Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2	Motion	(orig. case)	23 December 2020
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale	none	none	1 January 2021
Clarification request: Eastern Europe	none	(orig. case)	3 January 2021
Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000	none	none	9 January 2021

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section 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).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

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

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 19:46, 23 December 2020 (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. Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

• Change the sanctions to affect American politics to a later date. I recommend 1944, but I am open to other interpretations.

Statement by Interstellarity

It's been over five years since the ammendment to set sanctions on post-1932 American politics went in place. When we look at historical events from a distant future, we can get a better idea on how the event affected history. I am not requesting to repeal these sanctions, I am requesting that the sanction be lowered to something like 1944. It is easier to write an article on a president such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln then someone like Donald Trump or Joe Biden because the news can be too biased to get the big picture. I imagine the news was also biased back then, but we have modern historical evaluations on the event that help us to write better articles. That's how I feel about this in a nutshell. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk)

1932 really is still the beginning of contemporary US politics. It is when FDR was first elected, and FDR's policy approaches are still a political battleground in the present day. William Leuchtenburg's book In the Shadow of FDR traces FDR's influence through all the subsequent US presidents up to Obama (in the 2009 edition). I read it for a school requirement and found it enlightening. If there is good cause to restrict someone from editing about post-FDR US politics, they probably shouldn't be editing about the FDR era either. The stuff that happened then is still contentious in today's partisan battlegrounds. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Geogene

I think any cutoff year you choose will potentially be debatable. But is the current 1932 cutoff already causing problems that need to be addressed? If so, this request would be more compelling with evidence and examples of those problems. Geogene (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I don't think I've ever processed an AP2 dispute or sanction where the locus of dispute was something that happened between 1932 and 1944 (indeed the vast majority are centred on current issues). That's not to say they don't exist, but I think I'd like to see the diffs before changing the cutoff date. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller

Echoing Black Kite to an extent, I'm eager to see what are the loci of dispute now, but I'll go further. This is incredibly broad brush and doesn't feel like a good measure at all. Having briefly looked into the morass of the case that prompted it, I'm wondering if Arbcom at the time were both rather exasperated and reluctant to issue a huge swathe of personal sanctions. Anyway, that's speculation. More to the point, I feel this measure is bad for Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter (American politics 2)

All sanctions (theoretically) must be recorded in the log at WP:ACDSLOG. For 2020, I see there only two articles which relate to something else than post-1990 politics: Frank Rizzo which I have protected myself (and this is the only time I remember involving AP2 for not contemporary politics, and I am not shy in imposing AE sanctions), and Three Red Banners which is probably there in error (I do not see how it is related to AP2). In any case, both articles are post-1950.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

I support changing this, to some date not after 1992. From a quick glance, with the one exception Ymblanter noted, the oldest topic I found discussed in the sanctions log was Vince Foster. The vast majority of American Politics issues relate to current events, but the Clintons are still regularly the subject of contentious discussion. There was a preference for a wide buffer region in the original imposition of AP2 to avoid doubt in marginal cases; I think either 1960 or 1980 would be reasonable choices. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to say that Vince Foster would be covered under post-2010 American Politics; we don't have "broadly construed" here and he died in 1993. Sure, Trump talked about him, but having the sanctions be "everything Trump talks about" seems like the wrong way to include topics in the sanctions; in that case rather than a year we might as well just say "current". power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I will comment on any RFC, but the difference between 1980/1988/1992 doesn't seem important enough to justify one. OK, if several ARBCOM members feel 1932/1944 or even 1960 is the right year, do an RFC, but if the exact post-Nixon and pre-Clinton year is the issue, I encourage ARBCOM to hash it out amongst yourselves. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The difference between starting in 1932 and starting in 1944 is that the period from 1932 to 1944 featured FDR and the New Deal, isolationism regarding involvement in World War II, the attempt at Supreme Court packing, the American Nazi movement and the anti-Nazi boycotts -- all of which have tendrils which connect them to current American politics. Is MAGA isolationism re-born? Will the Democrats attempt to counter Trump's Supreme Court nominations by packing the court? Is the alt-right the re-birth of an American fascist movement? What do we do about the newly powerful populist movement in Europe? How involved should the US government be in controlling the effects of capitalism? These questions are all intimately connected to what happened from 1932 to 1944, which argues against changing the starting point. 1932 does not seem to me to be an arbitrary choice, but the actual beginning of modern American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Whereas it's arguable that 1944 (1945, really) is the start of the post-war international structure (the UN, NATO, World Bank, IMF etc.), so it would make sense for a discretionary sanctions regime which was concerned with modern international geo-politics. It doesn't really make all the much sense as a starting point for American politics, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn's data is interesting. I would only suggest that if the start date is moved up, admins take note of disputes and disruption which would have been covered if the date hadn't been adjusted, if any. I still don't see any real harm in leaving the start date where it is, though, under the rubric "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Per "range of choices", leaving it at 1932 should not be forgotten. I agree that an RfC should be held before an ArbCom motion, as a content matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

I'm concerned by people stating that Interstellarity should be providing cases of 1932-1944 that this clarification would resolve. Quite the opposite - everyone else should be being required to provide cases that demonstrate that that set of years should also be covered by DS. It's supposed to cover the minimum possible to avoid issues. I actually think a good case could be made for moving it up to, say, the start of the Vietnam war, and if we're happy to have a discussion on that, that's great, but for the meantime, I'm a strong supporter. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Eggishorn

I think everyone is agreed that the cutoff of 1932 is arbitrary and that any year that the ArbCom of the time picked would necessarily be arbitrary. Any other date would also be arbitrary but need not be equally arbitrary; i.e., there may be less arbitrary dates available. It is clear from the AP2 Proposed Decision that the ArbCom of the time picked 1932 for no there reason than it was somewhere between the extremes of 1980 (too recent) and all of American history (too far back). If anything, this is a good demonstration of how the Goldilocks principle can guide rational people to suboptimal results. Neither the AP nor the AP2 cases involved anything that reached anywhere near as far back as 1932 and Ymblanter and power~enwiki have already demonstrated that the topics that AP2 sanctions have been invoked for are also recent. Beyond My Ken makes a cogent argument that there is ideological continuity of issues from the Roosevelt presidency era to issues of great controversy today but that is not a reason to keep the 1932 date. If we were to accept the continuity of ideologies argument, then the same issues that FDR faced were faced in recognizable form by his cousin Theodore and that these issues have ideological continuity all the way back to Jacksonian democracy and even to Jeffersonianism and Federalism. The committee implicitly rejected this approach since that would have turned the AP2 discretionary sanctions into American History discretionary sanctions. I think that any argument to keep the 1932 cutoff has to substantiate 1932-present as the narrowest possible range to prevent significant disruption. The record at hand does not present any evidence of this being the case. If anything, it shows that 1932 is far too broad and that this violates the principle that sanctions and restrictions should allow the greatest freedom of editing. WP:5P3 still has some purpose here, after all. The ArbCom of the time picked 1932 not through detailed inquiry of the best cutoff but through what seems like expediency and abundance of caution. The ArbCom of today has the benefit of a record that shows the 1932 date was overbroad and can pick a date that better matches the evidence shown. Looking through the sanctions log for this year and last, it is difficult to find anything even post-2000, never mind after the 1980 date the original ArbCom felt was too recent. Please consider moving the date forward significantly, to at least 1988 (the George H. W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis presidential election). This date would be a better fit for the evidence of disruption that is available and also match BMK's ideological continuity of issues argument while being closer to the idealized least restrictive option and therefore be less arbitrary than 1932. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of AP2 sanctions

At the implicit invitation of Barkeep49's request for better data and because I'm seeing dates picked based on what looks like speculation of what might or could happen, I thought it necessary to present what has happened under the current regime. Debates, however fierce, in the wider society that are not directly reflected in on-wiki disruption should not be the basis for sanctions. Therefore, the record of sanctions was searched for on-wiki disruption and correlated to the time period that the disruption was directly linked to.

Extended Content

Methodology The Arbitration enforcement log was examined for blocks, bans, and other editor sanctions placed by administrators from 2016 to 2020 under the authority of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the American Politics 2 arbitration case. Only restrictions placed on editors were counted, not those on articles. Each sanction as a separate action is counted separately. If an editor was given an edit restriction or topic ban, then violated that and was blocked, then returned and violated it again and was banned, those three separate events are are counted three times. If an editor was blocked or topic banned for violating AP2 restrictions based on multiple edits reported to WP:AE (including, in one notable case, 71 edits) then that one event is counted once. Community bans are not counted, even if they were related to American politics articles, because those actions are taken under the community's authority and not the committee's. ArbCom bans were included if explicitly invoked under the American Politics 2 case or subsequent motions. Warnings are not counted as sanctions, even if the DS was invoked as a basis for the warning, because warnings do not have the effect of restricting edits through the wiki software. Probations or other irregular and custom sanctions are treated as warnings and so also not counted for the same reason. Topic bans lifted upon appeal are not counted as sanctions. Topic bans that resulted in a block but which were lifted on appeal were counted as a sanction if the block took place before the ban was lifted. There were a small number of users blocked, unblocked, and reblocked under these sanctions. If the individual blocks were triggered by different edits or there were "new" edits that were significant evidence for further sanctions, then those were considered separate events. Rejected appeals are not counted as separate sanctions. The time periods are divided by Presidential administration to break the 88 year time period covered by these discretionary sanctions into comprehensible time periods. The time period a sanction was assigned to is based on the edit or edits triggering sanctions. This results the an apparent anomaly that edits related to, e.g., Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign are counted under the "Obama" row and not the "Trump" row. This is inevitable given that each election cycle lasts at least 2 years and there are multiple contestants. Unless clearly otherwise indicated, edits concerning events that took place during the short January lame duck period were counted as sanctions under the following administration for clarity and because politics during this time period are almost entirely concerned with the incoming presidency and not the outgoing one. FDR's presidency was divided into pre-war and war years due to its length and the amendment request above. Edits triggering sanctions that were to articles not about events (e.g., biographical articles, places, etc.) were treated as follows: If there was a source associated with the edit (either adding or removing) then the date of that source was used to categorize the edit. If the edit was not linked to a source or the source did not have a date then any identifiable event that the edit might have been connected to (e.g., the arrest of a person) was used to categorize the edit. If there was no dated source or identifiable event, then the date of the edit was used to categorize the edit on the basis that edits on political topics are more likely to be triggered by contemporary media coverage than historical coverage. The data was compiled in a Google Sheets document available here. Results The editing restrictions, blocks, and bans placed under AP2 restrictions since 2016 greatly favor the 2016-present time period and there is almost no record of AP2 sanctions for events prior to 1993. AP2 sanctions by year and presidency Presidential Administration 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total FDR pre-war 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDR war years 0 0 0 0 0 0 Truman 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eisenhower 0 0 1 0 0 1 Kennedy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnson 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nixon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ford 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carter 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reagan 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bush Sr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clinton 0 2 0 1 2 5 Bush Jr. 0 0 0 0 2 2 Obama 42 13 4 0 4 63 Trump 0 40 46 43 48 177 Total 42 55 51 44 56 248

Discussion

Of the total 248 discretionary sanctions placed in the 4 years since they were authorized under the current ArbCom remedies , 240 or 96.7% were for edits concerning events after 2016. The almost complete lack of sanctions for events in the time period from 1932 to 1988 shows that the current remedies are not currently narrowly-tailored to the actual disruption experienced on this site. Speculation that sanctions need to encompass the period before 1988 are not supported by the evidence of disruption reported. Although the methodology is believed sound, discrepancies would not change that the evidence is very clear. Even if there were massive errors in time period categorization, the evidence of disruption is clustered is so tightly to time periods after 2009 that there can be no rational argument that sanctions have been invoked to curtail actual disruption for fully 86% of the time period currently covered by the DS regime. Although page protections and similar page-level invocations of the authority granted under AP2 was not explicitly tallied, cursory investigation did not disclose results which differed significantly from the results of the editor-level sanctions and so has not been worth the time to compile. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

I was one of the drafting arbs for this case and can answer what was going through our heads at the time. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

In short, I concur with Nosebagbear on burden, and with so many others here in having concerns about how sweeping these DS have been. In detail, I think this should be narrowed to 1960 onward (so it starts with JFK's presidential election campaign – there's always going to be fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense about JFK), or to an even later date, maybe starting with 1988 (George H. W. Bush's campaign), but start no later than 1992 (Bill Clinton; the Clintons are still the subject of a lot of fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense themselves).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

I wouldn't comment, but some of the arb comments below seem like speculation to me. Rather than guess what years are troublesome, why not look at WP:AELOG? There's years of knowledge of how DS is actually used (minus the intimidation of templates) in that log - practically everything one needs not just for larger DS reform, but also to make evidence-based determinations in small requests like this.

At a skim, I see no page restrictions based inherently on 20th century politics. Too lazy to check the editor sanctions but I'm guessing same applies there. 1980s or even up to the Clinton era makes sense to me. It can always be changed back if this turns out to have been too restrictive. Guerillero was there a particular reason for 1932? The PD doesn't give much insight. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a content decision, and if it were then the whole thing seems to fall outside AC’s remit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

I am not seeing any problem with 1932. If there is no disruption between 1932 and, say, 1960, then there will be no enforcement. So why take an arrow out of Admins' quiver for 1932-1960 in case it's ever needed? Bigger picture I am not convinced the current setup is worth the trouble in American Politics. Arbcom principles are basically WP policy that Admins can enforce regardless of DS. The page restrictions in AP add little or nothing. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Katie, on 1933ff articles with no problem, I don't see that there are page restrictions or extra notices. For example, [1] SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

To get to this noticeboard and create this much discussion; seems to me that a serious problem with the current arbitrary date being any more problematic than a new arbitrary date need be detailed. And, with all due respect to DGG, I won’t believe that Jan. 20 will mark a milestone in ending the current political millstones until that occurs. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

I'd support 1992 per Egg's data. "Anybody can edit"/"not a bureaucracy" should be the default position. Any restrictions on that should be only as broad as necessary. The data shows that before 1992 is not necessary, as there has only been one case prior to 1992, out of 248 total. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

It would be better for the committee to decide this here and now by motion than to take up the editor time required for an RFC. If the range of options are 1960, 1980, or 1992, I submit that it won't make a big difference which date the committee picks. If the community disagrees with the committee's decision, someone can start an RFC to overturn it. But if the committee picks a new date and everyone is fine with it, it'll save a bunch of editors a bunch of time. Setting the scope of DS is a core function that editors elect arbs to perform, so I don't think it's a stretch to say the community would trust Arbcom to change the AP2 start date without requiring an RFC. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum

I think pushing it back to 1960 makes the most sense. Keeping it at 1960 rather than 1980 ensures that Vietnam and Watergate would remain under the scope, among other topics. 1980 would be the furthest I would go, because anything later would omit the Reagan years, which have always been a point of controversy. -- Calidum 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

We should be cautious about changing the date too much. It's important to consider that, just because recent editing history may show a narrower, more recent, focus to disputes, that doesn't mean that users won't find reasons to dispute about earlier history as events unfold in the near future. There is, in particular, the likelihood of disputes over whether or not Trump represents a short-term phenomenon, or whether he is the culmination of decades of political trends. Does it go back to Nixon's southern strategy? To the Red Scare? To Jim Crow? En-Wiki faces a particular challenge in that there is a significant political movement based upon deliberate falsification of reality. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing that Arbs are voting on the motions using language along the lines of using one year is OK in terms of particular political events or figures, but another year is not. Those are absolutely judgments about content, and not about the reported conduct of users, and is the wrong way to go about it. If that's the way the Committee is leaning, then you need to leave it to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

While I definitely think the date could be changed, I'd be cautious about relying exclusively on data about existing disruption or sanctions; one thing to worry about is that if the cut-off is too recent, users topic-banned or restricted in the AP2 area might just shift to disrupting articles somewhat earlier in the timeline. Also, having the restrictions be "intuitive" is absolutely valuable to both editors and administrators - they should be able to guess at a glance whether something falls under it. Based on this I strenuously oppose 1988, which is utterly arbitrary and has no special meaning or relevance to the topic area - if we're going to change the scope, 1980 is a much more significant date and will be far more intuitive. The restriction shouldn't be drastically broader than necessary, sure; but it should also be logical and shouldn't leave things outside its scope that are plainly connected in a single topic area. --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

ArbCom, grab the bull by the horns, and eliminate DS/AE altogether. It doesn't work - it opens the door to WP:POV creep, and there's really nothing that happens in a controversial topic area that an admin cannot handle normally to stop disruption. All DS/AE does is make it more difficult to reverse a bad judgment call - not saying all are bad judgment calls but I do believe POV creep is an issue. Let the admins do their job normally - if one of them misjudges, another admin will let them know and a compromise can be worked out less any wheel warring. Unilateral actions based on an admins sole discretion has created animosity, confusion, has cost us good editors, solves nothing, and wastes our time as we're seeing here now. That's my inflated nickel's worth, and yes, I'm biased because of what has happened to me. Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 9 January 2021 (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

• just as a suggestion, perhaps it would be better to discuss this after Jan. 20? DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  With the holidays and new year and new Arbs incoming, I don' think we'll have reviewed this much sooner anyway. Technically, January 20th is not that relevant for articles about events 80 years ago but since this is a pretty active and sensitive area, I would recommend scheduling plenty of time for community comments anyway. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Any cut-off date of this kind is going to be at least a little bit arbitrary. I'd be interested in knowing whether the current 1932 date is causing any practical issues, e.g., are there people being sanctioned for disputed edits or edits being unnecessarily deterred covering the period from 1932 to, say, 1960? Off the top of my head I'd say the major flare-ups have concerned the politics and politicians of the past 20 years or so, but I'd welcome input from the AE admins and the editors active in the area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Interstellarity, what is currently covered in that 1932–1944 time period that you think ought not to be covered by DS? I can see the potential argument for adjusting the time frame of the DS topic area, but I don't know if changing it that minimally is really worth the time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Looking at the examples given here of older topics covered under this DS area: Frank Rizzo is covered due to a statue of him being torn down in 2020, Three Red Banners is covered due to a conspiracy theory involving the Biden/Harris logo, and Vince Foster is covered due to ongoing conspiracy theories involving his death. I think it's fair to say that all three of these articles would still be covered regardless of the cut-off date for discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and instead we should be looking at trying to delineate politics from history. Perhaps the line separating the two could be drawn much closer to the present than is being proposed here. – bradv🍁 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• I've always thought that setting a date from which DS would apply was more of a content decision that ArbCom normally makes. Further, the reasoning offered here by some editors (e.g. Beyond My Ken, SMcCandlish) about why it should be certain dates again reads to me more like a content decision making than behavioral determination. The reason why ArbCom does this is pretty obvious - ArbCom owns DS and DS is normally created in the middle of a case, so of course it needs to make a decision around the parameters. However, in this case ArbCom isn’t under the time pressure of a case. Therefore, I would be inclined to want to see a normal content resolution method, in this case an advisory RfC, to justify voting to change the years of DS or else more behavioral analysis (such as what is offered by Eggishorn) in order to support a change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  Eek: I think there's a good argument to be made that the onus on us is to limit the scope of extraordinary administrative powers (through DS) to the minimum necessary range and thus a good reason for the 1980 date suggested a couple times above (and also what Guerillero indicated to me was their original proposal). What, beyond what has been presented here by Interstallar and some others, would be a reason for you to re-evaluate the date? My answer is above but I'm curious what yours is because I am not clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  I want to publicly acknoweldge what Eggishorn has done here. The data he has collected is impressive on its own merits and very useful for me in my decision making process. Thank you to him. I remain open to an advisory RfC, as seems to have been supported by Worm, but I'm also open to just deciding it here if there is consensus among editors (and to be clear I'd want more comments made to be clear that's the case) and arbs generated by the data we now have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be OK with 1992 given the data in front of us. I'll note that I went through the article restrictions and found a couple that would be outside the time we're talking about (Internment and Frank Rizzo) from the last 3 years but this on the whole does continue to support that disruption is from the last 30 years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• A few thoughts: I can see myself supporting a much more recent cutoff than 1932 – plausibly I could end up supporting something in the neighborhood of the 1980s. I don't know if it's really worth it to move it up to something like 1944; is there much actual benefit? I could also support an advisory RfC like Barkeep49 proposes, but I'm not sure I agree it's a "content decision". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would personally support a date such as 1945 (the end of WWII and the beginning of the current world order) or 1955 (the start of the Vietnam war). If the community would like it, absolutely, and an advisory RfC as Barkeep suggests would be a great idea. But I wonder if it is even necessary to revisit the date at this time. It was arbitrary to begin with, and anything we would come up with would also be somewhat arbitrary. I am not seeing a compelling reason that the 1932 cutoff is causing problems, and changing it will result in a lot of bureaucratic overhead. If the adjustment would be minor and have limited effects, I think our energy best be saved for a broader look at DS later this year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  BK: I can buy that the onus is on us to limit extraordinary powers, like DS, and am open to seeing the date move up. But I disagree with 1980 (Reagan's election), I think that remains too recent, and excludes much that remains a sorespot in the American political memory. I see that power~enwiki and SMcCandlish both mention 1960 (JFK's election), which I would accept more readily than 1980. I think the date should certainly not be sooner than 1980, as the Reagan years remain fiercely debated and form the foundation of the current political divide. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  I greatly congratulate Eggishorn's analysis, thank you for the solid data, that has changed my mind. It seems apparent that we could choose 1992 or later and still be fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Eggishorn, for that data – most helpful. I understand the original 1932 date, FDR and New Deal and so on. It's certainly not causing any difficulty to anyone, since there are no sanctions being issued, but if we don't need it, we don't need it, and I don't like having unnecessary sanctions and their notice boxes and advisory requirements and so forth. I'd be willing to amend to 1980, but in no event should it be any sooner than 1992. Katie^talk 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm on board with moving to a more modern date, limiting the DS area. That said, I'm not keen on the committee chosing the date, as it does seem to be a content issue. Therefore, I particularly like Barkeeps' suggestion of an advisory RfC, to get community thoughts (also thank you to the community members who have commented so far). Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm open to changing the date and I agree that "when did modern politics start?" is a content question, so an advisory RFC seems like a good idea but in the end, this Committee has to decide which date to set (but hopefully wiser after community input). Regards SoWhy 07:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'll echo SoWhy in endorsing an advisory RfC to help us make the final decision. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Eggishorn makes a solid case for why we should move the date closer (and a potential starting point). The question of when is somewhat up for debate. On the one hand, I feel like any date we pick will be criticized (though I've seen some fairly compelling reasons for certain dates above). On the other hand, asking the community to decide would likely result in a hundred people all splitting their opinions between every year between 1932 and 2016 (i.e. at the moment I would not be in favour of some sort of advisory RfC).

TLDR: I'm willing to be convinced either direction, but at the moment I'm a "yes" for changing the date and a "no" for a community RfC on it. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've been meaning to comment here for days but got somewhat distracted by American Politics in real time. I do think we have a responsibility to keep sanctions as limited as is reasonable, and 1932-now is probably too wide a net for the scope of the issues. The idea of asking the community to decide for us does not sit well with me as I expect we would simply be extending the process and would still need to ultimately make the decision ourselves. The data is indeed compelling and interesting, but my gut says we'd be making a mistake by leaving the Reagan years out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion: American politics 2 (1988 cutoff)

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1988 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1988 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Support

1. As proposer (with thanks to L235 for drafting the language). Primefac (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
2. First choice given the data we've accumulated and Levivich's point about the value of editor time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
3. First choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
4. I don't think this is a critical change, because no one is being sanctioned, or deterred from editing for fear of being sanctioned, in the earlier years anyway. Per SoWhy below, I'd be fine with tweaking the date to 1980 or 1992 also. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not sure whether any of the dates mentioned are "correct" but if this aims to encompass "modern" politics, it should either include Reagan (1980) or clearly not (1992). I would count George H. W. Bush's presidency as an extension of Reagan's, considering he kept key policies and personnel in place, so 1988 seems a weird "cut" in this era to make. I still think a RFC would be helpful and I don't agree that not doing so will "save a bunch of editors a bunch of time". No one is forced to participate in such a RFC and if editors want to spend their time on such a discussion, it'll be their own choice. Regards SoWhy 19:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion

• I think I'd be on board if this were 1980. I'll keep considering. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm also personally fine with a 1980 cutoff. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If we're going to make the decision ourselves I think we need to do it based on data regarding existing disruption. 1988 already provides a buffer against the data suggesting problems begin with Clinton (1992). So I could not support 1980 if we're doing this here. I could support it as a more traditional content decision but for that I'd want the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion: American politics 2 (RfC)

In Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)"), the Arbitration Committee authorized standard discretionary sanctions for "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". The Committee is now considering amending the 1932 cutoff date, and invites the community to hold an advisory RfC regarding what change, if any, should be made to it.

Support

1. Second choice as I think my original idea that there are elements to content decisions so we should use content decision mechanisms still remains. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Second choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Per above. RegardsSoWhy 19:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Since this is fundamentally a content question, I expect this will remain my first choice. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I understand the concept, but a full-fledged, monthlong community RfC on this particular issue strikes me as overkill. If we feel we could use more input, a more direct approach would be to suspend the voting for a week, and announce on relevant noticeboards that we are considering this issue and would welcome community comments here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion

• This is an interesting idea, and I appreciate the thought behind it, but I have some concerns. One is that this is our responsibility. Whether we agree or not that the previous committee should have set a hard cutoff date, they did and therefore any change is ultimately our problem. More generally, I'm concerned that an RFC is just kicking the can down the road. If we don't get a very clear result we will just be back here in a month having the exact same discussion. I'm not at the point right now while I am outright opposing this idea but neither am I at the point where I would support it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Same here, per my comment in the main section above. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/934849515

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Special:Diff/934849515

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Special:Diff/934849515

• Relax restrictions.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

Please replace my 1 article a week AFC submission with a particular number I can create per week, day or month etc.

• Tier 1, all topics such as BUAs and Domesday places that aren't higher.
• Tier 2, former civil parishes.
• Tier 3, current (and recently abolished) civil parishes (as well as Welsh communities and unparished areas) (around 500-600).
• Tier 4, settlement parishes (including those that are as such Welsh communities and unparished areas) (~60).

Times

Tiers	Tier 3	Tier 4
6 months	~3 a day	~2 a week
12 months	~1.5 a day	~1 a week

I'm not specifying a specific number here since in my last appeal I was advised to "ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions" well I have attempted to do that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC and although there is a consensus against a bot creating them (unless perhaps someone knows how to correctly program it) there it does seem like as long as the articles have meaningful content people are fine. Please specify how many of such articles I should be allowed to create per week, month or day etc.

Can I also have the appeal time modified back to 6 months please, namely so that I can appeal on 1 July.

Can I also be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages as long as I keep in mind WP:RDELETE and WP:COSTLY.

I don't think the move restriction really needs to be removed given I can file as many WP:RMT or WP:RM as I want if we do approve the ability to create directly as proposed a move exception should be to move pages from draftspace or userspace etc to mainspace in accordance with such creation limits. If we don't relax the creations restrictions significantly (say only a few a week) then I'd suggest allowing me to move pages as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least 7 days since although I can still do this now people might question if I'm not allowed to move them myself and have to use RMT for move requests I close. However if one of the tier 3 options (or similar) happens then I'd say that this would be unnecessary since I should be encouraged to focus on creating good articles rather than potentially rushing it in order to do other things.

• @CaptainEek: the appeal isn't that complicated its just that I have given multiple options and I'm wandering what one will be successful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Newyorkbrad: Marston, Milwich and Pillerton Priors for (current) settlement parishes, Great and Little Wigborough for a non settlement CP and Stratton, Gloucestershire for a settlement that was a CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• @SoWhy: I agree that the RFC isn't positive but as noted there doesn't seem to be consensus that they shouldn't be created at all just that they need decent content. Those examples given above do surely contain decent content. Why shouldn't these articles exist? Why can't England have a full house of its lower level units like many other countries do (I can't find any other than Wales that don't) and why should I be penalized due to my incompetence a decade ago? Yes I accept that English parishes don't have as much significance as some similar units in other countries but they clearly do still meet our inclusion guidelines. What is the problem with one of the lower options like 1 parish a week? Are there any other suggestions like allowing me ask an admin to "approve" articles I draft? Please just something? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: Would a modification of (1) allow a set number or creation or all of them on the condition that there is consensus for it (this would be assessed by an arbitrator after the RFC) and/or (2) allowing me to ask (a specified set of users like AC members or admins) to "approve" an article meaning they can move it into mainspace or remove the redirect. The latter would give peace of mind to you about floods of poor quality articles and it would give peace of mind to in that I know I'm not going to get into trouble for such articles. The latter would work in the sense that would create an article in draftspace (or behind a redirect if a redirect has substantial history) and would go to the specified user(s) talk page and ask about the article and they could either (a) decline or (b) accept, if they accept they would either move the article to mainspace (or for a redirect remove the redirect) or say I can move it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: In response to Iridescent's point I'd also note that its the civil parishes themselves not the councils that should be created, I specifically stated at the RFC that parish councils should not be created also User:PamD said last year that parishes are significant and worthy of articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Worm That Turned: Seriously? Even with the articles I have produced above? Are you really saying that dispute every effort to get things right you're just dismissing them all not being good enough? Really??? I thought this was supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit? I can't see any basis in policy etc for why these articles shouldn't exist. Is there really any point in me trying to do the right thing if all you are going to do is dismiss every attempt to do so? Every attempt to try to adjust by behaviour seems to have been dismissed and I feel I'm just wasting my time. No one else that I'm aware of has had to obtain consensus for creating a few hundred articles manually and no other country that I'm aware of has been required to obtain consensus for creating its lowest level units so why have special pleading here? If these articles already existed or I wasn't banned I have no doubt that no one would rush to delete/merge them or ban me from creating them? We should base things on the merits of the situation not on bad fortune of long past actions. I even had autopatrolled back in 2010 when I didn't even understand how that worked now that I have more understanding and I create much better articles I believe I could use that though I'm not asking for it now. If you're really not happy with me creating these myself why isn't the suggestion that I can draft them and ask you (or another admin etc) to approve them? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: Thankyou for you're reply, I'm not convinced that if they existed they would be merged, a few probably would but most wouldn't also I still doubt that if I were creating the articles with meaningful content anyone would seriously question it. Regarding the last point this isn't really the case, I'm saying that I can ask you (or some other user(s)) to approve any number of articles. I'm not very keen on the AFC submission process and I though it was only temporary until the next appeal, as was noted 2 years ago AFC is backlogged and I think its babyish for an editor of my experience to use it, can I suggest if this appeal isn't successful that we just revoke the AFC submission access namely something like "The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined furthermore the ability to submit articles to AFC is also revoked". As far as I'm aware requests for loosening can only be made every 6 months (or year in my case) but a proposal to revoke could be made at anytime. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: If you feel explicit consensus is required to create them then maybe something like "conditional decline" would be more appropriate for if I do gain consensus so that we don't need to wait until next year if I do later succeed in getting consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: regarding the other things if we agree to a 1 week creation then what about the other things like creating redirects and DAB pages and reducing the appeal time back to 6 months? And what about page moves for closing move requests, as I said above while I can technically close requests if I have to file a RMT to complete it people may wander. Given that I may also need to move drafts to mainspace in accordance with the creation rule would something alone the limes of "Crouch, Swale may only move pages (1) in his userspace, (2) as part of his 1 article a week rule or (3) as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least a week". Note for 2 I use "as part of" since if I am given page mover in the future I may need to move a redirect out of the way to make way for a draft. The 1st, moves in my userspace is already in place, the 2nd would probably be needed as part of the creation process anyway but any views on the 3rd since I have filed so many move requests do you agree it would be helpful for me to be involved in closing some? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: By "revoke" I was meaning prohibit me to submit anymore (other than possibly any of my 1 a week that I haven't yet done). I couldn't really see myself editing happily in the future unless we find ways to deal with the missing parishes. I'm a bit unsure why WTT doesn't accept the proposal that I can ask someone like them to approve articles since that would mean the articles would only be approved at the agreement of someone like WTT so as long as the articles were acceptable who cares how many I create? But if the concern is frequency then allowing me to create 1 article a week directly would definitely be better. Obviously if we do find a way to create the parishes I'd still appeal my ban every 6 months or year but I'd be a lot happier and would be far less likely to push for anything. We probably need to ask how the articles can be created then? By bot? there seems to be a consensus against that with respect to technical (and also possibly quality) issues. By me directly? that's the main question here but it seems people aren't allowing that. By approval of an arbitrator (or similar) that's the latest proposal but WTT has rejected it. Another option I can think of is sorting the missing articles by county and users who are interested in general or in specific county could create some and county's Wikiprojects could be notified (or the county articles) to recruit editors, if we got 10 editors each would only need to create around 50 for this to be done and if we got 50 ediotrs each would only need to create around 10. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• @BDD: Note that the RFC is still open though the tag has been removed since it was started over a month ago (now 2 months, I hadn't noticed the tag had been removed!) so I'm not really sure what to do though I suppose I could continue discussing things there but it probably won't get any outside audience. As a side note my appeal wasn't a few hours early I was unblocked at 17:47 (even though it was enacted at 16:49 Special:Diff/817961869) 31.12.2017 and appealed a few hours late in July the next year because I was at an event and didn't want to cut that short for the sake of a few hours. My other appeals were at 17:48 at the end of December 2018, July 2019 and December 2019, in the last appeal I was told I had to wait until 1 January 2021. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Almost exactly a year ago I said (in part) This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place.[2] Everyone is one year older and there have been many changes in the world since then, but I am still not seeing any evidence that Crouch, Swale understands why they were placed under these restrictions and no evidence they understand why previous appeals were declined. The request to be allowed to appeal every six months speaks volumes to this last point imo. So I recommend that this appeal is declined. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2021 (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: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale: Arbitrator views and discussion

• This appeal does not appear to have a glimmer of recognizance about why the restriction was placed, and contains nothing that would incline me to grant it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Fuchs, and add that this appeal is so complex I think its enforcement and implementation would be a nightmare. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Having read through the RfC I don't see any consensus of the kind called for by the current restriction. I'm sympathetic to the frustration of having to operate under an edit restriction but the gulf between Crouch, Swale's desired kind of article and the community's receptivity to those kinds of articles seems to remain. As such this restriction still appears to be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: let's imagine that we agree to remove your AfC requirement (not saying we or even I will). Could you imagine yourself editing happily with your other restrictions for the indefinite future? By indefinite I don't mean 12 months. I mean 24, 48, 60, or more months. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale: I too am an editor in a niche topic area so I am generally of the "whatever floats your boat" disposition when it comes to how competent volunteers spend their time. Want to add categories to pages? Sure, go for it. Want to make sure dashes and emdashes are used correctly? Have fun. Want to sift through new articles as quality control? Hey me too. The problem here is that your enthusiasm for your particular niche area far outstrips the community's excitement for it.

  If you think of an excitement scale for new articles that goes from 10 (need to create this article right now) to -10 (need to delete this article right now) you're seemingly at a 10. The community's excitement level seems to be closer to a -1. If you were say at a 2 or a 3 about creating parish articles you could happily go along without anyone bothering you despite the mismatch; in fact that seems to be what the restrictions have done, throttle you back to the enthusiasm of someone who is at a 2 or 3. However, you're still a 10. For me the two options are either for you to find contentment with being at a 2 or a 3 or to find a new way to express your enthusiasm for this topic. I just don't see the community, in any near term time horizon, moving its tolerance level and so I, as an elected representative of the community, can't see myself supporting the kinds of changes you seem to be looking for. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've spent a little time re-acquainting myself with this situation and reviewing that RFC and I have to agree with what's already been said, the community doesn't seem to want this, and I find the request rather tone-deaf and not compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that the RfC consensus seems to be against creating rafts of "civil parish" articles, which as others have noted above, weighs strongly against this request. @Crouch, Swale: bearing this in mind, can you point us to the three best articles you've created in the past year that typify the work you would like to do if the restriction were relaxed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm awaiting more community input here, but at the moment I agree with David Fuchs. Discretionary sanctions aren't as complicated as the scheme proposed here. Katie^talk 13:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Agreeing with David Fuchs here, I see nothing in this appeal that should lead us to a different conclusion than last year. If anything, in the RFC linked to users seem to largely agree that such articles should not be created. Regards SoWhy 14:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: Whether "they clearly do still meet our inclusion guidelines" seems to be one of the points where people disagree with you. The RFC you started basically presupposes consensus in favor of such articles but in the last ARCA, it was pretty clear that "clearly" is not the right word to describe consensus wrt to these articles. As Iridescent for example wrote, "there's no indication that anyone other than you has ever thought that separate articles for parish councils is a sensible idea". So, before we can consider lifting any such restrictions, this content-related question needs to be addressed first and that is outside our purview. Imho, the correct way to address this would first be to establish consensus on all articles you wish to create (i.e. whether each subject is worthy of inclusion) and only if there is a consensus-approved list of articles that actually need to be created, we can discuss whether you should be the one creating them. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Crouch, Swale approached me on my talk page about this - I told him it was a bad idea. I'll re-iterate that. The community's views do not match Crouch, Swale's views on creation of these articles. Crouch, Swale has been topic banned due to his actions in this area, and given the distance between the community views and his views - I have no doubt any relaxation of the topic ban will lead to an increase in problematic behaviour. I firmly decline this request. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale, yes, seriously. We have relaxed your restrictions as far as I am comfortable doing so. Consistently, I have sought to make it clear that you that I would not be supporting you creating large numbers of articles on UK settlements. We have allowed you to create some at a significantly reduced rate, and I am glad you are using that sensibly - however it is still clear that the community does not agree that the large numbers of articles you want to create should exist. As to your arguments:

  1. "I thought this was supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit", I'm sure this point is rhetorical, but I will answer it anyway. Yes, anyone can edit, until they can't. In other words, this is an encyclopedia built by a social group - and if you cannot work with that social group, you can no longer edit. Which brings me to your next point.
  2. "I can't see any basis in policy etc for why these articles shouldn't exist" - One of out top level policies is WP:CONSENSUS. The RfC you started showed a consensus that they probably shouldn't exist and that you shouldn't be judging whether they should.
  3. "Is there really any point in me trying to do the right thing if all you are going to do is dismiss every attempt to do so? Every attempt to try to adjust by behaviour seems to have been dismissed and I feel I'm just wasting my time" I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hoped that allowing you free access to the majority of the encyclopedia as well as limited access to creating articles in the area you have a history of problematic behaviour would be sufficient. However, I go back to my point 2 years ago - "to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby"
  4. "If these articles already existed or I wasn't banned I have no doubt that no one would rush to delete/merge them or ban me from creating them?" There, we disagree. Articles would be deleted eventually, and if you were mass creating against consensus, you would be banned. Similarly, I am looking at your appeal on it's current merits, and what I see is "your view does not match the community view" and therefore your appeal to mass create articles against the consensus should be declined
  5. "If you're really not happy with me creating these myself why isn't the suggestion that I can draft them and ask you (or another admin etc) to approve them?" This is status quo (although not me, or an admin) at a throttled rate of ~50 articles per year, that you may create articles that can be reviewed and submitted.

  I hope this clarifies things for you Crouch, Swale, but I do not intend to go round in circles, when we have had very similar discussions in the past. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'd like to hear the views of the community and other arbs, but I could accept removing the AFC requirement, as long as the throttle of 1 per week remains. Worm^TT(talk) 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale you still seem to be missing the point - you have pre-supposed that the articles should be all created, which goes against existing consensus and are unwilling to listen to the many editors telling you that they should not be. No single editor should be forced to check your contributions, especially if you were mass creating articles against consensus. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am open to removing the AfC requirement without changing the throttle level. Crouch, Swale has demonstrated that he can make quality articles in this area. But that RfC is extremely recent, and should have made him think again before requesting a lifting of restrictions the moment he was allowed to do so again (it looks like he was even a few hours early). Here's my advice to you, Crouch, Swale: impress us. Continue to make quality articles within your restrictions. And take a step back. Understand why the restrictions are in place, why the recent RfC was met with skepticism. I'm not saying I'd automatically decline if you ask again as soon as you're able, but strongly consider not doing so. Let the merits of your editing convince us and the community that lifting the restrictions will be in the encyclopedia's best interests. I genuinely hope you're able to do so. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale, thank you for the clarification, but the RfC still being technically open just reinforces what I said. In terms of "a few hours early", I was just referring to the most recent appeal and the requirement to wait for 1 January 2021. I could've sworn I saw an earlier timestamp above, but it's possible I was looking at something else. Again, basic point still stands. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would decline both requests. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Eastern Europe

Initiated by EvergreenFir at 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Eastern Europe 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:

• EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by EvergreenFir

Does the scope of the discretionary sanctions promulgated by this amendment or original case include Turkey? I ask because I recently have noticed an increase in complaints around nationalist editing for and against Turkey, as well as disruptive editing around Turkey and Armenia. Examples include:

• Special:Permalink/998091874#Account dedicated to anti-Turkish agenda
• [3]
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC_Closure_Review_Request
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive421#User:Konli17_reported_by_User:Beshogur_(Result:_Blocked)

Eastern_Europe#Southeast_Europe says the part of Turkey is in Eastern Europe, but only a small portion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Further clarification: If Turkey is included, then would Uyghurs be included as well? This is another area full of disruption. The article describes the Uyghurs as a "Turkic ethnic group". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarification! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

The sanctions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 were put in place, per the 2013 Clarification request, to deal with cases of ethnic conflicts similarly related to the one of Armenia/Azerbaijan. This would likely include the conflict between Armenia and Turkey, but I can't imagine it would be so permissive to include just Turkey (and certainly not the Uyghurs). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter (Eastern Europe)

I am sure the EE discretionary sanctions do not include Turkey-Armenia relations. They are rooted in WP:EEML, and Turkey has never been an issue there. On the other hand, recently the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh intensified in real life, because Azerbaijan took an offensive against this Armenia-held area with the support of Turkey, and was able to regain control over a considerable part of it (with Armenians being evacuated). This caused escalation of Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes all over the internet, including Wikipedia. The reason that Turkey-Armenia issues escalated are in this conflict, and it would be reasonable to add them to the Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions. Furthermore, if we are talking about Turkey-Syria issues, these are neither Eastern Europe nor Armenia-Azerbaijan. They are currently covered by general sanctions, and I believe upgrading them to DS could be a good idea but it would require a full case and can not be done as clarification.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghurs live in China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, I do not see them being relevant for the EE DS however broadly we interpret them.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2021 (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.

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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

• Procedural comment: @Worm That Turned: One of the forgotten about tools in your toolbox is the review case. I think the last time the committee used it was R&I, but it is an option --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: I'm just stating options, not advocating for one course of action :P --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I don't believe the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions have ever included Turkey. However, note that there is a separate DS authorization for Armenia and Azerbaijan. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with NYB and think that if we're going to expand a DS to include Turkey, A&A2 would be a better candidate. If folks think its warranted, I would also be a fan of just passing a separate Turkey DS by motion, but I'd like feedback to know the extent of the problem so we have a good idea what the scope should be. I find including Uyghurs under either to be...a stretch. Sure there are a few Uyghurs in Turkey, but it is mostly a China issue. The "related ethnic conflict" wording of A&A2 is broad, but I think not broad enough to include Uyghurs. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• A&A2 did include Turkey for some editors, however I feel loathed to just stick in DS for the area, without giving it a review - A&A2 was in 2008 and hasn't been modified since 2013 - alternatively a fresh case might be an option. I agree with the above arbs that Eastern Europe would not be the best case to link to. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Guerillero shudder, do we want to open that box? Pandora seems to be holding it. Worm^TT(talk) 16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, Turkey is not included in the Eastern Europe case. I would really like to leave it at that... but it's hard to see how "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" won't ensnare a fair amount of Turkey. Still, the 2013 A&A amendment did not add "Turkey, broadly interpreted", much less "Turkic peoples, broadly interpreted". --BDD (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Agree that EE does not include Turkey. If there are problems that need review and which are outside the A&A scope, it would probably need a full case. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think WTT's statement reflect my thinking well on this matter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000

Initiated by Awilley at 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=999183166#Mandruss

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Mandruss and Objective3000 are cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions, even when they are right on the content, and even when this is done somewhat unwittingly.

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

• Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Objective3000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• El_C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [4]
• [5]

Information about amendment request

• Mandruss and Objective3000 are cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions, even when they are right on the content, and even when this is done somewhat unwittingly.

• Remove the warning to Objective3000 (leaving only a warning for Mandruss)

Statement by Awilley

This incident is so inconsequential that normally I would ignore it, but as one of the parties has found it unfair enough to retire [6] and the other has explicitly welcomed Committee oversight [7] [8] [9] here I am. Both editors are people I respect who were acting in good faith, so I hope this can be resolved quickly and without any hard feelings or extra drama.

At issue is this statement by Objective3000 at WP:AE addressing Mandruss and the editor who filed the AE. Mandruss had been taken to AE for reverting the same content twice in 24 hrs and declining (on user talk) to self-revert. After Objective's comment, Mandruss self-reverted and Objective3000 re-reverted. (For what it's worth Mandruss was reverting content that had been recently added to the Lead that didn't have consensus on the talk page. [10])

El_C saw this as tag-team editing to circumvent a sanction and logged a warning for Objective3000 to that effect over my objections. I think Objective did a Good Thing in trying to resolve the problem in the most efficient way possible, and doesn't deserve a logged warning for that. Also note that the edit restriction on the article does not prohibit Objective3000, who had not made any other edits to that article in the preceding week, from reverting a revert, so O3000 did not violate any sanction or policy. ~Awilley (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: With respect, I think you're on target with the basic principles of preventing disruption, but I think you got it backwards on whether Objective3000's edit was disruptive.

• Editor A added contentious ("attempted coup d'état") material to the Lead of a highly visible BLP. [11]
• Mandruss reverted it with a detailed edit summary. [12]
• Editor B re-added much of the same material without providing any justification in their edit summary. [13]
• Mandruss reverts again (violation) [14] then self-reverts (back to no violation) [15]
• Objective3000 reverts, restoring the status quo ante. (no violation) [16]

So yeah, that's technically tag-teaming, but is it disruptive? What's the alternative? Leave the contested material in the article until a consensus eventually forms to remove it? That's backwards. ~Awilley (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

As the Eagles sang: “You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave" I was disappointed to see @CaptainEek: and @Power~enwiki: say I threw a fit and made a threat of retirement. I made no threat and had no fit. I simply put a retired template on my UTP and archived the rest so folks would know not to post. I made no suggestion of retirement in advance and no statement of my reasons. That is, no parting shot. I also decided not to file an appeal. Can’t one even quietly retire without nasty comments? I am also disappointed that @Levivich: would point to a year-old AE discussion claiming it was prior evidence of me tag-teaming. In fact, SashiRolls made a fallacious claim that five editors were tag-teaming and the result was an indef AP2 TBan for SashiRolls. Attacks against DS editors are extremely common, as can be seen by perusing the drama boards.

Now, as to the situation. DS articles absolutely must have additional restrictions. They are inundated with five-minute old, undigested news (as was the case here), fringe theories, vandalism, and white supremacists, et. al. from the Reddit site de jour spreading hate. But, these restrictions create a very difficult editing environment. Witness the resulting AP2 editor attrition from sanctions here. When six new editors appear from an off-Wiki site pushing the same POV (real tag-teaming), editors run up against 1RR very quickly. It is commonplace for an editor to request another editor make a revert to avoid a 1RR sanction. It is common to suggest a self-rvt after an accidental or iffy edit and then re-revert. I have even seen admins request reverts from other editors. (Most admins are smart enough to avoid DS articles entirely.) Further, DS rules differ by page and keep changing. That’s not a complaint. It’s a necessity.

I’ve talked to the problem. I don’t know the solution. I would suggest that RECENTISM in some form become a guideline instead of an essay. In this case, repeated attempts were made to add contentious “breaking news” to the lead of a highly viewed BLP with no consensus and no corresponding text in the body. The edit I reverted included the words insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism in a BLP about some guy named Donald. Personally, I agree with the words – but strongly believe this requires ATP discussion and some time to pass. Frankly, this was verging on a vandalism exception, which I think should nullify Mandruss’ warning. My attempt was to deescalate a situation, guide discussion to the ATP, and remove the BLP problem as quickly as possible. We must have a way to stop news from ending up in a BLP that is so new the ink is still wet.

As my retirement has been mentioned, I must say that my retirement was triggered by the sanction as a vague, logged warning along such lines makes editing in DS areas untenable. However, I also need the time IRL. So, reversal of the warning does not mean return. Not that my minor efforts matter to the project. But, I had a totally clean 13 year record, despite spending most of my time in highly controversial articles sprinkled with land mines (which usually results in acquiring some less than friendly coworkers) and would like that record back. I also think such sanctions have a chilling effect not helpful to the DS editing environment. We already walk on egg shells. Let us not weaponize them.

I would like to thank the three admins and Mandruss who have spoken out in my favor here, and apologize for the length. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

After Mandruss explicitly refused to self-revert, Objective3000 proposed to them to "Self-rvt and I’ll rvt." Mandruss then self-reverted (diff), followed by Objective3000 reverting back a mere 2 minutes later (diff). Needless to say, I consider that to be inappropriate, enough to deem noting it in the log to be worthwhile. Note that my log entry (diff) noted Awilley's objection (which, honestly, I still don't really understand) as well as there being mitigating circumstances of an extraordinary nature (pertaining to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol). Finally, my AE report closure (diff), which reiterated all of that, also praised both Mandruss and Objective3000 for their long-term high-quality work at the AP2 topic area. I don't at all mind giving this particular violation a pass (makes sense), but to conclude that it wasn't actually a violation, that I cannot abide. Beyond all of that, I was sorry and quite shocked to learn that Objective3000 has retired over this. That's a serious loss to the project. My closing summary at the AE report stressed that I didn't intend for the warning to serve as a "blemish" on their "record," but I guess that wasn't enough. El_C 02:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Mandruss, even though I understand the impetus, I don't really appreciate the snark. Anyway, Awilley was the only admin to have objected, there was no admins (plural) who did. And, as much as I tried to understand his objection, it just didn't make sense to me, so I acted. Now the matter is before the Committee, which is fine. As for your repeated objections to me having cited the WP:TAGTEAM essay — again, I don't understand how that is of import. As mentioned, I made use of discretionary sanctions to interpret there to have been a WP:GAME violation, which I never argued was intentionally underhanded. But leaving both you and Objective3000 (yes, and Awilley) somehow assured that no violation has taken place, without consequence, thereby leaving open the possibility of it having repeated at some point in the future — that is a problem, I challenge. Enough for me to act unilaterally. As for it constituting a "blemish" on their record — all Objective3000 would have to do if someone were to try to use it against them would be to quote me saying that it wasn't intended as such. Which is why I said it, in the 1st place. El_C 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I would not have felt it worthwhile to register a warning in the log (because it is, indeed, otherwise trivial) had it not been for both Mandruss and Objective3000 insisting that no violation had taken place. That is the crux of the matter here. My position is that concluding the AE report in such a way would have been problematic. El_C 03:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, not at all. Maybe I'm failing to articulate this well enough, so I'll give it another go: it just didn't feel like I had much of a choice at the time. Despite the (admittedly) good faith intent behind the action and despite the ample discussion that followed soon thereafter, I was unable to conceive how else to meaningfully express to both Mandruss and Objective3000 that proposing that one self-reverts so that the other could in turn revert back was inappropriate. They were both adamant that it was perfectly fine. And so, my thinking was that if the AE report were to be closed without emphasizing this being otherwise, then what would stop it from repeating in the future?

As your colleague CaptainEek noted in their opening sentence: it is rare that we actually see tag teaming, but this seems a pretty clear case of it. Now, if other Committee members end up subscribing instead to your interpretation of it being only a debatable alleged violation, well, that would surprise me, but I will of course respect that finding. In a pragmatic sense, it would actually probably be better for the project if the Committee were to recommend for me to rescind the warnings, notwithstanding that I'd still consider that to be a logic and policy fail. Because then, Objective3000 may come out of retirement and Mandruss may end their wikibreak early. Which, hey, to me that's better than some abstract notion of principles.

Honestly, the level of vehemence and dismay brought by the warnings took me by surprise. I did not at all see it coming. I thought I was able to draft these gently enough so as to alleviate any serious discord. Obviously not. And, let's face it, the chances that either of them would do anything of the sort ever again seems especially remote now. So, as much as I might go on about the poor example that it would have set, such a thing seems to happen so rarely among established editors, maybe it would be for the best if I were prompted to backtrack. That having been said, in the realm of logic and policy interpretation, I still don't believe I was in error. El_C 08:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

On the matter of this appeal being out of process, perhaps it's worth noting that, for my part, this is not a problem for me. As, perhaps, the most active admin on the AE front in the last few years (which I believe the AE noticeboard and AE log bear out), I not only welcome Committee scrutiny, I welcome extra Committee scrutiny. To me, that is an essential component of the overall WP:ADMINACCT imperative. El_C 18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, there is no "animus" between myself an Awilley. We may often disagree on enforcement policy matters, but always in a cordial and professional way. Not once has it been otherwise. It is no secret that I consider his Enforced BRD (wow, it took me so long to locate that user subpage!) to be inferior to the Consensus required provision. And that him going on to supplant CR with EBRD on multiple key AP2 pages was in error and likely lacked the consensus for such a key change. Now, I don't want to put Awilley on the spot, but as I noted to him yesterday, part of the problem here followed from his half-hazard and inconsistent and novel construction and application of Committee-authorized sanctions. I'll quote from what I told him yesterday on my talk page: I think PackMecEng's observation pretty much nails it, Awilley. Beyond that, I echo what others have argued before: that you tend to overrely on sanction customization, which, at times, appears to be somewhat esoteric in nature and unclear, or otherwise less than consistent (diff). I vaguely remember, for example, a custom "no personal comments" sanction of his running into difficulties, I think because other admins couldn't figure out how to correctly enforce it. And don't get me wrong, I've indulged in some spectacular failures of custom AE sanctions. But the point is that I moved on from that (for years and years). Finally, on the whole CR versus EBRD matter, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that, while I had authored the WP:CRP supplementary page as a point of reference (at the request of Coffee), I was never involved in the formulation of it as a sanction. I actually don't even know how it came about, so if anyone does, please enlighten me. Now, imagine if the Committee was, somehow, prompted to take a close look into the whole CR versus EBRD realm of sanctions that it, itself, authorizes? Ooh, what do you say, incoming Committee? Kitty nudge? El_C 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

This was extremely blatant tag-team editing, and I don't think a threat of retirement is a good reason to revoke the justified note they were "cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss

I fail to see how such a warning could be NOT a blemish on one's record. But who knows, here where up is down, yellow is purple, and a lone admin can issue a logged warning against serious opposition from both admins and non, while citing nothing written but an obscure essay. I'm not smart enough to understand this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

[insert one sleep period]

I think a good unwritten rule would be: When an editor has established a long history of conscientious good faith behavior, they have earned the benefit of the doubt and should not receive a sanction for a good faith mistake. Not even a logged warning. Such contributors should not be victims of the crazy, convoluted body of scattered, incohesive rules that our revered system of crowdsourced self-governance created and has proven utterly incapable of addressing. Sanctions should be reserved for bad faith, since they affect the editor's reputation and may contribute to future sanctions in a sort of snowball effect. This should be intuitive to any experienced editor possessing any sense of fairness.

A logged warning clearly implies fault, and there is no fault in a human mistake. A logged warning should not be a mechanism for clarification, as it has been used by El_C in this case. If the rules prevented El_C from filing an ARCA request, the rules seriously need changing. If ARCA had provided clarification for future reference without implying fault on O3000's part, I don't think he would have retired.

The appropriate action at this stage is:

• remove the warning – today
• post an apology to O3000 at their UTP (unimportant who does this, as long as they speak for ArbCom)
• proceed with clarification
• change the rules so that any editor may file a request for clarification

―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Oh boy.

• Mandruss had started to feel 'above the law' Unsupported by evidence or other editors (except perhaps Tataral, and he hasn't said that).
• I had notified Mandruss about improper talk page behaviour You took a remarkably one-sided view of that little hatting skirmish. SPECIFICO was equally at fault there, and he acted first, but you "notified" only me. I've given this some thought and concluded that my recent well-founded public criticism of you here likely earned me a place on your shit list that caused you to read that situation in SPECIFICO's favor, giving him a pass. When I correctly informed you about your misuse of a warning template,[17] I expect that only moved me higher on your list and exacerbated the situation. I must be more careful about whose toes I correctly step on. Happy to discuss that with you at my UTP, but I don't think this is the time or place to dissect that "incident" further.
• going against discretionary sanctions just because they felt they could - Clear misrepresentation, again calling into question your overall objectivity in the matter. I "went against discretionary sanctions" because I didn't understand how they applied in that case, and I think I've made this abundantly clear. I did not consciously go against discretionary sanctions, nor would I. Nobody is more careful about following the rules, and I make a concerted effort to understand them.
• ignoring two different users' appeal to self-revert Right, neither of whom cited the passage from WP:EW that El_C quoted in the AE complaint. Editors often get such "appeal to self-revert" wrong. I looked at the both the content of the criticisms and the usernames of the editors making them, and I made a judgment call that I was more likely right than wrong, which turned out to be incorrect, and I decided to send this to AE. I did not "dare" you to go to AE. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that ultimately turning out to be wrong does not prove bad faith, and Mandruss's bad faith is how you have spun this entire episode.
• the impression of feeling that normal rules don't apply to them All things considered, an entirely unjustified and unfair assessment in my opinion.
• (I recognize in good faith that Mandruss may only be talking about Objective3000, not themselves) - Exactly, and that's crystal clear given that I requested a removal of O3000's warning, not mine.

I don't get how you felt it was appropriate to use this ARCA request about O3000's warning to take further swipes at me. I appreciate the compliments sprinkled throughout your distortions and unfounded criticisms, but that doesn't excuse them in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I had commented at the WP:AE case as an uninvolved admin and had made clear my distaste for the request for a sanction. El_C was technically correct but it is very undesirable to sanction people (yes, a logged warning is a sanction) when the incident is trivial and involves an issue where they are right. Their opponents managed to press the right buttons but they were blatantly wrong regarding what should happen in the article (they were padding the lead with not-news violations, no analysis by secondary sources, and nothing in the body of the article). Objective3000 made an honest statement (that Mandruss should self-revert to remove the technical problem so Objective3000 could repeat their edit)—that reflects how all topics under discretionary sanctions are handled. The rules of the game are known by all the participants and Objective3000's only mistake was to speak out loud. Furthermore, Objective3000 made a comment about their intentions whereas the issue (tag teaming) had already been implemented by their opponents—opponent 1 had inserted the padding; Mandruss reverted it; opponent 2 repeated the first edit after cutting out some of the excess. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Q: Does Awilley actually have standing to file this amendment request? I thought that third-party appeals were not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

This ARCA seems to be out of process? WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals: Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction.

It is amusing that this discussion happens so frequently, and every time IAR is cited. IAR is useful in exceptional circumstances, but this isn’t exceptional, it’s fairly standard I think. What’s the point in a rule - one, I might add, I don’t personally think is a good one - if nobody wants to follow it? It should be scrapped. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich (O3000)

This is not a new issue. A little less than a year ago, O3000's "tag teaming" with other editors (not Mandruss) was raised in an AE report (against another editor: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive261#SashiRolls, see, e.g., my statement and Pudeo's and also discussion on Pudeo's talk page at User talk:Pudeo#Personal attack). (I believe there were other related discussions but I don't remember where they are.) It was clear to me from those discussions that O3000 and others did not believe that planned or coordinated reverting (I'm not sure how else to phrase it) was tag team editing or a policy violation. I think O3000 left those discussions with the belief that his understanding of policy w/r/t "tag teaming" was correct—a reasonable belief given that nobody was sanctioned for it. I think this might help explain why O3000 would think there was nothing wrong with his actions and why he's taking this so hard.

So, although this does appear to be a third-party appeal, it might help prevent this sort of misunderstanding from happening in the future if Arbcom, or somebody, clarified "tag teaming" and edit warring policy, e.g. whether "self-revert and I'll revert" is OK or not. I'll also echo that O3000 wasn't the only editor who repeated another editor's edits: there is also the editor who reinstated a reverted bold edit. I think it's also an open question whether reinstating-after-revert is "tag teaming" (even when there isn't explicit on-wiki coordination).

These questions matter for any page under 1RR (and frankly are unevenly enforced by admins), so Arbcom could help by clarifying what is and is not "tag teaming" at least for DS 1RR restrictions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 09:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I didn't claim it was prior evidence of you tag-teaming. Quite the opposite, in fact: I think O3000 left those discussions with the belief that his understanding of policy w/r/t "tag teaming" was correct—a reasonable belief given that nobody was sanctioned for it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Evidence presented seems to clearly indicate that this was tag teaming on one of our most viewed pages, a BLP to boot and the warning applied was not only of the most gentle of ones, but also one of the most necessary, considering the BLP in question in particular.--MONGO (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jeppiz

As the editor who made the original enforcement request, I wish to acknowledge both El_C and Awilley for their thoughtful contributions. I felt El C made a balanced call in issuing a warning but no block to Mandruss and Objective3000. I also think Awilley has made a balanced request that the warning stays for Mandruss but it dropped for Objective3000. It's not for me to comment on that decision. My concern when filing the request was that Mandruss had started to feel 'above the law', I wish to emphasize that Mandruss has made a positive contribution to Wikipedia and I wish they continue their good work. However, my request wasn't based on a single incident. The day before the policy violation, I had notified Mandruss about improper talk page behaviour for (admittedly) hatting a talk page comment by a third user [18] just because a different user had hatted theirs; I hoped a UTP discussion would be enough.
The day after, when Mandruss ignored the discretionary sanctions, I again took it to their talk page, as did a third user. Mandruss themselves more or less challenged us to go to AE ("I am not going to self-revert. With great difficulty I have stopped short of 3RR vio. If you wish to file at AE, do as you must. One of us would learn something, and learning is never a bad thing.") [19]. This combination of hatting a third user just because they felt they could, going against discretionary sanctions just because they felt they could, ignoring two different users' appeal to self-revert and even daring us to go to AE combined to give the impression of feeling that normal rules don't apply to them. When I see Mandruss arguing here (I recognize in good faith that Mandruss may only be talking about Objective3000, not themselves) "When an editor has established a long history of conscientious good faith behaviour, they have earned the benefit of the doubt and should not receive a sanction for a good faith mistake. Not even a logged warning.", I see the same problem that led me to file the request, the belief that 'some editors are more equal than others'.
Mandruss is a diligent editor whose net contribution is overwhelmingly positive; I hope that they stay. On a general level, I don't believe in special treatment and think the policy Mandruss suggests of letting more experienced editors off for the same behaviour that newcomers would be punished for would set a bad precedent with wider implications than this case. Jeppiz (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: For a short reply to your post, I'm happy to say you're mistaken. You're not on my "shit-list", nor do I have one. Your warning to me in November was correct, and I didn't take it badly at all. Quite the contrary, I took a little voluntary time-out. You were entirely right. So no, there is nothing personal here, not against you and not against Objective3000 (with whom I don't recall ever having interacted before). I've already stated I consider you a valuable and constructive editor. I do feel your interactions the last couple of days, including the latest, to be less than ideal. That is not a personal criticism (everyone has up and downs) but perhaps you might consider what I wrote and whether there might some relevance in it. Have a nice day. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

There have been many discussions in scattered venues about the need to reevaluate and reform DS and enforcement in American Politics. A tiny fraction of our Admin corps volunteer their time and attention and emotional involvement to the effort. The burden on them, including the ones involved in this case, is beyond what anyone could reasonably be expected to fulfil in a consistent and effective manner. So along with lots of good work, we also have inconsistencies, errors, and omissions. As has been acknowledged, this appeal is out of process. That's not a good thing except in an urgent situation unlike this one. I hope and expect that Arbcom will address the growing concern about DS and enforcement in general by initiating an orderly and systematic review and a discussion of its options to improve the entire system. The nature of DS is that it's discretionary. El C, as one of the most active volunteers in the area, makes lots of good faith judgments nearly continually, and I see nothing to be gained by validating Awilley's second guess of an action that was clearly within El C's authority. For the avoidance of doubt, if Mandruss had done the right thing and self-reverted when asked, there were several editors, including myself, who (without any prompting) would have independently removed the offending content. Despite that, to repeat, this "appeal" is out of process and should be declined. It's further complicated by Awilley's possibly animus toward El C, who was one of the Admins and experienced editors who opposed Awilley's unilateral replacement of "consensus required" with his bespoke "24-hour BRD" sanction. Not to accuse Awilley of such motivation, but the background should have been disclosed in this filing. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

Warnings are minimal, not a biggy to sweat over. Regardless, this case exemplifies why ArbCom needs to revoke DS/AE. I'm not here to criticize any of the actions taken by individual admins or arbs; rather, I would like for ArbCom to look closer at the DS/AE monster that we've had to deal with in recent years. If behavioral disruption was the only issue, a simple admin action would have resolved the problem. If another admin felt the remedy was too severe or undeserved, then a discussion between the two would have likely led to a compromise instead of wasting valuable time here making this into a complicated case. I'm also not taking a position relative to any of the named editors in this case. I admit that I am biased against DS/AE because of what I perceive to be abuse/POV creep and what has happened to me - not that it has happened in this case. Houston, we have a problem. Atsme 💬 📧 17:40, 9 January 2021 (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.

Warning of Objective3000: Clerk notes

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

Warning of Objective3000: Arbitrator views and discussion

• It is rare that we actually see tag teaming, but this seems a pretty clear case of it. I am aware that tag teaming is not policy, but then again, neither is WP:NOTHERE, and yet the latter is used many times daily in enforcement. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter on Wikipedia. So whats the spirit of the law? To prevent disruption. Tag teaming seems to be an especially insidious form of disruption, as it uses multiple people to act almost as one to evade our usual restrictions. I wonder, would Mandruss have self reverted had O3000 not suggested they would immediately revert the edit back? I think Mandruss and O3000 are both excellent contributors, but to evade sanction by gaming the system does not sit right with me. I also note that El C went very light here. By all rights, El C could have easily blocked both of them, but opted to just give a warning. El C also took great pains to note that this warning is not meant as a blemish. And lets be honest, what does a warning really mean? Here on Wiki, it is little more than a reminder. It may make future enforcement easier, but it has little practical impact. I am also hesitant to rescind a warning merely on the basis that it made a user quit. I am sad to see O3000 driven away, and hope they will return. However, if users know all they have to do is throw a fit to get a sanction removed, we'll see a lot more toys being thrown out of the pram. In conclusion, I don't particularly see how this warning was wrong, and am hesitant to lift it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To BMK's point: on a technicality, yes only subjects of a sanction can appeal. But this is already a super technical situation, and I think we can let that slide as this has brought up a novel and relevant point of contention. Also, O3000 has nominally retired (so they can't appeal), and Mandruss seems to be appreciative of this review. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements. My preliminary reaction is to say first I appreciate El C's, and other administrators', desire to maintain decorum and order on a difficult article at a difficult time. (I also say to El C that it may look like I'm piling onto you because we disagreed on an unrelated matter a few months ago, but it's just a coincidence, and it's my job to comment here.) On the substance, I believe Objective3000 was acting with good intentions and in good faith, and as El C himself observes, Objective3000's overall editing history is a positive one. El C also observes that any violation by Objective3000 took place at least "somewhat unwittingly." I consistently believe that discussion rather than a logged sanction, even a warning, is the better approach for a first, debatable alleged violation by a good-faith editor with a record of positive contributions in the topic-area. Subject to others' opinions, I am inclined to recommend that El C consider withdrawing the warning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

---