Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requests for clarification and amendment[edit]

Amendment request: American politics 2[edit]

There is a rough consensus of participating arbitrators that a set date rather than a rolling date to define the scope of the American Politics contentious topic area is the preferred approach. There is a further rough consensus that 1992 is currently an appropriate date. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Interstellarity at 17:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • American politics of the past X years and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

Statement by Interstellarity[edit]

In 2021, I proposed that the AP2 dates were changed from post-1932 to post-1992. One idea that hasn't got a lot of attention is Valereee's idea that the years that American politics be sanctioned to be the last 25 years which would mean that the starting year that AP would be sanctioned would automatically change year after year. I'm not saying whether we should or should not use 25 years as a basis of at what point the sanctions start. I'd be open to other possibilities such as 30 years and 20 years, maybe 10 years. I think that with the idea of having the year automatically change from year to year, we won't have to revisit what should be covered in the current CT procedure. To give you an idea of what I am talking about, right now it is 2023. 25 years ago would be 1998. This means that when 2024 rolls around, the starting year that the CT would be 1999 and so on. Of course, if something falls out of the range we choose, it can be sanctioned if need be. I hope that the community will be willing to consider whether this will be a good idea. The other case that has it which is Iranian politics has a starting year of 1978 so we potentially talk about adjusting the dates there if need be.

@Valereee: I think in present times, Clinton, Obama, and Trump will likely remain contentious topics. I believe there will likely be a point in time where these three people will no longer have to be contentious topics since we are inherently biased towards current events. There will be a time when no new information about these three people will occur especially in the years or decades following their deaths. I think if Wikipedia were around during the 1970s, Richard Nixon would likely be a contentious topic. I don't think it needs to be one since we are a reasonable distance away from the event that disruption is at a minimum. I think it is unlikely that we will still need the 1992 cutoff when we get to years of 2050 and 2100, assuming Wikipedia is still around by then since it will be a reasonable distance away from current times and that disruption will likely remain minimal. I hope this clarifies my points. Interstellarity (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Valereee[edit]

I'm open to the general concept but I'm not sure this is as much about years as it is about what was happening. It might be good to be able to eliminate 99% of the politics of 1998 from inclusion, but we'd certainly have to immediately make the Clintons a contentious topic. I suspect that in ~2033 we'd have to add Obama and in ~2041, Trump. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

Clarity in terms of what articles fall under a topic area is one of the most important aspects to consider when defining it (probably the most important aspect.) Having one that changes automatically year after year therefore seems exceptionally undesirable. Would it tick over based on the new year? Based on the date of the AP2 arbcom case? How do we define the year when something occurs? This is in theory already an issue, but it's much less of one when the threshold is not a moving target - the question only has to be answered once, and only for things right on the edge, whereas a moving threshold would ensure that it is a constant issue. Would we use a bot to automatically remove templates for restrictions placed on AP2 articles that tick over the limit? And would the bot even be able to accurately determine when to remove such templates?

On top of this, I see no benefits whatsoever to doing this. The relevance of something to current AP2 focus is not directly a function of time; it's a function of the current way politics breaks down and which issues are hot-button within it. I don't think any automated system will be able to tell us when the Clintons (clearly one of the main things keeping us at the 1992 threshold) are no longer controversial enough to require AP2 restrictions - that will have to be done the old-fashioned way, by having humans consider it with their human brains via an amendment request, looking over the logs for which articles attract disruption, etc. Finally, the amendment request before was not that onerous; the next one will be even more lightweight because it's been done before and therefore won't attract as much conversation and because we have precedent for what sort of data and arguments to consider when setting a new threshold. I feel like the complexities of an automatically-moving window are going to waste far more editor time and energy than a simple amendment request that is likely to only come up once a decade or so. --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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[edit]

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • I'm going to be fairly skeptical that a rolling X year restriction is the right way to curb disruption. When we set the AP date to 1992 it was about the fact that the disruption that was happening was after that date following an extensive analysis of the enforcement log. It's also a significant date in American political history - Clinton was elected. You could maybe convince me that it's more appropriate to go 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution, but without much effort I saw last year's protection of Federal Assault Weapons Ban demonstrating continued disruption within that general timeframe. Similarly in Iranian politics 1978 is a significant non-arbitrary year. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think this is a good idea. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sanctions that require this level of attention and maintaining tend not to work out so well. If we arrive at a point where it is clear that 20th century American politics are no longer a contentious topic, we can adjust accordingly then. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm of the opinion that the date was chosen to include a specific event (i.e. Clinton's election). While I may be open to arguments to change the date, I don't agree that a rolling period is a good idea. WormTT(talk) 09:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like new ideas, so I'm in favour of this being proposed for consideration as the notion that recent events tend to get more of the disruptive attention so articles covering older events need less protection is one I agree with; however, I think it could be too problematic to monitor a constantly shifting area. I pondered some form of talkpage template on AP2 pages that kept track of dates and could be reset by disruption, but nothing easy came to mind. It all sort of involves more work for those monitoring the area, so I'm a decline, but a reluctant decline. SilkTork (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it is a reasonable question to ask / proposal to make, but I concur with the above that the date was chosen not because it was X years ago but because it is a demonstrable cutoff point for when the topic seems to become controversial. If the cutoff gets changed, it should be to a specific date and with intention, not just arbitrarily. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I concur that a crisp cutoff is needed. For the most part that would be a presidential transition. 9/11 would also be a break point. An ever shifting cutoff of {{Months before now|300}} is an insecure basis for a policy. Cabayi (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles[edit]

Clarification question has been answered. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by ScottishFinnishRadish at 17:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish[edit]

I invoked WP:PIA's 30/500 to stop disruptive editing on Jimmy Carter where a new account was repeatedly removing the Israel/Palestine section. The general sanctions state When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} on the talk page and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} in the editnotice to do so. Do I really have to place the entire page under EC protection with the edit notice and all that jazz to partially block an editor from the page for editing 30/500 content?

SilkTork, yep. I placed the required notices and some hidden text in the article. Much appreciated Nableezy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

SFR, you can use the relatedcontent=yes flag in the edit notice and make a note with hidden text around the section that this is the section that it applies to instead of protecting the page. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice|relatedcontent=yes}} would do it.

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes[edit]

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]