Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 68

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (January 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC). Also WP:Editing restrictions
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request


 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
 * Details of desired modification

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Note: this omnibus approach has been requested by Arbitrators, I have voiced my concerns that attempting too much will cause a process failure, however out of respect for the committee I am prepared to try this route. I note also, for the record, that the committee have previously overturned editing restrictions weather imposed by the committee or not (Kovaf), and on more than one occasion repealed an entire decision (Orangemarlin and others).

An editing restriction was imposed unilaterally in 2010, and a supplementary (supposedly temporary) restriction added, also unilaterally. I challenged the legitimacy and a good faith attempt was made to establish consensus to keep them, which failed. The restrictions serve no good purpose, significant time can be saved by the committee overturning these restrictions.
 * Putative editing restrictions
 * 1) I move to overturn these restrictions, or declare them invalid.

The substantive decision in the case consists of a number of findings and two remedies.
 * Case findings and remedies


 * 1) I move to strike the findings 2 and 3, because they are based on the invalid restrictions.
 * 2) I move to strike the findings 4, 5, 6 and 7, because they draw un-warranted assumptions from insufficient and poor quality evidence
 * 3) I move to strike the findings 2-7 because they constitute personal attacks on my integrity and professionalism, contrary to WP:NPA
 * 4) I move to strike the findings 2-7 because they are not consistent with WP:BLP
 * 5) I move to strike the remedy 1.2 because it does not serve any of the findings
 * 6) I move to strike the remedy 1.2 because it is purely punitive
 * 7) I move to strike the remedy 2 because the committee did not take into consideration the alternatives proposed in the workshop
 * 8) I move to strike the remedy 2 because it is over-broad
 * 9) I move to strike the remedy 2 because it is unenforceable
 * 10) I move to strike the remedy 2 because any purpose it had has been served
 * 11) I move to strike the remedies 1.2 and 2 because they are harmful to the encyclopaedia
 * 12) I move to strike the remedies 1.2 and 2 because the stricken findings mean they cannot be sustained.
 * 13) I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that my request for an adjournment was unreasonably denied
 * 14) I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that they are inconsistent with the spirit of collegiality
 * 15) I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that the workshop developed positive solutions which were ignored by the drafting arbitrator
 * 16) I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that the drafting arbitrator was not WP:UNINVOLVED
 * 17) I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that I was not notified of the change of drafting arbitrator in a timely manner
 * 18) I move to strike remedies 1.2 and 5, because they serve no purpose.  As I made clear in the workshop it is possible to provide improvements to processes and products which on the one hand would ensure that concerns could not be overlooked with impunity, nor could inaccurate claims of unresponsiveness be made.  Indeed I implemented a significant part of these improvements during the case, and they were functioning well.
 * 19) I move to strike the findings 2-7 because the stricken remedies mean they have nothing to support

Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

@Rschen at the time we were trying to standardise banner template names there were only three out of over 1000 WikiProjects where there were objections to the renames. Namely:
 * 1) WikiProject US Roads - by User:Rschen7755 & another user
 * 2) WikiProject Mathematics - by User:CBM
 * 3) WikiProject Military History - by User:Kirill Lockshin

All these objections used reasons contrary to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia, notably WP:OWN with a fair dose of WP:ABF thrown in.

I see that the WP:OWN mentality continues with your hatting threads on your talk page - with "Summaries" as if you were an admin closing a noticeboard thread.

If you are sick of it, I might wonder why you continue to stick the knife in. It was unacceptable at the previous Amendment, it remains so now. '''It remains the case that that FoF 8 was factually incorrect, and moreover defamatory. It is deeply disturbing that anyone would want to preserve such a statement on Wikipedia.'''

Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

@Hersfold - Both you an Rschen are supporting my thesis that this is not a good way to approach  the case.

Your point-by-point defence does little, since it really just shows the prejudices you exhibited since your self-admitted display of temper on my talk page before you initiated the case.

I will take one point - point 9 to illustrate. Here you are saying that the only way I can know the restriction is unenforceable is to successfully circumvent it, and hence that I am either making stuff up or breaking the restriction. Not so, and clearly not so on a moments consideration (and I have made my qualifications to make this statement clear to the committee previously). Therefore by the same argument you used, you are either misleading the committee, or you didn't stop and think. I prefer to assume the latter - and you should know better.

As to your patronising statements at the end, I am sure they are well meant, but really!

Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

@Clerks Please withdraw this request on my behalf, I stated that this approach would not work, and both the responses from those that have chosen to persue me here (as predicted) and Arbitrators support that contention. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Rschen7754
My comments at still stand. I find it disturbing that Rich is shifting the "blame" for the sanctions on the arbitrators, and on the community and basically on everyone but himself.

I also find it disturbing that Rich has been badgering everyone who has commented in opposition to his request to withdraw their comments, accusing them of bad faith even, as seen. I also found beyond the pale, where Rich tried to edit the same section on my talk page after I hatted it. Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of this whole thing, and I was tempted to ragestrike all of my comments in the last amendment request to get this to stop. --Rschen7754 05:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, while I was uninvolved per policy at the time of my initial block, I don't think I am now, and will not be taking any further administrative action in relation to Rich.

Statement by Hersfold
To address Rich's points...


 * 1) Your primary defense in this case was based on the fact that you felt the community restrictions were invalid. That didn't work, and it's not going to work now.
 * 2) If you had concerns about the quality of evidence being presented, the time to address that was during the case, although each of those findings provides at least two diffs.
 * 3) Those are statements of fact, with provided evidence, not personal attacks.
 * 4) See above.
 * 5) An administrator repeatedly violating community restrictions and policies, as demonstrated in findings 3-7, should not continue to hold the tools.
 * 6) See above; clearly other methods to get you to obey policies and restrictions weren't working.
 * 7) There's nothing to say they didn't, and that's not really a reason to vacate something anyway...
 * 8) Needs more detail.
 * 9) Your block log, which provides this diff, says otherwise. Unless you're admitting to continued violations of that remedy...?
 * 10) Why does this serve no purpose? Needs detail.
 * 11) How so? You're not the only bot operator on the project, and quite frankly most of them listen better than you have in the past.
 * 12) You're assuming that your prior logic is valid; as previously covered, it's not.
 * 13) a) What request? b) That's not a reason for vacating an entire case.
 * 14) Again, those aren't personal attacks, they're statements of fact. And if 2-7 aren’t collegial, how does 9 not make the cut?
 * 15) The workshop isn't a binding contract; the drafting arbitrator is charged with coming up with remedies they and the committee feel will best resolve the issue at hand.
 * 16) Eh? You're definitely going to have to back that one up. Also, if you felt any arbitrator should have recused, the time to bring that up was when the case request was filed.
 * 17) Who the drafting arbitrator is doesn't matter. The whole committee votes on things, and any arbitrator can propose alternative findings/remedies/whatever.
 * 18) The purpose 1.2 was to remove your admin rights for (essentially) conduct unbecoming, and to prevent access to AWB in its original form. 5 I'm not sure why you're objecting to, by your argument any reminder, admonishment, etc. should also be repealed; they do serve a purpose, to reprimand whoever did whatever and advise others against doing that same or a similar whatever in future. If you were truly sincere about improving your conduct, then the time to do that was before a case was being considered, when you were being sanctioned by the community. Or even before then.
 * 19) Your logic is going in circles now.

Anyway. My advice, Rich, if you want any part of this case vacated or relaxed at any point in the future, is this: stop complaining about how people are out to get you, and work on figuring out what those people were saying and why they were saying it. Nobody is denying that you did useful work. What wasn't so useful was how you handled complaints about the not-so-useful bits. Not-so-useful bits happen. Consider this case one of them. Learn from them. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 07:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Elen of the Roads
I am enormously sympathetic towards Rich. He has said often that he feels it is impossible to make any meaningful contributions, or even to edit Wikipedia, without use of automatic tools. To my mind, he is just one of many editors who were here since the early days, and who have struggled to adapt to the way the project is changing over time. I think it is to his considerable credit that he remains a committed editor, contributing as he feels able. Perhaps the ultimate crash was a result of an increasingly non-technical userbase, who want a Volkswagen Golf that starts first time every time, and a move away from the early editors who prefered an old LandRover so they could tinker under the bonnet. Whatever, I could not personally support the vacation of sanctions, as Rich still seems to have no concept of why users thought Helpful Pixie Bot was a nightmare, and Rich's persistence in making small changes that no-one could see was just annoying. But I would ask the committee to be considerate of Rich in his long history of editing, and his continued desire to improve the encyclopaedia. (should my opinion count for anything). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Rich, most sanctions are applied unilaterally, that does not make them illegitimate. As far as I can tell, the sanctions were the result of solid consensus borne out of a rather vigorous discussion (and, in fact, the stronger proposal clearly had consensus until Xeno's later proposal of a more limited restriction).  You're also qualifying further discussion as "attempt was made to establish consensus to keep them" where the opposite holds: you need to show consensus to lift them, or provide this Committee with reason to lift them – beyond "they were bad". As to the calls to strike most of the findings as "personal attacks" or BLP violations, I see no merit in the claim.  They were findings of the Committee and properly voted upon as appropriate, and will not be stricken on the simple basis that you feel they paint you in a negative light.  I do not know if your username reflects your real name; if it does and you feel those findings could cause prejudice to you, we can consider courtesy blanking the case pages, however. Finally, your request to strike the remedies as (alternately) "over-broad", "unenforceable", or "harmful to the encyclopaedia" need supporting evidence.  They are none of those things simply because you assert them to be, you need to demonstrate that they are. Honestly, the principal tenor of your appeal appears to be "I don't agree with the decision"; and that does not suffice as a basis to overturn it in part or in whole.  You need to demonstrate material error, or that the circumstances have changed since the decision.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Recused, again. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. I'm hardly inclined to revisit an entire case when all that's been presented in support of the request is a laundry list of conclusory allegations devoid of actual reasoned argument and analysis. T. Canens (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline: these are merely assertions, Rich, and thus unpersuasive.  Roger Davies  talk 08:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I can empathise with Rich's point of view and thank him for attempting the "omnibus request", I'm afraid I likely to decline it. Of the points made, 1, 2, 7, 12 15 and 16 are just assertions, with no evidence to back them up, 7 and 15 specifically blames the arbitrators, which is a shame. 3 and 4 misinterpret the policies mentioned, as the findings are backed by evidence and unless the evidence is shown to be incorrect, these points are moot. Points 5, 6 and 18 are incorrect as the remedies directly serve the findings, especially finding 6. Points 8-11, 13, 14 and 17 are not reasons to vacade remedies or findings, though I would be interested in hearing any evidence for 10. 19 does not make sense given that no remedies have been stricken. Overall, Rich, I believe you have made a lot of assertions, hoping some of them might stick. This scattergun technique does little for your case, as anything that might be worth listening to gets lost in the the mix. I would be concerned with point 16, but you have put forward no evidence for it and it doesn't match the evidence I've seen so far. I am also very interested in point 10, as it appears to agree that there was previously an issue with your automated editing, but there is no longer, I'd like to know what's changed. Worm TT( talk ) 09:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Like my colleagues, I find that this request only consists of dogmatic assertions and circular logic; there is no evidence whatsoever to show that either the various provisions are no longer necessary or were not warranted when they were adopted. For that reason, I feel I have to decline as well. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thank Rich for putting together everything into an omnibus request, but like my fellow arbs I'm not seeing compelling reasons to refactor. Arbitration cases contain things that sanctioned parties don't like, that's for sure, but that does not make them attacks on professionalism. Likewise, the remedies were designed to prevent this situation from occurring again--hardly punitive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to Rich's frustration with being unable to edit using automation, but I cannot agree with his assertion that last year's final decision was systematically flawed. In actuality, and contrary to what Rich argues, the case treated him fairly. We could easily have reached a more severe decision (by banning Rich), and what we did decide was, if anything, a showing of leniency—and an acknowledgement of Rich's enormous value to the project (in respects other than his unfit operation of bots and scripts). Decline, though I am grateful that we have did this all at once and not by a piecemeal approach to requesting amendment. AGK  [•] 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll also consider this amendment to be Rich's last resort to appealing the case, at least for the foreseeable future. I will refuse to entertain further such denouncements of the decision made in the case. AGK  [•] 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Waldorf education/Review (January 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  hgilbert (talk) at 19:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement by hgilbert
The original arbitration indicated that "Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

There are frequently sources proposed that are from peer reviewed presses or journals, but whose authors have a strong or weak connection to Waldorf education or anthroposophy. Some editors of this article argue that these sources are to be considered reliable due to the peer-reviewed publishing process. Other editors argue that any connection of an author to Waldorf/anthroposophy makes all publications by that author unreliable sources for an article on Waldorf education, independently of how they were published.

It seems to me that the latter stance would be in flagrant violation of NPOV. My understanding is that any publication that would satisfy RS (e.g. peer reviewed journals and academic presses) would be a RS for this article, independently of the author's institutional affiliation or world-view. In addition, though anthroposophic presses and journals would be completely excluded as sources for any controversial or disputed material, they should be available as sources about factual information regarding their own institution (e.g. numbers of schools, content of the curriculum, etc.), in line with ABOUTSELF.

A currently disputed source, as a concrete example, is:
 * Carlo Willmann, Waldorfpädogogik, Kölner Veröffentlichungen zur Religionsgeschichte, v. 27. Böhlau Verlag, ISBN 3-412-16700-2. The press is a highly regarded academic press, the book volume 27 of a highly regarded series on the history of religion. The author is a Catholic theologian who has been connected with Waldorf schools in various ways.

NPOV
If anyone glances at the article as it now stands, I suspect that they will find that the article, though surely imperfect in many ways, is quite neutral in tone. Discussions I have been involved in recently have been over such issues as
 * Whether to implement the recommendations for wording and sources made by an outside editor at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (I have wanted to implement these, Alexbrn has not).
 * Whether the following quote, introduced by me, is NPOV: "A UK Department for Education and Skills report noted significant differences in curriculum and pedagogical approach between Waldorf/Steiner and mainstream schools and suggested that each type of school could learn from the other type's strengths: in particular, that state schools could benefit from Waldorf education's early introduction and approach to modern foreign languages; combination of block (class) and subject teaching for younger children; development of speaking and listening through an emphasis on oral work; good pacing of lessons through an emphasis on rhythm; emphasis on child development guiding the curriculum and examinations; approach to art and creativity; attention given to teachers’ reflective activity and heightened awareness (in collective child study for example); and collegial structure of leadership and management, including collegial study. Aspects of mainstream practice which could inform good practice in Waldorf schools included: management skills and ways of improving organizational and administrative efficiency; classroom management; work with secondary-school age children; and assessment and record keeping."
 * Whether to include the many studies done of Waldorf education (Alexbrn removed every one of these to a subarticle, I believe they are important here and have tried to bring these back).

Frankly, I don't see how my role in any of these can be seen as POV-pushing or evidence of COI. hgilbert (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, Alexbrn has seriously proposed the content of an anonymous anti-Waldorf website as a critical response to a Karlstad University professor of education's research report published by the Karlstad University Studies series. This reflects a extremely unbalanced view and use of RS.hgilbert (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn
I have been editing the Waldorf education article for several weeks now, and I am personally not convinced the issue at hand is contested for most editors. As I have written on the talk page there, I use the following rough rules of thumb for evaluating sources in the light of the Arbcom ruling:
 * Peer-reviewed nearly always okay; University Presses nearly always okay; mainstream news media nearly always okay for reportage.
 * Of the remainder:
 * Authored by somebody "involved in Waldorf", or from an Anthroposophical source: generally bad.
 * Dissertations, general books, conference papers, research reports etc.: assess on the basis of whether there is evidence of editorial oversight, whether they are cited by good RS publications, and how "heavy" the claim they are making is.
 * Normal WP caution to apply to web sites, self-published, primary, etc.

I don't think any editor is contending that peer-reviewed sources by Waldorf-involved people should be automatically out-of-bounds – and indeed we do include such sources: e.g. Robert A. McDermott is a leading anthroposophist and Waldorf advocate yet his work is frequently cited by us when it appears in peer-reviewed journal articles.

Any difficulty has arisen for statements which are maybe controversial and/or maybe written by a Waldorf-involved-author and/or from a source which may be of high quality. This is the case for the Willmann source that hgilbert mentioned. Willmann is |the senior academic at a university teaching Waldorf education but appears to be published in a reasonable (but not peer-reviewed) book. Because this case is unclear, I tagged this source &#x7b;{rs}} rather than remove it, and was expecting some Talk page discussion.

In such cases as these, my view is that if the statement being sourced is truly uncontroversial, and notable enough for WP, then a neutral non-Waldorf source will exist for it that can be used. This was indeed the case for Willmann, where hgilbert graciously changed the source to a better one: a peer-reviewed journal article by Heiner Ullrich. The problem was solved, and solved well.

I would be reassured if the committee could re-affirm the original ruling and its intepretation as evidenced by the current Waldorf education article. Furthermore, it would be good to know if the current selection of sources used there meets its approval in the light of its request that editors "remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications" – something I have been striving to do. Alexbrn talk 14:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by a13ean
I agree with several comments here that in these articles sources can generally be dealt with using the current WP:RS guidelines. I think we're generally all on the same page regarding treating sources closely related to WE as WP:SELFPUB.

However, there's a few cases where I think the original ruling is still important and could use some clarification. In particular, WP:SCHOLARSHIP states in part that materials published "well-regarded academic presses" are reliable sources, but this is not a very well defined category, and longer works can end up being used to cite blips of information that are only peripherally related to the thrust of the work. Similarly, Ph.D. dissertations are WP:RS under certain conditions, but there is some confusion about when the condition "they have entered mainstream academic discourse" is satisfied as regarding WE publications. (For example, a dissertation from a distance-learning "university" is currently being used to source this, and as far as I know it has not been cited except in WE related literature).

I also have some lingering concerns about cherry-picking of sources in many of the articles related to Steiner's work, but this was not addressed in the original arbitration, and I don't know any way it can be addressed except by the very dedicated on a case-by-case basis. a13ean (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would expand my original comment to note that I believe civil POV-pushing is still a problem at WE and related pages. a13ean (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Though few of us who are currently active remember the Waldorf case, it was serious enough to be handled by Arbcom twice before, once in 2006 at Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education and again in 2007 at Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. An editor named in the original case, User:Pete K has been continuing to sock very recently, as documented in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pete K. At least one editor named in the case (hgilbert) is currently active and is vigorously presenting his views in the article and on the talk page. Due to the possibility of civil POV pushing and COI editing, it would be helpful to have at least a remnant of the original remedies available for use. At present, article probation remains on the books, but in a special form that requires Committee review of any violations. It is not enforceable by regular admins. I suggest that if any remedies are kept, they should be in the form of discretionary sanctions. If Arbcom agrees that the original concerns that led to the filing of the case haven't completely gone away, I hope they would consider vacating the probation and authorizing discretionary sanctions. It is plausible that WP:RS/N could handle some of the issues that only the Committee could deal with in 2007, but even the RSN board sometimes can't reach a consensus and its verdict may or may not be accepted by the people who ought to be listening. There should be some way that admins can take action on this problem if it recurs again without having to spin up an entire new consensus at ANI. Also, complete abolition of the remedies would mean that no review of any future problems would be possible at WP:AE. Everything requiring any joint action by admins would have to go through ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC) If that change were made, editors would no longer be obliged to remove "all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications" as the Remedy currently provides. Instead they would be expected to follow normal consensus processes when finding sources for these articles (including WP:RS/N if needed), and if they would not do so, they could be restricted from those articles by any admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is one admin-enforceable sanction in the Remedies of the original case: there is a link to the standard definition of article probation. This allows admins to ban someone from the probationary article if necessary. If the Committee wants to modernize this case in the simplest way possible, and get themselves out of the business of approving sources, they might consider passing a motion that shortens the Remedies to include only its first sentence, and removes the rest. The first sentence is: "Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation."

Statement by Binksternet
I do not have time for an extensive comment, but I have observed that biased pro-Steiner sources have crept back into the article since the 2006 Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, an ArbCom final decision. Hgilbert especially seems to push for pro-Steiner sources, in violation of the ArbCom ruling, and he works against negative material. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Since nobody has commented on this request so far, in order not to give the impression that we are ignoring you, I'll start by saying that I'm awaiting further statements before expressing my opinion (also, I need to familiarise myself with the original case, which was quite before my time). Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not persuaded we should modify the previous committee's decision regarding the reliability of sources; following the standard they set appears to have protected the article from bias and, considering that what works should not be changed without a compelling reason, I am inclined to decline this request for amendment. That said, regarding article probation, on the other hand, I agree that it should be updated to the standard set of discretionary sanctions, as DSs allow for more leeway: admins may impose a wider array of remedies, including article-level restrictions. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The principles passed in the decision reflect the interpretation of the 2006-2007 committee of the policies and guidelines as they existed at the time of the decision. Our policies and guidelines governing reliable sources and self-published sources have undoubtedly evolved in five years, and the sources should be judged under our current standards instead of the one interpreted five years ago. The question whether any particular source is a reliable source is a content matter for WP:RS/N, and outside the jurisdiction of this committee. T. Canens (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We would be remiss to assume that because the community was unable to regulate this topic in 2006, it is unable to do so today. The Wikipedia community has expanded its capacity to resolve disputes over contentious topics, and for that reason I am minded to vacate (by motion) the article probation remedy that was passed in 2006 and confirmed in 2007. AGK  [•] 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that, even if the committee felt the need to retain jurisdiction over that particular matter, we would need to reevaluate the situation according the current context and not the situation as it was over six years ago (which is an eternity in Wikipedia terms). I'm open to arguments that there remains a problem needing Committee intervention, but it seems clear to me that the original ruling has long been overtaken by our evolving policies on reliable sourcing.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind revising this to discretionary sanctions given that the situation seems more under control and that the additional flexibility is desirable. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the case and reading Alexbrn's comments, it appears that care is needed to keep these articles from drifting toward inappropriate bias, and the sanctions have been working. The words quoted above: "Information may be included in articles...." are from a findings of fact in the case, and while they informed the decision, are not a formal part of the sanctions, which are that Waldorf education and related articles are placed on probation (and later that Pete K is banned indefinitely from those articles). ArbCom article probation asks that editors are especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and that seems a sensible precaution to keep in place for articles which have suffered from POV problems in the past. The ArbCom ruling did not forbid using Anthroposophy related publications, but found in 2006 that for controversial statements those publications were unreliable. As my colleagues have indicated above, actual discussion on which sources are suitable today can be dealt with by discussion on the talkpage of the articles or by raising the matter at appropriate noticeboards, such as WP:RS/N.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As regards Alexbrn's question regarding this line in the remedy: "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." I think Alexbrn's own comment, "if the statement being sourced is truly uncontroversial, and notable enough for WP, then a neutral non-Waldorf source will exist for it that can be used" matches that in WP:SELFPUBLISH which says: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". As for the actual sources used in the Waldorf education article - that is a matter for contributors to discuss, not for ArbCom.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with EdJohnston that the main points are made in the first sentence of the remedy. And it does seem that Discretionary sanctions appears to do the same as Article probation. Though wording does differ in some places, it appears as though the intent and effect is the same. Is it worth us looking at Article probation, and which articles are affected by that remedy, and perhaps updating that remedy to be replaced in its entirety with Discretionary sanctions?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that last year Prem Rawat was updated from probation to Discretionary sanctions.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with the arbitrator comments made so far, especially those emphasising that the reliable sources noticeboard is the best place to attempt to resolve such disputes, though a summary to point to about how sources in this particular area are handled may help. EdJohnston's suggestion to replace or modify the existing case to include discretionary sanctions is worth considering. I'll wait for more comments from my colleagues and others, especially as to what level of problems is needed for discretionary sanctions and when other (more specific) remedies work better. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Waldorf education discretionary sanctions


Proposed:

By motion, the committee resolves that:


 * 1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy set down in Waldorf education, remedy 1 and re-affirmed in the Waldorf education review, remedy 2.

This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.


 * Support
 * Proposed. Adapted from a previous motion regarding the similar article probation remedies passed in Prem Rawat. AGK  [•] 19:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note though that the principles about the removal of original research and unverified information still are applicable.  NW  ( Talk ) 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've noted above, this seems like the reasonable next step. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although we wouldn't be adopting this motion without reason to believe there is some ongoing controversy on this series of articles, it should be clear that we haven't closely scrutinized the recent editing in this area, and that the motion isn't targeted at any particular editor or group of editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Clarification request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (March 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Sandstein   at 13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement by Sandstein
Question: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions." Does this mean that are placed under discretionary sanctions?
 * 1) topics related to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, or
 * 2) topics related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan

Explanation: A recent enforcement request concerned the application of a topic ban from "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", i.e., using the same wording as in the abovementioned decision. The defendant argued that his edit at issue did not violate the ban because it concerned a topic only related to Armenia, not to "Armenia-Azerbaijan". In the event, the question presented above did not become relevant, as the enforcing administrators agreed that the edit at issue did relate to the conflict between the two countries and so was covered by the topic ban in any case. However, the question may become relevant in future enforcement requests. It would therefore be helpful to know how the scope of the topic covered by discretionary sanctions is to be interpreted.

My view is that the Committee likely intended the second interpretation (either Armenia or Azerbaijan), based both on the "broadly interpreted" clause and the finding at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, which refers to the countries separately, in defining the affected area as "articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as a wide variety of related topics." However, because the wording of the decision is ambiguous, an explicit clarification (and perhaps an amendment of the wording) would be welcome.  Sandstein  13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass: I'm not aware that the same ambiguity could exist in other cases. The topics in other cases are relatively clearly described, e.g., as "related to the Balkans" or "to Eastern Europe". Only this decision employs a very peculiar hyphenated construction ("Armenia-Azerbaijan") in which the hyphen can be read either as an "and" or as an "or". (Oh, and please nobody start arguing about whether the hyphen should be a dash.)   Sandstein   18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496
In my view the key word here is "conflict". Edits that have no bearing on any conflict should not bring this ruling into play, regardless of what countries they involve. If any sort of conflict is involved, the ruling should be construed broadly. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
Looking over the second arbitration case, it seems the dispute extended to other areas involving Armenians and Azeris. Most notably matters concerning Armenia-Turkey and Azerbaijan-Iran were brought up in the opening statements of the case. I think it was intended to focus on conflicts broadly construed. The editor Sandstein mentions, clearly violated the topic ban explicitly because some of the content being removed was about Nagorno-Karabakh and most of the fund's activities noted in the article concerned the NKR. Perhaps what needs to be clarified is that the discretionary sanctions concern the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts broadly construed.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
Firstly, I think it's worth pointing out that the same ambiguity probably exists regarding all ethnic or national conflicts covered by discretionary sanctions, not just the Armenia-Azerbailan conflict, so it would be better to resolve this question for all such topic areas rather than this topic area alone. Secondly, I'm inclined to agree with Sandstein because I have seen topic banned users in other topic areas just switch their problematic editing from articles relating directly to the conflict to articles relating to their political opponents' countries, culture or religion and so on for the duration of their ban, which in my view is just WP:GAMING of their topic ban. I would only add the caveat that I think some editors could probably be allowed to continue editing articles about the nation or ethnic group they support, at the discretion of the adjudicating AE admins, because I think some topic banned editors can still add worthwhile content of this nature. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Regardless of the actual wording pertaining to the various national or ethnic conflicts that are subject to discretionary sanctions, there is a broad principle at stake here that needs to be recognized, otherwise we will end up with one standard for one such topic area and a different standard for others. Gatoclass (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by KillerChihuahua
Comment: Use caution; slightly vague is not necessarily a bad thing. If we're too specific, we'll get editors who complain that their edits aren't covered because the exact conditions were not spelled out on the sanctions page. Any attempt to make it too specific may cause more problems than it resolves. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Grandmaster
As is apparent from the AA2 case, that arbitration meant to cover not only Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics, but also topics related to Armenia-Turkey and Azerbaijan-Iran relations. This is why it mentions "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted". As an example, there was previously a request for clarification regarding whether Van cat was covered by AA2 remedies: But I agree with Sandstein that the wording is a bit vague, and a more precise description of the scope would be advisable. Grand master  18:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Since we are talking a bit abstract now, I will provide a concrete example. User:Konullu was "topic-banned indefinitely from all edits to articles or discussions relating to Armenian–Azerbaijani conflicts, broadly construed". Soon after he was blocked for 2 weeks for violation of his topic ban by editing an article about Azerbaijani politician Ilgar Mammadov. While the article Konullu edited was Azerbaijan related, it was not related to AA conflict, and Konullu's edits were not controversial. So here's the question. Was Konullu banned from everything Azerbaijan related, or was he banned only from anything related to AA conflict? Grand master  20:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Apteva
Normally if there is a combination of subjects, like Israel/Palestine, or in this case Armenia/Azerbaijan the contentious edits are the ones that only concern both subjects. That being said, it can be difficult to tell where one topic ends and the other begins. In this case, though, our article Armenia–Azerbaijan relations states that the two countries are technically still at war, so I would define the only edits within the ban to be edits that affect both countries, and that any edit about either country that does not affect the other country is acceptable. As I read it the sanctions are quite clear "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". Adding broadly construed I would not construe to mean and all ethnicities and both Armenia and Azerbaijan. I would say the editor in question is correct that they should be able to freely edit Armenia articles, but not any section or sentence that deals with the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan or with the related ethnic conflicts. For example, someone native to either country might be well suited to add useful information but would be unsuitable to add information about the conflict due to their extreme bias. Apteva (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
It must be "either Armenia or Azerbaijan", because of the scope of AA2, as noted by Grandmaster. I posit that this was not only intentional at the time, it's a good situation to maintain, because those who will rant for or against Armenia and Armenians, Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis, etc., are also prone to making pro- or anti-Turk, pro- or anti-Kurd, etc. rants and POV-pushing edits. I have used the applicability of AA2 to very good effect in curtailing editwarring of this sort at Van cat, Turkish Van and Turkish Angora over the last year+, and ethnic viewpoint-pushing will surely return to these articles almost immediately if AA2 is suddently no longer applicable simply because these cat articles touch on Armenian–Turkish and Armenian–Kurdish relations but don't also involve Azerbaijan. If it were interpreted as "both-and" not "either-or", then "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" would have virtually no meaning or applicability. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  02:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd say either/or. I'd support a motion to clarify. T. Canens (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * These sanctions are deliberately meant to be broadly interpreted, so I'd say it's any articles relating to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan and/or any related ethnic conflicts, that last bit of course being somewhat redundant. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Modifying what I said at AE: I believe that a standard topic ban ought to cover anything relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, whether that covers the actions that the governments have taken with respect to each other or individual citizens doing things that antagonize citizens of the other country. This allows it to be narrowly tailored enough to stop most disruptive behavior, but if the scope needs to be expanded to cover something apparently unrelated (say Armenian cuisine for example), there should be a way to do that. For that reason, I'm going to hold back on supporting Tim's motion for now. A motion would be useful, but I'm not sure this particular wording covers what I would like to see.  NW  ( Talk ) 18:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The standard topic ban in an area does not necessarily have to cover the entire area for which DS is authorized. For example, we authorized DS for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan; it does not mean that every topic ban in that area needs to cover all three. Authorizing DS for the broad area allows sanctions to be readily handed out for spillover into related areas, which frequently happens. T. Canens (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Motion
Proposed: That the section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case be replaced with the following:
 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.




 * Enacted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Proposed. T. Canens (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 22:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Useful clarification which doesn't extend the discretionary sanctions but more properly identifies the range. I understand NYB's quibble, but I think that "Pages" or "Edits" would point to the same activity: an edit to a page related to.... I think Wikipedians understand what is meant either way.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 *  NW  ( Talk ) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 04:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Am willing to support this, even after reading the concerns below. If this is a step too far, and proves unworkable, a new amendment request can be made. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the sprawling nature of the conflict, I'd rather case a wide net now even if it means reexamining the situation later to see if it is reasonable to narrow it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Regretful oppose to this wording per my and others' comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I don't feel like this does anything. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that I for one have no idea what exactly "Armenia-Azerbaijan" is. This makes it clear. T. Canens (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The core disputes that led to the two cases, and to the numerous enforcement requests under them, relate to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan&mdash;not to articles relating exclusively to Armenia or exclusively to Azerbaijan. Thus, I don't think we necessarily intended that discretionary sanctions would apply to a dispute about an article concerning the street plan of Yerevan, or an art gallery in Baku. But I can see that we would want the sanction to apply if, for example, an editor wrote (these are deliberately fanciful examples) "the street plan in Yerevan was stolen from one commonly used in Azerbaijan" or "the Baku Gallery is full of artworks plundered from Armenians." Heck, we might want to be able to apply a warning and then sanctions even if such an edit were made to street grid or art gallery. So the best test might really be whether the edit, rather than the page, deals with disputes between Armenia(ns) and Azerbaijan(is). Or am I overintellectualizing this when I should just be supporting the motion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with NYB: it is the edit, not the page, that is relevant.  I could support this if the word "page" is changed to "editing". Risker (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone edits an otherwise-unrelated-to-X page to add X-related material, then that edit makes the page related to X in the relevant part and discretionary sanctions applicable. The "pages" formulation is used in all current discretionary sanctions authorizations, and I'd rather not introduce nonuniformity and uncertainty by using "editing" for one area and "pages" for the others. If we want to change "pages" to "editing" wholesale, we can do it later by adding it to the general discretionary sanctions motions currently being worked on. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I agree with Brad here. The proposed wording now authorises sanctions for: pages about anything to do with Armenia, pages about anything to do with Azerbaijan and/or pages about anything to do with related ethnic conflicts. The sense of intersection is gone. As I agree entirely with your point about conformity, it is probably best to leave this particular change be for now.  Roger Davies  talk 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure (March 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Sandstein   at 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)

Statement by Sandstein
Recently I closed a WP:AE request by issuing discretionary sanctions warnings to the four experienced editors mentioned above. These warnings have been criticized at great length, notably by one warned user and party to the underlying case, WP:ARBATC, who has announced their intent to appeal the warning. This raises some procedural questions. After ArbCom members did not respond to an informal request for advice, I ask them here to clarify the following:


 * 1) Can discretionary sanctions warnings be meaningfully rescinded or appealed? Warnings serve to inform editors about the possibility of discretionary sanctions in the event of later misconduct. Assuming the warning is somehow undone, does the authority to impose sanctions based on that warning also disappear? If yes, this may make the discretionary sanctions system much more prone to obstruction, as it provides an opportunity for extremely lengthy and acrimonious discussions (as in this case) long before any actual sanctions are even considered. Recommendation: I recommend to clarify (and codify) that warnings can only be appealed with regard to the question of whether the warner is an uninvolved administrator. This helps others to avoid inadvertently making unactionable arbitration enforcement (AE) requests based on the invalid warning. However, appeals should not be admissible with regard to the reasons given (if any) for the warning, perhaps excepting patent abuse.  That's because the warning does not impose any restrictions, but only reminds editors of the conduct standards expected of them in any case. Also, the rules do not seem to even require any misconduct as a reason for a warning, as they require case-specific counseling only "where appropriate". Implicitly, they only require that the warner has some grounds on which to be concerned about the warned editor's edits. Practice at WP:AE (somewhat dubiously?) is to even allow discretionary sanctions in some cases where the editor has not even been individually warned for any reason: article-level sanctions, and sanctions against parties to the original case and earlier AE requests.
 * 2) In what (if any) venue may such warnings be appealed? Who reviews the appeal, and how is a successful appeal determined? Such warnings are AE actions, but how these are appealed is generally unclear: Obviously they can be appealed directly to the Committee. But what, if any, venues for community review exist? AC/P forbids administrators (but not others?) to overturn AE actions except "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)." Phrased as a restriction, this does not create a venue of (or right to) appeal, as Coren highlighted. WP:AC/DS provides that "Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee". This does establish a venue of appeal, but raises more questions: Who makes the appeal decision – uninvolved admins, as is usual at WP:AE, or all uninvolved editors, as per the abovementioned provision? What is the correct forum – WP:AN(/I), as per the first provision, or WP:AE, as per the second provision? Is a warning a discretionary sanction according to the meaning of the second provision, and therefore appealable? Are there now separate procedures for appealing DS and for appealing other AE actions? The two provisions and their relationship to one another require clarification. Recommendation: I recommend to either delegate all appeals to a (rotating?) panel of arbitrators, while allowing en banc review; or to clarify that either only DS are appealable (with decisions made by consensus of uninvolved admins at WP:AE); or that this DS appeals procedure is open to all AE actions, per AGK.   Sandstein   21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary of responses
Thanks for your responses so far. The following attempts to summarize them, updated as of the time in the signature below:
 * 1) Can discretionary sanctions warnings be appealed? Yes, and a successful appeal removes the warning's effect: Hersfold, SilkTork Yes, as regards warnings that imply misconduct, but not as regards neutral notifications: Carcharoth No: Coren, Timotheus Canens (after amending procedure accordingly), AGK, Salvio giuliano
 * 2) Who may issue warnings? Only administrators: – All uninvolved editors: Timotheus Canens?, AGK (after amending procedure accordingly), Salvio giuliano
 * 3) In which (if any) community forum can AE measures be appealed? WP:AE or WP:AN: Coren, AGK WP:AE: Timotheus Canens WP:AN: Salvio giuliano
 * 4) Whose views matter in determining consensus about appeals of AE measures to a community forum – those of uninvolved admins, or uninvolved editors, or all editors? Uninvolved administrators: AGK (after clarifying procedure accordingly)

There are 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8. So far no answer has the support of a majority of the Committee.  Sandstein  15:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions is not coherent -- the top section says

4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways; (emphasis mine)

but the guidance section says

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

with no mention of identifying specific misconduct. Going by the top, it is an enforcement action and should be subject to appeal, but going by the latter it wouldn't be. NE Ent 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@AGK " only an administrator can reverse an enforcement action, it must only be the views of uninvolved administrators that are counted towards the determination of consensus. "??? Total non sequitur. Only admins can delete articles, but views of editors are counted towards determination of consensus. Only bureaucrats can reverse a sysop, it must only be the views of uninvolved bureaucrats that are counted ... you get the idea. NE Ent 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I was involved in the AE discussion that led to these warnings and was even threatened with such a warning myself for suggesting that the filing editor was using AE disruptively to illustrate a point because the editor was the subject of an AE discussion at that time and admins were suggesting that a warning be given in that case (in the editor's filing the comment "here is someone you can warn" was a red flag). To me it seems obvious that warnings can create friction because they are rightly seen as stepping stones to sanctions. In addition, a warning involves an allegation of misconduct and where an editor believes their conduct is within the bounds of policy it is hard to not grasp why an editor would be annoyed with such a warning. Certainly, I was incensed at Sandstein's suggestion to warn me when my comment was perfectly consistent with drawing attention to inappropriate use of AE. Other editors were, in my opinion, also acting within the appropriate bounds of policy. I specifically believe OhConfucius made a reasonable argument, with evidence, that the filer of the AE case had also been disruptive in the topic area. Some of Sandstein's comments on this matter seem incredibly misguided with regards to AE procedure and are not what I would expect from an admin who frequents that area.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@AGK The main issue here would be that the warnings were issued per an official finding of fault at AE. However, improper warnings from regular editors are subject to scrutiny as it becomes a civility issue. When an "uninvolved" administrator does the same thing it is generally seen as a minor misuse of authority at best. Part of the issue with these warnings is the suggestion that these editors did something that could lead to sanctions. I think the principle should be that if someone is warned outside AE it is a matter of individual conduct by an editor, admin or not. When it is a formal AE finding it should be open to appeal, though logically the notification would stick. Essentially, the result would be that the finding of fault is vacated, but the editor will be considered to have been constructively notified. It would essentially go from a warning about misconduct to a polite notification of discretionary sanctions. The purpose of a notification is partly to insure an editor is aware that there are unique restrictions in a topic area and acts accordingly. It would mean essentially that a repeat instance of similar edits would not be automatically treated as an offense, let alone a repeat offense, and that a minor escalation would not be immediately taken as deserving of sanction even if it rose to the point of an actual violation of policy. Were they to do some serious and obvious policy violations after the vacated warning, however, they would not be able to argue that the rescinded warning means they can't be sanctioned for it as they would still be considered aware of the restrictions. In other words, you can dispute accusations of a repeat offense, but cannot claim ignorance of the discretionary sanctions to get out of an actual serious offense.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

 * I agree that this needs to be clarified and codified, very much. Please note that people are leaving Wikipedia over it.  However, I cannot support the notion that it be limited to the sole question of whether the admin who issued the warning is uninvolved or not, but must also permit other bases for appeal, such as (but not necessarily limited to) a) possible factual errors or unsupportable assumptions with regard to the actions of the editor(s) being warned, and b) questionable applicability/scope of the ArbCom case the warning cites to the discussion or other context of the actions being sanctioned by the warning.  The logic espoused by both Sandstein and NE Ent that, basically, warnings are just warnings and have no force, and so do not matter, is not actually always going to be applicable.  In the instance that brings us here right now, it  the case.  A warning under WP:ARBATC is a "special" kind of warning, even in Sandstein's own words in our discussions at User talk:Sandstein. It effectively constitutes something closely akin to a topic-ban, as after the warning is issued, any admin may block the so-warned user for any perceived transgression of ARBATC without further discussion or warning. The special discretionary sanction remedy warnings available under ARBATC (and other ARBCOM cases I'm less familiar with) can also demonstrably encourage the taking of other punitive, inappropriate actions, such as the recent bogus WP:AE case against me, dependent directly upon Sandstein's ARBATC warning, in which ARBATC is being used to attempt to censor my criticism and questioning of an admin candidate who has proposed very unusual, draconian approaches to the WP:Manual of Style, as just one example.  The bare fact that MOS is mentioned at all is being used as a rationale for grossly over-extending ARBATC's scope to cover both WP:AE and WP:RFA, despite the fact that both are processes in which all discussions are automatically "personalized" already by definition, and in which discussion of MOS/AT matters and their relationship to editor behavior is entirely appropriate when relevant. The point being, . They should really be called something other than "warnings", like "orders", so they're distinguishable.  In this particular case, I have shown (at my talk, Sandstein's talk, and at WT:AE, as the discussion's been a bit mobile), that Sandstein's accusations with regard to my post at WP:AE for which I was ARBATC-warned were false accusations. I do not say this as a means of antagonizing Sandstein; it's simply a fact, and I've proven it.  Furthermore, even under the hard-to-credit assumption that ARBATC can logically apply to user-behavior process pages like AE (and AN, AN/I, RFA, etc.), the AE discussion in question was not even within ARBATC's scope to begin with, as it was not directly related to style or article title matters even "broadly construed", but user behavior matters (stemming from an earlier dispute at WP:AN, itself stemming from a WP:RFC/U, that  went back to the now-blocked disruptive editor engaging, sometimes, in editwarring and forumshopping over a style issue (and other times sockpuppeteering in energy/power topics); the connection to MOS/AT and thus to ARBATC's scope is extremely tenuous.  Either of these points, but especially the former (the false accusations matter), should be enough of a basis for an appeal, even if the admin issuing the warning were clearly uninvolved, and I would like to make such an appeal as soon as the avenue is clear to do so.  Not because I'm going to have my feelings hurt and cry because I was warned, but because the false accusations have a character-assassinating effect, regardless of Sandstein's intentions, and I should be able to clear my name unequivocally and formally.  I cannot impress upon the Arbitration Committee enough how serious a matter this is, as two productive editors, User:Noetica and User:Neotarf, have already resigned editing Wikipedia over Sandstein's warning for reasons similar to those for which I have been contemplating quitting as well.  I refuse to continue volunteering massive amounts of my time to a project in which I can be falsely accused of wrongdoing by random administrators, and put in a "sword of Damocles" position of being blockable with impunity by the first admin to disagree with my approach to any style/titles matter, yet never having been subject to any kind of procedure topic-banning or otherwise restricting me for anything, and, ultimately having no recourse at all.  As I use my real name here, the "reputation-bash-ipedia" factor is not in any way trivial to me.  It isn't just, and it's not a tenable system of dispute resolution.  PS: The fact that admins have a strong collective tendency to reflexively side with other admins any time admin judgement is questioned means that avenues like WT:AE are not  may not be suitable for this, and a more formal deliberative process is  may be needed. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There be an avenue of appeal when a warning like this is issued and its appropriateness and/or accuracy is questionable, because otherwise other editors (including admins) can pile on the warning with a threatening, harassing "Ah, now we've got you by the short hairs!" campaign. Precisely this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:WINNING misuse of ARBATC to just shut me up at all costs and punish me is clearly happening to me right now in WP:AE, spearheaded by an admin (not Sandstein) whom I legitimately questioned in my sole comment in the previous Apteva vs Noetica AE request that Sandstein issued me an ARBATC warning for!  It's completely circular reasoning from which there is no clear path of appeal. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have disproved that I did in fact misconduct myself in the first place. (I can reiterate this proof if needed, but that's better saved for an appeal, not discussion of what the avenue of appeal is). The fact that this can constitute a false accusation, a WP:NPA violation, is one of several reasons that appealability of this particular type of warning is not "silly" as Hersfold suggests some people dismissively think it is. And it has nothing to do with "undoing a notice", as Salvio suggests, but formally voiding an accusation where the accuser refuses to retract it and there's no or insufficient evidence of actual wrongdoing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  23:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * by NE Ent's revision, above, and Iridescent, below, seems to be conclusive. Even if the original idea was informational warnings that aren't stigmatizing, the actual warnings depart radically from this idea. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * , below: I agree with your summation of the difference between a general, unappealable notice with regard to a topic area being contentious, vs. a stern surely-must-be-appealable warning, that alleges wrongdoing, like I and three others received. The fact that these are clearly and importantly different is why we're here talking about this. I also agree with your side point (which is tangential to this particular WP:ARCA request, but pertinent to the underlying issues that led to it), namely that MOS/AT "specialization" is problematic. It's something I don't actually do, and the stability and consistency of MOS is more important to me than it's exact particulars. Most of what I do on WP is WP:GNOME cleanup, and when I focus on long-haul topical editing it is usually with regard to cats and billiards, not style. I've left MOS alone entirely for months at a time before, and most of my editing with regard to it is answering talk page queries about its applicability. No one agrees with every single thing in MOS (MOS necessarily only addresses style matters on which people are likely to disagree). It's genuinely problematic when people go on tendentious, system-gaming, forum-shopping anti-MOS campaigns over trivial crap like wanting to replace dashes with hyphens.  People who try to uphold the hard-won consensuses at MOS from such nonsense should not be receiving the threatening, disruption-alleging type of ARBATC warnings we received, especially given that the accusations of wrongdoing behind them (i.e. the casting of broad, vague, irrelevant aspersions without evidence simply to personalize the debate) are demonstrably false. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Whether someone feels that being falsely accused by an admin, among other problems, is reason enough to leave a project they volunteer for out of the goodness of their own hearts, is a personal decision that doesn't really seem to lend itself to gratuitous "over-reaction...(and that's putting it mildly)" judgments from ArbCom members or anyone else.  Leaving WP on principle when confronted with what the editor feels is administrative abuse for which there's no clear recourse, is not the same as threatening in a tantrum to leave WP, with no intention to actually do so, in order to "win" a content dispute and shut other editors up – an "argument by psychodrama" tactic.  At first I actually mistook Noetica's decision for WP:DIVA behavior myself, but retracted my characterization of it as such about a week ago, as I better understand where it's coming from.  I'm curious on what basis you would renew such an "overreaction" aspersion this late in the discussion? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Virtually everyone else here is recognizing the distinction between "just a warning" and the actual wording and intent of the not-just-a-warning that Sandstein used. This entire long discussion is mostly about these distinctions.  Please [re]read more of this until the distinction is clear to you. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No one used the phrase "effective bans". I have suggested throughout the discussion, from user talk to here, that there is effectively no real difference between a topic ban the community imposes by consensus, violation of which can result in an immediate block after further discussion e.g. at WP:ANI, and a wrongdoing-alleging "special warning" under ARBATC, violation of which can result in an immediate block without any further discussion at all, other than that the latter simply throws WP:PROCESS and WP:BLOCK in the trash can in two different ways.  I hope that is clearer.    It cannot be what the ArbCom intended. And even if a block under ARBATC discretionary sanctions would actually require a discussion at WP:AE first (I doubt it, but the thick legalistic nitpicking that hovers around ArbCom/AE like a fog is largely impenetrable to me), there's  no effective difference (the community topic-bans then ANI enforces, vs. an "univolved" admin warns then AE enforces), other than the lack of consensus process to arrive at a topical restriction for that particular editor to begin with. (Note also that SarekOfVulcan almost  sought to have me sanctioned further (probably blocked) at AE (in a request no one is taking seriously), for my comments at RfA, using Sandstein's warning as his sole basis. He then did the same thing at AN against Neotarf, for comments at the same RfA. My concerns here are based not on idle speculation or unreasonable "terriblizing" anxieties, but on very recent actual administrative behaviors stemming directly from the Sandstein warning.  It is important that Neotarf also interpreted Sandstein's warning this way.  I'm not just coming up with "crazy shit" as SarekOfVulcan put it yesterday at AE [what was that about personalizing the dispute, again?]  Neotarf indicated, at the same RFA I commented on, a reluctance to speak his/her actual concerns about the candidate's controversial MOS-related proposals, mentioning both Sandstein's warning and SarekOfVulcan's bogus AE against me for comments in my vote at this RFA.   Then (guess who?) SarekOfVulcan deleted Neotarf's comments, and went to WP:AN about it.  If this isn't clear indication of some serious problems with regard to both the ARBATC warning/threat/accusation that's under discussion in this ARCA, and admin behavior outlined here, I'm not sure what is. I also honestly feel unable to state what the latter problems might be any more specifically than I already have without being accused yet again of "personalizing the debate" in a ARBATC-violating way despite the fact that style/title matters are only tenuously connected to this discussion, just like they were at the AE filing I got censured for commenting on by Sandstein.  If anyone can't make out the patterns I'm outlining here and why they're actual issues that need resolution, I don't know what else to say. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Now what?
, given the general though not unanimous pattern of agreement I'm seeing below among Arbs that this sort of warning (i.e. one that indicates an alleged finding of wrongdoing) must necessarily be appealable. I don't want to rock the boat or be seen as squeaking just to get grease, but I want our names cleared on that issue (especially in my case because I use my real name here). Also, at the frivolous new WP:AE report SarekOfVulcan made against me the other day with regard to my opposition to a candidate at RfA, Sandstein used the fact that I have not filed such an RFARB request yet as if it were a salient fact when formulating his "uninvolved" response. I feel I'm left with little choice but to proceed to RFARB, even if this ARCA discussion is still lingering. But if there's a way to resolve the matter without that step, I'm all for it. (It seems to me that the most obvious would be for Sandstein to simply retract the warnings as having been based on a misunderstanding of what our posts in that Apteva vs. Noetica WP:AE case meant and referred to – namely already-concluded, specific and relevant determinations of disruptive editing at WP:AN, not vague antagonistic "aspersions" – because he wasn't aware of that background.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Things are getting worse, not better. Sandstein has announced, at a patently vexatious WP:AE request, his intent to personally ban me from any and all MOS-related discussions.  I feel I have no choice to but renew my claim that Sandstein, SarekOfVulcan and several others are engaged in active campaign of harassment/hounding against me.  — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @AGK: Re: "I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues" – Any progress on that? I'm basically just in a holding pattern on what to do here. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  09:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hans Adler
All editors are responsible for all statements they make on-wiki. This includes statements in warning templates which they leave on other editors' talk pages. The discretionary sanctions template which Sandstein put on four editors' talk pages contains the following sentence:
 * "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban." [my italics]

This was followed by free text containing the following indirect accusation:
 * "Please take care, in future disputes concerning the issues mentioned above, not to misuse the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or other fora) to cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, as directed by the Arbitration Committee's reminder."

The additional text prevents the interpretation of the incorrect sentence in the template as a harmless mistake. This was not just a neutral warning that the sanctions in question exist. It was an accusation that these four editors had broken the ruling and would have been subject to sanctions had they been warned earlier. That may or may not be the case (I have not fully researched this as it would take a lot of effort), but Sandstein has subsequently made it quite clear that he was not in a position to know if it was the case and that he is not willing to prove that it was.

From WP:NPA:
 * "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

Sandstein did not link to any page that actually is under the arbitration sanctions in question, or mention any. Instead, he linked to WP:AE, where he unconvincingly claims that problematic behaviour occurred.

An arbitration sanctions warning that comes with an accusation of sanctionable behaviour that did not actually occur is a veiled threat of sanctioning the target in similar situations in the future, whether they are actually sanctionable or not. This does not just exacerbate Sandstein's personal attack against four editors, it is also a concerning abuse of power.

With the principle that arbitration sanctions cannot be undone by other admins, Arbcom has created a potential playground for admins on a power trip. It is its duty to police it. If it fails to do this, this will have bad consequences for the retention of content editors. Hans Adler 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a time when I gave such non-judgemental warnings myself w.r.t. homeopathy. Then at some point I think I was told that only admins can do it. And in fact, non-admins seemed to have stopped doing it.
 * Re non-admin sanctions warnings:

The change may have happened with the switch from the earlier evolving sanctions language ("Any uninvolved administrator may [...] impose sanctions [...] if, despite being warned, that editor [...]." WP:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy) to the new standard formulation that I believe came with the new irreversible sanctions and was implemented retroactively with an omnibus motion in October 2011 ("Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7).

At least for me, the new formulation did carry a slightly stronger suggestion that only uninvolved administrators can warn, though the language was ambiguous in both cases. I am surprised that the principle of admin-only warning seems to have been reversed in the meantime.

While researching this, I learned that also in October 2011, Will Beback discovered the persistent inconsistency in the rules for arbitration sanctions warnings which is complicating this case. (Warning only after misbehaviour or as pure information?) It appears that he was ignored at the time. Hans Adler 01:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The current text says: "after an initial warning". That seems to imply that the first time an editor breaks an arbitration ruling, they get this initial warning instead of the sanction. This is also why only admins can warn nowadays. The previous text ("despite being warned") is closer to the spirit of what you say. I suspect the switch was made to soften the move to irreversible arbitration sanctions. Hans Adler 14:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Coren:

Thanks for the link. That happened during my long break, so I missed it. But it appears that this 'clarification' was not flanked by complete implementation. A great number of cases still has the text that strongly suggests otherwise, and even WP:AC/DS still says:
 * Re Salvio Giuliano
 * "2. Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning;"

Clearly this refers to warnings given by admins only. In connection with
 * "4. Warnings should [...] identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;"

it appears that that was meant seriously. Also further down:
 * "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning"

This also strongly suggests the same thing. Then far down the page we find guidance that doesn't merely contradict what came before but is even self-contradictory:
 * "A warning need not be issued by an administrator; see the template's documentation for further details."

This should be clear enough, except it isn't because it's hidden in a section titled "For administrators", where nobody would be looking for it! To make matters worse, due to the semicolon (which I guess should be a full stop), the second part of the sentence must be read as potentially modifying the first. However, the guidance as to who can warn is only implicit in the documentation for setting the parameter admin=no, which is easy to miss. Especially for an editor who stopped reading after the default text of the template:
 * "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision"

This mess of contradictory information is an example for Arbcom's communication problem. I can understand how it can happen, especially with the amount of work that you have to do. But with more effective communication you might ultimately have less work to do. Hans Adler 15:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment by Iridescent
With no opinion on this particular case—I have no desire to read through the history of what looks at first glance to be yet another border skirmish of the Great Em-dash War—warnings, particularly official-looking AE warnings that those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's byzantine internal processes will assume are Arbcom-mandated, do have a scarlet letter effect, as people see the previous warnings and assume "this editor is a troublemaker" or "this editor has officially been told they're in the wrong. (It's exactly the same issue as incorrect blocks remaining in a block log, leading to subsequent "look at the length of the block log!" comments.) Given this, there ought to be some mechanism for getting a formal "you should not have received this warning" notice that the editor in question can point to later on should it be necessary. Whether it's a discussion on ANI, an Arbcom motion, or a formal vote at a WP:Requests for appeals page (which would be a valuable resource, as it would keep all the people who are interested in that kind of meta crap arguing with each other rather than wasting everyone else's time), there ought to be some mechanism for this, and Arbcom are the only people mandated to set this kind of process up. ("Consensus" won't be a goer, as the squabbling about what form the process should take will run on for three years and go nowhere—cf every policy debate in the history of Wikipedia.) – iridescent  23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Coren & Hersfold—Template:Uw-sanctions is explicitly only to be used if an editor has breached sanctions, and is explicitly not "a demonstrable notification of the existence of sanctions in a topic area", and the statement "a warning does not necessarily imply that there was any misconduct" is flat-out untrue. The exact wording (on the template page, so presumably anyone using the template can't claim to be unaware of it) is "[this template] is intentionally worded to apply only after an editor begins to misbehave; preemptive warnings are considered hostile". – iridescent  00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ErikHaugen
@Coren and @Salvio—Normally, what you're saying makes sense: a warning is just providing information and there is therefore nothing to appeal. eg. "Hey just reminding you about 3rr regarding your edits at such-and-such article." — There's no stigma, no judgment, etc there. Fine. But the warnings in question here seem to carry a sense of judgment: "it has been officially determined that you did something bad." Please see Hans Adler's detailed description, I won't repeat it here. Simply stating that there's nothing to appeal doesn't quite fit with these warnings. If an admin closes a discussion regarding misconduct and gives me an official looking notice with the phrase "If you continue to misconduct" then I want a way to appeal it. Or something. HaugenErik (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@AGK: I do not consider warnings to be appealable. — Please see what I've written here and above. These "warnings" are written as if to say "it has been officially determined that you are naughty"; how can there be no appeal? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 01:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon
It's really sad that Sandstein's prior involvement with Noetica (Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222) was to try to muzzle him, at a time that turned out be just a few months before Noetica led the 60-editor discussion that converged on the new MOS dash guidelines, which settled the disputes and were then stable for over a year, until Apteva came along and started stirring up trouble again. So Noetica got "warned" after Apteva's disruptive accusations against him! Makes no sense. Sandstein has been clueless about what's going on, and has caused us a disaster by driving away this very thoughtful and professional editor. Surely there's a way this can be undone.

Statement by Neotarf
I am flattered to find my name on a list of "experienced editors", but the fact is I am a relatively new editor, with barely a thousand edits and a year of editing.

Since September some of us have been trying to deal with the disruptions of User: Apteva, who has been given every consideration, every explanation possible. There have been repeated patient discussions on the talk page. A lengthy RFCU. Then ANI, AN, and AE, complete with all proper notifications and step by step instructions for appeals.

At the same time we have four editors who are effectively banned from WP by the actions of one admin, and their reputations besmirched, without diffs, without notifications, without discussion, without consensus.

I have absolutely no clue of what I am accused of doing, or where. I seriously doubt that I have done anything irregular; my recent comments have been mundane, and filled with boring diffs and policy references.

But there is no doubt that some admins consider the "warnings" to be useful. Once this template has been placed on an editor's talk page, some admins believe themselves justified in trying to get an editor blocked for making comments at a RFA, or for writing a word in all caps.

@Gatoclass: You seem to regard Sandstein as "uninvolved", however see Dicklyon's link. —Neotarf (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: Yes, those of us who received these "warnings" did nothing more than defend Noetica against Apteva's accusations. I would note that all four of us were also among the 28 editors who signed the RFC/U against Apteva. —Neotarf (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Interesting questions raised about notifications, specialization, and leaving Wikipedia. Unfortunately RL is quite busy for me at the moment; if I can, I will try to shed some light on these later. —Neotarf (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

@Further comments on the specialization question raised by Carcharoth:
 * A stable MOS is necessary for all the invisible people and bot operators working behind the scenes who improve WP in subtle ways to make it look polished and readable. There is no need for "editors [to] work harmoniously together following a manual of style" any more than there is a need for car drivers to work together to follow an automobile repair manual. Anyone can get behind the wheel and drive; anyone can edit WP. No one has ever been blocked for using a comma in the wrong place, and no one has ever been arrested for not changing the oil every 3000 miles.  The style manual is used mostly by bots and gnomes to polish articles, as justification for the repetitive edits that would be too time consuming to do manually, but it also prevents arguments over format from breaking out in every single article.  When I write an article, I do not always have the time to look up every style detail, so I appreciate it when someone comes along to polish and add non-breaking spaces and date formatting and such that improve the readability of what I have written.


 * I too have seen the disdainful comments about editing in WP space as opposed to editing in article space. The fact is that most, if not all MOS editors are also content editors.  Not everyone has the same temperament and the same skills. Some people who are no good at creating content may be very good with bots, templates, or disambiguation pages, or even arbing. There is also some evidence that it is the newer editors who create new content, while the more experienced editors tweak and format old content. The trick with Wikipedia is to find what you are good at and do that.


 * Likewise I have a hard time understanding objections to people with specialized knowledge who contribute to MOS. I would think that previous experience with publication would be an advantage to the Project. MOS seems to be unique in its broad participation of individuals who have no prior knowledge of the subject. Can you imagine someone going to a section of WP dealing with internal combustion engines, demanding to have the concept of "carburetor" explained, and complaining bitterly that the presence and comments of engineers and car mechanics prevented ordinary people from participating in the discussion? Unfortunately there are a number of people who want to insert partially remembered grammar advice from their third grade teacher, a badly written book from their football coach, or an original and bizarre theory, and explaining things to these people quickly becomes a full time job for several editors.


 * In the year that I have been following MOS, the discussions have been dominated by three difficult individuals: one a sock of a banned user, one who was warned about disruption in an Arbcom decision, and a third who has been disrupting MOS since September and was recently topic banned from MOS and TITLE. It is these three individuals, and not those with specialized knowledge, who  have made it difficult to engage meaningfully in the topic and have exhausted the patience of those who have been trying to contribute to MOS in good faith.


 * If some editors are too competent to participate in MOS, this should not decided by one admin as a proxy for community discussion and consensus.

—Neotarf (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: not so sure about your statement that "Sandstein, SarekOfVulcan and several others are engaged in active campaign of harassment/hounding against me." If this thread is any indication, the original target of the capitalization case was Noetica. —Neotarf (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement Cailil
I just want to make a quick submission as an AE admin on the general process of warnings, and not the case in point. As Coren notes it has long been the accepted understanding that if someone has contributed to an area under sanctions and has participated at AE or other discussions asking for others to be sanctioned that their awareness of the probation/sanctions and the ruling is sufficient notice prior to being sanctioned themselves. Thus there is an inconsistency between the wording of WP:AC/DS, the sanctions templates AND actual practice. Furthermore another inconsistency exists in the divergence of approach of Template:Uw-probation (which states that "this isn't a warning or an accusation of misconduct") and Template:Uw-sanctions (which carries an explicit accusation of misconduct); this difference is strange considering that both warnings are required before administrative action can be taken against a particular user. Perhaps the question the committee needs to ask is: "does a notification of AC/DS need to be so strongly worded or would something along the lines of Template:Uw-probation be more constructive?" Also, I see no reason that these formal warnings of AC/DS cannot be rescinded by AE. As it stands the wording at WP:AC/DS makes these warnings analogous to a yellow card in soccer or a police caution. There's no reason why AE can't rescind this, as it can other formal actions by admins relating to the RFAR's enforcement. However it should be noted that a number of statements above have over-stated the function of such warnings as "effective bans" this is thoroughly inaccurate-- Cailil  talk 18:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @SMcC: Both you and Neotarf inferred that Sandstein's warnings were tantamount to bans. You state above: that the warning "effectively constitutes something closely akin to a topic-ban", and Neotarf says in reference to that same warning that "four editors who are effectively banned from WP by the actions of one admin". Also SMC both I and Lord Roem asked you to reduce the length of your posts and I will reiterate that again-- Cailil  talk 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
This is a problem that has been brewing for some time, and which obviously was not fully addressed in the previous case. While it is some time since I have participated at WP:AE, my initial thoughts on this matter at this time are as follows:

1/ Firstly, any user should be able to issue a notification to any other user in a contentious topic area. The notification should be in the form of a standard template, written in neutral language, which simply informs the recipient that special sanctions exist in the topic area. There should probably be a separate page someplace for logging of such notifications, so that anyone can check quickly who has and hasn't been notified in the past. There should be no assumption of wrongdoing on the part of a recipient; rather, the notification will just fulfill the requirement for users to be notified of special sanctions before any such sanction can be applied. A notification is not appealable because it does not imply wrongdoing.

2/ At the same time, uninvolved administrators have always had the prerogative to issue a warning as a result of an AE case, for any reason as they see fit. In the case of users who have not previously been informed of sanctions in a given topic area, a warning should be regarded both as a notification about AE sanctions as in 1/ above, and as an offical sanction for misconduct. Because such a warning is indeed a form of sanction, it should be appealable. Warnings should be logged both as a notification on the notification page, and as a warning on the original case page.

I might add that in the Noetica case, there was never any requirement for a notification since that requirement had already been fulfilled in the previous case. Sandstein appears to have issued a warning rather than a notification, which is his right as an uninvolved adjudicating admin, but since such a warning is clearly a stain on the reputation of the recipient, it should obviously be appealable in my view, just as for any other kind of discretionary sanction applied at AE. Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Best not to restrict warnings to uninvolved admins. We already made that back in the days of the "cold fusion" arbitration case. It caused lots of problems and opportunities for wikilawyering. The main problem: we made requests for uninvolved admins in ANI, but no admin wanted to get involved in complex disputes. Discretionary sanctions are supposed to make enforcement easier and quicker, this would be a step backwards.

A warning is just a warning. It only makes people aware that they are editing in an area where sanctions are easer to come by. Editors can no longer claim that they are unaware of discretionary sanctions. The current wording of uw-sanctions is way too harsh, and it assumes that the editor has misbehaved. I prefer the older wording: "This is to inform you about that decision.". --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale
Personal preference: New editors who first edit in areas where DS is in affect can have a notification illustrating the fact that the area is under higher scrutiny. This notification should be served as neutral as possible - not really "appeal-able" yet. If the editor starts tenuous editing in this area, then serve a warning to them, citing the original RFAR case. This warning can be appealed if the editor believes it shouldn't have been served. Short version: One notification should just be a courtesy note, the actual warning re: DS can be appealed. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 09:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Apteva
I agree with AGK that warnings are not appealable and are irrevocable. Blocks yes, bans yes, but warnings no. I also note that I have been inappropriately mentioned by three editors here. It is only by accident that I saw this, not because of being notified that I was mentioned. At least a hundred times I would estimate I have reminded editors to say I think, not you said, or someone said, without naming them, and thus personalizing the discussion. Am I mistaken, or wasn't that what two of them were warned about? Anyone think it would be worth warning whoever else did this?

Right now there is a lengthy discussion going on about enforcing incivility. I will only note that at WP:RCP we use a four level warning system for vandalism. Pretty much by definition anyone who is topic banned, such as from using automated edits, is considered to be an otherwise valuable editor, and I would like to note that a similar four level warning system for topic bans should be automatic, instead of an AN/AE discussion leading to a lengthy block for something that may or may not have even been a violation. Doing that would eliminate a lot of the drama. Apteva (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TLDR summary of some of the above with some corrections. This is not about the purpose of the MOS or a list of who is welcome there, but a discussion on the purpose of warnings and whether they can be appealed. The topic banned user though characterized as "difficult" made almost no edits at MOS through their alternate account (the sock that lead to a one year block, which has now expired), and is other than one other, the editor who has made the most edits to the MOS. I am not as indicated topic banned from AT or MOS, but not likely welcomed by those who are not very civil at MOS either, nor can I be called difficult for having an honest desire to fix something. Tenacious, yes, but tendentious, no. Tenacious is a good quality, tendentious is a bad quality. That anyone who edits the MOS or MOS talk page would be uncivil is a huge problem. Apteva (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the proposed edit, I would support a change to "If you fail to conduct yourself". I would also comment that a real life standard warning is "I am not saying that you did anything wrong but I am warning you that such and such is not tolerated, etc." When what is really meant is I saw you do that, I know you did that, but I am just going to warn you this time, so you got off lucky this time. The advice about not overwarning is fine, but our warnings serve a technical function – for almost everything we require a formal warning first (everything but the more serious offenses). Apteva (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
I'm in agreement with The Devil's Advocate, who has correctly nuanced the issue at hand between a third party notification, an involved editor's warning, an "friendly" official reminder (without any implied misconduct) and an official warning for implied misconduct. When Sandstein floated the initial idea that I amongst others should be warned for 'casting aspersions on a fellow editor', I didn't take it seriously for I never thought that a seasoned AE admin for whom I hold in utmost respect would actually seriously consider doing that based on his legal training – certainly for what I (specifically) and the others (incidentally) had written, otherwise I would have objected there and then. I mean, my comments were factual and only personal to the degree that was strictly necessary to state the case. I stated, with evidence, that the plaintiff had a history of disruption, had had disagreements with the defendant, and that the complaint was vexatious because the allegations were spurious. Of course I don't believe you could "unwarn" somebody, and I would have had no issue with a neutrally-worded 'warning' or notification, but Sandstein's wording was anything but neutral, as it implied improper conduct. Thus I believe Arbcom must be open to appealing or repealing such an official rap on the knuckles for the stigma that may cause, and the undoubted use to which such a warning be put by anyone seeking "dirt" to exploit against the "warned" editors in their own disputes and disagreements. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 01:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * On reflection, Sandstein's coming to Arbcom was a despicable cop-out. This compounded a lack of sincerity with his failure to acknowledge that he made a mistake. He obviously wanted Arbcom to back him, but it's now clear that Arbcom is split on the issue. Sandstein has gone down in my estimation, showing himself to be a technocrat who is too welded to procedure and has lost touch with his sense of justice. He might still salvage some credibility if he were to put his morals, his legal training, and his diplomatic skills into together into an suitably amended statement to replace the original "warning" with wording similar to what Killerchihuahua proposes below. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Stanton: The AE case you mentioned isn't vexatious, nor is Sandstein the instigator. Based on the lack of consensus even among sysops as to blocking/banning you, it would certainly be unwise of Sandstein to action his "threat". He doesn't need any encouragement, for it was one lone comment that got him "warning" us four. But if he does block you for the aforementioned, that will confirm for me beyond doubt that Sandstein's judgement is impaired. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 10:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I said the is vexatious (which it clearly is; its filer is someone I very recently tried to have Apteva's topic-ban extended to cover at WP:AN for MOS-related disruption, and who has frequently been at loggerheads with me, Noetica, et al., on various style issues he never gains consensus for), and I said that Sandstein had announced an intention to see me banned; I did not say the vexatious request was Sandstein's.  I haven't done anything new and different Sandstein can magically ban/block me for. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  21:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion by Killerchihuahua
Why not just change the verbiage on uw-sanctions from "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic" to "If you fail to conduct yourself appropriately on pages relating to this topic" and move forward? This whole thing seems to be about the "continue to" verbiage, which as noted above was not the earlier phrasing. (although it was added in May 2008 so it isn't exactly new, either.)

I'm seriously thinking of being bold and just doing it, but I suppose some Arbs might be irritated if I take that upon myself while this is underway. Killer Chihuahua 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Heim
So, now we've got an appeal of a DS sanction at AE, and I don't know if we can process it there because the committee seems to actively disagree on this, but is doing jack squat to actually resolve it. Any chance we could at least get a clarification if we can do anything on that request? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It is my view that warnings cannot be meaningfully appealed (nor, indeed, is there something to appeal from), even if the admin giving the warning was involved. The point of a warning isn't one of giving a "first strike", nor does it allege misbehaviour; it simply provides a demonstrable notification of the existence of sanctions in a topic area.  It is not a sanction in any meaning of the term. That said, giving a warning of the sort should be seen like using any other templated notice: habitually misusing them is likely to be viewed as disruptive or pointy, especially if it is done in a retributive or retaliatory manner.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the second point (and without going into its applicability to warnings): I would opine that an AE sanction can be appealed in general either (a) to the committee, (b) to the admin actually applying the sanction or (c) to a suitable venue where a consensus at least as reliable as that where it was imposed can be garnered. In practice, the latter means AE or AN, but I would think that AE itself is the "natural" first venue, even in cases where the remedy does not otherwise specify a specific venue of appeal.  The restriction you mention does indeed clearly applies to any editor – it used "administrator" in its wording because, at the time it was written, AE mostly only issued blocks which only and administrator would have been capable of lifting.  The point being that no AE-derived sanction can be lifted without a consensus in a suitable venue.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not reviewed the AE request this pertains to, although I am vaguely familiar with it. Regarding appealing warnings, the simple fact of the matter is that if an warning was successfully appealed, nothing has really changed, except that (per the wording of discretionary sanctions) the user must be warned again before any sanctions can be applied. This seems on its face somewhat silly, as one can't simply forget that they were warned, and a warning does not necessarily imply that there was any misconduct . However, I cannot imagine why a warning would need to be issued except where the issuance of a warning implies there was misconduct; the way discretionary sanctions are set up, The Devil's Advocate is correct in that warnings are essentially the "stepping stone" to actual sanctions. I can certainly see where a warning would have a chilling effect on a user when they genuinely feel they have done no wrong and were "falsely accused." Going back to the first hand, though, an inability to acknowledge one's faults in the face of clear evidence is a red flag that sanctions will be required at some point. Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think the point is that while appealing a simple warning may appear to be moot, there is both a practical and a psychological reason for doing so. As such, I think appeals of warnings should be permitted; as to how appeals can be conducted, I agree with Coren's comments on the subject. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 23:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Iridescent: Interesting, thanks for that. I was actually going off the wording of WP:AC/DS, which doesn't explicitly say any misconduct must exist, however I suppose the "should be counseled [...] to improve his or her editing" bit could imply that. Anyway, I'll rephrase my comments above accordingly. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As usual, a couple of random thoughts. First of all, I believe that all editors are allowed to issue the warning that a given topic area is under discretionary sanctions and not only admins if memory serves me correctly, this has already been clarified by ArbCom in the past. Since warnings are meant to protect editors from unpleasant surprises, by making them aware of the fact that their behaviour may lead to sanctions, I see no reason to restrict the ability in any way. Also, because, technically, warnings are not sanctions, I don't believe they can be appealed  their only function is to make users aware of the discretionary sanctions currently in place and it's not possible to "unmake someone aware of something". Finally, as far as I'm concerned all sanctions and restrictions imposed by an administrator must be appealable, first to the community (the policy reads following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard, after all) and, so, this means AN and not AE, in my opinion, and, then, if said appeal is unsuccessful, to ArbCom.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Hans. This is also why only admins can warn nowadays. This is a common misconception: all editors may issue warnings (cf. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 11. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Hans. I agree with you that we should reword the template and its documentation so that it's clearer. This request is the perfect opportunity to do so! @The Devil's Advocate. I oppose the process you propose as it would be nothing but byzantine bureaucracy; the end result would be that nothing has really changed, as the editor would still be warned and there is no requirement that a user must have misbehaved repeatedly to be sanctioned. So, in essence, this would be a waste of the community's (or ArbCom's) time which would lead to no appreciable difference. Wikipedia is not moot court. @Sandstein. I have probably been as clear as mud (again, sigh...) but you got my position wrong... In my opinion, warnings cannot be appealed and all users can issue them... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Our procedures governing warnings lack coherency and needs to be fixed. Either warnings are simply to notify editors that an area is under discretionary sanctions, and can therefore be issued without a finding of misconduct; or a warning is supposed to tell someone who behaved badly "don't do it again or we'll sanction you", and therefore requires an antecedent finding of misconduct. To muddy the waters further, I also recall an earlier clarification request in which it was said that warnings can be made by anyone, and not just uninvolved administrators, and AE has long taken the view that a warning is not appealable. Now, if warnings mean "you did something bad, don't do it again or you'll be sanctioned", then they should be appealable in principle, and should be limited to uninvolved administrators, who are the only one who can actually make a finding of misconduct, but that is a big departure from current practice, and would likely multiply the workload of AE admins. The last thing we want is for someone to argue "but I did nothing wrong when I got this warning 3 months ago and it was by an involved editor, so the warning is ineffective and you can't sanction me now!" in an AE thread. My view is that we should strike "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways" from point 4 in the top section of WP:AC/DS, WP:AC/P, and WP:AESH, and "or giving a warning" from WP:AESH, and rename that principle "Rationales in sanction notices". should be reworded accordingly. I'll need to think more about the second issue, but I do want to say that I strongly disagree with any suggestion that AE sanctions cannot be appealed at AE. I also think that AE is a rather awkward fit under the current page structure, and it is a good idea to move it back to its previous location as a subpage of AN. T. Canens (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This settles on the question of what a warning actually is. If you're driving down the interstate, is a warning more akin to your passenger pointing out a speed limit sign, or is it a cop pulling you over, running your license, and writing you a warning "this time"?  If it is the former, then there's really no need for an appeal system; if it is the latter, then there should be, because the clear undertone has to be that you've done something wrong, and that you're on notice for a substantive sanction of some form 'next time'.  Sadly, I think the perception is the latter case, and this isn't really ideal.  There has to be a way to not make it so confrontational of an encounter, and not a mere prerequisite for sanctions, but I've shoveled far too much snow today to have any grand ideas tonight. Courcelles 07:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's actually an interesting analogy to use; the cop would be well within his authority to issue a full ticket rather than a warning if he wanted to; however, if he does issue you a warning, then you've no excuse the next time you get pulled over and the warning shows up in the second cop's system. As such, I think the way discretionary sanctions are set up IS the latter case in practice as well as perception. The warning must be officially "on record" rather than simply noticing the sign as you drive past (or see it at the top of a talk page). As to how to improve this, we've little options, because as noted above not everyone will notice a thing on a talk page, and new users won't have been around when the case in question was held, and so can't be expected to simply "know." Perhaps one option could be adding a generic template warning to the edit notice of all affected pages to the effect of "This page, part of a number on the subject of BLAH, is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please be warned that any disruptive conduct on or relating to this page may result in sanctions up to and including blah blah blah..." It doesn't have to be terribly detailed or even very forceful, it just has to be noticeable enough that anyone editing the page has no excuse to say they didn't know. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As the warnings are being used as part of a formal sanction process, and the implication is that some form of misconduct has taken place, then appealing against a warning using the appeal procedures as outlined on WP:AC/DS seems appropriate and necessary. A sanction cannot be applied without a formal warning, so tagging someone with a formal warning puts them a step closer to being blocked. They can appeal the block itself, but not the warning (even if incorrectly placed), that allowed the block to take place. If on review it is felt that there was insufficient misconduct for a formal warning, then the warning should be rescinded, and should not be taken into account when dealing with any future potential misconduct by that user. I trust the AE admins to make the appropriate on-the-spot decisions, but anyone can make a mistake, and it's right and fair that if an action is questioned, that it can be looked into and reversed if necessary. If the decision was appropriate, then the warning is kept in place, and the user who was warned has had confirmation that their actions were problematic.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That never was the intent of the warnings, SilkTork, and if they are understood this way then we need to clarify the matter. The point of the warning is to avoid anyone getting sanctions while not knowing there was DS in place – not any sort of "formal warning" system.  Indeed, we have previously ruled in the past that, because someone clearly knew of the sanction (for instance, by having been a party to the case and been notified of its results) then the warning was unnecessary for AE to enforce the sanction. The prerequisite to sanction is "the editor knows that the topic is under DS"; a warning is just the most straightforward way of making sure an editor demonstrably knew.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions makes it clear that the warnings are a formal part of the process - "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning", "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning". Actual misconduct is built into the process, on the sanctions page it says: "Warnings should ... identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways", and the warning template uses the phrase "If you continue to misconduct". This makes sense. Why would anyone want to warn someone with a formal template when they were editing appropriately in a sanctioned area? There would need to be a reason for a warning. In the AE discussion in question, there were 14 people involved, four of whom were selected for a warning. If there is no reason for a warning, then a warning should not be given - and I assume there was a reason for warning those four editors in particular, otherwise all 14 editors would have been reminded that DS was applicable.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Under the present system of discretionary sanctions, "warning or notice" of discretionary sanctions can be given by any editor—not merely by an uninvolved editor or administrator. While we are here, I would be minded to amend the standard discretionary sanctions procedure so that it requires any admissible notices or warnings to be given by an editor who is not involved in the subject area. (I see no reason to restrict the ability to give warnings to only uninvolved sysops; so long as the editor giving the advice and warning is not involved in the dispute, whether he or she is a sysop is irrelevant.) I am so minded because it seems utterly bone-headed to expect one disputant to make a serious attempt at educating another disputant as to how his or her conduct can be improved; such an system is a non-starter. I would also prefer that we avoid having these warnings turn into another arrow in the disputants' quiver—though I have been out of the enforcement game for over a year, so I would welcome comment as to whether this is a serious ongoing issue or merely a potential problem. Hans Adler gives good examples of where the language in our sanctions concerning "non-admin" warnings is ambiguous. As for Sandstein's questions: I do not consider warnings to be appealable. Therefore, in my view, once has been placed on an editor's talk page (with the appropriate parameter used so that a link to the final decision is included), the warning is irrevocably given and no appeal of it can be made. The notion that one could appeal a mere "notice" of discretionary sanctions—as though the warning and advice it gives can be "unlearned"—defies logic.  AGK  [•]  22:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To various: Even if these notices (as has been argued) damage an editor's perceived reputation, I do not think our creating a bureaucratic process of appealing the notice would be an effective solution to any case where such reputation damage has been wreaked. And even if these notices (as has been argued) constitute a finding of guilt, placing an editor "on notice" is tantamount to giving them advice; advising is not sanctioning—so these notices cannot be appealed as though they were an enforcement action or sanction. I'm not persuaded by any of the counter-arguments that have been offered in the statements above, and therefore I maintain my position. Those rebuttals aside, I make two further observations. First, the vast majority of notices, in my experience, are warranted; I think, as a community, we are mature enough to informally dismiss those few cases where a notice is given unjustly. Second, it would fly in the face of the spirit and purpose of the discretionary sanctions system for these notices to be appealable; they are supposed to be a courtesy notice to editors who are new to problematic topic areas, not a formal prerequisite to the giving of sanctions. Discretionary Sanctions is designed so that misconduct can be sanctioned efficiently and effectively; I am therefore vehemently opposed to any attempt to make it more difficult to sanction editors who are misconducting themselves. To Sandstein: in reply to your third question, I would answer both WP:AE and WP:AN. In reply to your fourth, I think the views of all uninvolved editors should be welcomed in appeals; but, as only an administrator can reverse an enforcement action, it must only be the views of uninvolved administrators that are counted towards the determination of consensus. This last point is ambiguous and would therefore need clarification by motion from this committee. I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues. AGK  [•] 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Placeholder. I have limited time or access (partly because of the storm) until Monday. I'll post some comments on Monday or Tuesday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - In general I agree with the view that neutral notifications to editors possibly unaware of the fractiousness of an area (not the case here, as all those affected were well aware of the tensions in the topic area) should be used liberally and widely, not seen as warnings and should not be able to be appealed, but just seen as polite notifications. i.e. the 'older wording' referred to in some places above. I agree that stern warnings are something else altogether, and should be firmly linked to a diff of the conduct that provoked the warning, and should be able to be appealed, though leaving Wikipedia altogether seems an over-reaction to me (and that's putting it mildly). My general view, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard what I've said on the subject before (I once engaged Noetica on their talk page in a discussion about this), is that over-specialisation in article titles and manual of style issues isn't really the greatest idea. It can work up to a point, but the peculiar tensions of an environment that anyone can edit means that certain ideals just aren't attainable and you can't get to the point where editors can work harmoniously together following a manual of style the right way (which means not following it all the time), and at the same time resist the temptation to argue over the manual of style or article titles instead (in real-world editing environments, people do argue over style, but if they are professional about it, they don't let those arguments affect their actual editing, and they keep the focus on the editing rather than what sometimes happens on Wikipedia where people get drawn more into the arguments about style than the editing work that really needs doing). Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request: GoodDay (April 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * WP:HOCKEY
 * Steven Zhang
 * Danbarnesdavies


 * Notification:, , and

Statement by GoodDay
I fully understand the reason why I was restricted from the diacritics topic on June 14, 2012 via a report by my mentor Steven Zhang in concurrance with my other mentor Danbarnesdavies. It wasn't because of my stance on diacritics, but rather because of my conduct/behavour towards editors involved with the topic. I wish to have my restriction amended, so that I can impliment WP:HOCKEY's directive on North American related hockey articles. In particular, NHL non-bio articles & templates. I don't wish to get involved with RM, guidelines or any non-hockey discussions concerning diacritcs. Again, I fully accept that my past conduct was in error. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To reiterate, I wish only to hide diacritics on the player entries at the 30 NHL team roster templates (example:Template:Boston Bruins roster), in concurrance with WP:HOCKEY's directive on having 'no diacritics' in North American based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never been topic-banned from diacritics, NW. I'm restricted from them, which means I can't mention them at my talkpage.


 * I'm not nor have I ever been topic-banned from hockey articles. But my restriction does 'prevent' me from carrying out WP:HOCKEY's directive (which hasn't been carried out lately by the WP:HOCKEY membership). GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You (the arbitrators) may find this a tad funny or difficulat to believe, but until yesterday, I was hesistant to request an appeal. I believed that I would've been reported at AE for violating my restriction & thus ended up with a 6-month block or a site ban. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * General comment: If I may point out, my restriction is a paradox. I can only demonstrate to you that I won't fight over diacritics (personal attacks), if you'll lift the restriction. Othewise, the restriction being continued, removes that opportunity for me to prove myself to you. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Response to Risker. I'm so discouraged by the continuing multiple RMs towards diacritics titles & the continuing refusal to compromise on having non-diacritics in article intros (regardless of article titles) across Wikipedia, that I've no energy or will power to participate in those RMs & intro discussions. I only wish to concentrate on the NHL North American related articles, particularly the 30 NHL team template rosters. I only wish my restriction amended, so that I can concentrate part of my gnoming in a 'grain of sand' on the beaches of Wikipedia. As for where diacritics could/would exist? that would likely be the AHL, CHL & other lower leagues. I've no interest in those & so wouldn't bother with them. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * General comment: Perhaps it's best to close this amendment appeal. I'm doubly discouraged with the lack of faith being shown in myself by others & the lack of effort by the WP:HOCKEY members to enforce their own North American directive concerning diacritics. When (and if) my restriction is 'ever' amended or repealed, the WikiProject members-in-question will likely have declared their North American 'directive' null & void by then - because of their lack of effort to enforce it. :( PS: Does the restriction 'still' include my userpage & user talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Commenting on Djsasso's statement: FWIW, I hope arbitrators will take note of my & DJsasso's confrontational past concerning diacritics & view his statement in that light. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Precedent setting?: I can't help but wonder. What will become of Fyunck(click), LittleBenW, Kauffner, Wolbo, etc etc. Though it's not intended, this restriction does appear as punitive & biased against the pro-english/anti-diacritics position. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Question by A Quest for Knowledge
Is GoodDay allowed to edit hockey-related articles if they stay away from diacritics? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given NW's statement below that GoodDay is still able to edit hockey-related articles if they stay away from diacritics, I don't see any reason to lift this restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Provided only that it is accepted that "hide diacritics on the player entries at the 30 NHL team roster templates" is non-contentious it would seem churlish not to at least loosen the restriction to specifically allow that, and to allow Good Day to respond to comments relating to those edits. If even that discussion should be seen as too risky, then allow him to make a standard response, referring interlocutors to his mentors, or to the hockey project.

Grasp this opportunity to make a positive step with both hands!

Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

@Risker, GoodDay is not requesting to edit diacritics out of hockey articles, but out of 30 clearly defined templates. He also says "hide" - by which I assume that links will be piped when necessary. As I understand it the templates are these.


 * 1) Template:Anaheim Ducks roster
 * 2) Template:Boston Bruins roster
 * 3) Template:Buffalo Sabres roster
 * 4) Template:Calgary Flames roster
 * 5) Template:Carolina Hurricanes roster
 * 6) Template:Chicago Blackhawks roster
 * 7) Template:Colorado Avalanche roster
 * 8) Template:Columbus Blue Jackets roster
 * 9) Template:Dallas Stars roster
 * 10) Template:Detroit Red Wings roster
 * 11) Template:Edmonton Oilers roster
 * 12) Template:Florida Panthers roster
 * 13) Template:Los Angeles Kings roster
 * 14) Template:Minnesota Wild roster
 * 15) Template:Montreal Canadiens roster
 * 16) Template:Nashville Predators roster
 * 17) Template:New Jersey Devils roster
 * 18) Template:New York Islanders roster
 * 19) Template:New York Rangers roster
 * 20) Template:Ottawa Senators roster
 * 21) Template:Philadelphia Flyers roster
 * 22) Template:Phoenix Coyotes roster
 * 23) Template:Pittsburgh Penguins roster
 * 24) Template:San Jose Sharks roster
 * 25) Template:St. Louis Blues roster
 * 26) Template:Tampa Bay Lightning roster
 * 27) Template:Toronto Maple Leafs roster
 * 28) Template:Vancouver Canucks roster
 * 29) Template:Washington Capitals roster
 * 30) Template:Winnipeg Jets roster

Rich Farmbrough, 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Resolute
@Rich - Given the number of Eastern European players under the scope of the hockey project, and given how contentious the matter of squiggly marks are, we reached a compromise several years ago, absent a Wiki-wide consensus, to show diacritics only on player articles and 'international' articles. As the NHL has consistently dropped them, the other side of the compromise was that NHL-related articles (North America-based articles, actually) would hide them. GoodDay is asking here for permission to enforce that compromise.

I ride the fence on the idea of lifting GoodDay's topic ban but would lean against supporting his petition at this time. Aside from his breaching experiments shortly after the ban was enacted, he has successfully stayed away from the area, including (to his credit) avoiding being baited into the area by editors seemingly on his side. However, the very nature of this request indicates a continuing obsession with "non-English letters" that helped drive him into that arbitration case. IMO, diacritics aren't the root of GoodDay's problem, they merely focus it. They are a symptom of an obsessive-compulsive need for things to match his personal world view. I think GoodDay is sincere in his request and at this point wants to lift the ban merely to "fix" some articles to bring them in line with the hockey project's compromise. But I also believe that the ultimate result of lifting the ban would be to give him the rope to hang himself with. I've had good and bad interactions with GoodDay, and the bad ones are fueled by what I perceive as his being a drama junkie. His obsession with diacritics is likely only going to lead to a site ban if he is allowed to edit within the topic area again, if only because he enjoys being in the middle of controversy. Resolute 13:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DJSasso
As a bit of background on the compromise that GoodDay is seeking to enforce if you were to allow him to. It was partially created because GoodDay at the time of its creation was edit warring with IP based editors over the use or non-use of diacritics. In an attempt to stop the edit warring that was spreading over numerous articles the compromise was created to try and limit the battles that were ongoing. If GoodDay is thinking that we aren't enforcing the compromise in his "absence" it is purely because we no longer have to because the compromise was created to stop edit warring, and since one of the main edit warriors on the topic is no longer able to edit them we no longer need to "enforce" it because there hasn't been any edit warring. GoodDay needs to learn that his editing in the area of diacritics hasn't been helpful to anyone, especially to himself. Modifying his topic ban is only likely to cause him to get into more trouble and end up with a full site ban. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would note that his British Isles Topic Ban was just reinstated yesterday as well which shows the problems that were brought up in his Arb case have not gone away. He has just shifted them to other subjects again. I would actually suggest that Arbcom take over the other topic ban as well with a motion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and comments

 * The restriction at issue is remedy 1 in Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, in which GoodDay was prohibited from making edits concerning the use or non-use of diacritical marks, because he had been engaged in a series of controversies concerning when such marks should be used. At this stage, I think it best that GoodDay stay away from this area, even though he indicates that he accepts and is ready to implement a consensus that was reached. The non-substantive changes to names contained in hockey articles to which GoodDay refers can be made by other editors, and there is no threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia if it takes some time to make them all. Thus, I don't see the benefit to GoodDay's getting involved again with this aspect of editing that would outweigh the reasons it's best for him not to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad, and I don't think I have anything important to add to what has already been said. GoodDay seems to have edited successfully in recent months (though I recall there was difficult with his edits in the months after the arbitration case was closed), but I do not see compelling grounds here to vacate his restriction. I would deny this appeal. AGK  [•] 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, there was significant dispute about your behavior last time with regards to diacritics, to such a degree that ArbCom felt the most effective solution would just be to topic ban you from them. I don't see any reason to change that now, per Newyorkbrad's last few sentences. @AQFK: Yes.  NW  ( Talk ) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to lift this restriction at this time. Courcelles 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As per NYB, editors who have less baggage in regard to diacritical marks are probably best suited to be making the edits that GoodDay mentions. And probably as part of general editing of an article, rather than as a focused mass article edit session which might be seen as contentious or politicised. This is a delicate area which can flare up.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  18:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've given this request a lot of thought; while I'm not involved in WP:HOCKEY, I am quite informed about the topic generally, and the issues with diacritics in published sources as well. It will be very difficult for *any* editor of hockey articles involving the NHL level to completely avoid diacritics; just about every team has a few players, coaches, managers or other key figures whose names or earlier teams (sometimes) include diacritics. GoodDay, could you please help me to understand how you would address editing articles where diacritics [could/do] exist?  Risker (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the statement by Resolute and the comments made by Newyorkbrad, I don't think this restriction should be lifted. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (April 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC). at 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Modified by Motion


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request


 * This modification
 * Strike the modification.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
The motion is being used in an absurd way, as predicted by other editors. Three enforcement requests have been filed, one rejected, one upheld and one just filed today.

The upheld one involved a massive improvement to an article on a subject of critical importance to hundreds of millions of people - and that also defused part of a tense situation between a number of editors.

I have not made any edits that a sane person would consider automation, and the original motion was a result of two mis-clicks, for which I apologised profusely at the time, and indeed do so again.

The original arbitration case was brought on the basis that I was breaking BLP by associating suspected sockmasters with their suspected sockpuppets. This is so very far removed from that.


 * Comments
 * Quelle suprise who should turn up. Yes indeed, all three arb-enforcement filings, and the ANI filing (and many other ANI filings) were by Fram, as wasthe declined Arn case, and the Arb case was proxied for him.  If anyone doubted that this was Fram's personal vendetta before, there is no room for doubt now.


 * More evidence that Fram attacks editors, rather than addressing issues.


 * I'm probably unwise to rise to Fram's bait, but the true measure of whether List of Other Backward Classes was improved is the number of views it gets, which jumps five fold after the "disaster".  Similarly of the several thousand OBCs, prior to the "disaster" only about 50 were listed, afterwards http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Other_Backward_Classes&oldid=533431126 almost all were listed], and within a few hours the list was complete.  I'm sure that the idea of the sanction was not to prevent this sort of improvement.

@T.Canens, doubtless I'm being dense here, but I fail to see how my article editing is anything other than beneficial to the project. Therefore while you can describe the sanction as "not working" form the point of view that I'm getting blocked for making positive edits, there is no way that it can be described as "not working" in the sense that harm is coming to the encyclopedia. In fact no substantive harm was ever demonstrated.

Statement by Fram
The three enforcement requests:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127 was found to be not a violation of this restriction, but of another restriction Rich Farmbrough has, and he was blocked for it.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128, the upheld violation, which made "a massive improvement to an article of critical importance to hundreds of millions of people"; hyperbole much? The subject may be important to many people, but the article? As for a "massive improvement", it was a massive disaster.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the current one.

The original ArbCom case: the reason it was brought can be read at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough, the filer of the case. The motion currently disputed is a clear reflection of that original statement, and not "so very far removed from that" at all. Fram (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As to Rich Farmbrough's "surprise" above, I have these pages on my watchlist, obviously. Lucky thing I did, as you didn't seem to be inclined to leave a courtesy notice about this, even though you are discussing edits I made. Speaking of "personal vendetta" though, ? I think you would be wiser not to start down that road... Fram (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note also that Rich Farmbrough edited his statement after I replied to it, so that my reply may seem to be misquoting him. Rest assured, it wasn't. Fram (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Query by Sandstein
I'm commenting here in an administrative capacity as one of the administrators active at WP:AE. There is currently an earlier enforcement request open relating to the restriction that Rich Farmbrough asks to be lifted here. It appears that he has submitted this amendment request instead of responding to the enforcement request. I would like to ask arbitrators whether the processing of the enforcement request should be stayed pending the disposition of this amendment request, or not. (Pending an answer, I, at least, won't act on the enforcement request).  Sandstein  17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, T. Canens, for the procedural clarification. I have closed the AE request with a one-year block of Rich Farmbrough, subject of course to any modifications arbitrators may decide to make as a result of this request.  Sandstein   23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge
How many requests for clarification/amendment has Rich Farmbrough filed over his restrictions? I haven't counted but it's probably more than any other editor in recent memory, perhaps by orders of magnitude. How much time should ArbCom and the community waste in answering all these requests? Perhaps there should be a limit, say 6-12 months, between Rich's requests for amendment/clarification? ArbCom's duty is to break the back of a dispute, not contribute to it by allowing endless requests for clarification/amendment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Orlady
IMO, the restriction and its enforcement have been overly rigid -- and it is grossly unfair to blame Rich Farmbrough for any problems that may currently exist with List of Other Backward Classes or its sister article List of Scheduled Castes. These were two seriously misbegotten articles created by Doncram; their creation played an important role in precipitating the recent Doncram Arbcom case. They weren't much discussed during the Arbcom case, mainly because Doncram was already topic-banned from working on them. This is what the Other Backward Classes article looked like when Doncram last touched it in late December; a substantial improvement over the version that I took to AFD back in early December, but still woefully incomplete, with poorly documented sourcing. The list survived AfD as "KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted", but its creator was soon topic-banned and unable to fix it. I don't think it was wise of Rich Farmbrough to take pity on the list, but he did so, and his edits turned it into a reasonably solid page, but led to his 60-day ban. The fact that he edited the page again after his ban expired only indicated his conscientiousness about finishing a job he had left undone -- and his desire to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. Banning him for a full year for being conscientious is absurd. The fact that the restriction led to such a long ban is an indication that that the restriction is unduly severe. Taken together, his erroneous edits did not damage pre-existing content; he was adding a reference citation to previously unsourced content, and the errors only affected his additions. IMO, the article was better with misformatted citations than with no citations at all. I suggest that the remedy enforcement be amended to allow for a lesser enforcement (for example, admonishment) when any automated edits he makes do not delete or otherwise alter content previously contributed by another user. Furthermore, it could help prevent future violations when his ban expires if List of Scheduled Castes (which has not yet benefited from his attention) were removed from article space, so its presence won't tempt him to try to fix it. --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Jclemens

 * I am afraid that Rich has provided plenty of evidence that the Arbitration Committee has erred. That is, by his conduct, he has regrettably demonstrated that he is not interested in being rehabilitated.  He has not endorsed the sanctions placed on him by the committee and sought to edit without automation, so that he might understand the frustration his previous pattern of editing conduct has caused to so many other editors.  Instead, he has fought the sanctions at every turn, arguing against their legitimacy. He become focused on perceived wrongs, and has focused his energies on criticizing the committee who sanctioned him.
 * The error, of course, was one of AGF'ing, of hoping that a productive editor like Rich could learn from his sanctions and return to productivity. It was an error on the side of humanity, of hope, of excessive optimism... but an error nevertheless.  If the committee does not see fit to remedy its own error, its penalty will be having to deal with more of these requests from Rich.  At some point, the committee's forbearance ceases to be humane, and simply allows Rich to make a spectacle of himself and waste the committee's and community's time.  All of those who have served as arbitrators know of banned editors whose could return to editing, if they would just swallow their pride, admit the legitimacy of their sanctions, and agree to not behave in the same manner in the future. It is my regretful assessment that Rich has fallen into this pattern as well, despite multiple efforts to enlighten him about the best way forward. Best wishes to the committee in deciding what to do with the situation from here on out... Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that Rich has been blocked for one year at AE. Unless the arbitrators would like to hear an appeal of that decision, I suggest that this be closed as moot. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Nick-D
I'm not sure how useful comments from random editors on this matter are to the Committee (especially at this point), but I think that Jclemens hits the nail on the head. I can't remember having any direct interactions with Rich, but I've followed the post-arbitration developments (largely in my role as an admin), and it's clear that Rich has never accepted the findings against him and has been unable to let the matter rest. This has included obvious efforts to chip away at the restrictions, including by deliberately making fairly small breaches of them. The great shame is that if he'd put the same amount of effort into productive editing he'd be well on the way to having the restrictions lifted by now. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not convinced that the restriction should be amended. Moreover, if we should find that restricting automated editing is not a workable remedy, it is far more likely that we'd opt to restrict all editing instead rather than leave the problematic edits unrestricted, and I doubt that it would be Rich Farmbrough's preferred outcome. As to Sandstein's question, I think the AE request can proceed as usual, as I think it is highly unlikely that a majority of my colleagues would vote to grant the request. T. Canens (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless we want to go ahead with the indef ban that was indicated as likely in the last motion, I think we're rightly done here. Courcelles 23:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be moot given the AE sanction handed down by Sandstein (who is an administrator, not an arbitrator to correct some comments made in various places), but my views here are that the problem here was an attempt to do a mass edit without checking for accuracy. At the very least if Rich had asked someone else to check his edit after it was made, that would have counted for something. Making such edits and expecting others to find and correct the mistakes is completely the wrong attitude. This approach ('not requiring perfection') does, to an extent, underpin the way a wiki works, but it can be overwhelmed if one person does mass editing that others then don't check, either because the editing is done too rapidly for humans to check, or because the edit is too large to expect a human to bother checking. Fram should be applauded for being willing (both earlier and here) to check some of these edits after problems were found. While I'm commenting on this, the argument sometimes put forward that a 1% error in edits is OK, and only appears a problem because someone has done a large number (around million) of edits, that argument is wrong-headed. It is the actual number of errors and the time it would take to check and clear up after them that matters. Percentages are highly misleading here. Rich, if he is to understand the problems here, needs to get to a stage where the number and type of errors introduced by his editing are at a level where others are both willing and able to correct those errors, or (ideally) he can correct them himself when they are pointed out. This is not about keeping error percentages low, but about keeping error rate over time low and error identification and correction rates high. The automated editing is just something that pushed the error rate over time to levels that were too high for others to keep up with, which is why it was proscribed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Recommend closing this as moot. Risker (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Climate change (April 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) at 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy (initiator)
Intro

Hi, There is a broken link in the instructions in the current lead at ARBCC which has created some confusion as evidenced by this and this.

The relevant text, with the link text just underlined here, now reads


 * "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. * * * Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise."

The broken link was discovered when I and others were pondering exactly what regular editors may, and may not, edit on this page.

Ways to read the ambiguity

INTERPRETATION OPTION 1)  Regular editors can ONLY add to the sanctions log after they have been imposed.  Clarification needed on notification procedure.

INTERPRETATION OPTION 2)  In the spirit of "prevention, not punishment" any regular editor can post ARBCC notices and add to the notifications log as well as the sanctions log.

INTERPRETATION OPTION 3)  Other?

Insights from case version history

To best of my knowledge the only relevant text from the case history is


 * June 12 2010   Link in lead about what reg eds can tweak ( #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions ) now works.


 * Oct 14 2010 Relevant tweak A   Link in lead about what reg eds can tweak ( #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions )  was accidentally broken when section heading was deleted during initial case closure.


 * Oct 14 2010 Relevant tweak B  Section heading restored but with different wording so link in lead is still broken.  HOWEVER a link in logging section ( #Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions ) does work.


 * Oct 15 2010  TOC level 2 heading for "Notifications" section added under level 1 heading "Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions".   Lead link is still broken but logging link to #Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions still works, and appears to encompass the notifications section

I don't think there have been any other relevant changes to the section headings or links.

REPEAT THE QUESTION: Can reg eds post ARBCC notices to other users' talk pages, and then log the posting here?

Conclusion
 * 1. Regardless what ya'll think, the busted lead link needs to be fixed;
 * 2. My own opinion is that in the spirit of "prevention, not punishment" any editor should be allowed to spread the word of ARBCC and post names and notices here.
 * 3. If ya'll agree, then suggest you change the section heading itself to Log of NOTICES, blocks, bans, and sanctions  and then fix the lead link to point to that.
 * 4. The above edit history looks like this is what was supposed to happen in the first place.

Thanks for your attention and direction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * NewsAndEventsGuy's Reply to Elvey's opening comments
 * First, this matter is not just about Elvey. It is asking whether any editor active in the climate change area can service and log notice on any others.  I think I am up to three users besides myself, including but not limited to Elvey.  I expect to feel justified in adding more in the future.  So please don't tune out on the assumption this is unique problem that will blow over.


 * Second, contrary to the Elvey's assertion, I am only trying to prevent (not punish) by forestalling any disruption that might be caused should Elvey wikihound JJ into the climate change area. Evidence of my basis for this fear consists of Elvey's (1) zero WP:DR to 1000mph-outright-ban proposal in under a second (see his WP:AN that refused to die); (2) Elvey's preliminary canvassing of other editors, mostly from the climate area, that had bumped with JJ (see list in the WP:AN case); (3) Elvey's multiple postings in various forums to beat the drum for his drive to ban JJ (village pump-policy and WP:BAN); (4) to me Elvey appears to have an interest in exploiting the ARBCC decision as a potential tool against JJ. Since he was relying so heavily on JJ's interactions with 3rd parties, mostly from the climate area, it seems like a reasonable fear that he might enter the climate area himself to try to wikihound JJ into producing more first-hand ammunition for Elvey's next assault against JJ, and if so, this tactic would be based on a perversion of the purpose of ARBCC. I'm in the climate area to edit. ARBCC is designed for prevention, not punishment, and that's all I really care about here - maintaining a conducive editing environment on the climate pages. Beats me why he objects to being on the list if he doesn't plan to edit the area, or make trouble there if he does. I put myself on the list, after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * NewsAndEventsGuy's Updated Comments


 * (1) Clerk Penwhale's comment below is based on his subjective interpretation of DS text, or so he said in this side conversation, but nonetheless are consistent with the persuasive remarks by......
 * (2) Dave Souza, who has convinced me that there are two elements before AE sanctions will be imposed by an uninvolved admin, and they are
 * Element 1 - Simple harmless "notice" or awareness of ARBCC of a sort that does not carry a presumption of guilt; and
 * Element 2 - A warning by an uninvolved admin following problematic editor behavior


 * (3) In light of paragraph 2 above, the "notifications" section seems to be ineffectively named for Element 1, even though its purpose appears to be to log satisfaction of Element 2.
 * (4) I am persuaded to self-revert my additions to the notification list.
 * (5) Please prevent future identical issues, by fixing the ambiguities in the ARBCC wording


 * NewsAndEventsGuy's PROPOSAL

Maybe this will take a motion, I don't know, but this makes sense to me
 * A Change "Notifications" section heading and add one sentence of text to read
 * ''ADMINISTRATOR WARNINGS
 * Any editor may informally call ARBCC to the attention of any other editor at any time, for any reason, and such notices are deemed nothing more than "FYI". Formal warnings may only be given by an uninvolved administrator after a showing of problematic editor behavior.  In this section, any user may log a formal ARBCC warning given by an uninvolved administrator to any other editor, or may add their own name.''


 * B Fix link in lead to point to the reworded TOC level 1 heading


 * C Close this clarification request

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * D Thank you all for your attention, and attention to these details.  Sometimes a little prevention goes a long way.

PS WHY NOW? The climate pages are relatively quiescent but you can bet that area will heat up next year when the IPCC's big 2007 report (AR4) is updated with a new one (AR5). Better to fix this now when its quiet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @Dave Souza, and alt wording
 * You should include the part about anyone letting anyone else know about ARBCC anytime for any reason as an FYI. Consider the problem ed who has already been politely told about how he is afoul of DR, RS, NPOV, etc
 * NAEG to X - Caution, please see ARBCC
 * X to NAEG - Sanctions?? You threatening ME with SANCTIONS??
 * NAEG to X - Just calling your attention to ARBCC
 * X to NAEG - Harassment!!!! Accusations!!!! Slander!!!! I ((((demand)))) to know the basis of this warning!!!!
 * NAEG to X - See prior comments in this thread
 * X to NAEG - I filed an ANI on you


 * Of course, the ANI will go nowhere, but why invite this scenario in the first place?  By providing an instant get-out-of-jail free card for spreading the word about ARBCC, the ANI never happens and that dialogue quickly cools off with something like this.


 * NAEG to X - Caution, please see ARBCC
 * X to NAEG - Sanctions?? You threatening ME with SANCTIONS??
 * NAEG to X - No, I don't have that power, only admins can decide if you have violated ARBCC. I just wanted to call ARBCC to your attention, and the ARBCC decision itself encourages us to spread the word about it, because it says right on its face "Any ed can tell  any other ed about ARBCC for any reason at any time and such notices are treated as simple FYIs."


 * Presumably, that ends the drama.


 * In sum, simple wording is excellent. But sometimes a second helping of simple wording is better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua Let's break down your idea into two parts. (1) Helpful notice, before any wrongs, (2) Changing the DS and AE status quo regarding formal warnings after one or more fouls. If the first part is pursued as being supplemental to the status quo, and if the world made sense, it should be simple to get consensus and implement. By taking it in two steps we could realize the benefit of part 1 (even if it is just supplemental to the status quo) quickly, whereas it will entail a lot more discussion to get consensus to change part 2. Why hold up the first part's payback while we (endlessly?) debate step 2? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@AGK I await your motion with interest! Do you have a guesstimate when you will really sink your teeth into motion prep? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for the draft I will check it out. OK with me for this request to be closed & archived . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Elvey
Per the Clerk's note below, NAEG should immediately revert the 3 adds (and of course an uninvolved admin can add me, NAEG, JJ, etc. if they have adequate rationale to do so and do so appropriately, at which point those editors will be subject to discretionary sanctions). When have I last edited in Climate Change? If I haven't then ISTM that even an admin, let a lone a non-admin can't make these sanctions apply to me by posting my name up. Untrue? I may have edited in Climate Change long ago, but if I have come closer than, it was either so long ago or so minor I don't recall. Since this restriction went into effect? I don't think so. As far as I know, Wikipedia has no [Minority Report (film)|Minority Report-style PreCrime police force], and NAEG has no precognitive abilities. I can't find any edits at all; is there a tool to search for this? [Deafening silence]

NewsAndEventsGuy's reply on my talk page confirms (diff) he is attempting to apply sanctions for my daring to launch an AN proceeding against J Johnson (JJ) in a way that policy specifically permits, but some admins didn't like as much as the complaint processes they insisted I use instead, saying, saying that he did it because I had not "shown a positive response to the multiple pieces of advice (such as rfc/u) presented by several eds in your recent AN proceeding against JJ." I had a very hard time there because only at the end did admin Dougweller realize he had made about half a dozen false accusations against me, and there was quite a snowball effect from the false accusations that made it look like it was I and not Dougweller who didn't understand policy. Doug wants it both ways. He has what reason to comment here if he is sorry for the over half a dozen false accusations he made against me? If he isn't sorry, then he's lying when he says he's already apologized to me; in his comment below, he even explicitly blames me for his confusion! I haven't accepted an apology from Doug - because he hasn't given me one. Details below.

As he's chosen to attack me here yet again, perhaps to distract from the over half a dozen times he took the time to falsely accuse me of violating 2RR, I respond, and I encourage others to read this over too:

I've asked Doug MULTIPLE TIMES AND I'd STILL like to have answers to: Doug, "do you accept that you falsely accused me about half a dozen times or that "Clearly the 'failure to get a clue' was yours?... (It was long after I'd clearly shown I had NOT violated 2RR.)  Would you mind explicitly retracting the false accusations, which you made here:"denying 2 reverts" and here (2): warning retracted, but "you are now saying that you weren't even at 2RR" isn't and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=543016012#User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment. here (4-7, depending on how you count repeats):"he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had)", "Now you are admitting to [violating] 2RR? Which you did.", "clearly don't understand", "need to start AGFing", and finally "My edit above is my response." - which is a restatement of the last 3 false accusations])? An apology would go a lot further than a futile and defensive (and on and on-going) attempt to deny or justify ~half a dozen false accusations.  How 'bout it, Doug?"  I see that you retracted one false accusation but then reverted that retraction.  Yes, you said "sorry for the confusion", but you didn't say it to me, rather, you did continue to assert that the confusion was mine.  In your comment below, you even explicitly blame me for your confusion !   You haven't acknowledged or apologized for your confusion.  Again, I ask for relief - Would you please explicitly (e.g. state here or at least somewhere that you) retract the ~half dozen false accusations I linked to above? (rather than doing so in place but then restoring them?)" I feel it's clear that Doug has not retracted his false accusations against me, and yet is badgering me for favors and answers regarding what he imagines are my misunderstandings. This is so ridiculous!: Doug is posting here and to my talk page in a desperate attempt to convince me to admit to misunderstanding what the warning he gave me was for. (If I do, the (long since archived!) warning I put on his talk page for having been abusive would be retractable.) But he won't take the time to do the edit to Earthquake prediction that he deceptively said he'd do. !?

Doug won't retract his false accusations, OR answer my questions, e.g.: "You advise 'calm, civil discussion' so, I've gone back to the beginning to review my attitude-and yours, to be fair. Please go back and carefullyreadmy first post about all this, right after you accused me of being "engaged in an edit war".  And take a look at how YOU responded too.  If you hadn't "ignored the bulk of my post" (your words) in December - including the stuff about JJ, and more carefully read what I wrote about 3RR, things would have gone a helluva lot better. Or at least Ronz would think they'd have gone better, I'm sure. See what I'm saying?"

and yet gets pissy if I expect him to answer questions I've already asked before answering his. I wrote, "I have not said anything that actually showed I was confused or wrong about what the warning you misused is for; if you think I have, feel free to provide a diff/link." I guess Doug's reply and link were an attempt to show that I have. Well, it failed. Doug, if you want to understand why, look at each of the false accusations I point out that I feel you've made. Which of them do you admit to, and which do you not. If you cease trying to keep it a secret which ones you do or don't admit to, we can make some progress, and figurw out who actually misunderstands the warnings in question. Post particularly, see my reply to which Doug replied by falsely accusing me of "denying 2 reverts" when I had done no such thing. (link above.) I am SICK and TIRED of arguing with an admin who has done such a horrible job reading what I've written, that he's still making the same false accusations against me that I've refuted what feels like a million times. Isn't there a term for someone who is psychologically incapable of admitting, even to themselves, that they've done something wrong? Me, can admit it if I do something wrong, and not have my brain explode. I admitted and clearly apologized when I felt I'd screwed up 5 days ago, and it hasn't killed me-and AFAIK, I hadn't even violated policy. Also, I just discovered something! It looks like there are two clearly conflicting statements in policy - the ones I quoted and referenced (from WP:Reprimands) that clearly state that AN was the place for me to bring the dispute with JJ, and the one that, unfortunately, the folks beating me up at AN refused to quote or reference, but may have been thinking of. So there was policy clearly supporting my use of AN, and there's a conflict with other policy that I'll document and try to get addressed after the dust settles.

If I am later re-added properly and by an uninvolved admin, at least I'll have received help or have an uninvolved admin to ask again for the help understanding I asked for, (the Request for Clarification reproduced below) rather than just a restriction slapped on me sans answers by NAEG, which is what I got, instead.

P.S The restriction I proposed for JJ was 1RR, and I provided links and diffs to show that a huge fraction of his edits were uncivil, hostile, responses to civil DR, and I quoted and referenced the policy (from WP:Reprimands) authorizing the proposal. FYI, I may be offline for a couple days.

--Elvey (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Revised 01:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Clarification
Since this is Requests/Clarification, I ask for answers to my questions regarding sanctions here:

Climate Change sanctions/restrictions
I could use some help understanding the comments some have made about JJ's edits re. Climate Change content, in that if JJ is violating Arbcom sanctions/restrictions, which ones? I'm trying to figure out what means. I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions means that if JJ has been warned, admins can impose whatever sanction they choose, if he violates a policy he's been warned of? Yes, No, sorta? If I read correctly, the warning doesn't count if it's from a regular user or an involved administrator, or doesn't reference the sanctions; is that correct? Yes, No, sorta? If so, I wonder if JJ has been or should be thus warned re. OWN, CIVIL, etc., W.R.T. global warming.--Elvey (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I warn JJ as NewsAndEventsGuy has? --Elvey (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Does NewsAndEventsGuy need to notify JJ, Ronz, etc-  those who have made comments about JJ's edits re. Climate Change content? I don't understand this process I've been dragged into.--Elvey (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller
Since I've been dragged into this I shall comment. Because a 3rd edit by Elvey had an automatic edit summary that said it was a revert, I gave him a 3RR template. His response was to template me for abuse of the 3RR template. Things spiraled downhill from there as I allowed his language to confuse me and although I apologised he didn't accept my apology. However, he never withdrew his accusation that I'd abused the template and indeed seems confused about the purpose of the template. I've asked him twice, once at AN and last night at his talk page about this. My post to his talk page says " I'd still like to know if you think a 3RR warning is meant to be given to an editor who has made 3 reverts or to an editor who has made more than 3 reverts. In the discussion about the 3RR warning I mistakenly gave you, you wrote "I didn't break 3RR"(I never suggested you did) and "So even if I had violated 2RR, which I hadn't and you acknowledge I hadn't, you abused the template by using it to accuse me of edit warring." But that's wrong. If you'd "violated 2RR" ('violated' is a confusing word here as there is nothing to violate) you would be at 3RR and the template would have been appropriate - that's what it's for. Are we agreed on this?" My post was before his last response above. He hasn't responded to my question.

With this issue he again seems to misunderstand the purpose of warnings. They are meant to advise an editor of a situation in which they might be blocked if they continue a certain pattern of behavior. His behavior the last few days at AN and elsewhere seem similar to the behavior that got him an indefinite block in 2007 for "user fails to get a clue, creates a hostile editing environment while disregarding our policies, come back when you can be constructive". There is also an open SPI on him (waiting for CU at Sockpuppet investigations/Elvey concerning accounts created that immediately involved themselves in Elvey related disputes.

NAEG seems to have acted in good faith. And as I understand it, Elvey and NAEG now know about the sanctions so whether or not they have been warned appropriately if they break them they can be sanctioned. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza
In short, even with a vague recollections that there were retractions restrictions [autocorrect error!] on who could list notifications, there was nothing obvious on the ARBCC page to confirm this one way or another. A clarification note would be very useful, and I thought it sensible for NAEG to ask for such clarification.

When asked by NAEG about issues with an editor, I pointed out that it appeared to come under WP:ARBCC. It wasn't clear if the user had been notified under WP:ARBCC#Notifications. At that stage I couldn't recall the procedure, and could not see anything on the ARBCC page to clarify who gave notifications. I'd recently given an editor an informal note about ARBCC, but was not sure if my own position as an involved editor and admin stopped me from listing the editor formally.

Looking again at WP:ARBCC, the struck out section Warning of intended sanctions stated "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator with a link to the decision authorising sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counselled on specific steps to take to bring his or her editing into line with the relevant policies and guidelines." That is superseded by WP:ARBCC "24) The climate change topic, broadly interpreted, is placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

In retrospect, the WP:ARBCC section is actually a log of warnings by uninvolved administrators, but there's nothing to indicate that and in the past notifications appear to have been given by non-admins. Probably the best approach is to add a subheading making it clear that these are formal notifications of warnings by uninvolved administrators.

It may be worth considering removing or striking notifications by non-admins, but looking at the discretionary sanctions page, it states that "Uw-sanctions can be used to satisfy the "Warning" provision of the discretionary sanctions process. A warning need not be issued by an administrator; see the template's documentation for further details." . dave souza, talk 17:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps simple wording under the heading could be "This section logs formal warnings by uninvolved administrators. Informal notification may be given on user talk pages by others, but should not be listed here." As an option, clerks could remove non-admin notifications and advise the user concerned of this rule. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to KC and Sandstein for thoughtful views on the broader context. In this particular case, non-admin notifications by NAEG were not formal warnings so no harm done, and they have since been removed from the log by NAEG. It's clearly good, as with 3RR, that any editor getting into the disputed area gets a notification [from anyone] advising with no presumption of guilt that they may be subject to a block if they go over the line. Such notifications aren't logged for 3RR, but the log at discretionary sanctions areas does seem to have been helpful in some cases. In the climate change area, General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log had a similar function before being superseded by the ARBCC decision. WP:AC/DS states "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning". It requires that sanctions be logged, but doesn't mention logging warnings. . . . dave souza, talk 09:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement J. Johnson
I have added myself as a very much interested party.

It seems to me that the "giving of due warning" — I presume that is the point of allowing any regular editor to post ARBCC notices — enables such ominous consequences ("discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved adminstrator", point #2 at WP:AC/DS) that it should not be automatically enabled at the whim of any editor. For sure, everyone editing at (say) Climate Change should understand the requirements. But if anyone should stray then the first recourse by any non-admin editor should be an informal reminder. If that (and other remedies) fail and the strongest measures are to be contemplated, then the seriousness of the matter should require that "due warning" be made by an administrator. Otherwise there is too much potential for abuse, and a likely possibility that a warned editor might mistake it for non-consequential harassment. Also, an administrator is presumably more likely to be observant of the requirements of "due" warning. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Query. Elvey has suggested that we become "subject to discretionary sanctions" by being listed here. My understanding is that any editing in the Climate Change area is subject to sanctions; that being listed here is (generally) constructive notice of particular instances that may result in specific sanctions. Perhaps this could be clarified? Also, perhaps it could be clarified that what is being requested in this case (by NAEG) is not a sanction, but clarification of who can give constructive notice of a request for a sanction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
The request by NewsAndEventsGuy is a bit confusing, but it raises the following questions: I recommend to resolve these questions by I understand that is currently evaluating, pursuant to a now-archived clarification request by me, whether under DS, "warnings" should be replaced by "notifications" that do not presuppose misconduct.  Sandstein  19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since 2011 the topic is subject to WP:AC/DS, which require "warnings". It is unclear under the wording of these procedures who may issue "warnings" - whether uninvolved administrators or all editors. It is similarly unclear who may log such warnings on the case page.
 * The "Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions" section of the case page has a subsection called "Notifications", even though no provision of the decision calls for "notifications" (instead, as mentioned above, "warnings" are required).
 * clarifying the relevant wording of WP:AC/DS, and
 * standardizing the format, title etc. of the logging subsections of all DS case pages, which are rather diverse at the moment.

Statement by KillerChihuahua
I have long felt that notifications should be the standard, as opposed to warnings. Keep formal warnings, they have their place; but leaving out the notification option has led to a sticky situation where an editor effectively cannot be informed without being accused of wrongdoing, and cannot be sanctioned without a step which is often pointless and harmful to the encyclopedia (in the sense that one must cross off "warning" before doing anything else which might be indicated.) This is absurd, so sorry. Editors ought to be able to tell other editors without having to wait until the new editor has committed a foul which they might have been able to avoid; articles should not be left at risk just because an editor has to be warned, and then another filing must take place before they're actually prevented from harming the encyclopedia. Then comes the second problem; editors who are warned react in a hostile fashion if they think there is any question regarding their actions, leading to more drama and bad feelings. Then there is the third problem, which has led to truly ridiculous arguments on AE; editors argue that they can't be sanctioned because they were never formally, adequately, procedurally correctly, warned. Notifications solve all these problems. I have always had notifications on articles on community probation which I have written and enforced, and there is far less hostility, far less wiki-lawyering, and far less bizarre rules wankery. With notifications, one is truly being kind and letting someone know before they get into trouble. This is my view not just on this case but every case on DS as well as CS; we should change the standard approach to a more proactive, helpful one. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation for an example; "Listing here indicates only that an editor has been notified. Listing here should not be taken to mean that the user's edits were in violation of the article probation." IOW notification is not to be taken that an editor has done anything wrong; and the verbiage of the Uw-probation template is also friendly and informative ("a routine friendly notice"), rather than accusatory. This is one instance where I think the community standard practice is preferable to the ArbCom standard practice. Killer Chihuahua 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * The standard section name is "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions". It was removed erroneously when the affected case is closed. T. Canens then added it back with the section title as directed by the remedy that passed.
 * That being said: This area is now under Discretionary sanctions. Thus, uninvolved administrators are the ones to warn (and place notice). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Thanks for bringing up this point. I can see the aid a "list of notices", etc., could provide, but I'm also of the mind that, in trying to keep a fraught area cool, giving friendly (unlogged) notices first might be the best option (also per WP:TEMPLAR). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As was implied above, I do intend to deal with the wider issue of notices by means of an overarching motion, which I hope to draft in the near future (the motion will require a large commitment of time and a lot of attention to detail). Ultimately, the nature of notices (and the notices–warnings dichotomy) will need to be decided through a binding vote among the committee, but community comment will certainly be solicited. AGK  [•] 23:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy: I have published a draft motion at User talk:AGK/DS, where you are welcome to submit your thoughts and comments. AGK  [•] 23:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This appears to be being handled. Thanks to AGK for the draft motion. I agree with KillerChihuahua's comments on notifications (similar to such comments made elsewhere). Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)