Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) at 09:16, 30 December 2020 (→‎Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted: enact motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: The Rambling Man Motion (orig. case) 22 December 2020
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 23 December 2020

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:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

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:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Amendment request: The Rambling Man

Initiated by The Rambling Man at 10:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Link to remedy
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Removal of TBAN

Statement by The Rambling Man

Two years ago I was topic-banned from commenting on DYK (other than on my now defunct errors page) as a result of a number of issues with my approach and generally poor manner of expressing disappointment over my perception of the quality (or lack) of many hooks appearing on the main page. A year later that TBAN was adjusted such that I could review hooks if explicitly invited to do so. Another year has passed, during which I focused almost exclusively on content creation. Indeed, a third place in the WikiCup was accompanied by 13 new featured articles and 44 new good articles. So I'm honestly thrilled that I've found my mojo once again, why I started here 15 years ago: article creation/improvement and taking them all the way to the best I can achieve. Enabling me to nominate these articles for DYK would be really good, not for WikiCup points per se, but just to allow the improved articles the exposure I think the hard work I put into them deserves.

I won the April/May GAN review drive with 105 reviews in two months. and I would challenge anyone to see if they can find a review which is sub-par. I believe strongly that the main page content should be as good as it can be, and removing this TBAN would enable me to ensure that (a) I can nominate my own newly improved content (b) review others with my usual standards (in line with DYK rules of course) (c) more easily highlight issues that are on the main page in DYK which I have not been easily able to do for two years. I realise that my tone and approach two years or so ago which led to the TBAN were unnecessarily harsh and scathing, and sometimes even hurtful, and I will promise to keep that dialled to zero. I would even be delighted to be put onto some kind of probationary period, say six months, where any behaviour deemed unsuitable would result in immediate TBAN reinstatement.

Worm That Turned just regarding your note about the "last year" thing, the TBAN was enacted two years ago, and was ameliorated last year to allow me to review DYKs if expressly permitted by nominators. It was a nice thought but it didn't really work out as most nominators weren't aware of it and I couldn't approach them as that would have been a violation of the TBAN! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 unfortunately the table layouts you adopted at that list produced undesirable effects and my comments there were specifically to address them. I have worked with dozens of editors on ensuring technical aspects of MOS:DTT are upheld for readers who have challenges such as poor eyesight or a need for screen readers. I also take the standards of FLC seriously, including 5a about "visual appeal" which I felt could be significantly improved in that case. It was unfortunate that you did not want to continue working on the list in question, but you withdrew before the discussion at the Village Pump had even concluded. And after all, I was merely one review expressing my opinion, which I believe I am entitled to do. (PS it was a criterion of FLC and I did fix it just now). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 that's why we're all advocating a probationary period. Like a "one chance and I'm dead" kind of thing. It's risk-free from that perspective. And to the "going off" on a tangent or different trajectory, that was all part of a singular FLC review, for which I had made a number of other comments. That appeared to be the only contentious one and you requested closure of the nomination before it could be suitably resolved. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 there is no evidence anywhere to suggest I have had such altercations with new users. Don't forget, this is has evolved into a probationary request. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 the whole "subpage" or "express permission" thing just didn't work because no-one knew about it. Someone here claimed that DYK is all about new users so they're hardly likely to be into the nuances of such an approach. As I mentioned a couple of times, and as the motion below now says, there is a six-month probationary period attached to this, so trying to create an unworkable sideshow isn't really the way ahead. Did anyone suggest that approach? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I cannot recall my reviews at FAC being in any way problematic. If you and I have disagreed on something, that is something different. And I'd rather stay on-topic here. If you're seeking to add a TBAN here for FAC discussions and then a probationary period for it, that's a new discussion. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw delete away, thanks for reminding me it was still there, I had completely forgotten. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson you're right, that was an unpleasant exchange between me and and admin, culminating in that admin swearing at me without sanction or even warning of any kind. We're grown-ups and disagreed, but it's water under the bridge. I'm sure if Floq had an issue with this then he'd have taken it further. I'm sure if I had an issue with being told "fuck off" by an admin, I'm have taken it further. But neither of us did because we're grown-ups and have moved on. Indeed, the overt slur on my sexuality would, if I had issued it, resulted no doubt in a long-term block. However, this specific DYK request has a "probationary period" added to it with a "one chance" clause so it's risk-free. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson I don't consider an error report which makes purely factual statements and then a factual request for someone to look at it after it sitting there for 48 hours to be poor behaviour. I think it speaks for itself. Of course you haven't linked the literally thousands of error reports I have made over the last two years which have been addressed. Or even just the other four that I added for today which were resolved? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam actually this was never about being able to report errors in DYK, more about being to participate actively and fully in the DYK process. Standards at DYK have improved significantly in the last three or four years. And as I noted in my opening statement, the vast majority of 2020 was spent creating good and featured content, and ensuring OTD was up to snuff. That won't change, it's just about being able to submit my content to DYK and help review other's work. Feel free to continue to work on DYK errors, I wouldn't want to tread on your toes there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I wasn't going to make a statement because I wasn't working regularly at ERRORS two years ago and can't know how that felt to those who were. But TRM's final two sentences convince me to support a six-month probationary lifting of the TBAN with a reassessment at the end of the six months. I realize that's an addition to what TRM is proposing. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I'd truly hate to have that be the result. FWIW, if I don't see a kinder, gentler TRM at DYK I am quite ready to reimpose. Like seriously it should be the one place in all of Wikipedia where he never posts anything even slightly snarky. I can't offer zero tolerance -- more a "strike that now" approach -- but as someone who values very much the relatively peaceful and collaborative working atmosphere of DYK, I have no interest in putting up with anything that's going to make people reluctant to contribute there. —valereee (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

I'm in support of this - TRM has markedly cut back the snark, etc that he used to display. He's certainly not perfect, but what I see of him is vastly improved. Just don't backslide! Ealdgyth (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L293D

During my time here at DYK, The Rambling Man has struck me as an editor that would always make sure the DYK criteria were met - especially when it comes to the "Is it interesting?" rule. Although I think TRM has sometimes displayed an overly negative sense of humor, I think he would be a great addition the to the DYK reviewer team. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Echoing all of my colleagues above. While I don't have much Main page experience aside for some ITN work, I, too, have noticed improvement. Therefore, I encourage the Committee to grant TRM's amendment. I think the benefit in adopting it far outweighs the risk. TRM's work has always inspired exceptional confidence for its high-quality. Looks like a no-brainer win-win. Good stuff. El_C 21:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SL93

I like his work and I would only want him back in DYK if he isn't uncivil to other editors. It seems like he can likely do that. SL93 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Narutolovehinata5

I've had multiple disagreements with TRM in the past, but based on his comments above and his promise to change and behave from now on, I'm willing to agree to him being given another chance, provided that he keep his promise to keep civil. A six-month probation also seems like a decent compromise and would allow TRM to prove himself while also understanding that if he reverts to his previous behavior, the topic-ban will be reinstated. Admittedly I haven't interacted with him much ever since he was initially banned from DYK, but if his comments above truly prove that he has changed for the better, then why not give him another shot? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to suggest that, given that many of the previous issues were linked to comments made at WP:ERRORS, that the topic ban initially be lifted only for comments at DYK nominations, meaning that he is now free to comment on any DYK nomination without the nominator's invitation; the topic ban from commenting on DYK-related matters at WP:ERRORS should remain for at least one month into TRM's probation, with the WP:ERRORS ban being lifted only if it is determined that he has managed to maintain good behavior and that the attitudes that lead to the previous issues do not reappear. In addition, he should also be encouraged to raise any issues he finds on nomination pages themselves, rather than waiting until the relevant hooks are approved and promoted to Queues so that the comments are instead made at WP:ERRORS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing Andrew Davidson's comment below, I would like to suggest TRM be "adopted" by another editor to guide them on civility matters, perhaps to train them on avoiding uncivil moments. The incident given, while a one-off, does give me pause on my continued support of this proposal. As such, I would also like to propose that, should a similar incident happen again, not only should the TBAN be reinstated, but TRM be given a temporary block. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cwmhiraeth

I would support the lifting of the TBAN. The Rambling Man has demonstrated, in his attention to detail in the "ITN" and "On this day" discussions in connection with the main page, that he is perfectly able to avoid the type of behaviour that led to the ban. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsif

Interacting with TRM at GAN and ITN over the last few years, the snark in general has certainly become at least more friendly, and the overt disapproval towards others' views has all but disappeared - where it appears in ITN comments I take for humor. TRM is a good reviewer with a good understanding of policy and, politeness lessons seemingly learned, can only be a benefit at DYK. If restrictions are still needed, a topic ban from bringing up DYK at ERRORS should suffice. I support the amendment, and would also support a probationary period as a sign of good faith. Kingsif (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maile66

No. I try to avoid him in any situation, just because he has been such a difficult editor to deal with, going off a different direction at times. My only recent interaction with him recently was at FLC in October 2020. I finally withdrew my nomination, because he effectively sidetracked it by insisting I find a way to make the nomination's table look a specific way on his own browser. It even went to WP:VPT, where he was told this was about his browser, and not a Wikipedia solvable issue. It certainly wasn't an FLC criteria. I finally threw in the towel and withdrew my nomination, just to end the nonsense. That dialog is Jean Harlow FLC. Here is the VP discussion Visual differences between browsers on tables. He's too unpredictable. Just because he's not like that on DYK now ... is because he is not on DYK.— Maile (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of being even-handed on this. My statement above stands - TRM can be unpredictable, and that worries me. Above, he mentions "readers who have challenges such as poor eyesight or a need for screen readers", which was not my issue on withdrawing that FLC. But in fairness to TRM, his comment above is possibly more about his review comment, "Why is the row scope the year, not the work, after all the principle piece of information in each line in this filmography is the film, not the coincidental year of release." I never replied to that on the nomination, because the nom was withdrawn by me. But in answer to that issue, I happen to think TRM was correct. Neither FLC, nor other places, have ever been consistent on that. When it comes to screan reader accessibility, I think the majority of Wikipedia editors are unsure. But I think TRM called it correctly on that one, and he changed the way I format tables. My issues with him are more about his tendency to get a bit harsh with individual editors, or otherwise go off a different direction other than staying on an original point . — Maile (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Based on TRM's response to me above, I would be willing to go along with a probationary period situation. He's a smart guy, and a good editor. - there's never been an issue on his abilities. — Maile (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, now I'm not so sure, after reading the below post by Andrew Davidson . Maybe I'll make a final decision after all have been heard, whoever "all" turns out to be. I would like to think that was an isolated incident, but this type of behavior is why TRM got TBan in the first place. And this latest happened just last month. Of all places on Wikipedia, DYK is the one most likely to deal with first-time nominators and editors. Wiki Ed instructors encourage their students to post first-time nominations, many of which are imperfect. We want them to feel welcome, and what I see in the AD post is just more of the same-old same-old that. — Maile (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to make an observation here, which might be disagreeable to some (or not), but here goes. Whatever ArbCom agrees to now, or ever in the future, I don't think it would be productive to return to a situation where TRM is Tbanned from DYK, with the exception that he could set up his own DYK comment user subpage. I'm guessing that TRM didn't want that to be necessary for his input on what he perceived to be DYK errors. For lack of a better description, it gave the perception of a "review process in exile". And that's not good. It drew a handful of observers who felt his opinion had validity and needed to be considered, even acted upon. Unfortunately, it also made those (some of whom were admins) act on his suggestions without availability of full input from the DYK community. And it also made users look like they couldn't figure out errors themselves until they got sort-of "directives" from his page. I have no issue with users/admins who value his opinion. But giving TRM the option of having a DYK comment page of his own, does seem to be a way of going around any Tban. It didn't look good that way. Please don't return to that situation. — Maile (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRM, no one has suggested it here on this. But if I don't speak up now, and that situation is rein-stated for one reason or another, I will regret not having said anything. If they are going to give you what you request here, you should have the exact same access and input as all other non-admins for the duration of the time agreed upon. I had commented somewhere along the line at DYK when I realized the subpage was active, and the knee-jerk reaction was (I'm paraphrasing) something along the lines of "Are you saying we shouldn't know about errors?" I just felt then, as now, that it was neither good for you nor the DYK community. — Maile (talk)
  • Amakuru I see no reason to doubt your explanation of why this situation existed. Can you name any other situations where Arbcom took away editor privileges because of "issues were with his tone and civility", but then provided the editor with an avenue around that so they continue what they were doing, but doing it on a non-project page like their user page? If not, why the special arrangement? It's like winking over the official action. If TRM has value to DYK, and Arbcom wants to give him an avenue, then it should be right on the DYK pages. DYK will survive. He's asking for a trial chance. I say that if we give it to him, he should be able to directly do that on the DYK pages. As it should be with any sanctioned editor who wants a second chance. — Maile (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eddie891

(First time commenting here, so hope I'm getting the formatting right) In my experience, first doing some work at TRM/Errors and since following his work across GA reviewing and quite a lot of content work, I've had no bad experiences with this editor— though I understand that people have. I've also noticed a general improvement in their behaviour. I get the impression that they know what the issues with their approach were and have worked to adopt a more civil &c demeanor. I see no reason, at this point, why the TBAN should not be lifted, either in a probationary manner or completely. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

This statement

I realise that my tone and approach two years or so ago which led to the TBAN were unnecessarily harsh and scathing, and sometimes even hurtful, and I will promise to keep that dialled to zero. I would even be delighted to be put onto some kind of probationary period, say six months, where any behaviour deemed unsuitable would result in immediate TBAN reinstatement.

is very encouraging and bodes well, but I would feel better if it went further. The "harsh and scathing" tone was not confined to DYK, and extended over a period considerably longer than two years ago. I wonder if you would be willing to make the same promise about participation at FAC, and extend the probationary period to cover FAC discussions as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrew D.

Here's some fresh evidence of continuing incivility. TRM's user page is currently just a diff in which he is told to "fuck off princess". This is not explained and seems to be a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC. If a new editor should come across this while trying to communicate with or learn more about TRM, they seem likely to find it confusing, stressful and unpleasant.

I traced this to understand the issue. The immediate cause was an incident at WP:ERRORS. Here's the timeline:

  1. On 4 Nov 2020, the admin Floquenbeam was handling an error report by Jmchutchinson about an item at WP:OTD to do with the history of chloroform
  2. TRM inserts some gratuitous snark. This seems to be an unhelpful dig at Floquenbeam.
  3. Floquenbeam reverts this.
  4. TRM then posts a complaint at Floquenbeam's talk page explaining that he was reminding Floquenbeam "how to read" and accusing Floquenbeam of covert pretence.
  5. Floquenbeam forcefully tells TRM to go away.
  6. TRM responds with some more snark.
  7. Floquenbeam repeats his comment.
  8. More snark from TRM
  9. The same clear message from Floquenbeam
  10. A bystander remonstrates
  11. Floquenbeam closes the discussion, explaining their exasperation and apologising to the bystander for the unseemly incident
  12. TRM then posts one of the diffs on his user page.

My take on this is that there's some bad blood between TRM and Floquenbeam. TRM seizes on a minor issue and uses it as an excuse to start haranguing Floquenbeam. Floquenbeam reverts and then, when TRM follows him, tells him repeatedly to go away. Having baited Floquenbeam into responding with incivility, TRM then flaunts his trophy on his user page for all to see.

This is consistent with the previous pattern of TRM being so difficult and unpleasant that most admins refuse to deal with him at WP:ERRORS. This got so bad that TRM had to set up his own independent errors page for a while. Now that he has returned to the official page, relations have degenerated again. Arbcom should please consider tightening sanctions, rather than relaxing them.

  • For clarity, note that TRM has now reverted their user page. Meanwhile, at WP:ERRORS, they complain that, "This report has been here nearly 48 hours without response." This is the main problem – people will walk away rather than spend their time dealing with a constant stream of complaints and negativity. Overall participation then declines. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda Arendt

My interactions with The Rambling Man have all been pleasant, over many years, and I'd like to have him back at DYK. I am busy with celebrations, but could find as evidence more DYK reviews and GA reviews that I liked, here are two samples: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Martin Kränzle and Talk:Vespro della Beata Vergine/GA1. I also found interactions pleasant when I reviewed "his" articles at FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru

TRM and I have worked on a few article projects together, and we interact quite a bit at ERRORS and elsewhere. On the few occasions when he's directed his annoyance at main-page issues in my direction, I've taken it in my stride - speaking personally it's water off a duck's back, and I know that any "abuse" I may have received in the past is only because he cares deeply about the content we show to our readers.

That said, I know others find this more stressful to deal with, and I did used to cringe sometimes at the remarks directed towards other editors in DYK and elsewhere. So I think that when the TBAN was implemented two years ago, it was the right remedy. It was clear at that time, that the bad blood between TRM and some of the DYK regulars had hit breaking point, and TRM himself reluctantly accepted that remedy. I genuinely do think the situation has improved since then though, per what's written in the nomination statement above. Other than the odd general complaint such as "I thought people checked these things", when an OTD error creeps through, his comments generally seem to be neutral in tone these days and focused on the issues rather than the editors.

So yes, definitely consider me a "support" for the proposed remedy. The built-in circuit-breaker means that people don't need to be too fearful that the old situation revives. And honestly, without getting into the saga that Andrew links above, I find it a bit laughable that TRM is being held to account for a breach of talk page and edit summary etiquette, followed by a piece of clear incivility towards him by an admin. Like I say, I get that some people are needled by TRM, and probably his initially comment was unnecessary, but ultimately he's a human being too and nobody would like being spoken to like that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Maile66's most recent comment regarding TRM's now-defunct WP:ERRORS2 page, I disagree that this was a bad thing. It was acknowledged by virtually everyone at the 2018 ArbCom discussion that TRM's issues were with his tone and civility, not with the quality of his error reports. Allowing him to continue reporting DYK issues at ERRORS2 was a neat solution to go alongside the TBAN, which ensured that users who didn't get on with TRM could avoid him, while the errors he found could still be fixed by those of us who were happy to frequent that page. There were a few borderline subjective cases where wording changes in DYKs were subsequently disputed, but the vast majority of the things reported there were straightforward uncontroversial error fixes and the project would have been considerably worse off had TRM not been tracking those errors. Obviously that situation was inferior to the fully-collaborative approach proposed of allowing TRM access to all the normal channels, but I wouldn't object to returning to it under similar conditions to before if full project access doesn't work. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

As a frequent contributor to ITN and ERRORS, I would say that TRM has markedly improved his behaviour. There has much more focus from him on content creation (where he excels) and I can't recall much in the way of any incivility or arguments. I support allowing him to contribute at DYK and a probationary period will ensure if there are any problems that the sanction can be easily re-imposed. But I don't anticipate that happening. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sluzzelin

Ealdgyth puts it quite succinctly. "markedly cut back the snark" ... "certainly not perfect, but [...] vastly improved" ... "Just don't backslide".

I do not find Andrew Davidson's objections fair. He characterizes most of TRM's posts in the reported exchange negatively (usually by calling them 'snark'), while "fuck off" (accompanied by the edit summary "fuck off princess") is characterized as 'forcefully telling TRM to go away'. Similarly with the complaint on WP:ERRORS: "This report has been here nearly 48 hours without response. The article in question has been on the main page nine hours....". I'm not even sure it's a complaint, more of a reminder, maybe both. Regardless, especially in light of what else TRM has posted there recently, what those two sentences certainly are not is "a constant stream of complaints and negativity".

I hope the arbirtrators take a closer look at that page as well as TRM's recent contributions there and elsewhere, and then make a decision as to whether lifting the topic ban is a good idea for the encyclopedia, but I hope they don't rely on cherry-picked incidents, summarized and characterized with hyperbole, but without balance. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I not only appreciate but also admire what both TRM and Floq have contributed to make this a better encyclopaedia, I ask both of them to attempt not to think of past grievances in the future. Neither DYK nor any other place here ain't big enough for both of you. Quintessential truth, Ruth. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

TRM cares very much about the reliability of the project, and whilst some of the comments that led to his topic ban were clearly unduly harsh, at the time there was a somewhat cavalier attitude amongst some editors at DYK, leading to really unsuitable material, including BLP violations, being proposed for - and in some cases making it as far as - the Main Page. This does not seem to be the case now, and therefore I think the possible flashpoints may be drastically reduced. I think the motion is perfectly fine. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I'm mentioned here by Andrew D. above, but have no opinion on TRM returning to DYK. Being occasionally harassed by him is my penance for not standing up for the people he harassed before me. If he returns to DYK, I'll avoid the DYK section of ERRORS, so problem solved I guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

I've benefited considerably from all of my interactions with TRM - he's reviewed a number of my articles for GA and FA, and given me lots of useful advice and guidance which has helped me enormously. He has always been rigorous, but has been unfailingly civil and friendly in his dealings with me. All of my interactions have been in the last two years, when I first interacted with him I was a relative newb, and I've always been very receptive to his advice. I can't comment on whether he takes a different tone in interactions with editors who are less willing to listen to his advice, or with whom has has had disputes in the past, but based on my own experiences I would support lifting the ban and giving him another chance to apply his talents to this part of the project. GirthSummit (blether) 10:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, I'm amenable to this request. TRM approached me several months back to look into something similar, while I was ona break and while I started looking, I never did get back to him, so I'm glad he's taken it upon himself to come here. I did find a significant improvement in attitude and no deterioration in workload when I looked, so I think some sort of probation would be worth trying. That said, I'd like to hear from the community of concerns, especially those from the last year. WormTT(talk) 08:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to hear more from the community and I am open to the suggestion of lifting the topic-ban under the proposed conditions. Over the past year, ArbCom has not had to address any serious issues relating to TRM which is a very positive sign and much to TRM's credit. I have been aware that some editors have expressed concerns about TRM using User:The Rambling Man/sandbox and its edit history for WP:POLEMIC. Mkdw talk 20:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted

The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Proposed. I'm satisfied that although there have been incidents over the past year, we are in a place where we should be considering lifting this ban. I've suggested a standard probation, but I welcome any wordsmithing of the motion or alternatives. WormTT(talk) 14:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This topic ban doesn't appear to be necessary any longer. – bradv🍁 17:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think we have to try. The probationary period empowers the community over the trial period to address any issues. At the same time, this lays forward a clear path for TRM to return to productive and collaborative editing in an area they are clearly passionate about. Broadly, if an editor can prove capable of doing so, then they should not have to live with a cloud over their head forever. The community or the next committee could always quickly reimpose the restriction, given the history, should this prove unsuccessful which I believe strikes an important balance. Best of luck to TRM on this endeavour and I hope this goes just as well for the community. Mkdw talk 18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As a probationary measure. I have never been confident of the ability of anyone here, on or off arb com, myself included, to judge the likely success of this sort of measure, so the only fair thing to do is to give it a chance. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Katietalk 13:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by arbitrators


Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=997174156"