Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Comments subject to WP:V and diffs?

Since nearly every edit in Wikipedia is recorded, should some editors' comments concerning other editors meet the same levels of scrutiny and reliability as the rest of Wikipedia, and be subject to WP:V? In other words, is it a fair expectation that allegations should be accompanied by diffs (primary sources!), and not just by links to earlier allegations (secondary sources) unless they include diffs? --Iantresman (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be a best practice to include diffs. I don't think the arbitration committee is in the habit of adopting findings of fact based on allegations unsupported by diffs, although not all the diffs that are considered in drafting such a finding need necessarily be included in that finding. In the last case in which I had a hand in evaluating evidence and drafting findings, the TimidGuy appeal case, various unsupported allegations were made, and the deltas between what was asserted in the case and what was actually in the record when we examined it played a non-trivial part in how the case was ultimately resolved. Make no mistake: failure to present good evidence appropriately will reduce the chance of a favorable outcome in arbitration. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

While I would expect nothing less of the Admins, I have found in the past that other editors tend to forget diffs, or link to information where diffs are often assumed, but absent. --Iantresman (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

By the by

The ongoing Muhammad RfC is an amusing case of vox populi. I could also call it jury nullification. The ArbCom instructions to argue with sources etc. have been completely ignored. In fact I was told by one of the mediation participants that surveying sources is "synthesis" forbidden by the 5 pillars. I've decided not waste my time on the topic anymore, or with Wikipedia for that matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement actions against Jack Merridrew

Is there a page for noting arbitration enforcement actions against Jack Merridrew? I wanted to post this there. Raul654 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick seems to be the beginning of the saga. User talk:The Call of the Wild seems to be the continuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot archived AE request

The AE request opened by John against me was archived by a bot here...but it wasn't closed...so what is the resolution? Does this just fester?--MONGO 04:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Essay on enforcement requests and "uninvolved commentary"

For those interested in arbitration enforcement, I have wrote an essay about "supplementary comments" on enforcement requests. Comment and suggestions are welcome: User:AGK/AE improvements. I think a dialogue on the state of AE is long overdue. AGK [•] 12:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates for evedience phase closure etc

I think there needs to be more clarity as to when the various phases close. I'd assumed, incorrectly, that as the evedience phase for the Rich Farmbrough case was listed as closing on the 18th but it was actually closed at the start of the 18th. This ambiguity is close time could be confusing to those editors not used to dealing with arbcom cases and so I think the standard template at the top of the cases needs changing to make it clear when on a day a phase closes. As there is, potentially, a difference of a whole day between what happens and what someone might interpret I don't think this is a minor matter not worth dealing with. Dpmuk (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Indicators for lifting of topic bans

On 2 May 2012, Casliber mentioned that Arbitrators "used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one's belt."

As someone who is on a topic ban, this suggestion is obviously extremely useful, and I had known it before now, would have altered my editing habits some time ago. Can I suggest that a summary of positive indicators is provided, and added to the Guide to arbitration page? --Iantresman (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Workshop to Proposed decision

"The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment"

There seems to have been a notable disjoint between the workshop and the proposed decision. There were no proposals made by Arbitrators, and there is no continuity between the two pages. There are other difficulties pertaining to the whole scenario, mainly the scale which is allowed grow unchecked, the difficulty in following all the accusations that are made after the evidence phase, and seem to be used willy-nilly. The PD talk page also becomes part of the case which is not good, there should be another page to comment and discuss the PD "on case", with the talk page reserved for off-case discussion. There is no structure, no preliminary checking - I saw for example someone citing a HPB diff, which was actually an RF diff. The assertions in the Evidence phase were roundly refuted in the Workshop phase, and yet they are carried over without check to the proposed decision. This means everything now has to be gone through again, with no guarantee that any notice will be taken of the analysis.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Workshop pages are a farce. Many arbitrators do not bother reading them. In practice they are honeypots where editors can incriminate themselves by continuing the behavior that led to the arbitration. Comrade Boris's guide to arbitration is recommended reading. Skinwalker (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Each arbitrator views the Workshop pages differently. Some arbitrators like to work only from Evidence only, while others prefer to /workshop a Proposed Decision before posting. I know in a lot of the cases I drafted, I found it useful to see reactions to what I was thinking ( quite often, my fellow arbs found better ways to word a finding or remedy), but Skinwalker does have a point in that in many cases, the /workshop parties just continue combative behavior, and the findings/remedies posted there are sometimes are less useful then we would like. SirFozzie (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I must say that the R&I review - which lacks a workshop page - has proceeded smoothly, despite some prolonged bickering on the PD talk page. Skinwalker (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You see, this is the sort of thing with which I have a problem.

• Some arbitrators like to work only from Evidence only. Sir Fozzie

yet:

• You will be able to reply to evidence on the workshop page. Hersfold (paraphrase)

The brokenness of this process is so outstanding that it defies belief. The more so since it is supposed to be a backstop for the ad-hoc nature of other processes. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

While I love vintage porn

Y'all might wanna lock down some of the Arb templates a bit more. This edit to Template:ArbComOpenTasks/9 put File:Devoirs de vacances.ogv on a bunch of transcluded pages for about 10 mins. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protect would have done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Mailing list problems?

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

    arbcom-audit-en@lists.wikimedia.org.

Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 501 501 <arbcom-audit-en@lists.wikimedia.org.>: domain missing or malformed (state 13).

Rich Farmbrough, 08:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

You've got an extra period in there, Rich. Try <arbcom-audit-en@lists.wikimedia.org> instead. Risker (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's odd, because a trailing period (which is implied but rarely written) is actually part of the DNS standard. A compliant mail server should treat blah@blah.org and blah@blah.org. identically. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And it can result in faster DNS lookup too. Not a lot of people know that. Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I am unaware of any problems, but, Rich, if you want to contact the AUSC and your e-mail is not getting received, do send me (or another auditor) an e-mail. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have resent it. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Discussion

Why is there no discussion here? Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

about? Chedzilla (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes." I guess there's not much to talk about in terms of process here, that couldn't be brought to the noticeboard talk page or the talk page for WP:AC. -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No I mean on the main page, there is no discussion. We are deprived of ability to discuss the amendments properly beacuse of lack of threading, but even with the response to Arbs indicted with the (frankly 1970s) @ symbol there is no discussion. Arbs make a statement and walk away. They never discuss. And there's no forum to discuss the amendment because the talk page is protected. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

And the requests get filed with no discussion of the issues or facts, just "go away" basically. Rich Farmbrough, 22:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Actually, I'm pretty sure "@" is how the kids on Twitter do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But you're right that the discussion system on Wikipedia sucks. Aside from lack of threading, there's no way to vote up or down a comment or a built-in way to report a comment for incivility. I bet we could reduce the amount of incivility in half just by having a way to report a comment. When I'm on Wikipedia, I feel like I'm travelling backwards in time by 5-10 years. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Note

Currently some 70 odd talk pages redirect here. Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Motion on decision elements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

To provide greater clarity regarding the purpose of each element of an arbitration decision, the following statement is adopted:

Elements of arbitration decisions

For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".

Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.

Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.

Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.

Additionally, the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is modified to replace the first sentence ("For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact', 'Remedies' and 'Enforcement', with a separate vote for each provision.") with the following:

Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision.

• Will be enacted at 5:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) if there are no further changes to voting or the text of the motion. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please hold until 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) to allow final changes,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Will be enacted at 3:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC). If any arbitrators are still working on final changes (as mentioned above), please strike this comment. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. It's been suggested that the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is rather vague as to what constitutes each part of the decision; this attempts to remedy that. Kirill ^[talk] 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Copyedited. Revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   That looks fine to me. Kirill ^[talk] 13:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

3. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
6. The motion is generally acceptable to me although I am not certain it is necessary. I do have one reservation: a diff link in a finding can be other than "strictly illustrative" without this being being "expressly designated". If a decision reads "Foo has been uncivil [diff1] [diff2]" then those links are illustrative; but if the decision reads "on May 29, 2012, Foo was uncivil in a comment to Bar [diff]" then it is not "illustrative" but specific. A more straightforward way to reflect when diffs are "purely illustrative" would be to precede lists of illustrative diffs by "e.g." or the like, rather than allay confusion by pointing to a policy page. Also a proposed copyedit (about which arbitrators have had friendly disagreements before): I believe the word "admonition" is much more common than "admonishment". Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   In practice, though, almost all diffs cited in findings are indeed illustrative; specific diffs are the exception rather than the rule, because specific findings are far rarer than general "pattern of conduct" ones. Given that, I think it would make sense to have the illustrative interpretation be the default, and the specific interpretation to require some conscious action on our part. Kirill ^[talk] 22:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   I concur with Kirill here. Can we find language that succinctly reflects this?

   No problems here about the proposed "admonition" change. (Later: which I've made.)  Roger Davies ^talk 02:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

   @ Brad: As illustrative diffs are far more common than probative diffs, and as they are frequently preceded with "(Examples: [diff], [diff])" or similar, I don't have too much trouble with illustrative being the default. In the example, you give - "on May 29, 2012, Foo was uncivil in a comment to Bar [diff]" it only needs the diff to be piped "Foo was uncivil in [diff|this comment to Bar]" or even "Foo was uncivil in this comment to Bar[diff]" to make it explicitly specific.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

7. AGK [•] 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Courcelles 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
12. I think I'm OK with this - it seems a lot of words for a relatively small - but highly focused - change. In an email I received recently, someone used the phrase 'whack his winkle' instead of 'admonish'. Suggest employing this as a measure of moving away from quasi judicial speak. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Not really convinced this is needed, but don't object in principle to it. However, I do not think it is really ready for "prime time" until we sort out the issues raised by NYB with respect to diffs, which is a substantive issue in my mind. Risker (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

• This starts off by talking about proposed decisions, and then appears to relate to final decisions without making the distinction clear. That an individual member of the Committee has proposed an interpretation of policy doesn't follow that it is a Committee interpretation until there is a consensus in the Committee for the proposed interpretation. If the intention of this motion is to refer to proposed decisions only, then I cannot support; if the intention is to talk about both proposed and final decisions, then that needs to be made clearer before I can support. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  The intent was, indeed, to describe the final end product rather than delving into the drafting process; I've copyedited the text to clarify that. Does the change address your concern? Kirill ^[talk] 17:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  I was thinking earlier that this would probably work better in the present tense i.e. "decisions are posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact'" (instead of "decisions will be posted" etc) as that is the usual way of expressing general principles. If no one objects, this can still be done.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  I have now put this into the present tense, Revert if you hate it.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see any substantive difference, but I have no objection to it either way. Kirill ^[talk] 12:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Expired bans

Should expired bans be removed from the project page? Most of those with expiration dates are expired. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize the talk page was redirected. I'm referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the section at the top of the page. If you want to change something on the 'Active sanctions' page, you need to edit one of the transcluded pages (i.e. Personal sanctions). What are you trying to change? -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Motions on procedural motions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For these motions, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motion #1

In order to ensure that the wider community is given adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

All significant changes to the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be advertised on the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the Village Pump when first proposed. The motions shall remain open for a period of no less than one week, and shall otherwise be subject to the standard voting procedures enacted by the Committee for other motions.

Votes

Support

1. Proposed, based on recent concerns that we're not providing sufficient opportunity to comment on proposed changes before they're enacted. Kirill ^[talk] 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2. I request you change "all changes" to "all significant changes", to exclude unimportant fixes and changes from the transparency requirement this motion creates. AGK [•] 12:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Changed as requested. Kirill ^[talk] 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Having slept on this, I cannot support this in its present form. It is a sweeping measure, with very broad unintended consequences. As drafted, this requires a formal motion, advertised in three locations, and up for a week, to make a non-controversial copy edit to a procedural template, to make a non-controversial redirect to a better location, or to modify the precise sequence or number of procedural steps clerks take in opening cases etc etc. This runs directly counter to WP:BURO.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Is the change to "significant changes" requested by AGK sufficient to allay your concern regarding the sweeping nature of the motion? Kirill ^[talk] 12:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   No, because the unqualified expression "processes" is also overbroad. Pre-announcing everything in three locations is also OTT. To put this into perspective, the evidence length proposals were up for seven weeks and reported in Signpost on 9, 16, 23 and 30 April, and in Open Tasks for the duration. Which does not seem to me to be hiding anything away.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Interesting; I wasn't considering the preliminary recitations to be material. Generally speaking, do you think that they should be interpreted that way? Kirill ^[talk] 12:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   It's probably responsible to assume that people will interpret this in the light most favourable to whatever their position happens to be as that's normally how people operate. Best therefore to pin it down.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2. I understand the impetus for this motion but I do not believe it is necessary. The Committee has pledged before, and should reaffirm, that it will seek community input on significant changes that will affect the relationship between the Committee and its constituents, including all aspects of the editor community. This does not, however, mean that every change in process, or even every "significant" change in process, requires a week's worth of advertising in three different places. I am particularly concerned that giving undue weight to relatively minor changes that may occur to our processes over time may have the effect of diminishing the attention given to more significant issues, both ones involving this Committee and others. Or put more simply, I favor motion #2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Per those above me, favor motion #2. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the same reason as opposing motion #2 Risker (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Not convinced on motion 2, but it is clearly superior to this one. Courcelles 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose, per Roger above and Risker below Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose as overly bureaucratic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

General discussion #1

Oppose Per not bureaucracy. We're getting in a tizzy because clarifications and amendments get merged? Whether a Hey ArbCom, you didn't quite get it right, please fix this process is called amendment / clarifications / have a Salmonidae is just so not important. Nobody Ent 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While I happen to agree that the particular change that spurred this discussion was a fairly trivial one, I think the request that we be more consistent in soliciting community input is a reasonable one in and of itself, regardless of which specific change we neglected it for.

Beyond that, my intent is not only to provide more transparency to the process, but also to create a defined place for decisions on procedure to be made in the first place; at the moment, the Committee can hold such discussions in a variety of places, making it rather difficult to follow them at times. Kirill ^[talk] 01:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, you are right, but it is a slippery slope - where is the limit. I fully endorse this change - it does not necessarily change the basics, but it does somewhat improve the transparency (something I have been asking for a long time). IF something is proposed by the ArbCom that the community would then massively oppose against, then at least that is seen - even the members of the ArbCom are only human. I presume that the motion about merging the Amendments and Clarifications pages would have passed without opposition, only some questions, concerns or suggestions which may have made the actual transition even smoother. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree whole heartedly that this particular change was minor, and had I not been editing the page simultaneously to the merge would probably never have been brought up. But anything to improve transparency and accountability is good. Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Motion #2

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed. Such motions shall remain open for at least one week prior to enactment; otherwise, the Committee's standard voting procedures apply.

Votes

Support

1. Alternative to the motion on procedural transparency above, and addressing my objections to that motion.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   The major and lingering remaining concern that I have about this is the seven-day provision, which has been highlighted by recent events. A lot of stuff whistles through in less than a day or two; and may often be time-sensitive because we want to apply it to an upcoming case. Delaying the opening of a case by say five or six days for process sake is likely to antagonise a lot of people,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Works for me. Kirill ^[talk] 12:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. This is acceptable as long as "significant or substantive" is interpreted in a reasonable way, which I guess is something that will play out over time. Re the comment that the ArbCom noticeboard is watched less than some other pages, I think passage of this motion would be fair notice that people interested in monitoring for potential changes in our procedure should watchlist that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Second choice to Motion #1. AGK [•] 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   • Change to oppose. AGK [•] 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

5. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
6. While I see Risker's point, I think that any rule can be wikilawyered to death but I think there's ample room for sound judgement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am quite certain that there will be plenty of people who will insist that any change whatsoever is "significant or substantive", even if it is making a grammar correction. ("But you changed the meaning by fixing the words!!!") Things we have motions for, I'm fine for discussing publicly onwiki and posting on the noticeboard. However, this requires lengthy deliberations even for going forward with a trial of something a little different. I don't think we need 7 days to discuss the majority of even substantive changes. Risker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Risker. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Risker. I'm in favour of opportunities for community input, but not if the only input is wikilawyering. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose as overly bureaucratic and arbitrary. Some discussions take longer, some take shorter. If folks are open and engaging, I think this is unnecessary and overly formalises interactions with the community at large. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. On reflection, I am not sure that it is sensible or necessary to impose on ourselves a one-week minimum period of exposure for motions, even considering our absolute discretion over whether to ignore or adapt procedures in a given case. AGK [•] 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. The point should be, "hold our procedural discussions here" not "wait a week to pass anything". A mandatory holding period of this long is too bureaucratic. Courcelles 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

General discussion #2

• Of the three pages in the initial proposal Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard has far less watchers than the other two. AC/N has 593 to AN's 3482 and VPP's 2513. In a project with less than 10,000 highly active users, you are dealing in huge percentage differences. I'm not sure if your intent is to actually increase transparency or just to make a feint and point to it next time people complain, but with this motion you're doing a much better job of the second than you are the first. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm actually mindful of the complaints we've had in the past about focusing on procedure when we've posted this stuff publically. How much transparency does whether Amendments and Clarifications are on one page or two need?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If the objective is to inform the community, you're going to have to break from Arbspace. The people who are complaining are most likely not watching the AN/C. The people watching AN/C are already involved enough that they'd be in the loop anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Sven is absolutely right. There are still people like me who will remain in blissful ignorance most of the time, being too busy running bots and editing protected templates, but with those pages you will at least get about 3-5% of the active editors, and probably a good chunk of those who can make useful contributions. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
      
• I don't care about the procedural details, but the idea of Arbcom requiring itself to give notice of substantial changes is a great one in my mind. I likely won't pay attention, because arbitration is really something I've ignored most of the time, but it will definitely help those who care more about it. Typos and other things definitely don't need to get prior notice; we're not a bureaucracy where everything requires votes first. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree this is a good step in the right direction and also agree that the notice should be somewhere, like a village pump, that folks are actually likely to see it. Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion #3

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.

• Unless Hersfold is active on this motion (which it appears he isn't), then 7 is a majority. This is then a call for Arbitrators to cast their vote if they have not done so. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Enacted. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Votes

Support

1. Okay, the core idea here is a good one, but it doesn't take anywhere near a week to get the community's input. Sorry to propose another motion at this late date, but I just can't get behind a week's waiting period above. A day gives the community plenty of time to object, without stretching into days of silence. Courcelles 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 14:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Better. AGK [•] 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. I can live with this. Risker (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
8. SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
9. per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
10. PhilKnight (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

General discussion #3

How about "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures, as assessed by the committee itself, shall ..." Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Or simpler: "Modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures that the Committee determines are significant or substantive shall be made etc etc",  Roger Davies ^talk 02:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A word of warning here. A day is not really enough time both for significant changes to be advertised and for public discussion to conclude (many people, including some arbs, may miss a few days here and there, so the unit of a week works best for most discussions). Trivial changes, I agree, shouldn't need bureaucracy, but the "days of silence" referred to above usually only occur when trivial changes are proposed. When something that objections are raised to is proposed, is a day enough time to assess opposition to it and whether the proposal needs to be withdrawn or reworked? The above will only work if any discussion that arises is allowed to continue for more than a day after a change is proposed. What something like this will need is arbitrators to exercise judgement on whether to close a proposal after a day of no input, or whether to allow discussion to continue for as long as needed, followed by the proposal being reworked. Or thanking people for their input but going ahead anyway (which may be needed at times, but will always irk some). Best to make a named someone (an arbitrator, not a clerk) responsible for any discussion that ensues and what to do afterwards, preferably the arbitrator who drafted or proposed the change in the first place.

What is also not clear is whether this advertising period of a day takes place before a public vote by arbitrators or is just a required period of notice following an internal (possibly informal) vote that passed the proposal. If you are advertising a public arb vote on a proposed change, this works less well if people turn up and find the arbs have all voted publicly already within minutes or hours of the proposal going up (something that is intensely annoying - why ask for input and then vote before any input arrives?). Also, beware of arbitrators proposing alternative wording that substantially changes the nature of the proposal, and that wording passing without the required 24-hour notice period, or any updates being made to the notice.

I would suggest a day of something being proposed with no voting by taking place (that is something clerks can enforce as arbitrators, being very busy and all that, tend to forget things like this), and then voting starts with input from any public discussion that may or may not have started. But really, the judgement starts at the point of deciding whether something is a trivial change, or a 'significant or substantive' change. Good luck with that. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why has the language for this #3 proposal dropped Village Pump in favor of WP:AN? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Administrator Noticeboard has a larger, more diverse and less fragmented readership. Risker (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• And places administrators as a special class. WP:VPPRO is the appropriate place for proposals that affect the community at large. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Motion to remove administrative tools from User:Carnildo

For the purposes of this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes is a majority.

Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

For exercising long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools, including his recent block of User:Itsmejudith, User:Carnildo's administrative tools are removed. Carnildo may regain the administrative tools in the usual manner via a successful Request for Adminship.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Votes

Support

1. Following SirFozzie's comment below, I've modified the wording to include a mention of Carnildo's block of Itsmejudith. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
2. We're probably going to have to explain this more in the motion itself, as most onlookers will have no idea of the exact incident that's the cause of this motion (and the preceding ones that built up to this incident), but we do need to take action here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
3. This block was poor, but after history of misuse of admin tools going back to 2006, it is necessary. (The history can sort of be seen in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano) Courcelles 17:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
4. I understand comments below, but I can't see how a statement is going to ameliorate matters to a degree where I would not support a desysop at this point. Some links to background will be forthcoming. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
5. I will support this, but I believe that for a third such offense, a ban is a more appropriate outcome. This should not be construed as endorsement for any other party's action in this case, but Carnildo had been told privately and directly to never intervene in the area again in lieu of a 2008 desysop'ing for his second offense. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Having looked through all the details, including this specific 2008 warning from ArbCom to Carnildo: "You are therefore warned that any further use of blocking or unblocking tools in relation to pedophilia, of any kind, or use of undelete/unprotect or the like to reverse "salting" of a pedophilia related matter, may (and quite probably will) result in rapid summary desysopping", I support a desysopping. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Carnildo, you state that you are aware that ArbCom does not trust your judgment in these areas. Presumably you were also aware of the warning above. While I can understand your actions to not bring this up at ANI and to close at least part of the discussion (although I'd have closed all of it, especially in light of this IP's history of sexual and trolling questions at the RD, which you haven't given any indication that you looked into), in light of those two facts you should not have been the one to undertake any administrative actions in this situation. The fact that you did so demonstrates very poor judgment and a repeat of past instances of poor judgment. As such, I see no alternative but to revoke your administrative rights. I don't think this quite goes to the level of a ban as Jclemens suggests, but let's just say it would be a very good idea for you to avoid any situations involving pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy henceforth. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Kirill ^[talk] 13:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
11. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Per my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• I'm deeply concerned by Carnildo's actions and am presently inclined to support the motion, but we should give Carnildo an opportunity to make a statement before we vote. Carnildo should respond to the Committee on this issue as soon as he is back at the keyboard, and should not take any further administrator actions (especially not any related to this topic) until this motion is resolved. Carnildo's statement should address, among other things, why he thought it appropriate to impose this block of an experienced good-faith editor without any consultation, particularly in light of the fact that his judgment in this particular area has consistently been questioned since 2006. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There are very strong arguments for desysopping here. Carnildo took an action that he knew would be highly controversial, in an area where he is aware that his judgment has been very widely questioned, not least by this Committee. I find it unfathomable that he would have intervened in this situation in this fashion given everything that has happened before. It is unquestionable that Carnildo must not take any further administrator actions in this topic-area, read very broadly indeed. The only arguments against desysopping are that he did report the block to us at the time of making it; that he has presented a sincere and thoughful, albeit deeply misguided, explanation of his actions; and that his administrator actions in other areas, to the best of my knowledge, have been sound. In view of this mitigation, if an alternate motion were proposed for some sort of administrator action topic-restriction, and if Carnildo publicly and unambiguously stated that he would abide by the restriction, I would consider that as an alternative to desysopping. If that does not occur I will support the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I feel as though the warning quoted by SilkTork above is worded to much the same effect as the ban you're looking for. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I too am deeply concerned and am inclined to support this motion. I concur that Carnildo should have an opportunity to present his position. I think we should also be considering a topic ban from anything to do with paedophilia. Risker (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Waiting until the history is fully laid out and Carnildo has had a chance to explain myself, but I share their deep concern that an administrator who has been sanctioned in the past would ever think it would be a good idea to revisit a problem area and take action without apparent consultation. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've dug up and posted a sufficient outline of the history to assure myself that a desysoping is the right outcome, and as Carnildo has had a chance to explain himself, my self-imposed barrier to voting has been removed. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Not familiar with the history just yet myself, but even a brief glance at the IP's history in this instance should have shown that Itsmejudith was not simply throwing idle accusations. This was clearly a very poor block, and if there is a history of these judgment calls, then desysopping is likely the way to go. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• The 2006 RfA had an unusual clause that his admin status was "on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom." Does anyone know if that review was done? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was, although I am not quickly finding a link. The arbitrators of the day did review Carnildo's administrator actions during the two-month probationary period—they were focused pretty heavily on copyright-related issues—and found that they were satisfactory at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

History
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
History This section will be used to assemble facts already known to the arbitration committee informing our decision in this case. Since many of these involve actions taken many years ago, the outcomes of various discussions are not necessarily congruent with what might be expected under current standards: Carnildo was desysop'ed by the committee for administrator conduct related to the Pedophilia userbox wheel war (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo) in February 2006. In March 2006, a second RfA yielded no consensus to return the tools. In September 2006, he was resysop'ed in a controversial re-RfA. In 2008 he undid a pedophilia advocacy block of User:VigilancePrime. This action was referred to the arbitration committee, who, after an email discussion, sent an email to the account from which he had previously corresponded with the committee which concluded, in part "You are enjoined to put all such matters in the hands of other admins for action"

Response by Carnildo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Response by Carnildo If Itsmejudith had left it at the "pro-pedophile trolling" comment ([1]), I would have let it pass, as it's a possible interpretation of User:140.180.5.169's comment ("Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage."[2]) or (at a stretch) User:Bastard Soap's original question [3] (it's unclear from the indenting who the comment was intended to reply to), and 140.180.5.169 does have a history of expressing unusual views on sexual activities. However, it was followed up on the RefDesk with "I'm in the UK and if I fail to denounce this prima facie paedophile to the authorities I am myself guilty of a serious criminal offence. The IP geolocates to Princeton University and I am, we are all, duty bound to email them. International police protocols apply" — Itsmejudith 22:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC), [4] and on Itsmejudith's talk page with "The only evidence is the comments, which are not evidence that any offence has been committed but indicate that there ought to be an investigation....The refdesks should carry a warning that if a poster confesses to having committed a serious crime or gives other comparable indication, the authorities may be informed." — ItsmeJudith 07:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC), [5] The first comment makes it clear that Itsmejudith is referring to the IP. Further, my interpretation of the first comment, especially in light of the second, is that Itsmejudith is making the specific accusation that 140.180.5.169 has engaged in illegal sexual activities with a minor (the only "legal duties to report" in the UK that I'm aware of are specific knowledge of felonies, and suspicion of child sex abuse). Reasoning for my specific actions: The block: I blocked because Itsmejudith indicated they were unwilling to refrain from future accusations. False accusations of child abuse, even if they are immediately withdrawn, are extremely damaging to the accused. Since Itsmejudith seemed to be acting in good faith, I gave them the opportunity to either retract the comments or substantiate them. They declined to do either, and worded their response in a way that made me think they would continue making accusations in the future, so I blocked. The length: To my knowledge, this is the only time Itsmejudith has made this sort of accusation. Blocking for one week would let the question get archived off the RefDesk, removing the immediate temptation to make further accusations, while giving them time to reconsider. The other block time I considered was an indefinite block, with an unblock condition of pledging not to make such accusations in the future, but I considered that it would cause more drama and be less likely to work. The block comment: I described the block reason in generic terms to keep the log entry from standing out, to try to reduce drama. Itsmejudith's comments were disruptive, as they derailed the RefDesk discussion into arguing about 140.180.5.169's actions and motivations rather than discussing the question that had been asked. They were unfounded accusations, as neither I, nor the commenters on the RefDesk, nor Itsmejudith saw any evidence that 140.180.5.169 had undertaken the activities that Itsmejudith was accusing them of. I didn't include "making legal threats" despite mentioning it in the initial comment to Itsmejudith because, on further review, I felt that Itsmejudith's wording fell into the grey area of "legal consequences will take place", and there isn't clear community consensus that that such statements are blockable legal threats. Informing ArbCom: I know ArbCom takes an interest in pedophilia-related activity, and that they don't trust my judgment on this, so I forwarded my action to them for review. Not informing AN/I: It's got a well-founded reputation as the "drama board", and I was trying to minimize the on-Wiki spread of Itsmejudith's accusations. Closing off only the "pro-pedophile trolling" branch of the discussion: I found the question to be a reasonable one to ask, and the discussion was producing sources that could provide answers. I was trying to get the discussion back on track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnildo (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 July 2012‎ (UTC)

General discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
General discussion Shouldn't there be some evidence to such a strong allegation of "long term poor judgement"? This kind of comes out of nowhere, and has no context whatsoever presented. I'm sure there's a good reason behind this, but it would be kind of nice if said reasons would actually be provided. :) --Conti|✉ 17:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Yes probably. Anyway, it was the recent block of Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) which triggered this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I figured this out by now, though I don't see how that warrants immediate desysopping, that's why I was asking for more information on "long term poor judgement". Some searching led me to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Carnildo though, so I suppose that's an explanation. --Conti|✉ 17:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Ah, that is indeed rather enlightening. If there were not such things in the background, then I would be tempted to ask if the topic area on which ItsMeJudith was commenting at the time of the block, is in some way exempt from the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. It would be nice to have clarification that this motion does not imply that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Pretty much along the lines of what Demiurge said, I'm concerned that if you guys don't spell out exactly what's gone wrong, what you'll be passing is a motion that implies that personal attacks/threats of contacting the police are permissible, as long as they concern pedophilia. If you're desysopping someone for misusing his tools long-term in pursuit of a POV - which is my best guess for the rationale for this, based on the case links people have provided above - you want to explain that, not just say that you're desysopping him for having "poor judgment" in regards to a block of someone who was issuing personal attacks/legal threats that may or may not have been founded. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, you're right, and some of us (by which I don't mean to imply that I am...) are working on full details of the problem and history, some of which predate the personal knowledge of most of the committee. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Itsmejudith was told "I will block you for personal attacks, legal threats, and disrupting Wikipedia." But NLT blocks are indefinite, and this was not an NLT block as confirmed by the block reason, "Disruptive editing: making serious unfounded accusations against another user". Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC) This unblock of VigilancePrime is also significant. The relatively infrequent use of blocking and unblocking as an admin makes the blocks/unblocks in this topic area appear to be pushing a pov. IMO, Carnildo's inability to stay away from this topic yet again means that a desysop is needed. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Should the IP 140.180.5.169 be blocked? Cardamon (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Remember what blocking is actually for, go and read Special:Contributions/140.180.5.169 from the date of the helpdesk discussion closure onwards, note that the discussion is closed, and ask yourself what blocking would demonstrably and usefully achieve. The correct tool to use in this instance was the edit tool, two and a half times. Uncle G (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Since you notified me about this page, I will post my response on this drama. First, I have no interest in participating in a witch hunt against anybody--not myself, not Carnildo, and not Itsmejudith. The eagerness of some people to put detailed thoughts and motivations into other people's heads is astounding. Wikipedia is a global project. I grew up in a country that's probably 10000 km away from yours, differ from you in age by as much as decades, had experiences completely different from yours, and have developed an odd combination of intellectual interests that very few people have. How can anyone on the other side of the globe possibly conclude, from ONE assertion of fact on the Reference Desk, that I'm part of the pro-pedophilia lobby who's trying to put on a reasonable face? There might be a reasonable correlation in a town of 1000 people, but it's absurd to extrapolate that to the world's 7 billion human beings. Second, it's true that I'm interested in learning about unusual human and animal sexuality. I want to know about the full spectrum of both human and animal sexuality, about the role of evolution vs. human culture in dictating human sexual mores, and about our similarities and differences from the rest of the natural world. As far as I know, it isn't a thoughtcrime to be interested in this topic, nor is it against Wikipedia policy to research it. For what it's worth, I'll state my opinion about this ArbCom motion. I find Itsmejudith's accusations and (especially) legal threats to be baseless, and they reveal more about her tendency to stereotype than about my thoughts. I disagree with Carnildo's block--I disagree with what Itsmejudith is saying, but she has the right to say it, especially on controversial issues like this. I disagree with the desysop motion--I believe that Carnildo has good intentions, and ascribing motivations like "the blocks/unblocks in this topic area appear to be pushing a pov" unfairly suppresses legitimate debate about controversial blocking decisions. Finally, I disagree with Cardamon's suggestion, as I have not violated Wikipedia's policies. Please, everyone, stop the accusations, the finger-pointing, the distrust, and the witch hunts in general. Go out and celebrate Canada Day, even if you're not Canadian, and give this a break. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Isn't this all cart-before-the-horse? Make a motion to desysop him and then come up with evidence to support it? Really? Really?? Evidence should inform a decision, not the other way around. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC) The evidence of past problematic administrator behavior exists and is known to the committee. It's not a matter of "coming up with" evidence, but merely articulating that which underlies the decision. Having said that, while I do not fault my colleagues who already have enough information to make an appropriate decision, I am holding off until the various past incidents are Wikilinked in to demonstrate the pattern of behavior. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) [Moved from voting section. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)] I have asked exactly 3 questions on the RD, only one of which was sexual (and it was about animal, not human, sexual behavior). The second question was about how conscious perceptions of the world change with age, and is not even remotely controversial. The third was about an Italian stereotype--I asked whether the stereotype exists, not whether it's true, not why Italians are such despicable people. That's hardly a "history" of sexual and trolling questions, and in any case, nobody has shown why my questions could not have originated from a genuine interest in the subject. Furthermore, I was not aware that trolling entitles other users to make baseless accusations of pedophilia and threats of contacting the police. I had previously believed that two wrongs don't make a right, and that violations of policy by one user, no matter how egregious, do not justify violations by others. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Your characterization of your questions is inconsistent with the reasonably expected emotional responses generated by posting them to a widely viewed page, read by any number of Wikipedians with vastly differing backgrounds. The two possibilities that immediately come to mind is that this is either intentional trolling or gross ignorance of how such sensitive topics would be reasonably perceived by Wikipedians. In either case, there does not appear to be any benefit to Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of topics resulting from your lines of questions. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC) So basically, because he has different questions than the norm and didn't waste time with tedious qualifications and insultingly condescending self-distancing and because the helpdesk is "widely viewed", he's a troll? For a supposed "global community", this project has a ridiculously arrogant sense of the importance of its own personal norms and mores - and then you all wonder why editor retention rates are in the fucking pits. 108.28.224.136 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Just want to comment that, if I was an admin, I would have also immediately blocked Itsmejudith, though for NLT reasons. This seems to clearly breach NLT. SilverserenC 23:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Hi Silver, the WP:NLT policy relates to litigation, and in my understanding Itsmejudith didn't threaten litigation. Also, the WP:NLT policy says "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." Otherwise, I suggest you have a look at WP:Child protection, which I think is the applicable policy in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Okay, this got me curious. Is it okay/acceptable to say "I'm calling the cops on you" on Wikipedia, or implicitly threaten such an action? I suppose it's true that it's not technically a legal threat, but I would have assumed it violates that policy in spirit, at the very least. --Conti|✉ 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC) There are cases, such as responding to threats of harm where our best practice is to take stuff out of the realm of Wikipedia and place it firmly in the hands of the police and other authorities, yes. In that spirit, Itsmejudith would have done better to deal with the incident through similar channels, and not on-wiki at all. It possibly is being dealt with via such channels, right now, for all that you or I know. Doing things that way means that the police and prosecutors don't get armchair quarterbacked by people on wikis with pseudonyms such as "Uncle G" or "Silver seren". Uncle G (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Agree with Conti above. Saying one is going to inform the cops about another user should more or less fall under NLT. At the very least, it is causing chilling effects. Furthermore, as i'm sure you well know, I think Child protection is one of the stupidest, most misinformed forced-on-the-community policies we have, though I also don't see how it applies in this situation at all. I'm not seeing any threats to children here, nor am I seeing the user in question making any advocacy of pedophilia in his comments. This comment is neither, as it is just continuing the conversation on what causes psychological damage to children who are sexually abused. And the conversation seemed to be quite serious by those involved. But none of it was advocating for sexual abusing children. SilverserenC 21:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC) There are not one but three policies that apply here: Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Child protection, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. All of the stuff in the infobox arbitration case mentioned above applies, too. Navigating a course when all of that lot clash in such an unfortunate way, as in the case at hand, is difficult, and it would be wrong not to acknowledge that, even if the real rationale here is that the incident at hand doesn't stand alone. Uncle G (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Child protection: "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them." 169.231.53.116 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC) ... and no arbitrator has said that anything that Itsmejudith has done was appropriate. The issue leading to the desysoping motion is not the sum total of conduct in the case, in which I personally find three separate users who exercised poor judgment, but only one of the three who was currently an admin, having been previously desysop'ed for intervening in the topic area, and also having been explicitly told in 2008 to never act as an administrator in that topic area again. One thing that was hinted at by Itsmejudith that hasn't been addressed in these comments, however, was the self-made assertion that he or she is a mandated reporter with a duty to report such suspicions. I note that, as a mandated reporter myself, I have a specific authority to whom I am required by law to report such suspicions, and Wikipedia is not it. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Can you explain to me exactly what comment in the Reference Desk discussion would be something you would be mandated to report to the police? Because i'm not seeing a single thing, unless talking about pedophilia historically and the mental effects of it on children somehow automatically makes one a pedophile. It is this exact sort of thing that I was concerned the Child protection policy would lead to, a drastic expansion of what would ever fall under it in the first place. SilverserenC 23:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I can't, because I didn't see anything there that is direct enough to trigger my ethical duty to report under the laws that apply to me. Itsmejudith mentioned a different jurisdiction, however, (although I'm not remembering if that was in email or on-wiki, so I'll just not mention either one by name) so that may mean nothing in particular. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC) @Jclemens: If the same block were made by a different admin, would it have been a good block? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Not Jclemens, but as I see it, the block wouldn't have been an optimal course for ANY admin to take, but without history, including being told to never, ever take any admin action in this area ever again, I would sure as hell not be supporting a desysop for this one incident. The history of this admin is what makes this such a tipping point to be talking desysopping. Courcelles 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC) You're really going to explain to me how saying that you're going to contact the police about another user doesn't fall under NLT or NPA? Because I fully believe it falls under NLT and, thus, would deserve an indefinite block until it is resolved, which I would wholeheartedly support. SilverserenC 23:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC) The only question that the committee has addressed as a whole from this incident is the use of the block button by an administrator who had been essentially topic banned from acting as an administrator in such disputes. The others of us may differ over whether the block would have been appropriate. I have some sympathy for the level of emotions involved in the topic, and if personally presented with the situation as it had devolved by the time of the block would have blocked the IP for trolling (normal, expiring, trolling block, NOT a CHILDPROTECT block) and counseled Itsmejudith to remove the accusations and contact authorities off-wiki if she believed it mandated by her local laws. Mind you, that's with 20/20 hindsight, and solely my opinion, rather than that of any of the rest of the committee. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC) @Jclemens: OK, fair enough. But if they do good admin work regarding copyright-related issues, it might make more sense to give them an outright topic-ban rather than a complete desysoppying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC) A Quest For Knowledge, I'd suggest that he was already under a topic ban and had been for several years, even before I was on the Committee. Risker (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC) @Risker: You "think" and "suggest" they were under a topic ban? Jclemens says "essentially" they were under a topic ban. Why the ambiguity? Either they were topic-banned or they weren't. The committee could have avoided creating such a gray area by issuing a clear ruling which specifically stated that they were under a topic ban. Anyway, this doesn't really concern me, so I'll leave with repeating my previous sugestion: If they do good admin work regarding copyright-related issues, it might make more sense to give them a (clear and unambigious) topic-ban rather than a desysoppying. Have fun, folks. I'm outta here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC) The words "you are topic banned from the area" were never used. That was, in my estimation, an improvement that this committee observes could have been made--the politeness of our predecessors exceeded their precision. Also, note that in four years, roughly the tenure of my Wikipedia administrator experience, the concept and execution of topic bans has changed substantively. However, the current iteration of the arbitration committee has not, to the best of my recollection, imposed any topic bans on administrators, opting instead to desysop for conduct that would result in a topic ban in a non-administrator who had engaged in the same conduct. And, note for the record that neither of the arbitrators who were primarily involved in handling the 2008 matter remain on the committee, although both are active on Wikipedia and have provided input via email to the current committee. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC) It is difficult to take too seriously the comments made by those who do not post under their User name. Bielle (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC) A history lesson This quote by Giano from here [6] may shed a little light on Carnildo and Wikipedia's long and often less than glorious history: " Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war This was the first case, I was involved in, and resulted from the first time I was ever blocked [7], but there is no record of it in my block log because after ages of battling and having to change my name to lose it, they eventually agreed to to wipe it as the block was not only unjust but the citation for it defamatory "Blocked for hate speech" (This is the hate speech in question [8] and [9]). The blocking Admin was desysoped within hours of the block. However, by the time someone called Brion (who had previously refused) [10] agreed to wipe it, I was long gone from that account; its password and lying block log sent to hell." Wikipedia's abused and disgraced Admin system is the reason why so many people have gone. ToujoursDejaVu (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Discretionary sanctions

Just as page protection was envisaged applying to maybe 4 or 5 pages, so discretionary sanctions was intended to be a fairly narrow remedy. Over the course of the years and cases they have been applied to more and more areas, even old timers cannot keep up with all of them .. Should not a process be put in place to review these sanctions and remove them where possible? Rich Farmbrough, 03:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

This is a reasonable idea in theory, but in practice, I think that if we have the good fortune that in an area where discretionary sanctions were voted, and the editing environment in that area has now improved to the point that the sanctions are no longer needed, then what will happen is that none will be imposed and there won't be an issue. If in a specific topic-area the existence of discretionary sanctions is no longer needed and getting in the way, a request for amendment can be made. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is these become traps for the unwary. Rich Farmbrough, 06:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Well, they can't really be traps since any effect they have needs to be preceded by a warning that spells out which sanction is active and its applicable area. — Coren ^(talk) 13:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Annotation of case pages for sanctioned users who have changed username

Initiated by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} at 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This request would also indirectly affect anyone who has been involved in an arbitration case with ongoing sanctions and has publicly changed usernames.

The two editors involved in the immediate discussion have been notified: [11].

Statement by Seraphimblade

Clarification is requested on the following two questions:

• May the log pages at a closed arbitration case be annotated to note that a user has changed his or her username by those who become aware of the change, or must such an annotation be performed by an Arbitrator or Clerk?
• If only Arbitrators and/or Clerks can make such an annotation to a case, what is the proper procedure for requesting such an annotation, and are objections considered?

This objection [12] led me to make this request, as it seems this is not as uncontroversial a housekeeping measure as it would seem, and I could not find any existing policy or discussion on the matter. A clarification would hence be much appreciated.

For the record, the thread at arbitration enforcement suggested such annotations to the case page, and had I evaluated consensus for such at the close, I would have found that they did have consensus among the uninvolved admins commenting. I did not make such a determination as to my knowledge it was not required. I think the clarification would still be useful in a broader sense, however. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Hersfold: I sure didn't see any trouble with it either, but MVBW seemed to pretty strenuously object, and thought it was only clerks/Arbs. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I'd missed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

I do not see why not. My renaming was already annotated [13]. The only question is this: should you only annotate users who were sanctioned, or all users indicated as parties. For example, speaking about WP:EEML, should renaming of User:Offliner be annotated? My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

In my opinion, information about past conflicts (or alliances) between the users editing contentious and scrutinized topics should be easily available to everyone, and the linkage should be traceable not only between an old and a new names, but in the opposite direction also. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea to link new and old names on the relevant case pages was initially proposed by VM. His new idea seems also quite reasonable. However, that should be done in such a way that old account page will redirect to new ones similarly to what has been done to the user:Radeksz page. In contrast, a situation with the user:Biophys page is hardly acceptable, because this account has been totally deleted, and a new account user:Hodja Nasreddin was created instead. The Biophys page should be converted into a redirect to user:My very best wishes, similar to what Volunteer Marek did. In addition, since user:Biophys was deleted, a possibility exists that some new user may request to use this name.

@ Newyorkbrad. I agree that off-wiki harassment is a legitimate reason for rename. However, in my opinion, the users with problematic edit history should provide serious evidences of harassment to get a permission for name change.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Biophys. I conclude from your last post that the real reason for you user name change was outing, which was a result of the leakage of the EEML archive. Contrary to Jclemens, I believe you do have a right to take some protective measures. However, you are missing one point: whereas you have a right to defend your privacy, the good faith users working in the EE area also have a right to know whom they are dealing with. Therefore, we have two mutually exclusive tasks, which cannot be solved simultaneously. In my opinion, if you want to conceal your identity, WP:CLEANSTART option is still available for you. However, that should be a real clean start: the old accounts must be labelled as "retired" (and not deleted), and you must leave the previous area of contentions. Under your new account, you may edit biophysics, molecular biology and all other areas, but not EE related areas. However, if you do not plan to do so, the linkage between your old and new account (and vise versa) must remain totally transparent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to allow someone to create a Biophys account. Not only that would lead to further hiding of the connection between old user Biophys and present My Very Best Wishes, that may complicate a life of the new good faith owner of the Biophys account. Indeed, as far as i know, the archives of the EEML and other story are available on Internet (outside of Wikipedia), so the new account may be confused by someone with old Biophys, which may create problems for the absolutely innocent person. In connection to that, I believe the Biophys account should be restored and converted into a redirect to MVBW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I could, in some extreme cases, such as perhaps controversial OUTing of an editor in a previous identity, see some basis for not indicating changed names there. But, honestly, only in such cases, and I imagine that there are probably already procedures in place to deal with such circumstances. If that is the case, this seems a good way to ensure that people do not try to change their names to avoid dealing with the realities of their own previous objectionable activity. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I've been thinking about asking for something similar for awhile, but for different reasons. The major reason IMO (it certainly applies to myself, I'm guessing it applies to others) why people changed their usernames after the case was not to escape any kind of scrutiny but rather because of ongoing off-wiki harassment (I know that that kind of thing doesn't stop the dedicated harassers, but it might make it a bit harder for them or any new potential ones). This is particularly true for those users, like myself and I believe Nug, whose previous usernames were tied to their real life names.

So why not kill two birds with one stone? That is, why not go through and change all the old user names in the case pages to their current names: i.e. Radeksz-->Volunteer Marek, Miacek-->Estlandia, etc. That way people can always refer back to the case, while at the same time the old-names-tied-to-real-life-names will be gone. Everyone will be happy. Win win. VolunteerMarek 01:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens - What the hey are you talking about? What "extraordinary efforts"? ??? VolunteerMarek 20:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, if time and effort are a concern then... well, this is a collaborative project, so I can go through myself and change all the old names to all the new names, at least for myself. Just like working on articles.VolunteerMarek 16:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

As long as it applies to all users. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens, if that is your attitude (I believe the proper action for a user who has 1) been sanctioned by the community or the commitee, and 2) has been harassed sufficiently unpleasantly that he or she cannot function on Wikipedia if their prior identity is known is to leave.) then you leave me no choice but to appeal and overturn EEML in its entirety. Your statement sanctions off-Wiki harassment to drive editors away from Wikipedia. I am utterly gobsmacked. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

Depending on the size of involved case, you could have a really large list to track or very little.

I would like to suggest that the log/action section be accessible to anyone that can currently utilize that section, and information about renamed users be listed under a separate heading. However, as for the actual findings/Remedies/etc, let ArbCom/AC Clerk handle changing/notarizing those parts. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see no reason why such a routine notification couldn't be made by anyone. Unless I'm missing something? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose the confusion could come from the fact that the vast majority of the page is considered to be restricted to Arbitrators and Clerks - however, for the purposes of clarity, I think a general exception can be made for editors who wish to add a note such as "(since renamed to {{userlinks|Newusername}})" to the list of involved parties at the top of the main case page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • To answer MVBW's question, I would say all parties regardless of whether they were sanctioned or not. Obviously, though, non-sanctioned users are not bound by the requirement stated by AGK below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• In my view, final decisions ought to be updated to reflect changes in username of users who are (or previously were) subject to sanctions; this would include expired sanctions. In the case of outstanding sanctions, this committee should probably do the updating: we must be notified by any editor who wants to rename their account while under arbitration sanctions. In the case of amended or vacated sanctions, an optimal method of having the decision updated would be to ask a clerk to do so—though I would take a dim view of this becoming a tool for editors to embarrass or humiliate their 'opponents'. Obviously, very old cases are retained largely for the purpose of reference and should probably not be disturbed. AGK [•] 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• The log section is not restricted to just Arbs, Clerks and AE admins. All users are able to add appropriate and relevant information there, such as notifications. I think if there is an issue with what someone has posted there, the Clerks would be able to deal with it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• I certainly don't have a problem with AE admins making annotations such as this. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Updating should be performed as appropriate, but I share Volunteer Marek's concern about being sensitive to situations where usernames have been changed because of harassment situations, and there are probably some instances where the time and effort of doing the updating wouldn't be worth it (e.g. in cases from years ago where there have been no further problems). Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Contra Newyorkbrad, I believe the proper action for a user who has 1) been sanctioned by the community or the commitee, and 2) has been harassed sufficiently unpleasantly that he or she cannot function on Wikipedia if their prior identity is known is to leave. There is no right to edit Wikipedia, and we should take no extraordinary efforts to allow protected editing by previously sanctioned users. The community's interest in ensuring that previously-sanctioned editors are subject to appropriate future scrutiny takes precedence over the individual's right to edit pseudonymously in a manner unconnected to previous pseudonymous access. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @ Vecrumba, no, it simply refuses to grant 'special rights' to previously sanctioned users just because they claim to have been harassed. My stance is that this committee's past actions that failed to clearly proactively track and identify previously sanctioned (to include failed RfAs and community noticeboard discussions, not just ArbCom sanctions) users to this community have done 1) no particular good to the users in questions, two of whose identities have been found out in recent months despite such efforts, and 2) have eroded the trust in the committee's impartiality an willingness to serve as the community's watchdog in such cases. I do not sanction the off-wiki harassment of anyone, so that booting previously sanctioned users out of Wikipedia entirely is the best option for both the integrity of the encyclopedia and the protection of the real person behind the account. There is no right to edit Wikipedia, so there can be no right to edit Wikipedia harassment-free: freedom from harassment is easily achieved by the editor in question leaving Wikipedia, should they desire to avoid potential harassment. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'd prefer any such modifications be handled via requests to the clerks, to provide some scrutiny first, as on occasion this could be contentious.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• It doesn't look like we're all quite on the same page here, so I've proposed a motion (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion on annotating changed usernames in arbitration decisions) to address this issue more formally. Kirill ^[talk] 00:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion on annotating changed usernames in arbitration decisions

The following procedure is adopted:

Annotation of changed usernames in arbitration decisions

Whenever an editor who is mentioned by name in an arbitration decision changes his or her username, any instances of his or her previous username that appear in the decision may be updated to reflect the newly changed username while also retaining the historical username, subject to the following rules:

(a) Any instance of the name that appears within the enforcement log of an arbitration decision may be updated by any uninvolved administrator upon request.

(b) Any instance of the name that appears within the text of a finding or remedy within the decision may be updated by the arbitration clerks upon request.

(c) Any instance of the name that appears within the evidence submissions of a case, or in other preliminary documents, may be updated by the arbitration clerks with the prior approval of the Committee.

Votes

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. Proposed, based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Annotation of case pages for sanctioned users who have changed username. Kirill ^[talk] 00:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
2. I agree that Courcelles has a point, but I think we can trust admins and clerks to find a way round the problem. For example, using a strike through of the previous name, or adding a footnote would presumably be sufficient. PhilKnight (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Not seeing a downside to this. Per my comment below, probably the easiest/clearest way to implement this is simply to strike through the old name and add the new one in underscore.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
4. With the caveat that the old name be struck out, not removed. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
5. With my copyedit to the opening paragraph to annotate retaining the original name. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
6. I think the comments below have hashed out an option to avoid the confusion Courcelles mentions with a minimum of work to update pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As written, this could lead to a situation where the final case page referred to a user by two separate names, if the remedies were updated, but not the initial statements/filings. Instead of bringing clarification, that just generates confusion. The last clause should be automatic if the second is done to prevent this situation. Courcelles 03:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

   Do people really read the original case statements, except in a historical context? I'm concerned that, if (c) were to be an automatic consequence of (b), carrying out the update would become prohibitively time-consuming, especially for lengthy cases. Kirill ^[talk] 03:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

   The statements, maybe not, but the main page hen the case is closed, I imagine they are read some decent amounts, as the "linked to" paged of the case, like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Courcelles 04:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Administration creep; the clerks may be unaware of some reason why a rename should not be logged; and no provision is made to exclude vanished users. If this procedure is really necessary, then simply have it say "If a user who was party to or named in arbitration decision or case log is renamed or changes account, the case pages may be updated with the new username upon request to the arbitration clerks. The clerks will decide if such an update is necessary, and obtain the prior consent of the committee." The current proposal's specificity and multiple clauses don't seem necessary to me. AGK [•] 13:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

   I specifically reject the assertion that any rename of a sanctioned user should ever not be logged. Efforts to promote privacy have had the past effect of shielding previously sanctioned users, allowing many of them to carry forward grudges and avoid WP:SCRUTINY, and the entire practice has eroded the community's trust in the committee. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

   Fine enough, though I do also oppose for two other reasons. AGK [•] 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Clarification: I would usually be happy to concede to the majority in an ordinary motion, but for motions to create a new procedure I am less happy to support more paperwork without a very good reason. In this case, I don't think good reason exists. AGK [•] 15:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Though well-intentioned, I suspect this is a little dogmatic and inflexible - why not just backlink? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
4. I'm not presently convinced this is necessary, per AGK and Casliber. I'm open to being persuaded, however, per my specific question in the comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
5. I think that what we want is not instructions but a policy - "Sanctions applied by the Arbitration Committee follow the editor. If an editor changes their username, the clerks will update the records upon being made aware of the name change. If there are pressing reasons why this should not be done, the editor in question must contact Arbcom promptly. In all cases, a sanctioned editor who wishes to change their username must inform Arbcom." Or something similar. Also, I'm with Sven Mangard that all that is needed is a note on the main case page that User:Foo has now renamed himself User:Nofoohere, and the amendment on the page noting bans. Going thru and editing every reference to Foo is pointless. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
6. I've given this a lot of thought, and come to the conclusion that Elen of the Roads is right. Risker (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
7. I prefer Elen's suggestion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Inactive for this vote. SirFozzie (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Just a clarification—is "by request" meant to mean "by request of the sanctioned user," or can anyone (e.g. another party to the case) make the request? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that we'd allow anyone to make the request; is there a reason to limit it to only the affected user? Kirill ^[talk] 02:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In favor of doing this, but I'd like a mechanism where we note the previous name, as well as the current name. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I copyedit the above to note that we will retain the old name AND note the new one when updating? Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Kirill ^[talk] 10:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So amended; feel free to revert or to improve my wording if desired. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the clearest route is simply to strike through the old name and add the new one in underscore.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am torn between adopting these rules, or simply handling these things on a case-by-case basis. Let me ask this question: in the now eight-year history of arbitration decisions, how many times has there been an actual problem created by a sanctioned user changing his or her username and the decision not being updated? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the committee, who tend to be more attuned to such things, but really about transparency and the community not having to keep a scorecard of who has changed usernames. Making sure that past decisions will appropriately follow a user should disincentivize changing usernames just for the sake of trying to put the past behind one... Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

Question: I know it's important to keep up with who is whom when names change, but would it not be a good idea to leave the names in the middle as is, and have some sort of post script that notes "BadEditorX had their name changed to QuestionalbeEditorW" in one location. Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Implementation issues aside, I think this is long overdue. I would like to see this applied to accounts who have "vanished" and returned under a new username or taken a "clean start" (or both) but whose original identities are known to the community. Neither of those mechanisms are intended to be used to sidestep sanctions (in fact, they are specifically not to be used for that). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

From reading the proposed motion, it does not seem clear if the above is included (I assume this doesn't include clean starts, but someone could make the argument that it does). --Rschen7754 16:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually when I read it I thought that is exactly what it was looknig for. The assumption I had was that it was being done because of an assumption that if someone had a do over and they are now in front of Arbcom for some reason then the old account should be taken into consideration. Kumioko (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(moved by clerk) Being mentioned by name in an arbitration case is not a bad predictor for future behavior issues. I support this decision because it seems that it would make admin and arb work, specifically looking at evidence of past behavior, easier. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC) My apologies; I saw this linked from a board, knew that only arbs could propose, but didn't realize only arbs could vote period. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the existence of multiple arbitration cases for Betacommand, and given his change of username in between them, there's definitely a potential for confusion out there, so this is definitely a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the reason for requiring the permission of the Committee before the clerks can change the names in the evidence pages? Is it just to maintain the principle that they generally shouldn't be edited? I'd have thought the clerks can be trusted to update the names without messing with anything else. Robofish (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's mostly intended as a way to prevent people from overloading the clerks with unnecessary update requests. Given the amount of evidence submitted in certain cases, changing every instance of a username in them will be quite time-consuming; I'd like to make sure that there's a good reason for making such changes before tasking the clerks with carrying them out. Kirill ^[talk] 13:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, with the find/replace feature in the new editing bar, it actually shouldn't take that long provided all instances are spelled correctly. However, in cases where someone has switched accounts (not renamed) this could cause some confusion, as the evidence would then state "User:Foo did this: [diff]" where the diff is an edit by User:Bar. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Find/replace would work for simple cases, but not for ones where people are referred to by variants of their actual username (e.g. the various Betacommand cases where the evidence submissions use "Betacommand", "Δ", "Delta", "Beta", "BCD", etc. interchangeably). Kirill ^[talk] 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For complicated and/or lengthy cases such as the above, would it not be wiser to have a notice at the top of the page, rather than changing every individual reference ? --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be workable. AGK [•] 06:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Courcelles' oppose, my suggestion is to just put up a note in a colored box at the top of each case page (4 stages and their talks) that says "Since the conclusion of this case, User:Example_A has been renamed to User:Example_B" or "User:Example_A has also gone by the names User:Example_B and User:Example_C in the past". If you stick it up in a banner, you won't have to edit anything else, and it won't confuse anyone. As for the enforcement pages, you could put (also known as User:Example_B) next to the name in small text. Just tossing about ideas. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no necessity for paragraph a) to specify "administrator" instead of "editor" Nobody Ent 12:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe paragraph a) is there because that section on an RFAR case is generally only edited by administrators (requiring the tools to enforce, etc), and opening it up for other editors makes certain pages harder to track, especially in cases where the section is large. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not to sound like a lazy clerk, but I'm confused as to why this motion is necessary. Casliber's comment makes the most sense for me. We don't rename ANI archives in the event of a rename, and I don't see why arbitration is any different. NW (Talk) 15:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The committee could ask Rich Farmbrough to create a bot to do the updates automatically. Jester of the court (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

When I put the request in originally, I was envisioning something more like a note on the case page stating "User:XYZ was renamed to User:ABC on $DATE." Going through some of those enforcement logs/case pages to do changes would be tedious, to say the least, and editing something like the evidence page would be godawful, especially if it's one of the "central players" renaming. Is there any reason a simple note on the main case page wouldn't be enough? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The practice of referring to Δ as Betacommand throughout that latest case seemed a bit silly and was actually more than a bit confusing, since the username had changed long enough ago that many of us were mainly familiar with the new name only. But I don't think replacing the name everywhere would be necessary. I think it'd make the most sense to just note the changed name at the top of the main case page, as Seraphimblade suggested, and refer to the user by the new name in the future (unless the change occurs during the course of a case, of course). Appropriate redirects for case pages could also be created, if needed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if all the arbitrators or those commenting here are aware of or remember the motion announced just over three years ago here concerning changes of account name by restricted users. AGK at least raised it in his 20:42, 23 June 2012 comment in the original discussion. That clause is still active here in the Arbitration Committee's listing of procedures and other matters, though that list is so long maybe no-one reads that. My reading of the above motion is that it is in addition to the pre-existing clause, i.e. that users under sanctions still have to obtain permission to change name, but that once sanctions expire or are lifted, users are free to change their name. In either case, the above motion would presumably apply. But it would be worth clarifying this; Elen's proposed wording is one way of doing this, as this wording explicitly makes clear that the previous clause still applies, something the current wording is silent on. I also note that Kirill said at the end of the discussion at WP:AC/C&A that "It doesn't look like we're all quite on the same page here". Well, looking at the above, you are still not all on the same page, though that may be obvious by now. Maybe come up with something you can all support (or mostly support), and then propose it? Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that there has been a gradual erosion of the vetting process at WP:CHU, and what was once an exceptional accommodation granted under exceptional circumstances has become a routine part of the Wikipedia experience. I don't think that it is in the project's or the community's best interest to entertain rename requests that serve to confuse or obfuscate the historical record. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Discussion on AppealTemplate

Drawing attention to clarifying Appeals Template use [14] thx ...talknic (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Assholes"

It is not appropriate to call editors or IPs "assholes" at AE.[15] I am not worried about the language but am concerned that incivility (regardless of justification or not) is being introduced into the place where we discuss incivility being a concern. "Troll" seemed almost off as well since it looks like the IP was trying. I do not care enough to look into if the IP is a troll or not, but "assholes" crossed the line in this venue. (but let me know if I can start referring to others as assholes-especially here. This is coming from someone who received a block for telling someone to give me oral in a little bit cruder of terms)Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On watchlist?

Why does only the talk-page of this page, appear on one's watchlist? GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it actually is on your watchlist but since it is a transclusion of its subpages, it rarely gets edited directly, thus never appears. You have to goto the page you want and watch that since that is the one that is actually edited, e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case for new cases. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Net Four Motion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Motion: Rule for acceptance of case requests (1)

Proposed:

1) That the following is adopted in replacement of the current "Opening of proceedings" procedure:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

• Enacted -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. This vote should not carry until several days (for community comment) have passed. AGK [•] 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Not at all my preferred solution, (I'd much rather scrap all mention of net four) but I've made far too much noise about the silliness of net four to vote against at least lessening its impact and downright stupid results. Courcelles 22:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
3. This is an incremental improvement on the status quo. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
5. As Jclemens says, an incremental improvement, but I think one worth having. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
6. This will work. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

   Second choice in light of my proposed alternative below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

7. First choice. 22:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Newyorkbrad (talk)
8. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
9. Works for me. Kirill ^[talk] 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
11. Support as incremental change - would like to see it reviewed in say a year. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Since I feel that changing procedures this close to the changeover of arbs is useful (I'd really prefer to get the new arbs involved in any such discussions), I'm going to vote to abstain, although I support in spirit. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• It would be useful to use {{ACMajority}} on case requests. Perhaps with increased functionality to accommodate arb votes, along with the vote key. Perhaps something like:

For the purposes of this request, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority. (3/0/0/1). Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

I'm in agreement with the addition of an absolute majority; where I am pausing is on the time-scale. As we are rethinking this, should we also consider the short time-scale? We already have a clause allowing for fast-tracking a case if needed, so I'm wondering if we need a 24 hour close for net four. That cases these days are rather more complex than when the net four was written, it sometimes can take more than 24 hours to consider all the implications. It can sometimes happen that those familiar with a situation have already got an opinion, and may be overlooking some aspects that a person new to the situation uncovers. There are also times when the Committee are truly divided on an issue (we are all individuals, and contrary to some views I've seen expressed, we do not have a hive mind), with - say - four in favour of peanut butter, four firmly against, and the rest open-minded; as such, it is possible for the peanut butter conspiracy to quickly and cheerfully support in favour while the anti-peanut butter conspiracy are currently inactive or distracted; so, to prevent a case being accepted, an independent has to insert a hold, or a member of the peanut butter conspiracy, seeing what is happening, has to withhold their vote.

I see the value of net four, as it means an obvious case can be opened/closed without all the Committee having to investigate, but in most other areas of Wikipedia where matters are being decided, we generally allow a longer time for consideration. Seven days for an AfD, 30 days for RfC (though RfC can be closed earlier if consensus is clear), etc. The downside with keeping a request open for longer than 24 hours after the net four has been reached, is that sometimes clearly inappropriate requests are left hanging around, and while they are there, other Committee members may waste their time reading through the case simply to reach the same conclusion that the case is inappropriate. I don't see a problem with a net four agreement to open a case being held for longer, as Committee members would need to familiarise themselves with the case anyway. It's just the inappropriate requests that may be a problem. But what may be inappropriate to one (or four) may be appropriate to another (or four).

How about, making it five days instead of one, and when net four has been reached, the request is marked Net Four Accept or Decline, and boxed to mark that the clock is ticking. If the decision is an absolute majority, then 24 hours would be fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The timing is a separate issue than the threshold, and I fear the discussion may get lost in here. However, to respond to the timing, I'm opposed to anything else that elongates the process of arbitration, and note that a typical request already takes far longer than the articulated minimums before it is accepted or rejected. If anything was really going to be opened as fast as the minimums, it would require the vast majority of the committee to agree quickly... something I've not seen except in the most clear-cut of cases. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Under the motions rules, this motion will remain open until we reach an absolute majority. If the above motion were a case however, it could now be accepted. Motions appear to be more straightforward than cases - there is certainly less to consider, yet we require an absolute majority for motions and only Net Four for cases. As Penwhale indicates below, the time delay is not really relevant if we have an absolute majority. I'm now wondering if it's not the time factor that I'm so concerned about, so much as the Net Four itself, which speedily allows a case to be accepted or rejected by only four Committee members. I'm wondering if removing Net Four and replacing with absolute majority is what is needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing net four all the way is fine with me, but I think we would need some kind of safety valve, say, "if the request has been active for a week, a case will be opened if there are more accept votes than declines". I absolutely hate the "pocket decline" people can exercise merely by not voting. Courcelles 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Aside from inactivity, I haven't seen many cases where that sort of default decline would occur. More often, a case goes net four before I noticed :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is it worth formalizing a maximum period of time for consideration of requests? Perhaps something like this... Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

[...] A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes. A proceeding will also be opened if, ten days after the request was filed, criterion 1 has been fulfilled; if the request fails criterion 1 at that time, it will be declined. [...]

Yes. It might be worth looking at when and how we decline a request. I'm thinking of this as a two way street, but looking again at the procedures, it's just a one way street for acceptance, and there's no guidance for declining. My concerns about time-scales and appropriate quorum numbers relate perhaps more to declining a request than accepting it, though I am still concerned about why we would need to hastily accept a case on a small turnout of arbiters. I don't mind that only four Committee members decide on an issue - I just think that it's appropriate we allow a little more time than 24 hours for others to weigh in (if they wish to). This is the only part of Committee proceedings where we allow such a speedy result on so little participation, apart from a Level 1 emergency desysop of an admin causing serious harm. Given that when a case has been accepted it will require involvement of the whole Committee for a month or more, plus draw in the time and energy of some parts of the community, pausing a moment before committing ourselves seems appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Community comments concerning motion 1

• For those of the community wondering why we don't scrap the "net four votes" rule altogether, I have found an interesting, old discussion you may wish to read.

  The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the net four rule remains in place, but without it yielding the quirky results we see when more than a few arbitrators vote in a case request (namely, that a majority of the committee vote to accept the request but it is nevertheless declined). With this year's arbitrators attending case requests more promptly, and with case requests being held for longer than ever (due to their increasing complexity), I think it's important to fix this procedural anomaly now. AGK [•] 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Net four" remains an albatross; but this at least mitigates the absurdity. Good move, guys. — Coren ^(talk) 22:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Is this related to any of the recent declined case requests, by chance? --Rschen7754 23:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone explain the reason for "the lesser of" in the motion? I'm not understanding how "lesser" applies to two "true/false" possibilities. Shouldn't it instead be "either ... or"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah that's a terrible wording. I had corrected that to "either of" in the drafting stage of this motion, and am surprised to see it back here. Courcelles 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've amended it, but left the typo struck through (vs removed) for transparency's sake. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Um, no, the new phrasing is what is terrible. We do not select "either/or" an absolute majority and net four votes in support. This is not a free-for-all. We do use the lesser of the two, whichever that might be. "Either/or" is terribly ambiguous. AGK [•] 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Not really, but lose the of, it's not necessary. Nobody Ent 23:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Has anyone among ArbCom considered the idea of quorum? As is, with the net 4 bit, you could theoretically have only 4 arbitrators voting to accept a case, and it be accepted. There are all sorts of problems with this net 4 business, and this is just one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There's probably a role for that. I favor a more explicit change than this, that uses simple majority of voting arbs (vs. non-inactive, non-recused arbs), in which case the time delay would prevent abuses, because you need a majority of arbitrators (vs. a majority of voting arbs) to fast-track an opening. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Is it common for Arbitrations to switch votes (accept to decline, or the other way around?) Nobody Ent 01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not particularly, but it does happen. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It does happen on occasion, but if a case request satisfies the requirements, then fails to satisfy the requirements, then satisfies them again (due to vote changes and the arrival of more voting arbitrators), the time period before the case is opened is reset. In other word, the definition of the committee's consensus is contextualised, so that new opinions are taken into account. AGK [•] 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• For the stupid amongst us, could one of you please explain *in* the policy what "four net votes" means? At the moment it links to itself, which is wonderfully self-referentional but utterly useless. Ironholds (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  That is, in the above statements :). Ironholds (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Support is +1, oppose is -1, and you need 4 points. --Rschen7754 05:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Four more "accepts" than "declines." Nobody Ent 11:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  What Rschen and Nobody Ent said. Ironholds, the link was obviously a mistake (which I have just corrected). AGK [•] 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Seems sensible. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is certainly a good move; personally, I like the idea of a quorum, too. Pesky (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is certainly an improvement. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Or? Absolute? Is it mathematically possible to have a majority without it being an absolute majority? Or net four and not be a majority? In mathematics the word absolute value means that absolute value of minus four is four. In politics if you have 14 committee members, a majority of absolutely everyone would be eight (total/two plus 0.5 or 1). Since you already say not counting recusals and non-actives, does this mean that if out of 14 members there are 13 who recuse the case would be taken and only have one person to decide the case? Is it ever possible to have net four but fail absolute majority? 104 plus, 100 minus, but that not be a majority, assuming 204 arbcom members? Am I missing something? Apteva (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • With a committee of 15, it's entirely plausible to have 6 supports, 3 opposes, 1 inactive arb, 1 recused, and 4 who simply commented, without expressing any decline/accept preference. 6 is a plurality, but yet not a majority of those voting, nor a "net 4"--which only considers supports minus opposes. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Either of? For what purpose is of there? I will choose either Bob or Mary. I will choose either of Bob or Mary. I will support the Dodgers if either of i) I like them a lot or ii) I like them. I will support the Dodgers if either i) they are still playing or ii) they are not still playing but I am going to pretend they are. Apteva (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Using terms simple and absolute majority implies there are different types of majorities (they're aren't) and are only going to lead to confusion. Please be clear -- you can discuss a majority of active arbitrators or a majority of voting arbitrators or a majority of responding arbitrators.Nobody Ent 01:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Technically, if you look at the voting systems, simple majority = Yay > nay, where as absolute majority means Yay > (Nay + Abstain + Absent + etc...). The usage of the term in the motion, however, contradicts itself... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Not really a contradiction, as the motion, as written, counts "active, not recused, but not bothering to vote on this case request" as effectively an oppose, rather than reducing the votes needed to accept, as an abstention or recusal would. Courcelles 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Clerks were specifically invited to comment here as it deals with procedures related to their functions, so here I am... I believe SilkTork's suggestion regarding an extended period of time may be worthwhile, as these days most cases involve multiple comments and editors. However, if an absolute majority decides to hear the case, then the time period probably does not need to be extended: So, somewhere along the lines of "5 days since Net 4 is reached, or 24 hours since absolute majority was reached"? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposal

I didn't know about the discussion above, but in thinking about this, and in reading this "interesting, old discussion", I think 4 was arbitrary to the past.

Would it break things too much to change it to something more dynamic like one third (rounded up) of total arb seats, or 4 arbs, which ever quantity is greater? (total seats, regardless of activity) So if we currently have 15 seats, then 5 arbs. If we have 18, 6. if we have 9, then 4. - jc37 19:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's try the new procedure out for a few months and see how it works out. If there are still issues at that point the Committee can revisit the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was a child, my mother managed to get an edison record player with a stack of records.

One of the records had intermixed in the songs a vaudeville performance where person A said that his prospective date had agreed to a date "on the second tuesday of next week", and asked his pal, person B, whether she was playing "hard to get". His pal answered: "My friend, I think she's playing impossible to get.". (I thought that was hilarious as a kid : )

So while I appreciate your response as a head's up, please pardon me if it sounds like it's a pencil-in for The Twelfth of Never.

But shrugs, who knows. If you're looking for me holding my breath, I'll be over here: The blue one. - jc37 01:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't do it

Listen to Kirill -- don't pass a motion with the hackneyed !vote in it. How about support/oppose instead? Nobody Ent 22:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that the current wording is !good and should !pass? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

From this whole brouhaha, I believe opinions at RfA should hereafter be referred to as #%*@!votes. alanyst 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

! Nobody Ent 10:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think #%*@!votes is definitely a step in the right direction. Anywaaay, I've rephrased the motion slightly. PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Do do it

8 days, an absolute majority vote on the table -- seems like it's time to close. Nobody Ent 17:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, Motion #2 has been copyedited at least twice in the last 24 hours and, furthermore, a suggestion from RegentsPark seems probably to have got lost in the noise until it was raised on the clerks mailing list yesterday. I don't think you can call anything settled in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree—better to do things properly than to do them quickly when there is no emergency, as long as they get done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A challenging proposal

Announcement:

I have an idea that I believe could significantly improve our editing environment and practically repair the civility conundrum. I'm often over-optimistic, characteristically verbose, and too oft, obtuse. A necessary element of the proposal will require a form of amnesty if adopted; for everyone, across the board, who has ever been accused of incivility, and not currently blocked.

It may take two days for me to develop this suggestion, which is two days I'm not eager to waste. So if enough people are completely against any notion of amnesty, and comment against the premise, you may be saving me time, and yourself for not having to read or consider the prose I won't be laboring to produce.

There is an additional element that I consider prerequisite, and that involves whether or not Malleus Fatuorum is agreeable, and supportive of the endeavor's viability and worthiness. If I can't gain his support, then it obviously isn't viable. Here again, if it's best to shut this down before the tl;dr, I am agreeable to that as an end; perhaps preferring it.

Otherwise, I will be developing the proposal, hopefully with MF's help; to present it for ratification. I will also assume an absence of advance opposition is indicative of a willingness to consider such a proposal. So this is a heads up chance to dissuade me early, if your gut feels that this is a non-starter. Thanks in advance for considering this announcement. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who prefer a quick-fail in advance:

Proposal:

On hold.

Those who support the proposal:

Those who oppose the proposal:

Comments:

• Obviously, I don't know the nature of your proposal, which may matter, but I have reservations. On the one hand, I'd love to see something like a complete reset, which sounds like your amnesty idea. On the other hand, I'm not sure how well it works in practice. I'll try an example, without specific dif, to explain the general problem. I've seen MF make a post directed at another editor, which indicates a lack of respect for the other editor, and contains wording we might agree would get some editors blocked, or at least a strong warning, followed by a block if repeated. The problem is, MF didn't make that comment out of the blue. The target has a long history with MF, and MF may have legitimate reasons for the lack of respect. Furthermore, prior polite responses did not have the desired effect, so MF believes that strong language is warranted. Some might argue he would be better off running to an admin to take care of it. However, in a recent post by MF (which I cannot seem to locate), he made it clear that it is not his style to run to others to fight his battles, he feels perfectly capable of fighting them himself. My fear is that neither MF nor those who are put off by him will be able to wipe the slate clean, and pretend there's no history. Then someone will make what looks like a benign request, and MF will respond "Sod off, you useless idiot" and some in the community will get the vapors and want strong action, even though it was bear baiting. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• "characteristically verbose, and too oft, obtuse" pretty much covers my comments. My76strat, please make an effort to speak plain English. It's almost impossible to tell what you're actually asking. Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know what the proposal will be, but I fear that even if amnesty was agreed on, it couldn't be enforced. Administrators can and will use previous instances, no matter what is determined. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Thank you for appending your regards. I agree with your preliminary concerns and would have hoped to alleviate them in furthering this proposal. My original intent was to collapse this section because it failed at the requisite end. Seeing your comment gives pause to that intent, favoring a courteous reply. Without regard to how great a factor MF is in perpetuating the problem, I am convinced he is devoid aspirations to improve it. I've considerably more contempt for the latter. I've spent the reserves of my energy seeking compromise and am closing in on the simplistic merits of telling another to "buzz-off". 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• 76strat has been curiously coy about revealing what exactly his proposal is, so let me tell you. It was to set up an Ale House, analagous to the Tea House, in which you could be as explicit and as brutal in your language as you liked when arguing with those you are in dispute with. He may care to go into further details or he may not, but this was my reply to his email:

I'm sorry to say that I don't think your idea has a snowball's chance in Hell of being approved, for one very simple reason, which is that anything said in your Ale House would still be used in evidence against whoever had said it regardless of the venue. Added to which, there's a permanent and public record of everything everyone has ever posted on Wikipedia, so it's just not possible to have a place for letting off a bit of steam before returning to "real" Wikipedia life. In the real world there's nobody recording everything you say while relaxing "off duty" in the pub with a few mates, and lying in wait to use it against you at some time in the future.

• To use that as an example of how I am "devoid of aspiration to improve it [Wikipedia?]" I find simply astonishing. And then to compound the crime by adding that I have therefore merited his contempt is gobsmacking. Why is it that so many of those who crow so loudly about civility are in reality the most uncivil of all? Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Oh wow! 76Strat makes a well-meaning but naive proposal, you explain (quite correctly) why it is unworkable in a perfectly civil manner, and you get *that* response! That's quite breathtaking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  That kind of thing is an almost daily occurrence here, but nobody seems to have the will to tackle the real incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  I did not receive that response from you. If I had I certainly would not have characterized things as I did. Nor would I have posted this query to your talk page. So instead, I'll thank you for vesting your time to comment here. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  You most certainly did, on 23 October, as it's sitting in my sent mail folder right now and hasn't been bounced. Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Even if you didn't actually receive it (emails can get lost without any sign of bounce, or they can get unexpectedly caught in spam filters, etc), it was still pretty nasty to respond with a public expression of contempt just because you thought he hadn't replied. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Malleus, I am not lying to you that I haven't seen your reply. Somehow I missed it. Otherwise I would have considered it a thoughtful reply, thanked you in kind, and iterated different remarks than appended above. It would be nice if you could believe that but perhaps it's asking too much. Be well esteemed colleague, and prosper. In furtherance to Boing! said Zebedee, I agree that my comment was a nasty response. And that I am driven by the same emotions that drive many to say regrettable things in the absence of adequate forethought. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Shall I tell you what I think? You were jumping on tonight's latest anti-Malleus bandwagon, and you thought you saw an opportunity to stick your knife in by telling a porky pie. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom filings and interaction bans: please clarify this once and for all

Arbs, I'm still highly annoyed at what's going on at the current Cla–Mathsci–et al. mess on the case requests page, and I want you guys to clarify this for us once and for all. Do you really want your case pages to be used for continuing the exact situation that interaction bans are meant to stop? Please make up your minds about how Arbcom case filings touching upon existing interaction bans are meant to be handled, and tell us, once and for all, and quickly.

Here are the options:

1. Editors who are interaction-banned may freely file Arbcom requests, or participate in ongoing Arbcom cases, against each other. They are allowed to use Arbcom pages as a privileged venue in which they may continue to do what they are otherwise banned from doing (i.e. fighting each other).
2. Alternatively: An editor A who is interaction-banned from an editor B is not allowed to pursue disputes with B in any venue, including Arbcom, unless he was drawn into the process by B himself. He may not file, or participate in, Arbcom case requests whose topic include the conduct of B or sanctions against B. The only thing he may file, at AE or Arbcom, is an appeal against his own sanction, narrowly defined.

   If the latter applies, then decide between:

   1. Breaches of interaction bans committed on Arbcom pages will be swiftly stopped (or, if necessary, sanctioned) by the Arbitrators themselves or their clerks.
   2. Alternatively: Breaches of interaction bans committed on Arbcom pages are subject to standard enforcement procedures by administrators.

      If the latter applies, then decide between:

      1. Interaction-banned editors who file Arbcom cases in breach of their interaction bans can gain immunity against standard enforcment from those administrators who have previously imposed or enforced their ban, by simply listing those administrators as "parties" to their illicitly-filed Arbcom case. Such a listing automatically stamps the administrator in question as "involved", at least during the period of the ongoing case request.
      2. Alternatively: standard rules of admin involvement continue to apply, i.e. an admin who has previously acted purely in the administrative function of imposing or enforcing the sanction continues to count as uninvolved with respect to the sanctioned editor during the period of the followup Arbcom procedure.

Which is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the request: AE actions can be appealed to the Committee at any time. If a party has a history of filing repeated or vexatious appeals of AE sanctions, this right may be revoked. This request is close enough to an appeal of an AE sanction that it is my opinion that it is within the bounds of this right (and that is where most of the commenting committee members are viewing this request). As for your other question, certainly while a request to appeal an AE sanction is open, the administrator should be considered involved, unless otherwise stated, the administrator is no longer considered involved. SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your response to FP's question and don't intend to question your judgment that the present matter is a close cousin of an appeal to warrant Committee attention. However, I do think that as a general rule, appeals from AE bans should be directed at the banning administrator (party x v. admin y) and not of the usual (party x v. party y v. party z) style of the present case. If anything, that arrangement would serve to deter interaction between the interaction banned parties and more properly focus the complaint on the alleged wrongful or erroneous action of the admin making the ban. I would also suggest that the Committee deal swiftly with vexatious requests as a deterrent to making requests in violation of an interaction ban (i.e. "You're free to appeal your interaction ban to the Committee, but if we think you're doing it to continue the dispute, we'll hand down an even harsher sanction for bringing it to us."). I would also generally concur with FP's comments on involved status; a user cannot render an administrator impermissibly involved just by yelling loudly enough about the administrator's sanction of them to Arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 19:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, what we have here is a situation where at least one party is obviously at the end of his tether and needs nothing else but to be finally left alone. The interaction bans were designed to make sure people should disengage. Instead, what has happened is that all parties have been put through (by now) four more days of escalation, accusations and aggravation, with no end in sight. Now, I appreciate that from the perspective of the collective fat ass of the committee, four days is nothing, but from the perspective of a participant in such a conflict, these are days of pure hell. Question to you: do you think this kind of process has been acceptable? If not, why did you not stop it? Frankly, I find what has been happening here morally despicable. If you want such "appeals" to be possible, it is your ethical responsibility to keep the process far better supervised, far briefer and far more to the point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't hate appeals of AE sanctions having to go through the BASC mailing list instead of being done on-wiki. MBisanz ^talk 20:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate's contributions at the RfAr have not been an appeal to a higher authority against his AE sanctions; nor have they been "measured and focused" (see below). Here are two of the latest diffs there. Neither diff shows any understanding of why TrevelyanL85A2 was site banned at AE or why TDA himself was subsequently sanctioned.[16][17] Mathsci (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever one might say about the other participants in this discussion, I have fully respected the principles espoused by Future and MBisanz in expressing my concerns about the one-way interaction ban. Unfortunately, it appears my measured and focused responses based on the evidence are falling on deaf ears. Once more I would implore Future and/or Tim to actually address my concerns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take:

• (1) As a general rule, an editor sanctioned at AE has the right to appeal to the Arbitration Committee, even if in the process the name of an editor he or she is otherwise banned from interacting with.
• (2) Although not as clear as (1), I believe that under current policy, an editor has the right to bring an arbitration case against or involving an editor he or she is otherwise banned from interacting with, provided that there is a good-faith basis for doing so.
• (3) The best way for the arbitrators to avoid disruption from vexatious requests of the types technically permitted under (1) and (2) will generally be for the arbitrators to vote decisively to reject them, and then to close them promptly, rather than to bicker about whether the request was technicallly permissible or not. Editors are permitted, though not overly encouraged, to quote this sentiment back in our faces when we fail to live up to it.
• (4) Patently spurious or frivolous requests, such as those filed by sockpuppets of banned users or those that patently fail to raise any legitimate issue, may be removed from the page by arbitrators.
• (5) Persistent vexatious misuse of the arbitration pages, in any fashion, may itself be subject to sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Becoming a party to a case, or not

I was added as a "party" to the request for the YRC case. It appears the request is headed towards being declined -- but if it is accepted, do I automatically become part of it simply via having been added by the person making the request? To the extent that I have a choice in the matter, I'd prefer not to be involved -- I'd rather work on articles...Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Usually, the list of parties is just copied over from whomever is originally listed, although it seems like in recent times the Committee has made a moderate effort to ensure only actual parties are listed. I wouldn't worry, only if your behavior is in question would it matter if you are listed or not. MBisanz ^talk 17:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In this instance, as you indicated, the issue is moot. In any event, I agree that the list of parties to the Youreallycan request was overbroad. The Committee's procedures for "who is a party to the case" have not always been clear, but in general being named as a party is significant only insofar as it means you are on notice of the case. When someone is named as a party who clearly should not have been, he or she can ask to be removed as a party; but even if he or she stays a party, a short explanation of the limited nature of his or her involvement on the evidence page is generally sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

replying to some comments made in a closed case

In the now-closed discussion of Antidiskriminator, in the section "Comment by Tijfo098", I just happened to have read:

Here's a less academic point. Read Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Unbeliveable_and_Laughable. There Peacemaker67 supports the inclusion of a source which says that "There was not even the slightest indication of antisemitism in the Ustaša ". I fully support a topic ban on him at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's just too preposterous for me to ignore. In that talk page thread, an anonymous user (a problematic one, but still) had (rightfully) complained about a sentence that was taken out of context. Peacemaker67 did the most sensible thing by addressing the complaint in a conservative manner, and by actually fixing the problem - his edit provided the necessary context in the article. To suggest that his behavior there was anything but commendable, is bizarre at best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Closing this thread. If you want to request a clarification, go to the proper venue. This discussion does not belong here. Risker (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Once again the shameful harassment perpetuated for years against those people who were seen to be members of new religious movements has raised its ugly head at Prem Rawat. One letter to Jimbo's talk page has once again triggered a flurry of topic bans, mass reverting and Jimbo Wales breaking all the rules.[18] This time, Blade of the Northern Lights has reacted to the letter by indefinitely topic banning, without warning, four editors for "battleground behaviour" including one editor whose crime is "Oh and the only other editor supporting their edits on the talk page is Rainer P., now also topic banned". A look at Rainer P's editing history shows a) he has edited the Prem Rawat article once this year and b) he has made only nine edits this month to the talk page, most of which concerned his opinion on a photo in the article.[19] How can this possibly be battleground behaviour? And how can it possibly be grounds for an indefinite topic ban? Rumiton has made six edits to the Prem Rawat article in the last month, the majority being trying to fix a technical hitch and cropping a photo. And been far more involved in talk page discussions.[20]. How can this be battleground behaviour? And how can it possibly be grounds for an indefinite topic ban? I have made twenty discussed edits to the article in the last moth including seven edits trying to improve the lay out of photos. How can this be battleground behaviour? And how can it possibly be grounds for an indefinite topic ban? Jimbo's letter then prompted DeCausa to join in by reverting my edits with the edit comment "restore last version prior to series of edits by topic banned users removing sourced material" when in fact neither Rumiton or I were "banned users" when we made the edits.[21] And said in talk "Momento made a series of edits over the last few days filleting out material critical of the subject" which is completely untrue as this edit summary proves.[22] When an independent and experienced editor, Little Olive Oil, disagreed with his action, he started an unpleasant attack on her.[23] And finally Jimbo Wales has repeated his disgraceful, undiscussed edit of Feb 2011 by taking the predictably biased minority opinions of radio exorcist Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes and putting them in the lead to support Jimbo's POV.[24] Have a look at these reliable sources for this claim.[25][26] Last time Jimbo did this other editors removed his edit within days because it was so obviously a complete breach of just about every Wikipedia policy.[27]. There has been no recent "battle ground behaviour" at Prem Rawat. What there had been over the last month is an absence of ad hominem attacks since PatW, the Jimbo Wales letter writer in Feb 2011 and again this week, has been absent. As the following exchanges show, even PatW's supporters Maelefique and Blade of the Northern Light have bent over back wards to avoid banning him for his continuous incivility and battleground behaviour whilst banning others.[28][29]. His behaviour in this post to Little Olive Oil shows how persistent he is.[30] Wikipedia has stood back far too long while I, and others, have been systematically harassed and penalised because it was easier to support the "admin" than admit that some of them are extremely flawed and should be desysoped. I have been topic banned, good and neutral edits have been reverted and Jimbo Wales has characterised a good man as "a cult leader" by taking the 40 year old opinions of extremist Christian fundamentalists and putting them in the lead. The topic bans should be immediately lifted and Blade of the Northern Lights admonished for abuse of his admin powers. DeCausa's revert should be reverted and he should be admonished for his lack of consensus and incivility and Jimbo Wales should be topic banned from the Prem Rawat articles because he clearly thinks he is above the law.Momento (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC) As usual you've completely missed the point. Rainer and Rumiton, Olive Oil and all remaining were supportive of your removing criticism etc.. There was of course no recent 'battle-ground' behaviour for the simple obvious fact that I announced that I was leaving, and left the way open for you and others who share your POV to do as you pleased unopposed. No opposition = no battleground. I left partly in protest at Olive Oil's caving in to your obsequious flattery and subsequent support for your revisions. She knew nothing about the subject of the article or it's history and was ill-equipped to deal with your sneaky methods. Her characterisations of my protesting her compliance as 'personal attacks' was an over-emotional response. She wouldn't even discuss the good points I raised because the 'I'm under attack' screen came up. So what hope was there for me to rationally argue? Anyway leaving the article utterly proved my point. It descended into a pro-Rawat editing fest. QED PatW (talk) Furthermore your attack on Jimbo Wales for reinstating the information that Rawat has been called a 'cult leader' is ridiculous. There is a ton of reliable sources that attest to this. For example - scholar J. Gordon Melton's "Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America" (New York/London: Garland, 1986 as just one of many. PatW (talk) Statement by Littleolive oil I will definitely post on this and will be able to get to it tomorrow. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)) Comment by DeCausa I became aware of this article from the various AN/I and RfC publicity it's recently received. I have not edited it previously - nor I have I edited any similar or related articles: I therefore don't have any track record of having a POV on Prem Rawat, "modern religions", cults etc etc. This is not the area of WP I normally edit in. Between 10 November and 15 November Momento and Rumiton made a series of edits that, in my opinion, had a clear POV to remove negative material about the subject from the article. The material removed had cited sources, appeared relevant and not undue. I examined the sources and they appeared to me to be sound. Some of the edits had been posted for comment on the article talk page. The only editors commenting were Momento, Rumiton and Rainer P. All appeared to be of a like mind. All three editors were subsequently topic banned for battleground behaviour etc and clearly share the same POV. As can be seen from his post on Jimbo's talk page and from the article and talk page history, PatW had for long been making edits from a contrary stance from this grouping - and to an extent had been a lone voice, at least in its long-standing consistency. However, he had then - apparently out of despair - dropped out of resisting the POV editing of this grouping. It seems clear enough that the POV edits of between 10 and 15 November were able to occur because PatW dropped out. With the topic bans of Momento, Rumiton and Rainer P., it seemed to me, as a neutral observer, the most reasonable thing to do was to restore the article to the pre-10 November position, a version less tainted by edits by battleground behaviour editors and POV-pushing, so that a new consensus of editors can develop from that base rather than a POV-inspired base. I don't intend to edit the article further. I don't think I have anything else to say. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Is this supposed to be a case request? --Rschen7754 23:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Don't know. Momento will have to answer that. DeCausa (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Hold on Until it's clarified whether this is a request for a new case, or a request for arbitration enforcement, or a request for clarification/amendment, or just a complaint...please don't post further. I will ask that an arbitration clerk contact the initiator to clarify what the intention is here. Risker (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC) When notified of my topic ban Blade of the Northern Lights said if I wanted to appeal I should "should lodge an appeal at WP:AE" . When I asked Blade of the Northern Lights to clarify that since no "Request for Arbitration" had been filed, he replied "The reason I said AE is that this is a sanction related to an ArbCom case, Prem Rawat 2, and that's the normal place to appeal sanctions covered by arbitration cases".Momento (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC) AE? That's that-a-way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC) BoNL's link led to the Request page but I'm not making a Request for Enforcement nor a new case or a request for clarification/amendment, or a complaint, and since he didn't file a Request for Enforcement there's no place on that page for me to argue my case. It seems logical to discuss it on the WP:AE talk page.Momento (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for responding, Momento. If you would like to request an appeal of your arbitration enforcement, you can do so at arbitration enforcement noticeboard for review by other AE administrators (with community input). Alternately, you can ask the Arbitration Committee to review the AE at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Either is acceptable; it's up to you who you'd prefer to have reviewing. Risker (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Haven't we missed a step here. Why didn't BoNL request an arbitration enforcement? Or if this is a Discretionary Sanction where is the due warning; where is the clear and unambiguous warning with link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways; where is the information required for administrators to determine whether enforcement is required?Momento (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Momento, one of the remedies from the first Prem Rawat case placed the article (and related contents) under article probation, and the clause of the remedy does not require BoNL to request arbitration enforcement. The warning template has been located on Talk: Prem Rawat since 2009. Thus, it is an arbitration enforcement, and as such you could either ask for WP:AE appeal, or file clarification/amendment request. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I understand how I can appeal a Discretionary Sanction but a Discretionary Sanction requires that - "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". I wasn't given such a warning. Is WP:AC/DS wrong? Or is it correct and I have been denied a fundamental part of the ARB COM process?Momento (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC) It's assumed that if someone has previously been sanctioned under provisions from an ArbCom case, as you have, there's no need to issue another warning because that person should be aware of said provisions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC) That's not what AC/DS says.Momento (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Even on the off chance we want to Wikilawyer that much, I warned you back in April if you'll remember. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Wikilawyering? I'm not sure the Admins who wrote that page would appreciate you saying that asking for their procedures to be followed is Wikilawyering! Nope, nothing at all from you on my talk page. And nothing in April via Prem Rawat talk.Momento (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Momento, article probation is not DS, and the wording in the remedy does not require him to warn you. (Although he can notify you of the article probation, it isn't required.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. Please point me in the right direction if this isn't the appropriate place but it seems the only argument given for why I don't need to "warned" as per AC/DS is that it's "assumed that I should already be aware of said provisions". Any editor who opens the Prem Rawat talk page "should be aware of said provisions" because it is clearly written "Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility." So who does WP:AC/DS apply to? Or is it a quaint hang over from the golden days when it was considered polite to warn editors that you are contemplating sanctioning them? I need an answer to this question to establish whether there's one rule for me and another for the rest.Momento (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC) There was a warning for everybody to see in April 13th as you can see here [[31]]Surdas (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC) There were 143 edits on the talk page in the previous three weeks of which I made only one, And I made no edits to the article in March or April, so why would I consider this warning to include me? Especially since I go to great pains to avoid the rudeness that is frequently directed towards me and my editing history shows that the vast majority of my edits are concerned with improving readability and grammar and the only times I remove criticism or praise is when it is excessive. Momento (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Last chance to get to the bottom of this mystery. Blade could you please post some diffs showing that you have followed AC/DS procedures when using "discretionary sanctions". That will at least show that you are aware of them and do follow them and will clarify your comment that you didn't follow them in my case because you "assumed" you didn't need to.Momento (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC) We were asked to with hold comments until this request if it is that, was posted in the appropriate place. Could we do that please so that we can all comment. Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)) I'll cut to the quick - Comment by PatW I wonder how many extraordinarily tiresome hoops Momento will make you all run through before you realise the cost (in your time) of the ride he is taking you on. Let me do you all a favour by being blunt. His presence here is 100 percent in the role of Prem Rawat apologist. He spends an inordinately large amount of his time (that is in-between his bans) trying to whitewash anything to do with his Lord and Master Prem Rawat - formerly known as 'The Lord Of The Universe' - a thoroughly controversial cult leader who is rightly now running scared of publicity because of the bad press he received in the seventies ( and which Momento is now kindly attempting to eradicate from 'His' history on his behalf). I came here only to oppose the unspeakably unethical, calculated revisionism of now permanently banned Rawat organisation honcho Jossi Fresco. That was 6 years ago. Momento was Jossi's sidekick then and he is still now perpetuating their same agenda. It was massively passive/aggressive POV pushing then as it is now. One thing I will predict - he will drag you all through a horribly protracted process and twist all Wikipedia guidelines to vindicate himself and make fools of you. As Guy Macon so rightly said - he is "uneducable". Never was a truer word spoken. Good luck! PatW (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I'll cut to the quick, too. Comment by Rumiton. You have done a great job as usual of presenting approximately 50% of the facts, the half that supports your views. Guy did use the word "uneducable" and later explained that it was part of a strategy that he had used successfully in the past to get an inexperienced editor's attention. He failed to check how much noticeboard attention this article has attracted over the last 5 years or so. He went on to say: If I had realized that I would have immediately come to the conclusion that anything I might try has been tried before and failed, and that my approach was completely wrong. Another mistake is related to the above; by starting to work on the case and then bailing out, I only dealt with one editor's behavior, which no doubt the ones I didn't get to will use as a club against him. Not sure how I can fix that particular problem. (Does that describe what you are doing?) That being said, I would very much appreciate any advice from anyone. (signed by Guy.) You have all this information, but you have withheld it from this argument. You are probably about to ignore it again. Regarding Prem Rawat's life and career, he brought with him an Indian cultural milieu when he left India at the age of 13. His father's Indian organisation with its ashrams and devotional practises was not an exceptional thing in India but it was alien to the West, which made him an easy mark for lesser grade journalists. By 1980 or so he had dismantled all the Indian aspects and was talking to people about inner peace only. Since then he has addressed literally millions of people in person and through videos, and started a vigorous charity which addresses the basic requirements of food and clean water in undeveloped areas. His recorded talks are being used for rehabilitation in prisons in 25 countries around the world. The spiteful stuff that poor quality journalists came up with in the 70's needs to be acknowledged, certainly; it happened, and he dealt with it. But it needs to be weighed carefully in the article. Regarding Jim Wales' edit (which he has made twice now) the chief anti-cult writer who called Prem Rawat a "cult leader" was Bob Larson who made, and still makes, the same accusation against the Catholic Church and the Mormons, not to mention day care centres across the world, which he claims are infiltrated by demons. Do we have to have this in a living biography? Rumiton (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC) You're joking aren't you? There's tons of references to Rawat being a cult leader - there are COUNTLESS references to Rawat in books about Cults. How about scholar J. Gordon Melton's "Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America" (New York/London: Garland, 1986 amongst MANY others. Anyway who are you to say what jourmalists wrote was spiteful? Your opinion does not give you the right to dilute their reports. If that's your idea of 'dealing with it' you should expect opposition. Talking of only telling half the story - perhaps you are unaware that Rawat's former mission president (Mike Dettmers) said that the only reason Rawat disbanded the Indian system of ashrams was because he didn't want to have to pay for the followers incarcerated there into their old age! He said he had no concern whatsoever about dismantling the 'Indian Aspects' for the noble reasons you insinuate. In fact the opposite is true, he perpetuated and encouraged absolute devotion and surrender to him for as long as he could.PatW (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC) The action against User:Rainer P. needs to be explained or else reconsidered. I see only one recent edit to the article itself, basically taking out the identification of the Guru as a guru, which is odd but is it reason for a topic ban? For some time, Jimbo has been proposing as the "bright line", the harsher end of the spectrum of proposed restrictions against paid editors, that they be restricted to talk page commentary. Now Rainer P. is probably a volunteer, but the worst case scenario is that he would be paid. If it is proper procedure to ban him for the talk page postings, then doesn't that require it would also be proper procedure to topic ban any company-paid shill who posts on an article talk page about the company in support of their position? In which case the "bright line" is a nonsense and we should acknowledge that paid editors are either banned entirely or else permitted entirely, depending on how we choose. There is sort of an out that you can say you banned him for making just a few mainspace contributions when you think he has some huge COI, but then you're arguing that he actually is tantamount to a paid editor and I doubt two pages of contributions going back to 2011 actually support that. Bottom line: you need some theory here. Wnt (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC) More preferable would be that none of you comment! This thread will be superseded when Momento opens his appeal in the appropriate venue, so anything said in the meantime will achieve nothing (and may cause drama). Please hold your comments until the actual proceedings begin. Thanks, AGK [•] 19:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Typos

WP:A/G#Conditional votes (whose talk page redirects here for some reason): I don't understand why the word "case" is in the phrase "... by considering votes case in opposition". I think it's a typo. Also, it seems unlikely that you really meant to consider only votes in opposition and not in favor.

In the next sentence, "a proposal with a vote of 7–0 will be passed over an alternative with a vote of 6–3" is too obvious to need a rule, so I think it's another typo. Did you mean 7–3 instead of 7–0, and 6–0 instead of 6–3? Art LaPella (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good find! Fixed. Lord Roem (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• More exactly, only my first issue was fixed. :) Art LaPella (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Second one's not a typo. More net support gets passed even if more voted. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: WP:PRIVACY

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

---

Initiated by My76Strat (talk) at 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• My76Strat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• The Interior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[32]

Statement by your My76Strat

Pursuant a question of policy interpretation initiated by The Interior[33] I'd like to ask the committee to interpret if it would be unacceptable to post an obituary of a recently deceased wikipedian as a form of outing?

@ Courcelles, I appreciate your comment, and the counsel within. I did consider that this request could fall contrary to the arbitration process, hoping that the function "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" might apply. It is possible that a community discussion could reach an improper consensus without any malice intent, encroaching legal ramifications beyond what a lay body would reasonably consider. It seems within the clause allowing the Committee to "interpret existing policy". Even these provisions might require the protocol of a full case, which I would understand if the mandate is clear that a clarification must be narrowly construed within the context of an existing case. I apologize to the extent I may have approached this outside of process, and will comply with any directive issued. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge, Your suggestion could be a work-around approach to allow an editor to post condolences to the obituary, but Risker is absolutely correct that a paramount desire is to update the biographical information included at WP:RIP, as well as the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki page.[34] This can only be accomplished in the light of full scrutiny, and should be IMO. One way or another, it seems invariable that the Committee will be the only body sufficiently capable of providing a credible answer, IMO. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ The Committee, The more I think about this question, the more it seems clear that there really could only be one answer. I can't even support the notion myself. I think my sensibility was temporally impaired by emotion, or something like that, I hope, or I am afflicted with chronic brain-fart. I'd like to withdraw this request as malformed unless you prefer ill-construed. But I will leave the task of removing it to the better discretion of the Committee. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies, I agree. A significant factor of the counsel coming from this clarification, is the notion of "informed consent". This follows the insight Silk Tork elaborated on in saying; "when asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence." Further suggesting; "a guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up", acknowledging that this is a community prerogative. I am in full agreement. I am curious however, if this prerogative should be accomplished at the communities leisure, or if it is prudent for the Committee to direct a timeline? Besides a timeline, should specific points be directed for the community, to addressed? Like a protocol for soliciting informed consent. A guideline for designating which family member had the authority to speak for the entire surviving family. Perhaps even a protocol for the possibility that one member might give consent while another expresses dissent. In any regard, I am pleased that the Committee has rallied to provide this valuable insight, in such a timely fashion. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Note from Risker

I am aware of the deceased editor whose obituary is being referenced here; as a matter of fact, I nominated him for adminship, and have long known his "real world" name. I've also read the obituary, and know that there is nothing potentially harmful in it. On looking at WP:RIP, I note many of the entries link to real-world names that were not necessarily attached to the accounts during the editor's tenure at Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that it would be safe to link to the obituary and also to use some of the information from the obituary to flesh out the entry at WP:RIP. I'd suggest this is something better to discuss with the community as a whole, instead of asking Arbcom; there's no case to attach this to, and there are no concerns about sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from The Interior

Thank you for the advice, Risker. I'm going to go ahead and add the information. I suppose it might be beneficial to ask the community if we need to add to WP:PRIVACY a clause about deceased Wikipedians, but maybe it's (hopefully) such a rare occurrence that it can be dealt with case by case. The Interior (Talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: will hold off until we here a few other opinions, but I trust Risker's assessment as they knew the editor better than I did. The Interior (Talk) 03:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

Why not simply e-mail the link to the obituary to the other interested Wikipedians? This way, the info can be shared but still preserving their privacy on Wiki. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mors Martell

If a person wishes that their real name not be disclosed in public, I see no reason to stop respecting that after they die. In those cases their obituary at Wikipedia could include the person's username, and a summary of their contributions. --Mors Martell (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Can this request be archived? NW (Talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The request is a little too close to asking ArbCom to make policy, though as in one direction this could lead to oversight being necessary if the answer went a certain way, I can see the logic in asking us. IMO, if the user didn't reveal their real name on-wiki, I wouldn't make that connection now without the family's okay, but, again, this really isn't up to ArbCom. Courcelles 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Courcelles, while I can certainly understand why we would wish to do such a thing, I would suggest without it being disclosed previously, or with the family's ok, I would hesitate greatly to say "there's no problem with it". SirFozzie (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a bit of time to think about it.. I would tenatively see nothing wrong with it, but I think I'd be happy if we did a RfC (not a long one, just a quick say, seven day one with a link to the usual places.. and until a decision one way or the other, I would say, "Tenative ok" with the caveat that should the decision be against it, that the identifying info be removed. SirFozzie (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• We respect users' wishes to conceal their real identity in order to prevent harassment, and will suppress edits in which the real life identity is revealed for otherwise anonymous accounts. Policy, however, is not clear on deceased users. While the user can not be harassed, their family could be. I can see a possibility that the family of an admin who had blocked trouble makers might experience harassment at a sensitive time. When asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence. A guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up; and that is for the community to do. As regards the Committee's involvement in these matters. If the real life identity of a deceased user were suppressed when there was no clear indication of permission being given, I would view that as an appropriate interpretation of policy. If another user tried, after suppression, to again reveal the identity, and this became a dispute which escalated until it was before the Committee, I would support the suppression and be inclined to support sanctions against a user edit warring to reveal a real life identity without evidence that this was the wishes of the deceased user or their family. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Most of the time that I see a pseudonymous user named as deceased, it is at the behest or notice of the user's relatives or friends. Where such approval is not given, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and avoid tying the account to the real-world identity. While I think it's unlikely that the kind of harassment Silk mentions would actually happen, there's no reason to give an opening for that harm either. If it's considered important enough, I'd recommend an RfC for a line mention to be added to the policy or whatnot; as it is this doesn't seem like a clarification that we can decide as a Committee. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I would also recommend that community input be sought into this; my personal thoughts are similar to SilkTork's in that the family of the deceased should give consent prior to anything being posted. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to A Quest For Knowledge: If providing such an obituary link is determined to constitute outing, then that is not a feasible alternative and could result in more problems; any person with the email could very easily forward it on to someone else, and so on, until the point of using email is entirely defeated. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think this a case where the Committee have no weightier insight than anyone else in the community, so it might be worth creating an RfC in a bit (there's no rush) to gauge the community's feelings. My personal feeling would be that if (as in this case) a relative unconnected with Wikipedia contacts the project, then they are surely telling us (as in this case) is that 'Joe Bloe, who edited as User:Foo, has passed away.' Usernames don't die, real live people sadly do. At which point, linking to the published obituary is a courtesy, not WP:OUTING. Attaching an obit to a username assumed to be the deceased would surely be a contravention of WP:BLP, never mind OUTING. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• My take is that this is entirely a matter for the family and, absent their explicit informed consent, the username should not be associated with a real life identity.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Moved from talk

Response to Roger Davies

Roger Davies, I have no problem answering your questions, but I have several of my own first:

1. When you recused from the global warming case, why did you continue to discuss the case with the committee off-wiki, as illustrated by the leaked emails?
2. If you recused from that case because of our past history with wp:MIHLIST, what has changed since then that allowed you to participate in this case? Did you notice that within hours of you voting in the last motion, Kirill Lokshin publicly recused? You don't think that that recusal was trying to prompt some integrity from you?
3. Wasn't the reason you last refused evidence about Mathsci because it didn't fit into the review that you were conducting? If so, then why would it be rejected now? Is there something going on here that you're not telling me?
4. Has there ever been another Wikipedia editor who outed other editors on four separate occasions, including one with a homo-hate edit summary, that wasn't blocked? If so, could you point it out to the rest of us? I'm asking out of considerations of fairness and consistency, which I assume you have some awareness of.

If you answer my questions I will answer yours, but I'm not holding my breath. Cla68 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Cla68 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Replies:

1. I didn't recuse in the Climate change case. In fact, Shell Kinney and I took over as drafters about half way through, re-organised the proposed decision page, and did many of the FOFs and Remedies. As I felt I might be conflicted because of our Milhist association, I did recuse as far as you were concerned. Accordingly, I neither drafted nor voted on the FOF/Remedy about you.
2. What has changed is that I have come to realise that my concerns about conflicted feelings were misplaced. Kirill can do as he chooses. I doubt if he was sending a coded message.
3. Without going through it all line by line, I believe all the "outing" material you've disclosed here has already been submitted to the entire committee by email as private evidence during the last case. It would be rejected now because it has already been reviewed, no action was taken, and we don't keep hearing the same stuff over and over again.
4. There's only one unambiguous example of outing in the examples you provide, and that's the 2006 one. As far as I'm aware, it has never been custom and practice to block for actions which are four years old.

 Roger Davies ^talk 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It was 6 years ago and the person signed their RL name on Talk:Myron Evans. Mathsci (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? I've just been through all their contributions (including deleted ones) and can't find it.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your response to Dilazak Arbitration request

Hi Newyorkbrad & Roger Davies , Thanks for your attention. I will abide by the rules of Wikipedia as I fully understand the great service it is providing to the world. I am ,however, waiting for some worthy Administrator to Arbitrate the matter. Regards Dilazak1 21:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs)

Thanks - Wiki Administrators

Silk Tork has attended to our request and 'Cleaned up the Page' as well as placed a reasonable Tag on 'Talk page' conveying appropriate message for contributors.
I actually represent a core team of four colleagues who are struggling to revive lost identity of our tribe that was once very famous and mighty but unfortunately going into oblivion now. In third world countries like ours 'Pakistan' and particularly in tribal cultures like ours 'The Afghans', there is a serious problem of Capacity. We can't tolerate others (Not every one is like that certainly) and would adopt all possible means to defame, degrade and disfigure others identities while showing a smiling face. A renowned forum like Wikipedia is the best place to try all such mischievous tools. Needless to say that we are eternally indebted to you for keeping the standards of impartiality, neutrality, logic, proof and sense flying high without distinction as to race, sex, or religion and above racism and vandalism.
We are entirely satisfied and grateful.
Long live Wikipedia. Dilazak1 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs)

Template and redirects

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Template and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Request template to open a new case are currently redirects to {{Arbreq}}. Right now, both of the redirects are indefinitely fully protected, while the template has no protection. Is this the best situation, or should the template be protected too, or should the redirects be unprotected? This arose from a request at WP:AN; I've never been involved at arbitration, so I could simply be unaware of a very good reason for the current situation. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be unprotected per WP:NO-PREEMPT. NE Ent 00:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It could be argued that this template is of high risk --Guerillero | My Talk 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. It's a relatively low use subst: only template. Knee jerk protection is a big problem already. (Would be interesting to see who has made the most "prophylactic" protections.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

Unless anyone disagrees I will request unprotection. Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

• Those templates are redirects that I doubt anybody uses these days, so I've unprotected them. Thanks for pointing them out. AGK [•] 20:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Helping a first-time user

SarekofVulcan has just requested a case in which I'm named as a party. Since I've never before been named (except here, regarding a case about which I knew nothing), I'm confused: neither Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration nor the arbitration policy appears to tell me how long I have before I make an initial statement. Any suggestions? Please leave me a talkback when you've responded here. Also, please fix {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Arbitration}}; it gives you a convenience link to leave requests for help at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, which is a redirect, and this can be confusing. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The editnotice has been fixed, thanks for reporting that.

There's no firm rule on the time to respond to a case request, and we usually try to get a statement from every major party in the case before finalizing the request. I do recommend leaving a note giving us a rough estimate of when you'd be able to make a statement, if you cannot respond immediately. We will usually accommodate such requests, as long as they are within reason. T. Canens (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend in fact already added a statement 2 days ago.[35] Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Case naming

I don't have any issue with Arbcom renaming the case I filed as "User:Doncram". Doncram's suggestions won't work, because they'd apply to at least half of the cases brought here, but if the clerks can come up with something better, go right ahead. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is being discussed --Guerillero | My Talk 22:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem. Could I humbly suggest that the filing template be amended to omit inviting the filer to "name" the case. The technical name could be a date reference. A name could be given by a clerk (who can't be seen as using it as a weapon), and perhaps isn't at all needed unless the case is accepted.--Scott Mac 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Scott. A UTC timestamp should be enough for referring to case requests until they become accepted, at which point the clerks can pick a suitable name. alanyst 23:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Subst:LOCALYEAR}}–{{{Subst:CaseNumber}}}

Might be a good alternative. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great suggestion Guerillero! Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea. When referring to cases after they are closed a memorable name is helpful. Are we going to have warnings given / sanctions imposed under WP:ARB2010-17? Will there be debates "I was warned under WP:ARB2009-03 but that case had nothing to do with me or this area so I ignored it... if I'd be warned under WP:ARB2009-04, that would be different"? I understand Doncram's concern about being named in the case title but this is sometimes unavoidable. It could be named NHRP except that it doesn't appear to be about that area, and is not restricted to it. It could be named for multiple editors, but most of the submissions to date don't paint a picture of several problematic editors (the full evidence may show something different, but that's the impression I see at the moment). This case, as filed, really does seem to be centred on a single editor and that makes that editor's name the obvious case name. EdChem (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the proposal is that they be given names by clerks after acceptance, so they would have a name by the time a decision is rendered. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What Heimstern said was my intention --Guerillero | My Talk 20:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think its a bit of the ol' mountains & molehills, honestly; esp in this case where all it is is a simple name, not "Peson X is being a <blank> or whatnot. As long as the filer isn't titling it something needlessly aggressive/disparaging then it shouldn't really be a concern. AN, ANI, and the rest of our smorgasbord of drama boards are just like this; titling is provided by the filer. I don't like the date idea at all, for reasons outlined previously. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Granted it is minor thing - but minor improvements are still something (although I'm not about to campaign for president on the issue). ANI threads are not preserved in histories and referred to years later - so not really comparable. And often the the case is actually about a group of people, two antagonists, or an underlying policy dispute rather than the individual, so having someone objective name it once it has been accepted isn't crazy. Sorry, no idea what's been "outlined previously". --Scott Mac 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I also like much better the idea of a clerk titling it. Requests could easily go in as "Request 1", "Request 2", "...Request X", when they're requesting hearing, and be titled once accepted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Sounds like an excellent plan to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Red links entered as evidence

I mentioned it on the Doncram case but I want to make a more formal and generic discussion about it here. I find it innappropriate for Arbcom cases to use a red link to a deleted RFC such as was done on the Doncram case as evidence. First, These comments are deleted for a reason, usually because they have no merit. So presenting them to Arbcom in a case should not be allowed. My other problem is it cannot be read by those of us that may be interested in commenting on the case. If we are not admins, we cannot see it to levy our opinions and that isn't right. Since some of us may never be allowed to be admins, that means we will never be allowed to have the tools to properly review this type of evidence when commenting on cases like this. IF it is to be used as evidence it should be undeleted and at least moved somewhere (maybe a subpage of the case) everyone participating can see it. In general though and as I stated in the Doncram case, I think these should be excluded as evidence. This is especially true of the accused is not an admin such as this case. The accused has the right to review evidence against them. Kumioko (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Doncram was the one requesting speedy deletion, so he knows exactly what's in that RFC. And the community doesn't need to review the evidence, the Arbitration Committee does. If the community could handle the issues here, they would have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Two points. (1) There is no evidence submitted at the requests stage just proof that prior dispute resolution has been tried and failed. (2) Deleted and oversighted edits are permissible as evidence. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Sarek, if people are reviewing it and giving comments about it, whether they are Arbcom or otherwise, it is evidence. I am also rather disappointed at the fact that you bring three 2 and 3 year old evidence and another that was deleted as proof that the the community could handle the issues. Had you tried, I am certain that the community could have done something. There are a lot of editors who have been blocked and banned indefinately that didn't go through Arbcom. Several by you. So the statement you made is both disingenuous and insulting. Given how much you have been involved in this case over time, you are really saying that you failed. Not the community.

I also have a problem with the insinuation that Doncram "knows" whats in it. Although I am sure that he remembers the general context, it was deleted in 2010, over 2 years ago. I don't even know how long it was there before that. It seems reasonable to me, that they do not remember the details. Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC) @Guerillero, Point one, call it evidence or proof, the information is used to help decide whether to accept the case or not. So that makes it inappropriate to use against an editor who cannot see it and respond to it. It is also not appropriate to allow editors to comment about the case without the ability to review all the "proof". Point 2, Some should be, deleted articles, deleted edits that have been removed for things such as vandalism, copyviolation, etc. RFC's should not if they were deleted if they were determined to fails to meet minimum requirements showing evidence of trying and failing to resolve the same dispute. I do not expect anyone to change the rules, in fact I expect things will remain unchanged. That is what I have come to expect of Wikipedia, much of the admin community and Arbcom. They do things as they see fit, not whats right, not what's fair and not what's appropriate. Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues

1. Deleted and/or oversighted edits are not in the public domain, rendering the process occult, contrary to good governance. To some extent this can be ameliorated by partial undeletion.
2. More importantly a principle equivalent to "equality before the law" is at stake here. The parties without the extra material available are denied an advantage that others have. Let me give an example of some material that was never deleted, and is easily rebuttable, but would be difficult to rebut if deleted. This was used to show how putatively unresponsive a certain editor was. Without access to the history it would be impossible to show that this editor is responding to one of their own bots.

But matters may be worse than that - the party may have been responding to deleted matters on another page. Or a valid tu quoque argument may be forestalled. And so forth. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Correct. Frankly it bothers me less that individual editors cannot see it. It bothers me a whole lot, that the accused cannot see it. Kumioko (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Rich, I would be interested to see how you can explain that a principle such as "equality before the law" overrides the express language of Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Admissibility_of_evidence, which was adopted a policy and is therefore something Doncram (and all of us) impliedly assented to by continuing or beginning to edit after the community adopted that policy. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your right and I would generally agree that deleted edits should be. But 2 year old RFC's that were deleted because they failed to meet the minimum criteria is, IMO, not what that policy intended. I would also argue that the policy also does not state that it should remain deleted. It should either be undeleted so it can be visible by the accused and by those commenting on the case or if the decision is that it is deleted content and should remain that way, it should be removed as evidence. A user can be expected to remember a general edit and certainly we would not want to restore copyviolations, but no one should be expected to remember the entire contents of a 2 year old RFC. Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether it should be undeleted and whether Doncram should get to see it is something I'll defer to the clerks and arbs to interpret. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Its doubtful that they will change something that gives them the advantage. And I didn't really expect them too, but I wanted to make it clear and voice my opinion that I think its innappropriate to not allow the accused to see the evidence. Its bad enough they are using years old RFC's as justification that the community tried to fix things. None of them less than 2 years old! Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The principle here is Rule according to higher law. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

FWIW, when another admin and I created an RFCU about someone (not anyone related to the present case request), we wanted to present evidence from a deleted page. We temporarily restored it for the purposes of the RFC, specifically noting that's what we were doing. I would think something similar would be appropriate for an arbitration case (request, whatever). LadyofShalott 06:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that covers the first point. The second point of "equality" is that the person you created the RFCU about would not have had an opportunity to do that, indeed might not have even been able to find the name of page. So you have access to evidence that a non-admin does not. I have been searching for a diff for a number of years, and the person it implicates is a 'crat - obviously I wonder, from time to time, if he simply over-sighted it... luckily it's not an important diff. But the principle is still there. Rich Farmbrough, 03:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

Wait, what?

Are failed requests normally just deleted from the page, as done here? I looked in the archives, thinking maybe it was a copy-paste archival, but I can't find it there either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's SOP. There's no copy/paste archive of declined requests; but a link to the case at the point it was declined is archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess. Trying to find past diffs means wading through thousands of diffs. But we can fix it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Yes, declined requests are simply removed from the page. A full copy of the old request is listed the index page you've been linked to above. AGK [•] 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. It just strikes me as weird that this is standard process. Even declined ANI reports just get archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

These are important enough - well certainly those that succeed that they should be sub-pages. Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Rich, RFARs that succeed are moved to a sub-page: the opening statements by parties are recorded on the main case page, and opening statements by uninvolved editors are recorded on the main case talk page. AGK [•] 11:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Are some editors are more equal than others?

I firmly reject this statement.[36] Admins have no special authority. They're simply entrusted with the tools to carry out community consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To save people the bother, that link shows a diff of one editor commenting on a statement made by another editor. In the admin discussion area, one admin (AGK) stated "Any action taken in enforcement of an arbitration decision may be heard in appeal by a panel of uninvolved administrators...", and an editor commented to point out that the link used says "uninvolved editors" (and another admin has now made the same point). The comment in the above diff is pointing out the correct situation about the AE noticeboard (which is where uninvolved admins make decisions on certain matters). Probably the confusion is just confusion, and of course AGK does not think the word in the link is "administrators"—that's why he said "derives from"—the procedures link talks about uninvolved editors at a noticeboard like ANI, and it follows that an admin unilaterally imposing a sanction per some arbitration remedy can be overridden. One method to override is for a community discussion of uninvolved editors somewhere like ANI, and my guess is that AGK was suggesting that it would also be reasonable for the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to overrule a sanction imposed by one admin—since AE considers requests about sanctions, that seems unremarkable, although not codified. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq has stated things correctly. My understanding from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#For_administrators is that an administrator can impose arbcom discretionary sanctions off their own bat, logging it on the relevant page. These sanctions are formulated by arbcom and not the community, so it was unhelpful of AQFK to suggest otherwise. That is what Fluffernutter did in this case. Any appeal then has to be made at WP:AE or directly to the arbitration committee. For community bans or topic bans, WP:ANI and WP:AN are the normal venues. At WP:AE decisions are made by uninvolved administrators, so there is a difference between their input and that of non-administrators. Users commenting there, in their own section, can be ignored or even be subject to warnings or sanctions for contributing in a disruptive way. Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for input by ArbCom members concerning an AE action

Two days ago, I closed the request at WP:AE#Noetica (permalink) by issuing discretionary sanctions warnings to four editors, with the agreement of the one or two (depending on the editors warned) other uninvolved administrators who commented at the AE thread. These warnings have been the subject of much and exceptionally harsh criticism, both by one of the warned editors (permalink), which is to be expected to some degree, but also by other experienced (although apparently involved) editors at my talk page (permalink). In view of this, I would like to informally ask the opinion of members of the Arbitration Committee,

• whether they consider that it was appropriate to issue these warnings, and
• if not, whether I should (or even meaningfully can) rescind any of them, and
• what (if any) venue exists for appealing such warnings, so that I can advise the warned editors about that venue.

Should any other editors also want to comment, I would appreciate it if they would make clear whether or not they have been involved in the underlying Manual of Style and/or conduct disputes.

I'm uncertain about who I might possibly need to notify about this request for input, so I'm linking to it from my talk page, which is where most of the criticism has arrived. I'll probably be away from the Internet for much of the next week owing to military service, so I may not be able to act promptly on any advice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to draw attention to my comment at "03:53, 3 February 2013" at the bottom of User talk:Sandstein#Appalled and dismayed at your destructiveness where I asked Sandstein to resign. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, no chance of that, sorry. If anything, the tone of SMcCandlish's extremely lengthy and confrontative response to my warning, below and linked to above, as well as that of Ohconfucius's response, tend to confirm my assessment that my warning not to personalize conflicts in accordance with the Committee's reminder was appropriate, as least as concerns these two editors.  Sandstein  15:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am afraid I have to agree with Sandstein here. There is no chance that he will resign. I can't remember him ever admitting one of his mistakes. Hans Adler 17:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Sandstein, an editor responding poorly to a provocative and misguided warning does not vindicate you for leaving such a warning in the first place. As far as I'm concerned the only problematic comment by any of the editors prior to your warning was SMc's mention of Wikid77 and LittleBen.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As I've already noted several times, the general consensus at the discussion at AN regarding Apteva also found that Wikid77 and LittleBenW were acting as a tag-team with him on the issues they were being tendentious about (though ultimately only Apteva was topic-banned, since the other two repeatedly assured everyone they would avoid those issues henceforth). It would have been wrong in both the incorrect sense and the ethical sense for me to have blamed Apteva alone for the disruptive editing when mentioning it at AE as the proximal cause of Noetica's obvious frustration. I was simply being accurate. In retrospect I could have said something like "Apteva (and others found disruptive by a consensus at AN)" or something otherwise vague. However, "failure to use weasel words" is not a policy violation, and does not warrant an administrative warning, especially not the "special" warning available as a remedy under ARBATC, which translates to a threat that I can now be long-term blocked by any admin for virtually any reason if style or titles are even a tiny part of the conversation and anyone complains for any reason, more or less. You don't get threatened with 5 years in prison for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The fact that I did not violate policy, but am subject to immediate blocking with no warning as a result of Sandstein's bogus warning, is itself a massive violation of WP blocking policy! I repeat that the ArbCom badly needs to revisit and modify the wording of the discretionary, broadly construed sanctions available under ARBATC because they have a palpable chilling effect against legitimate editor expression here. I also must categorically deny that presenting a list-formatted, point-by-point analysis of why Sandstein's warning was inappropriate, on logical, factual and policy bases, constitutes "responding poorly".

Or maybe you were referring to Ohconfucius's mini-rant on my talk page, which, while I understand his anger, does not represent my take on the matter and which I refactored off my talk page as unhelpful to anyone or anything. If so, please note that Ohconfucius has not posted in this thread and is not a party to this discussion, or relevant in any pertinent way; if consensus determines that a warning was appropriate for Ohconfucius, that's an entirely different and severable case from whether the Sandstein threat I received was justified, and the same goes for those received by the others. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• The rather large number of reasons Sandstein's decision to issue threatening warnings was inappropriate have been enumerated in detail (mostly ignored by Sandstein) at User talk:Sandstein and User talk:SMcCandlish. Some of them are repetitive because Sandstein has been playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, and simply re-asserting his assumptions, most of which have been demonstrated to be false, instead of addressing the mounting criticisms of them. Please note that two of the four editors sanctioned by Sandstein, User:Noetica and User:Neotarf, have already resigned editing Wikipedia in protest; I am also considering doing so. Not because receiving a warning from some admin is a big deal generally, but because:

Nine reasons Sandstein's warnings/threats were heavyhanded and rash

This "warning" in particular is based on false accusations, and there appears to be no clear avenue of restitution and name-clearing (it's the principle of the thing, and we have a process/procedure failure here). Some of the false accusations are that I and the three others threatened by Sandstein were battlegrounding, that we "abused" WP:AE by raising broad, vague unsupported grievances that were not relevant to the AE request at issue, and about parties not relevant to the AE request at issue, and that we did this out of a desire to push a particular point of view on a style matter subject to ARBATC. Every single one of these claims has been disproven at both of the user talk pages above, several times over, but still Sandstein insists he is right. In resigning (though still willing to participate in ArbCom or noticeboard discussions relevant to this dispute with Sandstein), Noetica at User talk:Noetica provides links to mentions previous engagements with Sandstein, suggesting questionable faith and/or conflict of interest, and he request an investigation of the possible involvement of Sandstein and Cailil (the only other admin at AE to generally support Sandstein's putsch to issue punitive warnings/threats against those who supported Noetica at Apteva's frivolous, nuisance AE request) and two others involved in the AE case. [I had thought he'd linked directly to evidence of this, but was mistaken; as he's still on WP enough to participate in resolving this dispute, I have asked him for this evidence. 18:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)]. Sandstein maintains that they are both uninvolved editors[37], but this does not actually appear to be the case has been alleged to not actually be the case. Update: This evidence of direct involvement in the issue by both Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan has been provided; see below. 11:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Sandstein continues to pretend his wild assumptions about our posts and intent could not possibly be misinterpretations made in a near-total absence of background information (AN, RFC/U, etc.) on the AE request in question ("I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter."[38]), and righteously insists on his interpretations being correct, regardless of the evidence and reasoning given to him showing otherwise. Sandstein expressed a marked lack of concern that editors are resigning in protest over this matter[39], disbelieves he has any role in this at all[40], and implied that it isn't a big deal anyway since they're probably just faking and will come back eventually[41]. Instead, he's engaged in "can't see the forest for the trees" wikilawyering[42] over his novel, nitpicky and convoluted legalistic theories about how AE works or should work. Sandstein also refused to even discuss the entire matter any further[43] (cf. Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich). An ARBATC warning like Sandstein issued is not a routine administrative admonition, but a special ARBATC warning (Sandstein said so himself[44]). It amounts to a palpable threat that any admin may now, for any reason they feel is okay under the broadly-construed discretionary sanctions available under ARBATC, block any of us that Sandstein issued his bogus warnings to, without further discussion or warning, because "we've been warned already", you see, and block us for as long as they feel appropriate, if they can think of some way, any way that ARBATC could possibly be twisted to be invoked (e.g. someone in a discussion that mentioned article titles in some way, despite it not being the main topic, got upset; or, the admin simply didn't like what one of us said in an edit summary and it mentioned capitalization or punctuation). Given that Sandstein himself cannot seem to understand that an RFCU/AN/AE discussion involving Apteva's disruptive and forum-shopping abusive editing pattern, for which he was recently both topic-banned and blocked, is not magically an ARBATC matter simply because some of the things Apteva liked to be an abusive editor about were style or titling matters, it's not reasonable to expect other admins to be able to not misapply ARBATC's vague and over-broad sanctions. (In point of fact, Apteva a.k.a. Delphi234 was blocked ultimately for sockpuppetry in energy/power articles, not over MOS or AT matters!) Sandstein's threat/warning, issued simply because Sandstein didn't have enough background about and understanding of the AE case in front of him and declined to obtain it, amounts to an out-of-process MOS/AT topic ban on all editors so "warned", without there being any actual community consensus to issue such a topic ban. ArbCom should seriously consider revisiting the wording and scope of the discretionary sanctions available under ARBATC regardless of the outcome of my and others' protests of Sandstein's baseless, inapplicable threats, because misapplication of ARBATC is likely to recur long after this particular dispute blows over. Sandstein has made it clear that he not only has not read the RFC/U and AN material that lead up to the AE (see link above), which was not properly understood for what it is without that prior context, but has (unless I'm not reading him correctly) essentially said that he does not need to read it, doesn't have time to read it, and will not read it, but nevertheless does not think his judgment on this issue is any way faulty. Yet I've already proven most of his "facts" and assumptions wrong. One of the most important is that I or anyone else was abusing AE as forum for venting vague, off-topic complaints about Apteva or anyone else, a blatant false accusation that clearly assumes bad faith. We were in fact warning AE participants that Apteva's AE filing, hot on the heels of his RFC/U and topic ban, and just before his block, was a frivolous, vindictive WP:POINT and WP:FORUMSHOP exercise, in keeping with the very pattern he had just been topic-banned for!) NB: I also mentioned two other editors in passing who were also partially responsible for the disruption, because blaming Apteva for all of it would be a lie; the community consensus at WP:AN was in fact that all three had been disruptive, and most agreed they were acting as a WP:TAGTEAM. I also questioned whether SarekOfVulcan had a conflict of interest in this particular AE case, as Noetica claimed, and that's not an inappropriate thing to do at AE either. Note that I citing evidence with in situ links here, since Sandstein's house-of-cards argument against my AE participation is entirely based on my failing to do so there. I do not, of course, really believe anyone here is incapable of going and looking at the two user talk threads mentioned and just reading them, but "I've been warned", remember, which means, under Sandstein's broken reasoning, I could immediately be long-term blocked under ARBATC by any admin if I didn't post all these diffs, simply because this warnings dispute is related to the Apteva vs. Noetica dispute at AE, which is related to the Noetica, et al. vs. Apteva et al. disputes at AN and AE, which is related to the RFC/U on Apteva, which happened because of Apteva's pattern of disruptive editing, which was sometimes about MOS and AT matters. If that sounds absurd to you, just drop the first "this dispute is related to" item, and you have the exact tenuous chain that Sandstein is using to link the posts at AE that he has censured me, Noetica, Neotarf and Ohconfucius for, to any concern that is within the purview of ARBATC! If anyone other than a handful of half-asleep people cannot see a) why Sandstein is off-kilter on this and must be reversed, and b) why RBATC's remedies need to be immediately clarified, than I really should resign, because WP is already a lost cause in that case.

In summary, Sandstein is demonstrably wrong on virtually everything about what was going on with regards to that AE, and consequently made a mistake, but refuses to admit and undo it, or even entertain reasons why his actions were not appropriate, no matter what evidence and logic are brought to bear, and has instead put his head in the sand, taking a haughty, nonchalant attitude about the fallout of his decision. Those of us wrongly shamed with the stigma of the scarlet letter he's stuck on us – and the hanging Democlean Sword of impending willy-nilly blocks without due process that come with it – do not find this acceptable, just or tolerable. Noetica at least [I'm still looking into the matter] also believes that Sandstein cannot be considered an uninvolved admin to begin with, due to his history with (i.e. against) Noetica, and this bears further examination.

What I hope to see happen is a vacating of the bogus warning. That's all I want. I don't care if Sandstein admits he was wrong, apologizes, resigns, is overturned by a consensus at AE while continuing to protest that he was righteous, rescinds it himself to keep the peace while maintaining he did nothing wrong, or whatever; it's not about him, it's about his tarnishing my reputation and those of three other good, productive editors for unjust reasons that cannot be rationally defended, yet tendentiously defending his mistake anyway. We're supposed to be able to have trust in admins, not fear them as capricious tinpots who get to make up the "law" as they go along, to suit their whims and prejudices. People often cite abusive admin actions like this as "what is wrong with Wikipedia" and why they won't participate. This mistake has already cost us two editors, and I'm probably next if this not resolved – I'm not going to devote another 7.5 years and 80,000+ edits to a project in which I can, without recourse, be falsely accused, and badgered into silence, by someone who supposedly doesn't have any special power but just "no big deal" tools. Assaulting someone with a hammer or chisel isn't somehow acceptable just because what was used was nominally a tool not a weapon, and doing so is still wrong whether you did it out of malice, negligence or a misguided belief that you had to for righteous reasons.
— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to make four observations:
  • These editors made a case at AE that the request had been brought in retaliation for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive129#Apteva (and possibly other things). I'm not sure how much weight if any that should have carried in Noetica's defense, but I don't think this, in itself, is a reasonable thing to issue DS warnings about. Hopefully that is clear, and we are not trying to send that message with this warning. Other than that, it is difficult to say for sure exactly what these warnings are about. HaugenErik (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, the two most salient "other things" that lead up to the /Archive129#Apteva case was the WP:AN report about Apteva, and before that the RFC/U about his conduct; they were all essentially the same discussion, spread out over mutiple forums because of Apteva's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT refusal to accept that consensus was against his disruption and in fact finding it disruptive. All of the editors involved in the Apteva vs. Noetica second AE, the one Sandstein reacted to, were also involved in these previous rounds. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Cailil noted in the result section that The comments at SoV were sufficiently ad hominem (and needlessly so) to have crossed the line set by ArbCom in the RFAR.—But please note SoV's comment here that Noetica is INVOLVED. The capitalization there makes people think SoV was referring to our policy about involved administrators, violations of which, of course, are very serious. These comments that Cailil says were needless were in fact defense of Noetica against that accusation, so hardly needless! HaugenErik (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • As SoV points out below, Cailil was not referring to the comments made about SoV at the AE discussion. My point here remains that this commentary made at AE was relevant to the AE discussion and so can't fall under Their comments here serve no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, the rationale given by Sandstein for the warnings given. HaugenErik (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
      • As Sandstein said on my own talk page he did not read the background material that led up to the Apteva vs. Noetica AE filing that he gave us "warnings" about, so what was said earlier at AT is not relevant in any way to those warning/threats. Even if Cailil was in fact referring to AT (which isn't clearly the case just because SarekOfVulcan suspects that's what Cailil meant – it would in fact have been a total non sequitur unless he clearly explained and linked to the discussion at AT), Sandstein has stated and linked to the AE discussion as the sole reason for the warnings, and all indications are that he had no knowledge of the other parts of the extended dispute, at AT, AN, RFCU, etc., etc. SarkekOfVulcan's bringing up AT is a clear red herring. The Jedi hand-wave does not work here. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The warnings seem to include the phrase "cast aspersions", and Sandstein referenced a prior arbitration note on "casting aspersions" in the AE discussion. I think this is about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Casting_aspersions (Sandstein, please set me straight if you were referring to something else). That principle (and Sandstein's comment) both invoke the idea of making unsupported allegations: a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims. But if nothing else, plenty of evidence was given by the 4 warnees, I think, in this AE discussion for any claims made of misbehavior. In particular, after reading Ohconfucious' remarks I can not fathom what could possibly lead to this warning? HaugenErik (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sandstein says here SMcCandlish's extremely lengthy and confrontative response to my warning ... tend to confirm my assessment that my warning not to personalize conflicts in accordance with the Committee's reminder was appropriate — Not necessarily, they confirm that the warning is a nontrivial matter to this editor and that Sandstein's justification for it so far is unconvincing (to him at least). Was anything in them an unsubstantiated attack? Defending oneself against sanctions like this is a reasonable thing to do, this isn't "personalizing conflicts" about titling or capitalization, or anything remotely like it. It's probably not helpful to make comments like this, Sandstein. HaugenErik (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • • This is absolutely correct with regard to me being "lengthy". Even aside from AN/ANI, ARBCOM and AE being pseudo-legalistic to begin with, Sandstein's approach has been both wilfully obtuse and hyper-legalistic, resting on fallacious argument-from-[his own]authority and what comes across as a belief in administrative infallibility. This left me in a position of having no choice but to document my side of the dispute in as much detail and nit-picky specificity as possible, because basic logic and common sense were just not working. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Erik, the "needlessly ad-hominem" comments Sandstein refers to weren't on the AE request, but on WT:AT. See these comments for an example.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

      That was Cailil who said they were "needlessly" ad-hominem. Hmm, you're right, Cailil wasn't referring to the other three with that comment, beg pardon! The warnings were for behavior at AE, however: Their comments here serve no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, and are also mainly concerned with casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute(s).—I'm still wondering what Sandstein was referring to there! The episode you linked to (and Apteva linked to in the AE request) is regrettable, but again as I noted in the AE it needs to be seen in context: here Noetica is defending himself against your assertion that the proposal was made in bad faith. He notes that you issued block threats to try to win this very same dispute in the past, etc, so your opposition might not be as detached as your initial comment there might suggest, etc. While it would have been nice if this discussion had happened somewhere else or not at all, his comments there were relevant to his defense against your assertion of bad faith. They were not totally out of the blue. HaugenErik (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

    • @SarekOfVulcan. Please also note 1) Sandstein said very explicitly on my talk page that his warning/threat to me was about one specific post of mine at AE (which he described as casting vague, unsupported aspersions just to personalize the dispute, when I have already demonstrated that they where references to proven and community-consensus-supported findings at WP:AN, given as a warning to AE that Apteva was simply disrupting AE as another forum to shop, since the reason he was brought to AN to begin with was incessant forum shopping and disruption). 2) Sandstein has made it clear at both my and his own talk pages and at AE itself that his warnings to the other 3 recipients of them were also in response specifically to the comments made in that particular AE case, and not anything else (such as AT). 3) Sandstein stated flatly on my talk page that he did not read the pre-AE-request background material at all and did not even know it existed (this fact, coupled with his refusal to read that material and reconsider, is part of the large pile of evidence that his actions against me, Noetica, Neotarf and Ohconfucius were not and still are not reasonable to begin with. He's acted like an Arb who has already made up his mind and won't actually look at the evidence!). So whatever was said – and whatever could have been said administratively in response to whatever was said – at AT (and AN, RFC/U, MOS, VPP, and various RM pages, all of which Apteva and his tag-teamers forumshopped for months on end) is not relevant in any way to Sandstein's reaction and "warnings". He acted in a total vacuum of information about the case aside from what he saw right then and there on AE. I can't find any evidence that he even knew that Apteva had already been subject to scrutiny at AE not long before he tried to abuse AE just to get back at Noetica for AN'ing him.

      WP does not need "hangin' judges", and Sandstein isn't even a "judge" (Arb), just an admin, from back when RfA was easy, who is acting like a cop who thinks it's okay to shoot suspects just for being suspects. WP does not need to be patrolled by Judge Dredd. It's not just, and that's why I've stood up to it. It's the principle of the thing, and such principles matter to me. I've been a professional civil liberties (especially freedom of expression and privacy) activist since the early '90s for a reason. Yes, this colors the way I respond to censorious nonsense on WP. That doesn't make me more guilty, as Sandstein almost unbelievably suggests, just someone with more integrity that some are used to, and one who is harder to push around.

      Another way of looking at this: Doesn't everyone think it's really remarkable that four editors who took action to stop a blatantly disruptive POV-pusher, who was clearly found to be such by a consensus at AN, end up being sanctioned themselves by an admin totally unfamiliar with what was going on, and that zero of the four accept the threat/warning as valid in any way, two resign immediately, one is on the verge of it, and the fourth is also incensed to the boiling point? When is the last time you saw a reaction that consistently appalled and taken so strongly in response to a simple warning from an admin? If that's not enough to make you question whether the admin action was appropriate, then WP is already a lost cause, suffering from an administrative autoimmunity that is blithely attacking its own healthy editor-cells as if they were a disease. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with Sandstein's comment that <quote> If anything, the tone of SMcCandlish's extremely lengthy and confrontative response to my warning, below and linked to above, as well as that of Ohconfucius's response, tend to confirm my assessment that my warning not to personalize conflicts in accordance with the Committee's reminder was appropriate, as least as concerns these two editors </quote>. SMcCandlish continues to repeat his blanket smear tactics and spewing of streams of insults, abuse, and totally-unsubstantiated and false accusations like <quote> most agreed they were acting as a WP:TAGTEAM </quote> even after being warned repeatedly to stop. This is his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game. Then, when he receives a formal warning for his behavior, he starts beating his chest. In his long, rambling, "Specialist sources are all rubbish" rant at Wikipedia:SSF he says that, "Chest-beating to drive away the opposition is very effective—if you're a gorilla". I'm wondering, is he...?  LittleBen (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

    You can see that he even had to apologize to DCI for splashing the muck a bit too far, when DCI was only trying to cool things down. LittleBen (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

    • LittleBenW, the majority of respondents to the proposal that you also be subject to the same topic-ban as Apteva were in support of the idea, even more so than for imposing on the other editor mention there. This, very shortly after you were already topic-banned from a very, very similar pattern of forum shopping and disruption over another MOS issue. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 18:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

      PS: You clearly have not actually read WP:SSF. It does not criticize specialist publications as sources; they are of course crucial to reliable sourcing on most topics. Rather, it criticizes fallacious assumptions that because specialized sources are often reliable for facts about the specialty they focus on that they are also somehow also magically reliable for how to best write and style English-language text in an encyclopedia. But that's not really relevant. The fact that I wrote an essay you don't like about sources you think are good for more than they are actually good for has nothing to do with this discussion at WT:AE, with the WP:AE request it stems from, or any of the previous conflicts and attempts at resolution at WP:AN, WP:RFC/U, etc. I.e., you are simply "personalizing the dispute", casting about for things to (incorrectly, in this case) criticize me for. The fact that I helped successfully bring your disruptive campaigning against diacritics in article titles to an end via a topic ban at WP:AN/I wouldn't have anything to do with that would it? Using WT:AE as a platform for vindictive muckraking to get back at me isn't really any different from Apteva doing the same thing against Noetica in WP:AE itself. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Proof that Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan are not uninvolved: Noetica, in e-mail (he refuses to ever participate on WP again except in a formal ArbCom proceeding about this particular matter), has provided a link to the evidence that Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan are not uninvolved (Cailil's name didn't turn up in this one). At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222 Sandstein proposed to topic-ban Noetica and five others (several of whom are also participants in the Apteva-related proceedings that brought us here, though not recipients of his recent warning/threat like me and Noetica); he also proposed that anyone else, unnamed as of yet, could be topic-banned for editwarring on the topic, by any uninvolved admin, without further warning (sound familiar?). The topic in question: Dashes vs. hyphens in article titles, the exact same issue that Apteva's disruptive editing about resulted in him being RFC/U'd and then topic-banned at AN, then AE'd for violating at AT, and which he counter-AE'd about just to be vexatious. It's the same issue that, following Sandstein's reasoning, as long as the topic ultimately originated, in any way at all, from a style or article titles issue it must be ARBATC-enforceable, "ergo" I and Noetica, Neotarf and Ohconfucius received "special warnings" over it. This alone must surely be enough to render these warning/threats invalid. (The cited page is long; just in-page search for the string "The issue is entirely too lame").

  As a side note, it's salient that Sandstein effectively declared the issue stupid and unresolvable, after indicating little understanding of it, and just wanted to shut everyone up, and was quite explicit about this. Meanwhile, in point of fact, what actually happened is that ArbCom demanded an RfC, endorsed the results of it, and MOS has been stable on the matter ever since, with no trouble except from PMAnderson, who got long-term blocked for disruption and sockpuppetry over it, Apteva, who got topic banned for disruption over it (and blocked for socking on a different issue), and (note that I'm not mentioning any "unrelated" names, lest Sandstein or someone else block me for all year or whatever, since "I've been warned"!) a handful of other editors who have dropped the issue like a hot potato after a majority of respondents at WP:AN suggested they were being tendentious and might get topic banned, too. Sandstein was simply wrong then, as now, that the issue he was skimming and having an incensed "just shut up" reaction to was actually intractable and the participants really unable to be trusted to resolve the matter civilly with community input. This Sandstein approach is directly mirrored in his issuing of these recent threat-warnings; he did not really know or care what was going on, but only cared that people just STFU, regardless of the merits of either side of the dispute. This is not how good admins approach editorial disagreements, be they over content, style or behavior. It's like a police officer responding to a domestic violence call and just shooting both the husband and the wife because he has a headache and wants some peace and quiet. Sounds like someone who needs to find a different kind of job.

  Next, page-search down to the subsection "Recommend topic ban proposal be dropped", started by Avanu who had earlier well-summarized what was wrong with Sandstein's "drive-by" solution to just shut everyone up with impunity instead of working toward a solution. The first respondent to Avanu's counter-proposal there, to drop the blanket topic-ban idea and find a responsive admin who could help work toward a consensus, was (guess who) SarekOfVulcan, who's entire one-word !vote was "Oppose" (i.e., with no rationale given, support Sandstein's idea to topic-ban Noetica and a few others by name, and anyone else who dares to argue about and revert a few times over that punctuation-in-titles topic, ever). The only other "oppose" !vote was a weird comment from a noob who thought contracts where involved (?!?). At any rate, this is a clear conflict of interest; both Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan sought to topic-ban, on pain of blocking, Noetica specifically and everyone else involved in the topic, then and in perpetuity, on the sole basis of believing the issue to be intractable and "lame". What has resulted – even after the community and ArbCom did resolve the matter, and all that remained to deal with is literally a handful of tendentious, forum-shopping, consensus-battling, and in two cases sockpuppeteering, disruptive editors – amounts to precisely the topic ban that Sandstein proposed but which consensus clearly rejected, because the "special ARBATC warning" means that anyone can be blocked for allegedly violating it without further notice or process of any kind. If that's not a topic ban, I don't know what is. Procedurally, it's a blatant violation of WP:CONSENSUS (both directly and as a form of telling, not even asking, the other parent by misusing AE to administratively get what they couldn't get by consensus at AN), and an abuse of administration authority and trust. I, like Noetica and Neotarf (I don't know about Ohconfucius, and don't endorse what little I've seen him say on the matter), refuse to volunteer for this project any longer with this unbelievably bullshitty and false-accusations-based Sword of Damocles hanging over my head. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• In the AN thread, Sandstein proposed to topic ban all editors on both sides of the argument. I didn't see how this indicates a bias against you. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's not correct. Sandstein proposed to topic-ban several editors by name, Noetica among them. (He also proposed that if editors later dredged up the same dispute, after such a topic-ban was issued against those specific editors, they also should be subject to such a topic ban). He did not gain consensus on either of these proposals. Further down the line, Apteva retaliatorily lists Noetica at WP:AE in a request for enforcement that pretty much no one takes seriously, yet Sandstein, despite clear prior involvement that sought to topic ban Noetica personally, takes it upon himself to issue a formal warning (a special ARBATC kind that is much more serious than usual, and amounts to a near-topic-ban) to four editors who supported Noetica's side in this AE request. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work; suggestion for what to do instead

Sandstein, you posted this request for arbitrator input/advice more than two days ago (=an age, in wikitime), and there has been no response from any arb. It's generally difficult to get opinions out of arbitrators on any heated and conflict-filled matter, because they don't want to risk having to recuse if the thing comes to arbitration. I think that's the reason for their silence here. The possibility of arbitration has already been mooted, by Noetica in particular. So, an "informal" but public request for advice never had much chance, I think, though I can well understand and respect your motives in posting it.

It's hard to know what to do next. The question needs resolving — respected and productive users are leaving over it, others are feeling "chilled", and you obviously feel under pressure from all the anger. You could take it to mediation — except mediation is for content issues, and medcom would surely defer immediately to arbcom. You could take it to the community — but there has already been a lot of community discussion, without resolution. I suggest you (or somebody else) take it to arbitration. It's an AE matter, so in that sense arbcom's baby. What you've asked in particular is whether you should, or even meaningfully could rescind your warnings, and if there's any venue for the warned editors to appeal. That venue is Requests for Arbitration, no doubt. RFAR is the only remaining venue. Now, a request by whom? You, Sandstein, can hardly request arbitration "against" the editors who have criticised your admin action harshly; people get to do that, and I'm sure you have no notion of anybody being sanctioned for it. You could request arbitration against yourself, I suppose. By that, I mean, you could pretty much repeat your questions, but on the real RFAR page, and then those layabouts would have to say something. A less unusual procedure would be for one of the four warned editors to request arbitration, as a way of appealing your warnings and/or possibly of requesting sanctions against you. Finally, a third possibility: a neutral editor could post a request for arbitration. If neither of my first two suggestions comes to fruition, I'd be willing to do that. Not with any enthusiasm, since I'm so uninvolved that I'm pretty uninformed about Apteva's topic ban and related matters — and altogether uninformed about MOS discussions, to be frank — and would have to do some research, groan. But I'll do it if that's what remains, as I absolutely don't think this should be left hanging any longer. It's harmful. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

• It's even more harmful to allow people to continue warring—Wikipedia is not a crusade for absolute right against absolute wrong. Surely the real problem is excessively big egos—people who feel that they absolutely must be right every time, and that anyone who appears to be on the other side must be punished or banished. Wikipedia will not fall flat on its face if a few people, the people who feel that they "own" MOS, take a Wikibreak from warring over trivia at MOS and WP:AT—there is a small possibility that they will contribute to Wikipedia content rather than continuing to insist that their vocation is to make and enforce even more detailed and prescriptive rules. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest LittleBen stop stirring the pot. It's not as if you weren't in the thick of it. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Bishonen. I find it very regrettable - although understandable to a point - that the Committee is unwilling to provide advice here. I intend to open a formal a clarification request pertaining only to the issues of appellate procedure, rather than to the merits of my warnings, as soon as I have the time for it later this week. Once the issues of how to appeal such warnings is clarified, I think that it would be incumbent on the warned users themselves to file an appeal (and thereby allow a more formal review of their own conduct also). If they are unwilling to do so, they will have to live with having been warned. I do not recommend initiating a formal dispute resolution procedure such as an request for arbitration without an indication that at least one of the involved users actually wants that to happen.  Sandstein  17:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest "request for clarification" (relating to the Article Titles RFAR and the specific enforcement measure) might be a more appropriate venue than a new RFAR, since its not a new issue just a subset of the original RFAR (this has been done before with a WP:TROUBLES ruling at AE), but I'd echo Sandsetin its up to the effected users to make the request not the sysop--Cailil ^talk 18:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. If I have a clear avenue of appeal, I will use it. I'm not interested in appealing the warning/threat because I don't like being warned, or whatever – I'm not a baby, and someone having harsh words for me isn't going to make me cry – but because it is provably based on false accusations and amounts to unjustifiable character assassination. Meanwhile the nature of the "special" warning type under ARBATC amounts to an out-of-process topic ban; ARBCOM needs to modify the language at ARBATC to prevent its application in such a manner. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: of course not. I hope a request for clarification does the trick; it should at least get an arb or two out of the high grass. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

In the past, few people have taken notices or warnings so seriously that they would try to appeal one of them. But someone once tried edit warring to remove his name from the Troubles notification log. In that case an arbitrator finally told him to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cute, I guess, but you're engaging in the fallacy of false analogy, because these are not comparable situations on any level except the most obtusely superficial (someone was criticized in a way related to ArbCom somehow, and disagreed, but all other details are dissimilar). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

When considering how to close an AE complaint, I would be reluctant to sanction for a comment anyone made at the AE unless it was truly outrageous. I would prefer that AE commenters be able to speak freely. But this February 5 edit by SMcCandlish does not suggest a calm, sensible approach to the Manual of Style. It looks like he is injecting his own editorial opinion about WikiProject Birds to the text of the Manual. Behavior when editing the Manual is exactly what WP:ARBATC is about, and this kind of an edit *is* subject to warnings. As a technical matter, since Noetica and SMcCandlish were among the named parties of ARBATC they can be assumed to be aware of the discretionary sanctions even without an explicit notice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're reading that edit to MOSCAPS all wrong. I endorse its reversion—if nothing else it is an ugly display of sausagemaking—but this doesn't seem like an "editorial opinion about WikiProject Birds" to me. If anything, the link to LOCALCONSENSUS is the real zinger, and that was already there before this edit. There's an appeal to avoid trying to go around changing capitalization on bird articles, as that has caused disruption in the past. Ed; can you be more specific about what you see as problematic here? HaugenErik (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The place to find consensus is the talk page. The BRD process has limited appeal for something as fragile and hotly disputed as the MOS. The long-running disagreement about capitalization involving WikiProject Birds should be settled by dispute resolution, not fought out in the pages of the MOS itself. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? SMC's edit doesn't change anything from a policy perspective, it pretty much outlines what well-established consensus is; the status quo "on the ground". It gives some history, etc, mentions that there's dispute (which probably isn't great for the guideline page, but that's a separate issue). The long-running disagreement about capitalization involving WikiProject Birds should be settled by dispute resolution—that's almost a quote of SMC's edit. It's an appeal to not go changing bird pages to use lowercase etc, it's not an attempt to force his will (on the contrary!) I still don't understand what you find objectionable here. Did this edit seem to you to be an attempt to push a side on this issue? HaugenErik (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The bare facts of the matter are that WP:MOS, which explicitly supersedes MOS:CAPS, has said "do not capitalize common names of species" for five years now. No amount of editwarring, canvassing, poll disruption, tagteaming and other tendentious tactics by certain members of the birds project, much less reasonable argument by them, has had any effect to change consensus at MOS on this. There is no out-standing issue to discuss at the talk page of MOS:CAPS. It conflicts with MOS, and there's no way around that other than by editing it to stop doing so. A few members of ONE project continue to resist this clear consensus. The conclusion to an protracted repeat debate at WT:MOS in Feb.–Mar. 2012 was that MOS would note the birds case as an ongoing controversy, not endorse it as an exception and not recognize any other such cases as controversies (since there are in fact no such controversies; no one at the insects project has launched a WP:BIRDS-style debate about the MOS provisions in question). Despite this, a handful of editors keep trying to modify MOS:CAPS to suggest a) that MOS endorses an exception for birds, and b) that there are additional exceptions as well. This flies in the face of WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, etc. All I've done is try to (again) make MOS:CAPS agree with MOS itself, which is effectively required by MOS. If someone else wants to do it, fine, but accusing me of some nonsense about inserting my own opinion is a red herring and an ad hominem fallacy that ignores the fact that WP:SOAPBOX/WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:ADVOCACY POV-pushing is keeping MOS:CAPS out of synch with MOS in a way that has direct impact on article text and titles, by continuing to encourage people to randomly go around capitalizing common names of animal species. Bringing up any of this here is simply an exercise is "personalizing the debate". What this thread is about is Sandstein issuing bogus warnings/threats, that make false accusations, otherwise do not match the facts of the case he was responding to, and which do not even apply a remedy that was applicable, because ARBATC was not relevant to the then-ongoing discussion of whether Apteva was abusing AE simply to retaliate against Noetica. And I've already shown that Sandstein was already trying to get Noetica topic-banned to begin with, which is clear "involvement" in the issue. EdJohnston, please do not continue to try to cloud the issue by personalizing it against me in ways not related to this actual discussion. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I have restored most of my edits to MOS:CAPS, one at a time, with a specific, clear rationale for each one. If someone wants to accuse me again of bad faith editing or any other nonsense over this, you know where my talk page is. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with EdJ. Sandstein is sensitive because one editor is making a real ruckus about it. I vented it on my talk page and I'm over it now; the other editor should be allowed to vent and cool down on his own talk page. I, for one, am not going to try having the warning rescinded. I fully respect Sandstein for his generally doing a good job, and I accept that he sometimes has to bang heads together to end disputes. Whilst I don't accept that I did anything that warranted such a warning, I'll just forget it was made by Sandstein in his admin capacity. If he or some other admin seeks to act upon that warning (to any of us four musketeers) supposing, if ever [sic], Apteva or LittleBen or Whoever continues to be obtuse, pointy, lawyering, belligerent or serially disruptive about full stops, dashes, capitalisation or other such style matters in article titles, then I'm certain it will escalate to arbcom. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not safe to "just forget it was made by Sandstein in his admin capacity"; that's half the reason I'm not just ignoring it like you are (the other being that admins don't have some magical right to make false accusations against good-faith editors with impunity). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: At User talk:Sandstein#Edit warring at WP:MOSCAPS Sandstein and EdJohnston, both of whom have in my view been attempting to intensively personalize against me everything they can think of that touches on MOS or AT, as addressed above, have now begun discussing amongst themselves sanctions against me for an editwar that wasn't actually an editwar, for daring to use simple typographic emphasis in an edit summary (yes, really – I couldn't make this up), and for making edits (entirely supported by policy) at a page about which Sandstein himself says "I'm not aware of the background as regards that page and whether this is normal". (Sound familiar? Reminder: "I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter.") At this point I have to cite WP:Harrassment policy against this nonsense. WP:Harrassment#Wikihounding is "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work ... [and] usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia", which is clearly happening. That section continues that if this "is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter"; refusal to acknowledge any of the points I have irrefutably demonstrated in my defense is a textbook case of tendentiousness; false accusations here, now compounded by more false accusations against me at Sandstein's talk page, is a personal attack when it is so willful in the face of factual refutation; and I'll leave it to others to decide whether a pursuing a self-appointed "wikipolice" SWAT team mentality that has already driven two productive editors to resign in protest is "disruptive". WP:Harrassment#Threats states that it covers various things, and "includes threats to ... disrupt [another person's] work on Wikipedia"; and threatening the imposition of editing restrictions or other sanctions against me, when I haven't actually done what I've been accused of, obviously qualifies. I have addressed at User talk:Sandstein#Edit warring at WP:MOSCAPS why the latest round of accusations are false, and await further instructions on what remedy path I can take to put a stop to this abuse. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Just to nip the most obvious potential response in the bud: Attempting to evade a finding of WP:WIKIHOUNDING on the bogus basis that following me around from page to page, but moving criticism of and threats about my edits at those pages to User_talk:Sandstein and WT:AE instead of attacking me at the talk pages of the edited pages in question, would be a pure WP:WIKILAWYERing and WP:GAMING argument. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested

The request announced above has now been made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure.  Sandstein  21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple notification

I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, which I closed, was linked at the enforcement requests page, so I thought I'd best mention — it's now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 25. If arbitrators or clerks have any arbitration-related input on this AFD, they should offer it fast, since five different people have expressed opinions already even though it was filed less than an hour ago. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Cla68

I have received a request from Cla68 to post to his talk page. There is nothing in it discussing any "outing" material what-so-ever. Given the current state of affairs, and the implications made about me by a member of the committee, I am asking permission first. I think it's sad that the project has devolved into such a state at the present time, but I have no desire to further complicate matters either. The content of the email is a response to the Arbitration Committee, and I see nothing objectionable in it myself. — Ched :  ?  23:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Now moot. — Ched :  ?  23:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If an appeal fails

What happens to an editor if his/her appeal of a block, topic-ban, etc etc, isn't successful? GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. The appealed sanction remains in force.  Sandstein  19:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this the same with Arbcom restrictions? GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to be sure that such blocks, topic bans and/or restrictions, weren't increased, due to failure of an appeal. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose in theory a reviewing administrator could decide that the appealed sanction is insufficient, and extend it, but I haven't seen that happen yet. Also, of course, if sanctionable misconduct (such as personal attacks) occurs by way of a statement of appeal, then that misconduct can be grounds for additional sanctions.  Sandstein  19:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, they don't get increased simply for losing an appeal. Sometimes limits are placed on how often you can appeal. IIRC, in the CC case that I was a party to, editors had to wait 6 months before filing an appeal and then were only allowed to file one appeal every 3 months. And obviously, if an appealer does something stupid like make PAs or edit-wars during their appeal, they might get additional restrictions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What is about the Arbitration Request in my opinion

In the last four years I wrote 12 Featured Articles for Wikipedia. It was a hard job, it took me a lot of time, but I did it because I really believe in the idea behind this encyclopedia. However, I never saw much in return for my honest efforts. In fact, I saw nothing.

For three years now I have been trying to warn everyone that there are two editors writing several articles using books written by Fascists. Books written for the sole purpose of advocating a political agenda in the 1920s-1940s when authoritarian regimes were on the high. It's "content dispute", everyone says. If there was a Neo-Nazi writing The Holocaust denying that any killings occurred and that Adolf Hitler was a liberal democrat everyone would have reacted quickly. No would say "it's two opposing points of views, write them both in the article".

I did everything an honest editor should have done: discussed in the talk page, requested 3O, RfC, went to the Dispute resolution noticeboard and finally requested Mediation. Then, for my surprise, I was told that the Mediation was voluntary and that if the other party did not want to take part in it there was nothing it could be done. A collaborative encyclopedia has no measure to enforce editors to sit down and accept a mediation. In fact, it has no possible way to resolve content dispute (since this is how you people insist on seeing it) if one of the parties do not want to.

It's frustrating. It's humiliating. I look like a fool running from one place to the other warning everyone that Wikipedia's reliability is at stake. No one listens to an experience editor who wrote more than a dozen FAs. I came to the ArbCom and I got four arbitrators declining to do anything when they are warned that someone is pushing a political agenda advocated by Fascists while at the same time removing anything written by mainstream authors. One arbitrator said "I'm seeing this as a content dispute". Since when Neo-Nazi are regarded legitimate sources to be considered part of a "content dispute"? The same arbitrator also said: "ArbCom looks into conduct disputes, and I'm not seeing where there are conduct issues." When an editor uses Fascist sources to promote a Fascist political agenda at the same time he removes anything said by mainstream authors (the ones who are legitimate) is not considered "conduct issues"?

Another arbitrator said "particularly at this stage, an arbitration case is not the best way to resolve this dispute". Then what else can I do? I tried the talk page, 30, RfC, Dispute resolution noticeboards and Mediation. None worked. The editor is still writing several articles according to what Fascists wrote. ´

A third arbitrator said: "Unless at least one other editor is willing to state that they agree with Lecen's statement, I am inclined to decline the request." An experienced editor who also wrote more than a dozen FAs stepped in, gave his point of view and was ignored![45]

And finally, another arbitrator said: "I encourage all parties to try the mediation route once again". This is not content dispute. We are not talking about two point of views advocated by honest, serious, respected authors. We are talking about Fascists who are dead for over 35 years. People who asked for dictatorships, for the killing of Jews. Their point of view cannot be regarded as legitimate and acceptable as "content dispute".

What place is this? What is its purpose, then? While you are ignoring my pleas Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have been retaliating me opposing anything I do for the past three years, harassing me for the purpose of getting me out of here. They were in one of my FAC to oppose it[46][47] even though they had never edited the article nor its talk page and have never been FAC reviewers. They take the other side on move requests I was part of even though they never edited any of those articles before.[48][49]

Content dispute? Two users who are promoting a Fascist agenda on several articles and who have been harassing the sole editor who has reported them? You regard this behavior a mere "content dispute"? What is "user conduct", then? Do they have to threaten me on real life? For Christ's sake, open your eyes! --Lecen (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Really Lecen, what do you expect from the Wikipedia administration. It has build for itself a comfortable parallel system which works very nicely for its members, but does not seem to be here to connect with content building or content builders in any facilitating way. Content builders who get earnest trying to do a good job set themselves up to get blocked. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I wore Hitler's moustache last Halloween.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent developments in this controversy are being addressed on the main requests page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Who may comment on an AE request page?

This is probably a stupid question, but AE is rather far from my own wp editing experience, & I can't see the answer anywhere obvious: who (other than the editor bringing the request and the editor against whom it's made) may make statements in an ongoing AE request? Is it limited to admins, or are non-admin editors also permitted to make statements? Dsp13 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone may comment who has a useful contribution to make to the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Dsp13 (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected

I've just protected this for 3 hours due to edit warring over the inclusion of a report. I hoped by doing so there would be no need for anyone to be blocked. I realize this is out of the norm, so any AE regulars are free to revert me if they wish. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinion and advice

I am considering bringing up the mess at Talk:Syrian civil war before our venerable corps of arbitrators. Thus far we've gone through several RFC (three or four in my experience, probably more), and an abandoned DRN thread. However, as I have little experience with ARBCOM I'm herewith inquiring whether such a dispute would warrant the attentions of the good folks over here? Its lasted for months now: no amount of sources nor volumes of discussion have availed to alter the infobox even in the slightest against a group of editors consistently claiming "no consensus" and edit-warring any changes to the ground. That's my perception anyway. As one can imagine, this very "current" issue where emotions run high and objective adherence to policy/sources easily goes out the window even with experienced users. -- Director (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. ArbCom doesn't hear such cases. I recommend trying other WP:DR options, such as a content RfC, to resolve it.  Sandstein  21:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this particular dispute at all, but speaking as one of the longer-serving arbitrators, one way to decide whether a dispute is suitable for arbitration is to ask yourself: "Suppose the ArbCom accepts the case, reads through the evidence, and agrees with me. What exactly would I want them to do that would help resolve the problem?" If the answer to that question is something that's reasonably within our power to do, then there's some change the Committee could be helpful. If, as is the case at times, you can't think of an answer, then the odds are we may not be able to either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm just at a loss as to where to look for assistance. That article is just dysfunctional, I guess what I'm looking for is for someone to simply "enforce" policy. Now, I emphasize this is my perception of the situation, but to me it appears as though there are very, very few users over there who aren't biased one way or the other. Generally speaking, proposals are viewed through ideological glasses, and are opposed or supported based on what impression they may create in the reader - as opposed to whether or not they are sourced/founded in policy. Now, this is more-or-less true on many articles, but there, its gotten to a point where no changes can be introduced, no matter how well supported, no matter how thoroughly discussed - if they're not "approved" by the various political watchdog "cliques". If not, the words "no consensus" will appear, the proposal will be edit-warred to the ground. This happens regularly in cases where the majority of talkpage participants do support the edit. In short: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY means nothing, WP:STONEWALL is king.

We've already had a half-dozen RfCs, but somehow the article always remains the same regardless of their outcome. We've had a DRN thread that nobody responded to. The issues are multiple and complex, but the core of the problem, in my view, is simple disregard for sources and WP:STONEWALL-style gaming of the system. As I said, references amount to little or nothing: no matter what'ya got, if certain folks don't like it - it can always be rationalized into non-importance and/or simply ignored with edit war.

Keeping in mind all this, I could use some advice. Is this the sort of thing for ARBCOM, or is there a better option? What I myself do know for certain, is that our project's coverage of this conflict is rotten to the core, and this is an article with a lot of traffic. Imo some sort of Kosovo-like policy clampdown might do the trick ("stick to sources, follow policy - or else"). -- Director (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want ArbCom to take a case, you need to present it as about editor misbehaviour - edit-warring, incivility, etc - and not discuss content. ArbCom handles POV-pushing (in theory) but the results are variable (to put it mildly). Arguments that require delving into content to look for misrepresentation, bias, etc, are likely to achieve little unless the evidence is really obvious. If you want to present evidence that editors are seeking to right great wrongs then that's good, but it better be very diff-heavy and clear. Remember that the outcomes from ArbCom will be (a) discretionary sanctions and (b) maybe some topic bans or site bans. If you can allege some admin misconduct and raise the possibility of a desysop, ArbCom will get much more interested, but it needs to be a genuine issue otherwise you'll get hammered. To me, your question is how to deal with entrenched POV-pushing with ideologically-driven editors on both sides, and Wikipedia's track record in this area is not encouraging as only blunt instrument approaches for reducing problems exist; we have no solutions, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Here the article is simply frozen in place by widespread restoring to WP:STONEWALL, which is to my knowledge a form of disruption (I myself certainly think that's pretty obvious at this point, but again, I'm a participant and its a subjective assessment). There are three or four issues, which were together discussed on maybe a half-dozen occasions. Sources were brought up, RfCs filed, pretty widespread support gathered - only to have the opponents reject that a consensus has been reached, while repeatedly reverting any modifications when entered. I must emphasize: the grounds for rejecting any changes are always simply "no consensus". That is to say, I believe I can convincingly show few or no arguments based on actual facts and sources were brought up. Not to ramble, would such a of stonewall-type disruptive behavior be considered? -- Director (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is untrue. Direktor has brought up proposed changes to the article that are radical and considered by many users to be either inherently baseless or pushing a point. Thus each time no consensus was reached to go through with the proposed changes. Even at the Request for comment and the dispute resolution there were no clear results in moving forward with his proposed changes. Yes Direktor has used sources, but he fails to mention that the side opposing the changes utilized many sources as well. Bothered that his propositions are turned down/not adopted, he is accusing the other editors of stone-walling and POV-pushing. However all editors, including him, participated in good-faith discussions that were quite lengthy, inclusive, and respectful. Sopher99 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(Response to DIREKTOR) Don't take your case to Arbcom, DIREKTOR, less the end results be discretionary sanctions. Trying to get restrictions or topic-bans repealed, aren't enjoyable. Recommend you go the Medcom route. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, here we go.. are you aware, Sopher, that wikihounding is a form of WP:HARASSMENT? As I repeatedly stated, I am a participant and the above is my perception of the state of affairs in the article in question - I did not post a report nor mention anyone by name. Though I stand by what I said: I am prepared to back up the above with diffs, and, based on previous experiences, I believe I have what is necessary to convincingly show that talkpage is rife with disruption, as well as general disregard for WP:SOURCE and OR.

@GoodDay. That's why I started this thread: to get input on whether WP:A/R is appropriate at this stage. I figured it would be better than bothering people around here with a report that doesn't quite merit attention. -- Director (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification (March 2013): Procedural issues at WP:AE

Original request

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

---

Initiated by Gatoclass (talk) at 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Notification: [50]

Statement by Gatoclass

Firstly, my apologies to the Committee for adding to your current workload. However, hopefully these issues can be resolved quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

This request relates to a number of procedural issues that have recently arisen at WP:AE, which I think are probably best handled by the Committee. There are four in total—the first two raised at AE by Sandstein and the latter two raised here now by myself:

1/ Sandstein recently declined to act in a request regarding breach of 1RR at AE as he sees the 1RR restriction on certain pages subject to discretionary sanctions as having been a "community ... decision" rather than made by an administrator acting by authority of, and with stated reference to, those discretionary sanctions. The issue of whether or not 1RR can legitimately be adjudicated at AE therefore needs clarification. I don't think Sandstein himself objects to 1RR being adjudicated at AE; he apparently just wants a clear statement of the principle, so I am referring the matter here. The discussion regarding this issue can be found in the "Results" section of the recently closed Soosim request.

2/ Sandstein again declined to act on a recent request on the basis that the respondent had yet to receive an official warning, in spite of the fact that the respondent was a named party to the original Arbitration case.[51] As I have always taken the view that warnings are not required when a user is already clearly aware that discretionary sanctions apply in a topic area—a principle that I believe has been upheld in at least one previous Arbcom clarification request (when it was decided that participants in a previous AE request with regard to a particular topic area under discretionary sanctions don't need a formal warning)—so again this should not be a difficult matter to resolve, but I think it needs resolution so that we can avoid similar debates in future.

3/ In a recent appeal against the length of an AE sanction by a sanctioned user, Sandstein commented on the appeal in the "Result" section in spite of having participated in the adjudication of the request which led to the original sanction.[52] Though I don't think there is any formal prohibition against doing this, IIRC the convention at AE has always been that adjudicators of the original case confine their comments to the "Statements" section of an appeal. Regardless of precedent, however, I believe that it is a sound principle for admins to follow to allow appeals of cases they have adjudicated to be handled by different administrators, just as appeals in legal proceedings are handled by a different court made up of different judges. Therefore I am requesting that Arbcom formally endorse this principle, as I think users have a right to have their appeals reviewed by administrators independent of the original decision.

4/ In the same request referred to in 2/ above, Sandstein decided to issue a warning to the respondent before the request was concluded.[53][54] Since the outcome of a request is something to be decided by consensus of uninvolved administrators—whether it be no action, a reminder, an advisement, a warning, a topic ban etc.—I felt that issuance of this warning was out of process as it effectively pre-empts the consensus decision of the adjudicating administrators. I believe it is out of process even if the particular discussion looked to be heading to at least a warning for the respondent in any case. I am therefore requesting that Arbcom formally recognize the principle that remedies not be implemented in AE requests until discussion by uninvolved admins has concluded and a consensus view reached.

Thank you for your consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein for your quick and comprehensive response. I will not respond to all the points you raise as I am trying to keep this submission brief, except to concede that you are probably correct to say that there is no formal requirement for consensus amongst uninvolved admins involved in adjudicating an AE request, and that I was mistaken to suggest otherwise. However, I don't think the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions was intended to suggest that consensus amongst adjudicating admins can be ignored or pre-empted by administrative fiat, and I think it would be unwise for obvious reasons to endorse such a principle. Gatoclass (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I am in agreement with the general thrust of your comments. With regard to issue 1/, it is of no consequence to me whether or not 1RR is enforceable under AN3 as well as at AE, so long as there is no confusion that 1RR can be enforced at AE as a legitimate AE remedy. With regard to your comment about "elapsed time" since the original case, I can accept the argument that a new warning may be the most appropriate response after a long period since the last warning, just as long as a new warning isn't considered a necessary precondition for imposition of a sanction. With regard to your comment on 4/, I would agree that an editor still actively engaged in disruptive editing might justifiably be sanctioned at any point by any admin without the necessity of establishing consensus, and that such a sanction may even at times obviate the need for further action at the AE request. However, such action should only be permissible IMO when the editor concerned is continuing his disruptive editing even as the request proceeds; I can't conceive of any other reason why pre-emption of consensus might be considered appropriate. Perhaps I should also clarify that I have no issue with the notion of an admin imposing an AE sanction on his own outside of an AE request; just as long as remedies imposed as a result of AE requests themselves are imposed by consensus and not unilaterally. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

I have always held that 'if remedy affecting a user is changed - and the remedy is updated/superseded or otherwise changed - then the user would be, by virtue of being affected by the previous remedy, affected by the new remedy. This is especially the case when the user is a party to the original case with the now-superseded remedy. As the user was informed of the update to the remedy, he should - at the very minimum - be considered "notified and warned" due to previous involvement.

I believe that we used to notify (and warn, if appropriate) people immediately in certain cases (though I cannot name one right off the top of my head) when the remedy would be DS/Article Probation/etc. Maybe this needs to be the default action. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Thanks, Gatoclass, for bringing these issues here for clarification. I apologize for being the originator of so many AE-related procedural questions lately; I suspect, that being a lawyer, I do have the tendency to see procedural problems where more practically minded people don't – and vice versa. I anticipate that we'll not be able to fully answer all questions here, but hopefully the issues raised here can be addressed in the general review of DS/AE procedure that I understand is forthcoming, and the answers codified on the appropriate pages.

1) Yes, my problem is not with 1RR as such, but rather what I think is the unclear legal (for lack of another word) status of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. My understanding is that a restriction can be enforced through AE only if it was made with the authority of the Arbitration Committee, that is (a) by a majority decision of the full Committee, or (b) by an individual administrator as provided for by WP:AC/DS. The problem is that Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is not labeled as either. Although at one time it was apparently the subject of a Committee motion amending it, it is described on the case page as having been made "per community discussion and decision" – and community sanctions are not subject to AE. If the Committee could clarify what exactly the status of that restriction is, I'd appreciate it.
There's also another problem related to the legal status of that restriction. As written, the 1R restriction applies to all topic-area articles without requiring that users be first notified of it. I'm not sure that the authors of the restriction meant it to apply such that a new editor, who has no idea that there has been an arbitration case, or what arbitration and 1RR even mean, should be blocked without warning for making two reverts in a row to, say, the section Tel Aviv#Fashion, just because the article it is in "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". As written, therefore, I suspect that the restriction is overbroad. Now, if it is a Committee decision, editors are bound by it nonetheless, although I assume that individual administrators (who have no duty to act on AE requests) can still decline to be the ones to enforce it. But if it is a discretionary sanction, then it is unenforceable if the user has not previously received the kind of warning described in WP:AC/DS#Warnings (e.g. in an edit notice) – and probably a specific warning about 1RR, too, rather than a general warning about the decision, because if the restriction is a discretionary sanction rather than a Committee decision, then it is not part of the decision proper.

2) As currently written, WP:AC/DS#Warnings provides that "prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions". This wording does not make an exception for editors who were party to the original case or who are otherwise assumed to be aware of the case. Therefore, in a conservative interpretation of the wording so as not to accidentally overstep AE authority, I am of the view that a warning is still required even for such editors. Whether that makes any sense is another question, and one that is for the Committee to answer. I suspect that it has to do what the purpose of these "warnings" is supposed to be, a question that has come up a lot recently: If they are meant to serve only as notifications about the possibility of discretionary sanctions, then a separate notification to users who already know about the decision is superfluous. If however they are meant to warn the user to desist from a specific action, then there is still a point in requiring them to be issued to users who are aware of the decision. I understand that AGK is preparing a motion about precisely this question, which will hopefully resolve this.

3) That's indeed a thorny issue, and I would very much appreciate clarification (and, if needed, correction) from the Committee about this. I discussed it with another editor and suggested to AGK that it be also addressed in his upcoming motion. As I explain below, I think that Gatoclass misunderstands the AE process when he suggests that an administrator who comments on the merits of an enforcement request "participates in the adjudication of the request". Rather, the only person who adjudicates the request is the individual administrator who imposes a sanction, if any, in response to the request. Nonetheless, the question of whether an administrator who voiced an opinion about an enforcement request is involved (in the sense of WP:INVOLVED) in any future appeal is a valid one, made more difficult by the fact that there are currently very few, if any, rules about how an appeal at WP:AE is to be conducted.

In principle, I agree that it would be preferable, to prevent the appearance of bias, if an appeal were heard only by people who have not previously expressed an opinion about the matter. However, I think that there are also valid arguments for not considering an administrator in the situation I described to be involved:

• First, WP:INVOLVED excludes actions made in an administrative capacity (which I believe commenting on the merits of an AE request is) from triggering involvement, so technically an administrator who comments as uninvolved in a discussion about an AE request can be seen as remaining uninvolved in any followup discussion, including an appeal. (If not, would they also be considered involved in any future discussion about the same user, or even the same topic area? That would exhaust the admin pool pretty quickly).
• Second, there are few administrators who participate in AE, perhaps understandably given the amount of stress one can be exposed to in that role. This means that if commenting on a request excludes participation in a future appeals discussion, one of two things will happen:

• Either fewer administrators (or possibly none at all) comment on AE requests, so as not to exclude themselves from a future appeal. That is undesirable, as it will tend to reduce the quality of the decisions made. It will cause additional stress to whoever does make a decision, because when challenged about it they can't point to the support of colleagues. And it may also lead to an unwelcome division of labor among AE admins, where one group focuses on responding to requests and the other on second-guessing those decisions on appeal.
• Or, and this is the second possibility, it may result in there being too few uninvolved administrators to form a useful consensus about the outcome of any appeal, because most have already voiced an opinion about the initial request. In extremis, one remaining uninvolved administrator could by themselves overrule, on appeal, the unanimous opinion of five others who commented about the request being appealed.

I hope that the Committee's clarification will help define recusal rules that take these various concerns into account.

4) I think that Gatoclass is subject to a misconception when he says that "the outcome of a request is something to be decided by consensus of uninvolved administrators". No rule that I know of provides for this. Rather, all enforcement provisions that I know of, including WP:AC/DS, provide that "an uninvolved administrator" – singular – may act in enforcement, that is, without necessarily having to take into account anybody else's opinion. It is only as a matter of practice that administrators working at AE have become used to exchanging opinions about the merits of enforcement requests and possible courses of action before one of them acts on the enforcement request. That's obviously a good thing particularly in complicated cases, but it does not mean that discussion, much less a consensus, is required. In that sense, one administrator deciding to take action (in this case, issuing a warning, because I am of the view that it was required and not previously given, see point 2 above) does not preempt any other administrator from taking any other action that they deem possible and appropriate (such as a block), which I made a point of noting. However, a clarification about this aspect of AE procedure could also be helpful.  Sandstein  07:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Update to 4): Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions clarifies that "best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case". This means, e contrario, that in all other (i.e. most) cases administrators are not expected (let alone required) by the Committee to discuss (and much less to seek consensus for) sanctions with others.  Sandstein  09:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

I don't believe that a DS warning was originally meant as a sanction. That is, a person misbehaves, is warned, misbehaves again then recieves a sanction. I think the word 'warning' was always meant as closer to the definition of 'notification'. That is a person who has not necessarily misbehaved is warned that there are rules which they may not be aware of.

This follows with the logic that it is unfair to sanction someone who reasonably was not aware of the special rules. They must be warned (notified) of the rules before a sanction can fairly be applied. So any knowledge of the special rules counts as a person being "warned".

Treating it as a sanction unfairly provides a procedural Get out of Jail Free card for people aware of the rules, yet not warned (sanctioned) because a warning is mandatory.

Really, Arbcom could solve this AND the Who Can Issue Warnings? issue by clearly separating warning (sanction) and warning (notification). Any editor can warn (notify), an uninvolved admin is required for a warning (sanction). Now use different words for the two meanings. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, and this would also address the appeals issue. A warning (notification) can't be appealed but a warning (sanction) can. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ErikHaugen

Regarding (1), T. Canens makes a great point about the community sanctions helping define what "expected standards of behavior" means, but also in this case notice that EdJohnston argued that "Since Arbcom touched the 1RR in 2012, I think they own it now". It seems a little squishy, but I'm sympathetic to this argument as well.

Regarding (2), I wish warnings were just notices and never implied guilt; it would be nice to move away from this conception that this is a "2 strikes" kind of thing where the first warning is "you did something bad, stop it or else we'll block/ban/whatever you." I don't like these because they're kind of a big deal to receive, yet I think people issuing them don't necessarily realize how odious it is to get them. Once we clarify this, we can also clarify that sanctions don't require prior special warnings as long as it is clear that the editor knew about the DS in question—for example, if the user was a party to the case and got the notice of the results on the user talk page.

Regarding (3), it does seem strange to appear to be on a panel deciding the appeal of an administrative action that you took! I do some RMs—I would never consider closing a move review of an move request closure I made, for example. This may not be as clear-cut, but still.

Regarding (4), I think if the warning is a notice and not a statement of guilt, then it is fine. Anyone should be able to slap it on anyone's talk page, anytime. This warning, which AFAICT is the one we're talking about here, appears to be a notice, not a statement of guilt, so I think what Sandstein did is ok. Here is an example of a warning that is a statement of guilt, not simply a notice: "...If you continue to misconduct yourself..." etc. This difference in language is huge. Both let the noob who wants to edit something like Tel Aviv#Fashion know what's up, one also serves as a rap sheet. I'm probably trying to get at the same thing here that 204. is trying to get at. HaugenErik (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Given that all these issues concern Sandstein's conduct and he was previously the subject of an arbitration request regarding his conduct at AE, which led to an "advisement" about his actions there, I think there should be serious consideration given to examining this editor's actions. He has become incredibly domineering over the process. The stuff he is doing at the Marek case is extremely unnecessary and confrontational, but he seems to think being an admin means he can just do whatever he likes there. I am honestly thinking about initiating some process against him because his current monopolization of the process is a problem when he conducts himself in such a fashion. Should Arbs here think it is enough concern, perhaps they could consider evicting him from the AE process without stripping Sandstein of his administrator status. I am certainly tempted to file an arbitration request against him because of what he is doing, but since this request is practically all about him I feel it can be settled here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

AGK, I have to say your response on point 3 is rather unsettling. You should not in any way encourage the idea that an admin can help reject any clemency regarding administrative actions they explicitly supported so long as they didn't act on that support personally. Should three admins support a restriction, only one is going to be the admin of record because that is simply how it works as you said, but that does not mean those other two admins should feel like there is not a very serious conflict of interest for them to then reject any appeals of the restriction as "uninvolved" administrators. Many times an AE decision is defended by the acting administrator because other admins supported it so their support is usually integral to any resulting enforcement action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

The Devil's Advocate has intervened above to make a series of points which appear to be an all-out attack on Sandstein. They are unrelated to the procedural rules for WP:AE being discussed here.

As such his statement should be disregarded.

It was written in the heat of the moment shortly after reverting some of Sandstein's administrative edits during an WP:AE request [55] in which I am also participating. After being warned, he launched into an outspoken personal attack on Sandstein,[56][57] calling him an "officious little jerk" and "petty tyrant".

The purpose of this clarification request is not to examine Sandstein's record as an administrator at WP:AE, but to give general procedural guidance for enforcing sanctions or administering warnings.

Given his animosity towards Sandstein, it was inappropriate for The Devil's Advocate to have exploited this opportunity to take potshots at Sandstein without justification. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

I can't begin to describe how wrong it is to consider that a warning put in place in an arbitration warns or notifies a specific editor on an article. Such a view assumes that all editors have the same perspective on actions or discussions which is clearly not the case. Certainly reverts for most admins are easy to see, but not so other less concrete violations. Why is there a rush to block or ban with out a specific warning. If Wikipedia is not punitive, editors should be allowed and even encouraged to remedy objectionable behaviour. Further, using a general warning to apply to a specific situation will and has led to gross and unfair mistakes based on at best a misunderstanding of what has gone on. A simple warning would have alerted an editor that discussion they thought was appropriate was being seen in another light, and at worst, the ban was a deliberate attempt to remove an editor. With all respect to the lawyers here, this, at least in my mind, is an issue that can be simplified and reduced to an issue of being humane and fair, and little else.(olive (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC))

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• We are currently working on something that will, among other things, address questions 2 & 3. For 1, I think the best way to parse this under our current DS framework is that the 1RR is a community consensus that partially defines the "expected standards of behavior [and] normal editorial process" in this topic area, such that a violation is ground for application of discretionary sanctions in the form of a block. The provision for "block without warning" can be read to mean only that a block does not require a 1RR warning on the user's talk page, and so interpreted, does not conflict with the overall warning requirement for discretionary sanctions, which can be satisfied by a warning in the editnotice. As to 4, AE actions do not require a consensus of admins; on the other hand, in most cases it may well be preferable, out of courtesy, to refrain from taking action while an admin discussion is ongoing.T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• As a fellow lawyer (not just wikilawyer), I can understand the each of the procedural issues that Sandstein has raised. Trust me, I could write several paragraphs of detailed analysis in response to each of Gatoclass's questions. But as important, I can equally understand the perspective of all the non-lawyers out there, who are simply trying to edit articles that are the subject of DS in peace. They must feel that the AE process has degenerated into a quasi-incomprehensible bureaucratic quagmire, one which even its administrators and the arbitrators do not fully understand. The purpose of arbitration enforcement is to enforce the remedies enacted in arbitration committee decisions, as well as discretionary sanctions that follow from those remedies, in a way that is fair both to the editors against whom enforcement is sought, as well as to other editors and ultimately the readers of the disputed articles. With this in mind, I would say in response to question 1 that it makes little difference to me whether 1RR restrictions (a blunt instrument to put it mildly) are enforced at AE or at AN3. Isn't the better question which venue will lead to more equitable and efficient enforcement?, rather than which is correct according to some rule book? As for the issue of warnings, I suggest that if there is legitimate doubt whether an editor is on notice of possible sanctions, then a warning rather than a more severe sanction should be given. Where an editor who was named in the decision immediately reoffends soon after DS is imposed, I doubt the need for another warning; but if substantial time has elapsed since the decision, giving a final warning may be preferable. The 204 IP's comment that there is a distinction to be made between "warning" as notice and "warning" as sanction has merit. In response to Gatoclass's point (4), while ultimate decisions at AE are often best made by consensus rather than unilaterally, but I would think that a single administrator can still issue a warning during the discussion in an attempt to avoid further disruptive editing while the discussion is pending; compare in-chambers opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Apologies for commenting so late on this. My views, which I will keep short to provide clarity, are: (1) The matter of 1RR may need to be discussed and handled separately, including a detailed review of the discussions that led to 1RR being included in discretionary sanctions. (2) Participation in an arbitration case should count as a notification (and I agree that the language of warning/notification needs clarifying and I think this will be addressed in the pending clarifications being worked on), though common sense should be applied if the case was a long time ago. (3) Admins working at AE should exercise caution when commenting on appeals and let others comment first if they commented in an earlier round of discussion. (4) Issuing warnings during an AE discussion does seem unwarranted. Let the discussion conclude first. TDA, thanks for reminding us of the advice provided to Sandstein in a previous case (Mathsci is correct to point out the intemperate language you used, but let's leave that there and refocus this request for clarification on the issues being discussed here). Sandstein, please re-read that earlier advice and ask if you need any clarification on that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC) To clarify what I said here about Sandstein and TDA which was a general comment not directly related to this clarification request, please see here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• I appreciate how thoughtfully Gatoclass has framed this request, and I would reassure him that, even in times where we are an exceptionally busy committee, editors should not hesitate to approach us to ask for clarification on any aspect of our rulings. Even clarification requests concerning administration and procedure (or "bureaucracy", if one wishes to be unkind) have a direct effect on editors who are writing the encyclopedia, and we are therefore happy to receive them at any time. Your four-point structure has greatly simplified this request, so I will respond using the same chronology of points:

  (1) The 1RR restriction was plainly enacted as a discretionary sanction, and is therefore under the auspices of arbitration enforcement. Complaints that the 1RR restriction has been breached can be referred to the enforcement noticeboard.

  (2) I hope this committee can resolve that ambiguity in the omnibus discretionary sanctions motion I am preparing (and which we agreed on the mailing list will be due early next month), but according to long-standing community convention editors who are named in an arbitration case can be considered duly "notified" and "warned" (in the sense used for discretionary sanctions) if discretionary sanctions are later enacted in that same case.

  (3) A hypothetical would help me answer this point more succinctly. If administrators A and B opine in an enforcement request that editor Z should be topic banned for a month, and administrator C reviews the enforcement request, agrees with A and B, and enacts the topic ban, then administrator C is the "acting administrator". When editor Z appeals the month-long topic ban, administrator C would be ineligible to contribute to the "consensus of uninvolved administrators" required to overturn an enforcement action. Administrator C could opine on the appeal as an involved party, but he should do so outwith the uninvolved administrators' discussion section. However, administrators A and B did not enact the topic ban (only a single administrator, the "acting administrator", can be responsible for an enforcement action). Merely agreeing that something is a good idea does not confer involvedness. I therefore disagree with my colleagues above, and would contend that A and B are eligible to contribute to Z's appeal as "uninvolved administrators". However, I would agree that, for practical purposes, A and B should try to defer the decision concerning Z's appeal to administrators who are fresh to the topic ban, and should try not to dominate the appeal discussion unless there are no other administrators available to comment in a timely way. (Again, point (3) is something we hope to disambiguate in the forthcoming motion.)

  (4) Sandstein seems to have been merely correcting a procedural deficiency with a particular enforcement request, so I would not agree he overrode the developing consensus of his fellow administrators. AGK [•] 21:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Clarification request: Science Apologist topic ban

Original request

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

---

Initiated by Someone not using his real name (talk) at 21:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

• Someone not using his real name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notification
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notification
• Previously ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notification

Statement Someone not using his real name

Arbitrator Cas Liber has declared here that the Committee has vacated the indefinite (extended from the original one-year) topic ban affecting Science Apologist. Is that the opinion/decision of the majority of the Committee? (Original one-year topic ban; Extension thereof to indefinite) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

@Courcelles, I think you are looking at Casliber's comment in isolation. It is because of the specific circumstances of the community unblock, where multiple individuals highlighted SAs work on fringe theory topics as being desirable, that the topic ban should have been automatically vacated. As far as I can see, Casliber is not referring to the act of ARBCOM referring it to the community as vacating the topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Err, for the record, I made this statement as an editor. Anyway, moot now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Speaking for myself, I do not think we have vacated the topic ban on pseudoscience, and that it remains in place as an AE (not ArbCom) sanction. (I also do not see any real discussion of the topic ban either way on either the recent RFARB or AN unblock discussions.) (Thus subject to the AE routes of appeal, which are more numerous than for a direct sanction from ArbCom.) Courcelles 23:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note that this is all rather moot by the imposing admin lifting the topic ban on AN. "The topic ban is lifted with retroactive effect to the time of the unblock. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)". As he imposed the topic ban, he can vacate it. So, DS remain in effect, but no topic ban. Courcelles 00:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is the question whether the recent AN evaluation of ScienceApologist's block appeal would also, if closed in favour of the proposal, have vacated his topic ban? The answer to that is clearly no. The proposal was to unblock SA, not to unblock him and remove all sanctions from his account. A new thread should be started to discuss vacating the AE topic ban of SA's account. (It also occurs to me that letting a contributor back onto the project, then after a period of observation letting him return to a contentious topic area, is a reasonable and sensible approach – but that isn't what we are being asked to consider.) AGK [•] 14:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• However, the comment by T. Canens, which Courcelles quotes above, would render the question moot. I missed that because the original poster didn't link to TC's comment in his statement. AGK [•] 14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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