgrade all protections (from ECP to ACP) for all Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages.

@Voorts then how would I appeal or ask the community to lift sanctions over Armenia-Azerbaijan SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)  Clerk note: Moved to own section HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Houseblaster going off what voorts said, can this suggestion be repealed/deleted? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by voorts

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: ECP-only edits were imposed by the community as a general sanction, not by ArbCom. ArbCom does not have jurisdiction here. That said, whether or not Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are warming, the community has imposed sanctions here (and ArbCom has designated this area as a contentious topic) because of disruption in the topic area by editors. I highly doubt that you'd get the community to agree to change this rule, given that editors are still routinely sanctioned under this GS. See WP:GS/AA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: There is. You can read WP:GS for more information. However, as I said, there is almost zero chance that you will get this sanction to be removed. You should be patient and wait to get 500 edits and EC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Clerk notes

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal (January 2025)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Case or decision affected
Special:Diff/1064925920
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Special:Diff/1064925920


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


Information about amendment request
  • 2022 changes


Statement by Crouch, Swale

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Original discussion
There is a clear consensus among participating Committee members that "strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area" refers to "primary articles" in the area of conflict. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Zero0000 at 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by Zero0000

The recent case included the following resolution: "All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article."

There are two types of ARBPIA content defined by previous PIA resolutions:

  1. Whole articles deemed to be entirely or mostly in the domain of ARBPIA.
  2. Content in the domain of ARBPIA that lies within articles not covered in whole.

My question: Does default EC-protection apply to type 1 content only, or to type 2 as well?

My guess, relying on the phrase "strictly within" in the resolution, is that only type 1 content is intended. Please confirm or deny that.

Omitting type 2 content would allow non-EC editors to edit the non-PIA parts of those articles, while still allowing discretionary EC-protection in response to disruption. Zerotalk 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

My reading of it, which I put in my case summary in the Big Ol' LibraOffice Calc File of Arbitration Effluvia and on my userspace subpage, was that it only applied to primary content (read: articles specifically about the Arab-Israeli conflict). It doesn't make sense to summarily ECP a random page just because a couple of sentences of it touched upon a humanitarian aid project in Gaza its subject supported. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics 2

Original discussion
There is a rough consensus not to change the cutoff date of AP2 at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Interstellarity

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

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

I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Wikipedia 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)

Statement 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 talk 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)

To avoid risks during the current presidency, a sunset clause could be used in place of a rolling window:

1.2) a) Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. This designation is set to expire in 2030.

b) Post-2015 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. This designation is set to expire in 2040.

c) Post-2028 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

Note the first sunset is not set in 2029, but 2030. This is to allow a one year evaluation window, just in case. I expect Trump to remain contentious in 2030, but less so for Clinton or Obama. I expect Trump to be less contentious in 2040, but less so with his successors. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

Statement by LokiTheLiar

I support a change to a rolling cutoff, for two simple reasons:

First, contrary to what other editors have said, I believe it's easier to remember 25 years than an arbitrary date.

Second, many of the arguments for arbitrary static cutoffs assume the view that there was a "normal" American politics that fell apart in the 90s or early 00s and we are now in a time of "weird" American politics. While this view may seem intuitive, I don't think it's supported by sources (historical politics has sometimes been very polarized, contentious, dominated by authoritarians, essentially any description you can name), and I also think it's going to seem less and less reasonable as younger generations who don't have significant nostalgia for previous political eras make up a larger part of Wikipedia's editor base. Loki (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

First, I think that the start time should only be moved forward if there is evidence that the current start date does harm, such as that it is being used to weaponize Arbitration Enforcement. I see no such evidence, and have confidence that the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement will recognize any misuse of this contentious topic designation.

Second, ArbCom first imposed sanctions on editing in the Tea Party movement case in 2013, which has been subsumed into the expanded American politics topic. Any proposal to move the start date forward beyond 2013 would be seriously misguided. I think that any proposal to move the start date forward beyond 2008, the election of Barack Obama and associated lies about his citizenship, would be seriously misguided.

Third, I respectfully disagree with LokiTheLiar. American politics really has become toxic at some point in the past half-century. I disagreed with Ronald Reagan, but politics wasn't toxic at the time. I concur with many commentators that American politics really is more polarized than it has been at any time since the period between 1848 and 1870. A rolling cutoff would be a serious mistake.

Fourth, reviewing the start date is a reasonable idea, and reviewing the start date and leaving it unchanged is a reasonable conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
[1][2] Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    In the interest of wrapping this up, I'm a decline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... Cabayi (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 Republican Revolution, which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers Bush v. Gore and the War on Terror, while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the Tea Party movement. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.
    History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • For some reason, I get the sense that this year will be a tumultuous one for American Politics articles, so I'm hesitant to restrict AE's scope just as things heat up. The date will always be a bit arbitrary, but I don't think enough has changed in just two years to justify leaping the date forward again. I agree that it shouldn't be beyond 2000, because after 2000 is 9/11. Thus the question is: are the Clinton years that contentious still? I think yes. The Clintons continue to be the focus of a lot of conspiracy theories and also Trumpian attention, and they're both still alive and trying to influence politics. As pointed out, the Clinton years also involve 9/11 precursor events. So all things considered, let's keep things as they are for now. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Arbitration enforcement

Original discussion
The consensus is that Arbitrators have no special standing when commenting at AE in an administrative capacity. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Barkeep49 at 20:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Arbitration_enforcement

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Barkeep49

I'm hoping this committee can clarify how I (and other uninvolved administrators) should consider the involvement and participation of sitting arbitrators at AE. It's always been a bit of an unwritten norm (though sometimes it has been expressed privately) that arbs not participate at AE. As I did AE work this morning I saw that two sitting arbs, Theleekycauldron and Liz (who is inactive on committee business), have been regularly participating. Can the committee clarify when determining the consensus (or rough consensus) or something at AE, if arb participation should be seen as something AE admins should take their lead from (as this is delegated arbcom authority)/weight more heavily), if arb participation should be seen as advisory (and thus consider for discussion but not when weighting), or of arb participation should be treated the same as any other uninvolved administrator (and thus I'd presume they would recuse from anything referred to/appealed from AE). This is a general comment which is why I did not list the two arbs as parties (I'd expect they can answer as arbs on this) but I will notify them on their talk pages following posting. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

It is unusual for sitting arbs to work AE, but I don't think we need a rule or anything about it. I would echo what others have said about considering possible future recuals though. I held my fire at numerous ANI threads while on the committee if the issue looked serious enough to become a case later.

If anyone pulls the "but an arb said this" routine, they can just be told all admins are just admins at AE. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I echo the "Arbs at AE are just admins" take mentioned by pretty much everyone, but one thing that hasn't been brought up is that because arbs participating on a request that later ends up at the Committee's door will often need to recuse there is a danger that if too many have commented there will be insufficient unrecused arbs to fairly and expediently arbitrate. This is unlikely, and I believe there is a rule in place that provides a way forwards if there are too few uninvolved arbitrators (although I can't immediately find it in the policy or procedures), but it is something to avoid if possible. To this end, I'd recommend that before participating at AE, ANI or a similar venue that arbs check how many of their colleagues have already opined and consider giving it a pass if that's more than about say a quarter of the active committee (note that some who haven't commented may need to recuse for other reasons). This doesn't need to be a rule, just an informal thing to bear in mind. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz

I think even admins or editors who were being charitable to me would call my participation "minor". I occasionally offer my thoughts and opinions on a situation, at the most. Over the 10+ years I've been an admin, I don't think I've taken action or closed a complaint at AE. Of course, I'll comply with whatever is the consensus here (and recuse myself as an arbitrator) but I don't think I've really made substantial contributions to the AE forum. I rarely get involved in disputes on this noticeboard before or after my election. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Arbitration enforcement: Clerk notes

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

Arbitration enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As far as I am aware, there is no prohibition on participation on AE threads, but the conventional wisdom is that to participate in an AE thread (or similarly, AN or DRN) could lead to a later recusal in a case and is thus best avoided. I personally would treat Arbitrator participation in AE the same as any other uninvolved admin. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • When I first joined the Committee, I had a notion that Arbs were supposed to participate at AE. I was quickly disabused of that notion though, and now, as a rule, I don't participate in AE threads unless absolutely necessary. I suggest other Arbs do the same, but I understand participation is occasionally necessary. If there is a policy question at an AE thread, that issue should be brought to ARCA to ensure that the full Committee has a chance to weigh in. An Arb who participates in an AE thread, unless such participation is de minimis, should recuse should that thread reach ArbCom. An Arb who acts at AE gets no special weight, in line with the egalitarian spirit of our project. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Leeky, I think one thing I would caution you about is the unintentional effect participating as an Arb can have. I know I just said that an Arbs voice is worth no more than any others, in line with our egalitarian spirit--which is crucial for closers to remember. But practically, one can have outsized influence as an Arb, especially in Arb related spaces. It's a bit like when you're in the break room with your coworkers, shooting the breeze, when your boss walks in. Technically, you're all off the clock and she's in there as just another person taking a break. But you're gonna watch what you say, and maybe her presence will subtly shift the conversation. Bottom line: power dynamics can be weird, which is another reason I try to avoid AE. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for inviting the clarification, Barkeep :) I'm not sure I have much more to add on top of what Primefac and Eek have already said; when I participate at AE, it's in a non-arb capacity. I don't want to double-dip, so I'll of course recuse as an arb where I have to if something does end up before the Committee that I have a significant history with. More broadly: being an arb as one way I serve the community, but I in no way see it as superseding my role as a part of the community, especially onwiki. So, I plan to continue participating in community processes as an editor and an admin to the extent I feel I can do good work in a healthy way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 ("...arb participation should be treated the same as any other uninvolved administrator (and thus I'd presume they would recuse from anything referred to/appealed from AE)") is my interpretation of how best to describe sitting Arbitrator involvement at AE. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • An administrator participating in a section labeled This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators is acting as an individual uninvolved administrator, not more and not less. Whether that causes a need for recusal in a specific case is to be determined in that specific case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Arbitrators do not cease to be admins. Arbitrators & admins do not cease to be editors. So long as the rules of WP:COI, WP:INVOLVED & recusal are respected there is nothing to prevent acting in any of the roles a user holds. Just as there is nothing to prevent a cross wiki office holder, such as a UCoC member, asking procedural questions which apply only on enwiki. Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Arbs can still work AE as admins if they wish, but it can certainly require recusal in the future. The power dynamic issue that Eek raised above is also a legitimate concern. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Eek sums up my thoughts well, power dynamics and risks of recusal are good reasons to stay away, but they're just recommendations, not a requirement. WormTT(talk) 12:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • They should be treated as an uninvolved administrator for the purpose of determining consensus. I agree that there's no outright prohibition on an arb participating at AE as an uninvolved administrator, but there are very good reasons why it's recommended for arbs to avoid doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Original discussion
While specifics may have to be determined case by case, the general consensus among arbitrators is that, while non-punitive reverts and deletions aren't made impossible by someone now being extended-confirmed, there is probably no need to do so if someone managed to participate in this area without attracting attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Swatjester at 20:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Swatjester

What is the process, if anything, for dealing with editors who ignore the 30/500 ECR requirement for editing within the PIA topic space and are not detected until after they have achieved extended confirmed status? I recently came across an editor with ~3 months of editing time and 900 edits, nearly all of which was within the confines of the ARBPIA space or closely adjacent. Somehow, this editor was never caught -- they'd never even received a welcome message or talk page communication from any editor on any topic, let alone a CTOP notification, so its entirely possible they were unaware. However, this implies that as a now-EC editor, they're still unaware, which is not a great situation for someone actively editing within the space. It's also entirely possible that they *were* aware and were simply ignoring the provisions. I'm looking for categorical guidance here about the intended process, rather than feedback about handling a specific editor -- I have seen guidance about how to handle scenarios where an editor is obviously gaming the system, but how should these editors be handled when they essentially ignored and walked past the ECR provisions entirely? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue for asking.

  • Thanks to the committee for the thoughtful responses. What I'm taking from this is the following: No explicit process exists, seems like there's some support for discretion to revert problematic edits from that time period if they exist but avoid being punitive (so basically, operations as they're normally supposed to be); and also just saying "that sounds like a lot of work and a pain in the ass, how about no harm no foul if they're not causing problems" is a viable approach as well; and editors that didn't get a heads up should at least get one so they're not wading blindly into a minefield. That all tracks. Happy to leave this open for further discussion if anyone else cares or has input but I've got the clarification I was looking for if the clerks want to close. Thanks again. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I find the responses here a bit odd. That might be because my view is that people who evade EC restrictions in PIA, despite having been informed, should be mercilessly crushed or at least something should happen. Sanctions should be punitive for people who think rules don't apply to them, a view that is quite common in PIA. The responses here may be based on some questionable assumptions. It's not difficult to evade scrutiny/not be noticed, and touch topic area related material, especially if you avoid discussions. An edit not being reverted doesn't tell you anything about the edit or the editor. It's just an absence of information/action. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

To answer the question "...where has despite having been informed come from?", from an apparent basic reading comprehension failure, another thing that should be mercilessly crushed, or at least mocked at the very least. Zero cost for foolishness is another one of Wikipedia systemic issues. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My initial reaction is that if someone manages to avoid scrutiny in the area while not being EC until after they reach EC, then good for them. Sanctions should not be punitive, so retroactively applying ECP restrictions such as rolling back changes seems problematic to me. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Echoing Primefac – if you don't come across as the kind of person who needs to be reigned in, no harm, no foul. If there's continuing NPOV violations, that's something to focus on, but otherwise, I wouldn't see a need to enforce ECR at that point. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) If one wishes, they could enforce the extended-confirmed restriction on pre-EC edits – for example, the restriction allows administrators to delete articles created in violation of it, but also gives them discretion on whether to do so. Swatjester, I don't want to hamstring you on what you choose as an enforcing administrator. As for what to do moving forward, making them aware of the contentious nature of the topic seems like a good idea to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • [first naive thought] Someone got away with editing in ARBPIA without being challenged or investigated by editors on either side of the ideological divide for three months? Either ARBPIA is becoming less fraught or we need more editors like that.
    I'm in line with Primefac's viewpoint. Winding back 500 3-month-old edits (which are presumable not otherwise objectionable) seems like officious make-work. Sdrqaz's suggestion of a CT awareness message would be a helpful & courteous move. Cabayi (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Concur with others. No need to revert the edits if they're fine, and no need to retroactively sanction them if they're editing productively, but the restriction can be enforced against those edits if necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Sean.hoyland, this is dealing specifically with a hypothetical editor who never even received a welcome message or talk page communication from any editor on any topic, let alone a CTOP notification. That's (probably) not someone who evaded EC restrictions in PIA, despite having been informed, or someone who thinks rules don't apply to them. No one reads any talk page notices or edit notices, which is why we don't count those for awareness. Who knows if any of the pages even has such notices? I know the current ruling is that CTOP alerts cannot be delivered in an automated fashion, but perhaps it would make some sense to allow that, at least in this topic area.
    I think most people are aware that I held a pretty hard line on ECR, but I always made the editor aware and gave a warning. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of sanctioning or pulling privs because, assuming a little good faith, someone broke unintuitive rules they didn't know about. I know there's an enormous amount of socking in the topic, but at least some editors have to be new, right?
    As for how to handle it from an admin perspective, the first thing I would do is review their edits for obvious npov issues or other problems. They can be given a logged warning along with the CTOP alert, and if there are significant issues with their editing the can be blocked as a normal admin action, or brought to ANI. If the edits aren't bad then we're back to not sanctioning for something they were unaware of. Alert them and shrug, confident in the fact that there's really no good way to police this type of rule with perfect effectiveness. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • The way everything is currently worded, explicit awareness is required to sanction (but not warn) an editor. With this hypothetical editor and the wording of Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Enforcement of restrictions in mind, while such edits may be reverted, it is not strictly required and so the specifics of a given circumstance should determine whether those edits should be reverted on a case-by-case basis. Since this hypothetical editor was never notified, then they can be warned against future disruption if the edits were otherwise disruptive (per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Warnings) but should not be sanctioned for any pre-awareness edits (per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Enforcement of restrictions). - Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_131&oldid=1278583328"