Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 95

Amendment request: Ed Poor 2 (February 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 21:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2


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


 * confirmation:


 * Information about amendment request
 * Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2
 * Requested action: Removal of probation

Statement by Beeblebrox
WP:RESTRICT had a lot of outdated restrictions, and this looks like low-hanging fruit. Ed has been on probation for nearly ten years. His last block for violating the terms of the probation was in late 2010. This simply doesn't seem like it is protecting the project from disruption anymore.
 * Regarding the replies below: While we normally don't do third-party unblock requests, I am not aware of any rule that says that any user may not ask for a modification or removal of an arbcom remedy that is no longer serving a purpose, regardless of whether it effects one user or many. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ed has now responded on his talk page that he would in fact like it removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Ed Poor)
While I have no reason to believe that the editing restrictions on Ed need to remain, it is very unusual for Arbcom to accept appeals from someone other than the affected user. Looking through Ed's recent contributions, he appears to only edit here sporadically these days (most recently on the 18th) so I suggest being patient in waiting for them to comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * anyone may ask, but when a restriction affects only one or a small number of individually named editors it is courteous at the very least to wait until they have indicated they desire a modification or removal before proceeding. I can't explain why someone would want a restriction on them to continue longer than necessary, but I recall one or possibly two instances of exactly this when I was on the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iazyges
I'm inclined to support. As you said it has been 6 years (7 assuming perfect dates which never happen) of the 10 years, since he has violated it. I will also note that he was at one point a bureaucrat, which in my mind is the highest position of trust given by a single wikipedia; However, he did resign, and the standards were lower at such a time. Much of the case is muddled, but I believe that his positive contribs have shown he deserves to be rid of the probation. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  13:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Ed Poor 2: Clerk notes

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



Ed Poor 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Typically I'd think an arbitration sanction would be open to reconsideration after 10 years, especially if there haven't been problems for awhile. However, awaiting comment by Ed Poor, as this request seems to have been filed without his involvement (see here). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with NYB. Ed Poor hasn't edited for about ten days, so let's leave this here a while longer. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Support per Opabinia regalis. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that Ed has now weighed in and endorsed this appeal, I think we can get rid of his decade-old restriction. We are generally more effective at handling POV editing than we were ten years ago, and I doubt he'd get very far if he tried to go back to old behaviors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Motion: Ed Poor
In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case, was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Mkdw  talk  17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) I am counting on Ed Poor, a very long-time editor, to avoid further problems in the two topic-areas. On a different aspect, while I appreciate the desire to clean up the list of no-longer-necessary editing restrictions, going forward any requests to lift sanctions on a particular editor should be at least run by that editor before being brought here. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  Doug Weller  talk 19:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Drmies (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 9)  DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 11)  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * I've supported to have the probation lifted although it would have been preferable for Ed Poor to leave a statement here at ARCA. Mkdw  talk 17:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: GamerGate (February 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by NorthBySouthBaranof at 07:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) 4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * 4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
 * Amend topic ban to topic probation

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
I am writing to request that the topic ban imposed upon me in the above case two years ago be reduced to a probation, so that I may demonstrate that I can successfully edit in those areas. In the two years since the sanction was imposed, I have, in good faith, abided by the requirements of the sanction and I have not been subject to any other sanctions for any other reason. Rather, I have accepted the lessons from my experience which led to the arbitration case, I have continued to contribute useful content in a variety of areas and I have continued to uphold fundamental content policies in contentious disputes. I believe that I should have the opportunity to demonstrate that I can productively participate in those topic areas again, and if any issues recur, I accept the consequences that will surely follow.
 * NYB, I don't intend to leap back into the middle of any fracas. But I would like to be able to productively edit and contribute to articles such as Same-sex marriage in the United States, the Women's March on Washington and the Women's Rights National Historical Park, to name a few, without constantly worrying that I might be violating the terms of a very broad topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * NYB, as I said, I don't have any intention of hurling myself into past disputes and I'm not going to immediately leap in and make 80,000 edits in the topic space. At some point in the future might I want to fix a typo on the biography of a GamerGate victim, or add some reliably-sourced facts about their current activities? Probably. But as far as I can tell, all those related articles have all been stable for quite some time and I can absolutely promise that I'm not going to run headlong into battle for the sake of battle. I have learned that lesson from the arbitration case and I don't have any interest in being involved in another one. Frankly, my primary reason for this request is to remove the topic ban's Sword of Damocles from over my head, where it has been poised for two years. I do not want to have to constantly wonder if someone's going to leap out of the shadows and drag me into an enforcement proceeding for the sake of causing drama, or use the topic ban as a cudgel in entirely-unrelated issues, as occurred as recently as December. I accept my past mistakes, I have continued to edit productively and I would like the opportunity to demonstrate that those mistakes will not be repeated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I have tried to stay far away from even the possible fringes of where the ban might be precisely because I have no interest in stoking drama, and the last time I got anywhere remotely near the topic (to do nothing more than submit a poorly-sourced BLP to AFD) someone dragged me into an enforcement action for no reason other than creating drama. As a result, I have no desire to make even the most non-controversial of edits on any article that anyone might remotely interpret as covered by the topic ban until I can do so without looking over my shoulder. Are those articles covered under the topic ban? I don't know, but I'm guessing someone could make an argument that they are, and that's not an battle I have any interest in fighting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A current example is Linda Sarsour - she is one of the organizers of the 2017 Women's March, and I began editing that article in good faith several days ago in an effort to ensure sourcing standards and fairness (removing negative claims sourced to blogs, for example); this morning, another user added the "American feminists" category to that article. Am I now prohibited from editing Linda Sarsour under the topic ban, because now she's in a "gender-related disputes" category she wasn't in a week ago? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting it, because I have never suggested any such thing. I will be happy to continue to discuss sourcing issues with you on that appropriate talk page. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
Since I'm here anyway. This case was such a nightmare. I supported restrictions against NBSB at the time and do not believe they were a mistake. That being said, they were hardly the worst actor in this mess and have stayed out of trouble for quite some time. I would support relaxing the restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I just want to point out that on the Sarsour page, he seems to be implying that a Jewish source is not reliable, merely for it being Jewish. I hope I am misinterpreting that, otherwise I don't think a relaxation of bans is wise considering that we'll just have more drama in the future. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OID, your bias shines through like the beautiful sun. Just one point to correct, it's the Jerusalem Post, not the Jewish Post. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID
Ah once again Sir Joseph jumps in where if something could possibly be considered anti-Jewish then it totally must be. What NBSB said was, that the right-wing Daily Thinker and the Daily Caller (which was cited by the Jerusalem Post) was an unacceptable source for extremely defamatory claims against a living person. And to be honest even if the claim had originated with the Post, a quick perusal at BLPN will find that editors in general take a dim view of highly partisan press making extraordinary claims - in this case a Jewish newspaper claiming a Muslim activist has links to Hamas. Really just to add that Sir Joeseph's comments shouldnt be seen as some sort of negative, when NBSB was clearly acting in the best interests of the BLP by removing violating material contributed by a user who had gamed the system to gain Extended Confirmed status in order to edit in the IP area. (Subsequently the NYTimes has discussed the accusations - clearly in the context of what they were, baseless smears/attacks against the subject.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh what bias would that be Sir Joseph? The bias towards not having biographies filled with smears? Guilty on that one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * NorthBySouthBaranof, please explain in a bit more detail what sort of edits you would like to make if you return to this topic-area. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to grant this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, are you planning to resume editing on the topic-area of "GamerGate" itself, or just in the much broader area swept by the topic-ban? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm..."gender-related dispute or controversy"...I am not sure that the women's marches fall under that topic; same-sex marriage might (it's under American politics 2), but have administrators really used DS on those articles? So I'm not convinced that that topic ban was that broad. Anyway, I am not opposed to NBSB's return on probation, and things seem fairly quiet in GG. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, let me chime in with "per ", and let's hope some kind soul will help him heal the wounds of that case. I for one, have sent him a care package with some chamomile tea. How about you? Drmies (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll support a return on probation. Doug Weller  talk 19:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beeblebrox. Mkdw  talk 20:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Given passage of time, support rescinding remedy 4.1. Don't particularly care about a probation period. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I don't see what a probation adds given that there are DS with the same scope, though; might as well just get rid of the restriction and leave matters to AE if any problems should come up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Motion: NorthBySouthBaranof
The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Per discussion above, including NorthBySouthBaranof's own comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  Doug Weller  talk 16:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Euryalus (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Mkdw  talk  23:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Drmies (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation (February 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 15:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

This isn't about any parties in particular. While Thryduulf is mentioned (and pinged), I make no allegations about the admin's judgement or actions (I agree with his scope determination, though not with his desire to apply it to the party at the ANI in question.)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Please clarify whether WP:ARBATC's discretionary sanctions rule (which may need to be clarified) applies to all discussions about "the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed" including WP:Requested moves discussions or not. I think that they must, since these are the distributed locus of the vast majority of title style disputes on Wikipedia, as well as of most of the aspersions cast and other incivility about those things. The majority of templates I've delivered have been in response to AGF, NPA, CIVIL, and ASPERSIONS problems in RMs.

Arb at ANI very recently said he would, if not INVOLVED, have discretionarily sanctioned someone for alleged RM-related disruption, under ARBATC specifically. However, I'm also aware of at least one previous case or ARCA in which it was strongly argued but perhaps not formally decided that RM was somehow exempt from ARBATC. I would urge that ARBATC's broad construal of scope include RM, or there was little point in enacting it. There's very little disputation that would trigger ARBATC at places like WT:AT or WP:MOS, and only very sporadically about article content, but almost about moves. If anything, that problem has notably worsened over the last two years, probably emboldened by lack of DS enforcement, even as "style" dispute has receded elsewhere, system-wide. While a large proportion of requested moves involve a "style" matter (WP:MOS-connected or not), even those that don't – about things like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, disambiguation, WP:CONCISE, etc. – are still within the WP:AT remit. I.e., if it's at RM, it is about "article titles policy, broadly construed" by definition (and also often about the MoS).

The confusion arises because the exact wording is unfortunate, and easily WP:GAMEd: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed." The gaming is that while WP:RM per se is obviously within the scope of article titles policy, the RM discussions themselves take place on individual article (or non-article) talk pages, and they aren't technically "pages related to" AT or MoS. The intent of the provision was clearly to curtail style-and-title conflict, and it fails to do this as long as it is actively gameable as inapplicable to nasty behavior in RMs, or (more often) admins are uncertain they can enforce the DS in an RM discussion and so do nothing, or perhaps wag a finger. I rely on our principle (mentioned at GAMING, WP:LAWYER, WP:CONSENSUS, and I think WP:PROCESS and WP:POLICY) that WP's rules are interpreted and intended to be interpreted as to their intent and spirit, and their role in the project as facilitators of getting the work done, not with any eye to finding loopholes and escape clauses to exploit. There seems no "danger" in clarifying that the scope of the DS includes RM discussions, since everyone gets at least one before DS can apply to them anyway. I.e., anyone being a WP:JERK in RM gets away with it at least once until brought up to speed that it's not acceptable. And the behaviors in question aren't acceptable anyway, per the policies and behavioral guidelines the DS would be used to enforce.

The problem can be fixed by amending "all pages related to" to "all discussions related to". This would also have the side benefit of curtailing ARBATC-scope verbal abuse in user talk, ANI, and other venues, where it is also frequent. I believe that a great deal of title-and-style strife will evaporate, replaced by civil, reasoned discussion that focuses on policy and sources instead of personalities and WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH grandstanding, if civility policies are more actively enforced in RMs. All it takes is a one-word, common-sense amendment. It would also be more consistent with other DS cases, which don't have special exemptions for RM or any other particular forum, but apply to the topic generally.

Responses to commenters
@Andrew Dingley: The fact that an admin's DS-related comment in a particular case conflicts with previous admin comments in the other direction is why I seek clarification is neither here nor there. Your conspiracy theory cannot possibly be true; while I agree with Dicklyon about many things, we disagree about others. I'm seeking clear applicability of DS to RM given doubts about the matter, even though an admin in question wanted to apply them to a person you presume to be my lock-step ally. All of this has been long on my mind, since reading the ARCA request that RGloucester re-identified; recent events simply bring it to mind afresh. Instead of making up fantasies about my motives without any evidence, actually and take it at face value. PS: You complaining about and misinterpreting a routine notice isn't other editors accusing me of harassment [that entire thread was hatted quite rapidly, too]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: It has nothing to do with you either, but with a conflict between what Thryduulf has said and what was said in the ARCA that RGloucester dug up [and various other admins' conflicting interpretations]. This couldn't be about you since no DS would be applying to you for anything you've posted, those things having been posted before you received a Ds/alert. As I said, the majority of the uncivil style/titles disputation is at RM not elsewhere, and the majority of Ds/alerts I leave relate to them. Not everything is about you. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@BMK: I'm not making a complaint, against anyone [I'm studiously avoiding doing so; I don't even expect Thruduulf to recuse, but to give his views about why DS should apply to RM]. I'm asking for a scope clarification, because this question of ARBATC's actual scope keeps coming up for several years now, and different answers keep being given, including by Arbs. The ANI being referred to simply reminded me that this needs to be settled one way or the other. I'm really not very devious. I would think this is pretty obvious after over a decade here. I'm very direct and just call it like I see it, without much regard for "wikipolitics" (in fact, I like to short-circuit wikipoliticking as much as possible, because I think it's corrosive to the community and project, increasingly so as the editorial and admin pools condense. Or you can continue to make assumptions about my motives.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: Mischaracterizing editors who disagree with you as like unto religious zealots is precisely the kind of personalization of style disputes that WP:ARBATC is intended to address. Update: So was your "I feel pretty safe in ignoring anything you say as being wrong, self-serving, or intellectually dishonest" assumption of bad faith. Your response here, again indicating a false belief that Ds/alert is a threat/warning about misconduct, not a notice of DS scope applicability, just proves my point further at WT:ARBCOM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Updated 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Agreed, though I'm primarily concerned about more unicvil statements that most of those quotes (e.g. referring to other editors as "obnoxious and ... twatty", "idiots", "fanatical enforcers", plus comments like "I don't give a shiny shit about civility when it comes to people like you"). This kind of behavior is common across all "style" disputes (MOS, AT, infoboxes, citation formatting, etc.), and would not be tolerated if it were about Palestine or GMOs or race. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not kept track of who's on or off ArbCom lately. :-) I generally agree strongly with your interpretation, yet ask you the same question I asked Euryalus, below. ARBATC is ARBATC, not "ARBMOS".  Nothing has ever limited to the scope of ARBATC to MoS discussions and doing so here would actually be a much more major change in ARBATC scope and interpretation than applying ARBATC (to its full AT and/or MOS-related scope) regardless of venue including RM, as I've requested, per "broadly construed".  While MoS-related incivility was mostly what I've been thinking of, people sometimes cross the line about other AT-related stuff, especially PRIMARY and disambiguation squabbles (the more the topic in question attracts fannishness, the higher the likelihood of hostile territorialism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Responses to Arbs
I agree the level of disputation/striving is much greater at ANI, especially given the frequency with which it involves new editors (RM rarely does). But the level of incivility of a very predictable and consistent and continually ongoing kind, from particular parties, is much more apparent at RM, and has been on the increase for some time, turning into a sort of "this guideline will be applied over my dead body", RM-after-RM-after-RM tendentiousness. It could be another ArbCom case, but that would seem like a bunch of pointless drama if one one-word change to the original decision could permit admins to just deal with it at AE. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm loath to provide example diffs, because the kind I have in mind – in the AGF/CIVIL/NPA/ASPERSIONS vein especially, like labelling other editors "obsessive nutters" and implying various specific destructive or unhinged motives to them – would essentially be seen as trying to make disciplinary cases against specific editors (and might be likely to turn into them whether that were my intent or not). If I'd thought that route would be productive, I would have just opened an RfARB and named a bunch of parties [including all of the non-Arbs who have commented here so far as of 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)]. I did consider it, but it seemed likely to generate heat without light.

Why would that MoS line be drawn, when ARBATC is about disputes involving the article titles policy the MoS (both are not required at once)? RM's are always about article titles, so they would always be under the "AT" in ARBATC. The original case had as much to do with MoS-unrelated AT conflict as MoS. The only block I've ever received was an ARBATC DS action for alleged disruption of RM a few years ago. So, DS have definitely been applied to RM before. [I dispute the allegation behind the block, made by an admin who did not look into the background of the matter and just picked one side to muzzle – but the block was so short it was not effectively appealable; by the time AN concluded I had to refile at AE or ARCA, it was too late. The moves under discussion later went the way I had proposed. Later, the same admin tried to topic ban me, again under ARBATC, and again to silence one side of an equally heated debate, and derailed an ongoing ANEW in the process; AN retroactively voided his action, and the report I'd been making at ANEW was later taken seriously. Same admin was RfARBed around this time last year, with more complainants than I've ever seen with grievances against a single admin, though action was not taken at that time, on a technicality.] I would like to have that block declared invalid if ARBATC is held to not apply to RM, since that "scarlet letter" has repeatedly been held against me in a punitive fashion. PS: I agree that different regimes of DS should be normalized into something consistent.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the onus is on me as the requester to make the case for this "expansion" (in my view, clarification) of the scope, I would add to what I've said already:
 * The gist of the concerns, as expressed by someone above (and it seems consistent with comments in the old ARCA) is a "surprise ArbCom sanction" and "effectively plac[ing] thousands of pages under an ArbCom sanction". But that's doubly inaccurate.
 * There's nothing "surprise" about it if you must receive a Ds/alert before any DS can be applied; and AE tends not to act in applying DS after such a warning anyway, unless the case is egregious or it's a multi-time repeat problem after the Ds/alert. The number of editors likely to be affected by DS would probably be countable on a single hand, even a few years later, but the strife level should drop notably just from AE issuing a few admonitions.
 * It would not be placing "pages" under DS; this would have no effect on any discussion on any talk page unless that discussion in particular were a) about article titles or the MoS b) rife with disruptive or uncivil behavior (which are against policy to begin with).
 * One could stipulate that DS/alerts delivered before the scope clarification don't count (though this would be inconsistent with a previous ARCA decision that these notices cannot be rescinded or invalidated because they are just notices of scope, not conduct accusations or warnings).
 * Finally, "broadly construed" has no applicable meaning if ARBATC is held to apply only to discussions at WT:AT, WT:MOS and the talk pages other naming convention and MoS sub-guidelines; that's narrowly construed by definition. The clear intent of that wording was to construe the scope as covering title and style discussions broadly. Even if I'm misreading the original intent, it seems obvious that extending, if you like, the scope to AT/MoS "discussions", rather than "pages", would have a civility-reinforcing effect at little if any cost.


 * So, what, the current roiling pot of title- and style-related incivility and disruptive battlegrounding is going to continue forever, and worsen when people realize they're immune to DS if they do it at RM or otherwise away from WT:AT and WT:MOS? Are we supposed to open a new RfARB every time?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by
Of course this isn't "not about any parties in particular", it's a direct reaction to an ANI thread, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, seeking a TBAN on for disruptive and over-simplistic pushing of a style guide over objectively sourced external uses with capitalisation. SMcCandlish's own behaviour and harassment of other editors has been questioned in the same thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RGloucester
The relevant past ARCA request that SMcCandlish said he could not find is here. The conclusion there was that these DS only apply to guideline and policy pages related to the MOS and AT. RGloucester — ☎ 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee: Now that various individual arbitrators have stated a position on this matter, and given that there seem to be mixed messages apparent in their responses, perhaps the Committee could decide the scope of these sanctions together, with clarity, and publish an official clarification in the form of a motion. As it is now, it is quite clear that everyone has a different definition of how these sanctions should apply. That type of ambiguity should not be present in a DS regime. It isn't fair to editors, nor to administrators who must attempt to enforce such sanctions. I'm asking this with sincerity. The reason this issue has come up again is because the last clarification request, which I submitted, was essentially ignored. If the DS regime is meant to apply only to policy/guideline-type pages in the project space, then publish a motion to that effect. Likewise, if the scope is different, and includes RM discussions or whatever. Please do this, for the good of the encylopaedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it would be greatly appreciated by everyone if the Committee would pass a formal motion of clarification so that the scope of these sanctions is clear to all parties. This doesn't seem like a particularly complex matter, and it is one that only the Committee can address. Please do so. Letting this languish like the last clarification motion will only lead to further submissions at ARCA. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by
I believe this to be in response to something I said to SMcCandlish, when he gave me an ArbCom notice for a page that was not under any ArbCom sanction and I told him I'd be ignoring it on that basis. I'm glad to see, from reading the relevant discussion, that the interpretation isn't as broad as SMcCandlish thinks it is - it would have effectively placed thousands of pages under an ArbCom sanction without any justification. I'd like to call upon SMcCandlish to remove any ArbCom notices he has mistakenly posted on user talk pages, and he should leave apologies in their place. Regards Exemplo347 (talk)

Further note: Interpreting the decision as suggested above by SMcCandlish would involve a lot more than just "changing one word" - like I've said, it will affect thousands of pages, putting every single discussion that involves any Manual of Style related issue under some sort of surprise ArbCom sanction that can be deployed by editors determined to press home their point. It will be a massive, sweeping change if it is decided that the ArbCom decision really IS that wide. This definitely isn't a simple case of changing a few words and sending us on our way. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a huge loophole that should be closed definitively. If a page is under an ArbCom sanction it should be correctly labelled on its talk page, and those that aren't marked as such should be implicitly not seen as being under ArbCom sanctions. Leaving it up to the interpretation of editors clearly isn't working. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Question So, is this issue going to be allowed to stagnate? There's a loophole that you could fly a 747 through & it needs to be rectified - it's no exaggeration to say that there could be hundreds of talk page discussions affected by an unintended, wide ranging scope that doesn't match any other ArbCom-related issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
A couple of very quick points:
 * SMcandlish's inquiry is clearly not a general one, but is obviously related to this ANI complaint about Dicklyon, in which SmCandlish has been active;
 * The complaint against Dicklyon centers around an issue of capitalization, which is most definitely a MoS issue, and is specifically related to Dicklyon making controversial changes without using the RM process designed for such changes;
 * This appears to me to be, as Andy Dingely wrote on AN/I, a case of SMcCandlish inappropriately forum shopping. I would urge that this complaint be shut down in favor of the AN/I complaint coming to fruition.  If, at that time, SMcCandlish wishes to open a further complaint elsewhere, that would be fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Calton
Based on this ludicrous DIscretionary Sanctions warning that User:SMcCandlish left in response to this edit, I'd say that it's not just forum-shopping, but a lack of actual understanding of discretionary sanctions in general (and of this one in particular) which should lead to this request being rejected and User:SMcCandlish trouted with all due speed. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that the fifth item Dicklyon quotes is mine. I also notice that he doesn't mention that it's a direct echo of SMcandlish's own rant, ''I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions (and history of precedent in working out their interaction). How many chest-beating, territorial threat displays have to have cold water dumped on them...'' But I'm guessing some rants are more equal than others and are A-OK. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon
I don't know if the DS was intended to apply to discussions invoking anti-MOS rants, but if so then the personalization and MOS-related mud slinging in the linked AN/I case would appear to make the warning relevent to participants who attacked me and the MOS as a unit:
 * The MOS:CAPS (and MOS:everything else) army have driven enough editors who were far more productive than them away from Wikipedia
 * Dicklyon just doesn't see this, he thinks all text strings must conform to some arbitrary MOS rule, no matter the context or consensus.
 * I agree with Black Kite's impressions regarding the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors.
 * that this thread exists is reason enough to show that Dicklyon's behaviour is disruptive
 * ... simply a case of blindly following MOS (almost always a bad thing), ...
 * I have to wonder when it will sink in that the MOS is a guideline and not a religious doctrine and that people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith?
 * it's high time that admins start to block editors who attempt to enforce MOS guidelines as if they were mandatory, which they are not

This was all posted as alternatives to saying anything that I actually did that was controversial, which I have repeatedly asked for there. It is as if some set of editors think that changes that bring things into closer conformity with the MOS are inherently controversial, even if very few get challenged. The inability of my accusers to say what edits of mine they would consider controversial, and this resort to MOS bashing instead, is rather infuriating, and I think that SMcCandlish meant to get them to think about that, even if he denies the warning was placed in response to any specific posts. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to Calton on the fifth one (which is now the sixth one since I added one): yes some MOS-related rants are more equal than others. These are ones that "attacked me and the MOS as a unit", as I said above. There was no call for you to respond to SMcCandlish's by attacking me with yours, even if his was meant to defend me. I have made no pretense of being anything like a "High Priest and Defenders of the Faith", and consider your comment a baseless slur, which matters a lot to me since it was in an AN/I section about me. It appears that you had no actual beef with me, but decided to attack me anyway, personally. That's why I listed your remark here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re article titles)
Firstly a quick clarification: I'm not an arbitrator, only a former one (and the relevant case here predates my time on the Committee). Also the ping didn't work (for whatever reason).

It has been my impression that discussions related to the manual of style, in whatever venue, are covered by the ARBATC DS authorisation, and that at least one editor has been previously sanctioned regarding their editing of requested moves (possibly Born2cycle but I don't have time to check right now). This I think would tally with Euryalus's feelings that the DS apply to RM discussions where the manual of style is a principle issue (e.g. whether railway line articles should be at "X Line" or "X line" per WP:MOSCAPS) but not to move discussions for other reasons (e.g. that currently happening at Talk:Revolution (Beatles song)). Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Determining the scope is very easy - if the rationale given for the move is to conform to a MoS guideline (often, but not exclusively, capitalisation) or the manual of style guidelines are used as a rationale to oppose a proposed move then it is within the scope of the DS. Communicating this should be very simple - (a) notify the MoS regulars via MoS talk page post(s), and (b) notify the participants of the discussions where it is relevant, most easily by a template similar to the ones that are placed on article pages. I do not see how this would be a massive expansion in either scope or intended scope.
 * @all arbitrators: Given though that we have arbitrators coming to exactly opposite interpretations of what the intent was and the scope currently is, I have to echo RGloucester's call for a formal clarification motion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * just fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled a bit, so please could we have a formal clarification about what the scope actually is - this section has some pretty clear evidence that it is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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



Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I've just taken a look at the proposed decision page in the original case (which is where arbitrators comment on the principles, findings, and remedies as they cast their votes), and it appears clear that the intent at the time of the case was to apply DS to discussions relating to the policy and guidelines pages themselves, not to individual article and talk pages. The specific question of whether the DS would apply to a move request discussion was not raised or considered. These DS have been in place for almost five years and I'd be interested in whether they have been invoked in that context before, but from what has been posted so far it looks like the answer is no. Whether the scope of the DS should be extended to include every RM discussion is a different question, and the burden of persuasion is on those seeking the change. I'm aware from various AN/ANI threads that there have been flare-ups in this area, including at least one that is ongoing, but would one say that the typical contested RM discussion is more contentious than, say, the typical contested deletion discussion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading over the PD I see NYB's point, and I think it's in the spirit of the decision to have DS apply to discussions. What's interesting in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Proposed_decision is a short bit of discussion between AGK and Courcelles, though that didn't extend into the wording that's being discussed here. I've seen a few RM discussions in the last years, and none that I recall were derailed or devolved into chaos and incivility because of these specific concerns--but that may not mean much. I do not in principle disagree with the proposal (or a similar proposal) though I am interested in seeing just a few examples to prove the need for it. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From a reading of Courcelles' comment at the PD, and also from what is hopefully a commonsense interpretation, the DS seem intended to apply to applicable discussions where MOS issues were the central theme. In this instance the DS would apply to an RM discussion only where the principal issue in that discussion was directly related to the MOS. The DS would not apply to other RM discussions, akin to the way topic bans apply to parts of articles directly related to that topic, but not necessarily to every other part of the same article. That's an interpretation for this ARCA; on a related note we will one day need to consider the advisability of so many DS regimes, collectively applied to so many WP pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My take is that DS would apply if the crux of the issue with the name change of an article was directly related to capitalization. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I expected this to be an obvious one - it seems fairly clear to me that the intended scope was discussions on the MOS pages (and related policies, etc), not discussions about applications of the MOS in individual cases. I think the latter interpretation would vastly expand the scope of DS in a way that is nearly impossible to apply objectively (how do you decide when a discussion is "directly" related?) and similarly difficult to communicate to editors who are not regular participants in the RM process. Providing such an expansion as a de facto response to a specific incident involving a specific editor would be an overreaction. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the workshop, it appears introduced the central language around this remedy and it was intended to prevent "MOS pages from being a battleground". On the PD talk,  commented, "the reference to "MOS" is a drafting error; when we say MOS, we mean WP:TITLE". The wording wasn't corrected to make this distinction, so it was either expanded to encompass and effectively seek to counter a wide range of MOS incidents, or it was simply missed. As it's written now, it states all MOS pages and WP:TITLE. I would say this ambiguity still narrows it down to the Wikipedia space and principally discussions pages, but whether it's confined to WT:MOS and WT:TITLE was not explicitly expressed. It seems to me, if the nucleus of the RM discussion was MOS or TITLE related, then I can easily see how someone could interpret these DS as being applicable. The fact that MOS is so broad is somewhat troubling because it potentially casts this DS net very wide. Mkdw  talk  06:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Opabinia regalis that this should obviously not apply to individual move discussions. Looking at Mkdw's point just above, I interpret this to refer to the MOS with respect to titles and capitalization only. I read "to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy," as a single phrase. If we need to expand this further, we would need to discuss it. In fact, at the AfDs on Infoboxes, we made specific provisions for that part of the MOS.  DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't see this as applicable to move discussions, particularly with no evidence to suggest that there has been a problem related to this PD. Doug Weller  talk 15:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Motion: Article titles and capitalization
In remedy 4.2 of the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case, standard discretionary sanctions were authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) This is my understanding of the existing decision. If a pattern emerges of serious problems in these discussions, an amendment request could be filed&mdash;but I very sincerely hope that won't be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) This was the intent at the time. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) I find it less easy to judge the "intent at the time", but I prefer to play it conservatively and not extend until an amendment is proposed--or, "per NYB". Drmies (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) In order to move this along. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) When we are looking at what previous ArbCom's have proposed and passed, I always have looked to the discussion surrounding it. Several explanations have appeared throughout this ARCA, and it's not specifically clear in this case which means we should be going for the strictest application of the motion/remedy/whatever passed at the time. As for any potential DS expansion, I always need evidence that the modified topic area has been disrupted, which we don't have here. The 2015 ARCA was clear, maybe not sufficiently clear, so that leaves me at a support for this motion. I also see a negative light shining in from the ANI here that any addition to the DS would be used to subvert community consensus or lack-there-of. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Mostly per Newyorkbrad.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 11:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) We're already at majority but I think there could have been specific and isolating wording allowing ARBATC discretionary sanctions for project space  request move discussions where MOS and TITLE is the principal issue . I would have hoped that discretionary sanctions in this context would be only applied where absolutely necessary and appropriately following 'awareness' and other provisions. In the original case, requested move discussions were cited by several editors as being areas where MOS and TITLE disputes have occurred. In reading the 2015 ARCA and previous discussions, this issue has been brought up more than once and clarified that they were only meant for the project space. It would have been helpful to know if ARBATC discretionary sanctions have been routinely applied at requested move discussions (in the project space) and whether or not these discretionary sanctions have likely kept disputes from occurring. Without further input or information, I'm uncertain whether this clarification will re-open a venue for MOS and TITLE disputes to occur. I do think the community did need clarification on this issue which passing this clarifiation will hopefully provide and that "broadly construed" was far too wide and could have been used to implement sanctions well beyond the intended scope. Mkdw  talk  07:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * The comments above seem to be somewhat split, so we might as well just count noses. For my part, I can't really see authorizing DS on this broad of a scale as a de facto response to a specific incident. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (February 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * General Prohibition

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

Statement by Hijiri88
How does the GP work when an IP or new account makes off-topic edits relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict in articles that are not inherently related to the conflict? Is permanent (or even temporary) extended-confirmed protection appropriate?

This came up recently at Arab Jews. I am not sure if my concern technically applies to that article or not, since the article does seem to be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict by definition (even though I recognize that there have been Jews in Arabia for as long as there have been Jews).

But if this hasn't already come up and been formally clarified, it's almost certain to come up at some point.

The discussion on the Arab Jews article involved a number of specific users but I'm not sure if I should name them as "parties" to this ARCA request as I'm asking for general clarification and not asking for sanctions or anything like that.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * And I just made two minor tweaks to the article Edward Said before it occurred to me that technically that article is also covered under the GP (it even includes a full sub-section called "Palestinian National Council"). It has been edited by IPs, and probably also new accounts, dozens if not hundreds of times since the GP was put in place, but were these violations? As currently worded, is the GP even technically enforceable? Is putting such a high level of protection on such a broad swath of articles feasible or even desirable? Sorry if these questions have already been answered; I haven't been following this thread. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
Long story short, this is the "any page" vs. "any edit" issue of the last ARCA which was pushed to the side so as not to omnibus things. Perhaps it's time to make that small change? I would recommend doing the following two things:


 * 1) Expand the prohibition from "any page" to "any page or edit". Note that just "any edit" leaves a lot of room for interpretation with edits on pages that have substantial information on the conflict but where the edit itself does not, so keeping "any page" in there seems necessary.
 * 2) Note that extendedconfirmed protection as an arbitration enforcement action is not appropriate for pages that are just victims of occasional off-topic editing. This doesn't necessarily have to be part of the remedy itself, but it should be made plain in the arbitrator opinions below, at the very least. We wouldn't want random BLPs of Israeli or Palestinian individuals to become indefinitely extendedconfirmed protected under this remedy only because a single IP editor makes an off-topic edit about the conflict.

~ Rob 13 Talk 02:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iazyges
I agree with BU Rob on the any page vs any edit idea. I also think any unrelated page that come to be the subject of vandalism should only go up to semi-protection, unless the volume of vandalism would be enough to merit protection in its own right. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  04:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Palestine-Israel)
If the change is made (I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should) I think it important that Abrcom make it clear the language is that edits made by users not meeting the threshold "can" or "may" be reverted not "must" be reverted. For example a typographical fix, vandalism reversal or unambiguous BLP correction should not be reverted solely because of the person making the edit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't want to see ECP extended to pages where the Arab-Israel topic is not the prime concern of the article, but I would support the suggested change from "any page" to "any page or edit". Probably with the proviso that any editor not reaching 500/30 can be reverted without it being considered edit-warring and that a notice should then be placed on that editor's talk page (whether or not they are an IP) explaining the sanctions. Doug Weller  talk 15:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't like this idea and still haven't seen any evidence that it's necessary. I'd be more inclined to make this change given some examples of cases where IPs or new accounts are disrupting non-PIA-related articles with PIA-related edits in ways that can't reasonably be controlled by normal editing. One or two borderline cases aren't enough justification for such a broad expansion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would support the concept if there was sufficient evidence of a problem. Absent some notable or systemic examples of disruption we don't have enough to justify the change. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am not opposed in principle to such an extension, I also don't yet see this as warranted, and it might open up Pandora's box with DS used as a bludgeoning device. I much rather trust the judgment of administrators and the community using the regular means. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are similar to OR and Euryalus, if there is evidence that there is disruption to pages due to PIA-related edits to non-PIA pages (and hence aren't ECP protected) then I'd consider changing the DS criteria to any edits (but I wouldn't be comfortable authorising ECP for this use). As is, with the current evidence, I don't see a need to change it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that BU Rob's suggested change does not appear necessary at the moment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As the others have said above, there seems to be insufficient evidence to warrant any action at this time. There have been plenty of viable suggestions towards remedy if the problem proved to be more systemic and widespread. Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Need I pile on? I'm not willing to expand DS this broadly without further evidence of issues. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Jytdog (February 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Jytdog at 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * TBAN on discussing COI of editors, imposed as a condition of unblocking me, following indefinite block for violating OUTING (notice of that block provided to me here)


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) TBAN imposed here on 8 August 2016


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * TBAN imposed here on 8 August 2016
 * Please lift the TBAN

Statement by Jytdog
The topic ban concerns all matters related to COI editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page and was imposed in response to my OUTING violation, which occurred as I was interacting with an editor who had an apparent COI.

I understand what I did wrong in violating OUTING and understand the condition in the initial notice, that if I ever violate OUTING again I will be indefinitely blocked with no appeal. If the committee wishes to understand my thoughts on how to manage the tension between the community values of a) protecting each editor's privacy and b) protecting content integrity from advocacy editing (and the value of privacy is far more fundamental), please see here on my userpage and more specifically the subsection here.

During the time of my TBAN I have continued my work maintaining NPOV and NOT in article content, focusing only on content. However not being able to talk with editors about COI has been like working with an arm tied behind my back. There are times when an editor's apparent COI is very clear and the apparently-conflicted editor just doesn't know what to do, and a simple, civil, and authentic discussion (always starting with a request to disclose any COI, followed by education about COI management here in WP if the person self-discloses, and escalation to COIN if the person denies but COI is very apparent -- all done in actual dialogue with the person using the account) gets things on track or allows the community to look at the issue. I have also watched situations unfold in unfortunate ways, where in the past I would have initiated a discussion with the editor (again, starting with a request to self-disclose, and authentically talking) which often resolved things more simply.

What I did wrong in the edit that got me blocked, was not talking with the editor but rather aggressively make a claim at them that even OUTED them; I didn't treat them like a person at all, much like one whose privacy is protected. I get that.
 * Trypto, I won't belabor this; I hear you, and I do promise. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mkdw I was indeed recently blocked for edit warring for the first time, after about 100K edits and about 8 years here. I do have editors writing nasty things on my talk page, as you see there now, related to my regular editing.
 * I acknowledged my aggressiveness issue above. To add a bit more, I would like to offer a statement made about me by User:Robert McClenon who was dealing with an editor who had followed me to the Mediation board. Please see the second paragraph in this diff. (Robert, I pinged you so that if you object to me citing you on this, let me know and I will strike)
 * I do get this aspect of my character, and I am aware of this especially in my COI work (which is delicate and is different from other work I do here; I tried to note that in my opening request).
 * Here are some interactions I have had about COI so you can see what I mean about being careful and authentically in dialogue, in these interactions:
 * There was longterm disruption at William L. Uanna caused by, the self-disclosed son of the subject of the article. This led to an ANI (here) which made me aware of the issue.   Surprisingly nobody had actually talked simply and directly with CIC7 about COI in WP, so I did, here and that discussion has for the most part made things manageable, as far as I know.  (I haven't checked in on it for 6 months).
 * User_talk:Fowlia
 * User_talk:Dcbennett2
 * User_talk:Jason_Graves.
 * More generally, you mentioned that my interest is "recent", but it isn't. I worked on COI issues in my professional life for many years and have thought a lot about these issues here in WP, which you can (hopefully) find reflected on my Userpage in the links I provided above.  More specifically, I have made 1620 edits at COIN going back to May 2013 (tool results), 115 edits to the COI guideline going back to June 2014  (tool results), about 890 edits to WT:COI since October 2013 (tool results,  and about 153 edits at the Harassment Talk page going back to January 2015 (tool results).  It is true that I haven't discussed the OUTING policy much; the issues are too loaded and discussions almost always derail, in pretty predictable ways. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Drmies, don't know how I can say this more clearly than I did in my OP. But I will repeat it. I violated outing.  I know that.  I know if I do it again, I will be indefinitely blocked with no appeal. And I understand the reason for that, is that privacy is a fundamental value of the community.  I understand that only on-wiki evidence is useable on-wiki and that erring on the side of caution is what I must do.  Yes.   Please also see this comment I made at Jimbo's talk page, about what you are asking about, which has some nuance that i hope can be heard. Jytdog (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
As the recent Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing has shown, along with extensive discussion by both ArbCom and the community, paid editing and privacy concerns are in tension, and keeping a balance between them is very difficult. Several good editors have fallen foul of the privacy issues involved and, distressingly, have been indefinitely blocked for it. IMO Wikipedia, not to say Arbcom itself, is lucky anybody is still prepared to work in this slippery and generally unlovely area, much less an energetic and effective editor like Jytdog. I find his statement above convincing; please rescind the ban. Bishonen &#124; talk 03:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

Statement by David Tornheim
Oppose His treatment of other editors is just as bad as it always has been. See for example as noted by. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

These two warnings to   and these edits  are a violation of one of his T-bans. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
In part, I want to say: what Bishonen said. Her argument is persuasive, I think. On the other hand, if I'm going to be truly honest here (and I am), it does seem to me that Jytdog has retained the tendency to sometimes (and only sometimes, because he is often very courteous in recent interactions with editors complaining at his user talk) shoot from the hip and come across as abrasive. (In the latter category, I'll point to some things he recently said to Opabinia regalis.) So I'm conflicted: is Bishonen's argument more persuasive than the argument that COI is still being handled, and why re-introduce a potential disruption? it would be helpful (at least to me) if you could make a serious promise here to take a deep breath and think before hitting the "save" button, going forward, OK?

But I very much want to rebut what David Tornheim has just posted above. That whole business with Fixuture is presented by David as being Jytdog violating his GMO topic ban. For those Arbs who do not have a science background, please let me explain that the edits involve the term "genetic engineering" which is a much broader concept than "genetically modified organisms", even when "broadly defined". And the term only occurs incidentally (sometimes just in citations) in edits that are really about other things. It's really not a topic ban violation. And if we say, just hypothetically, that the edits were about GMOs as David believes that they are, then why is David reporting them? After all, he also is topic banned from GMOs, and has already been blocked at AE for violating that ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I read ImperferfectlyInformed's statement with interest, because it goes to what I tried to say about "why introduce...". I tracked down what happened. As ImperferfectlyInformed indicated, it began with Jytdog's edit summary here: . Looking at it without having been there, it doesn't really strike me as all that harsh, depending on one's perception of "spammy". (I've referred to "spam" in edit summaries myself: .) The discussion that followed is: . I don't think that Jytdog's responses were bad (and he isn't the editor who comments on the editor rather than on content), but this is what the Committee has to evaluate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The exact issues that you referred to in the update to your statement are currently being discussed at WT:HA and WT:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Brianhe
I completely agree with what Bishonen said above. Having worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Jytdog in the muckyard known as WP:COIN, his presence is severely missed. Wikipedia is not improved by maintaining this tban. His actions and words since then, especially in the ongoing debate over how WP:OUTING is currently understood, show that he understands the requirement as it stands. I'm sure there's going to be room for further comments here, but I wanted to get a word in as squarely in favor. - Brianhe (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Doc James
We need more active editors within the area of COI editing. Jytdog has made it clear that they will not repeat what got them blocked. Agree that the undisclosed paid editing / outing divide is exceedingly murky but here is not the place to discuss that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
Jytdog appears to be saying all the right things that we look for in an appeal. I'm going to accept on good faith that he means what he says. He seems to understand how to handle these sorts of situations correctly now, so (as someone who has criticized his behavior extensively in the past) I support lifting the restriction. Echoing Tryptofish, however, I would sound a note of caution that Jytdog's aggressiveness is another problem behavior, and I hope he works on it as he says he will. On the whole, the COIN area is better off with his insight than without it. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
Bishonen, Brianhe, and others summarized it better than I could. The block and topic ban really surprised a lot of editors that work on COI because normally in practice, an editor that uses a variation of their name in their username that is reasonably linked to an author of a source the editor is using or an article topic is considered a straightforward COI and not in violation of outing at that point due to the username choice. That's beside the point now though. It's clear that Jytdog is one of the main contributors to educating COI editors on how to deal with that and preventing disruption from those editors in the process. The topic ban arguably causes more disruption considering how much good Jytdog does in dealing with such editors at COIN, etc.

While Jytdog can be short on occasion (I echo Tryptofish on reflecting a few seconds before clicking save), this is almost always (I would like to strike the almost someday) when dealing with extended tendentious behavior from other editors to the point where reasonable people can be expected to lose some patience. Then you get editors that do appear to hold a grudge against Jytdog through battleground behavior and following them around, and attention to that context is needed here with respect to David Tornheim's comments. David was one of the editors that was not topic-banned in the original GMO case, but was one of the many later DS topic banned and blocked editors that were missed that really needed to be removed from the topic to settle it down. That topic ban was in part due to not being able to let go of battleground behavior directed at Jytdog and other editors in the topic.

Now in his statement here, David is using Jytdog's standard warnings to Fixture to try to get them to stop edit warring as apparently poor behavior. That's frivolous at best. On the vague mention of topic ban violation, GMO is a nebulous term (us scientists rather hate the sloppiness it causes), but CRISPR-edited organisms fall in a different category than GMO (basic intro reading on this:) even with Jytdog's broadly construed topic ban, not to mention Tryptofish's comments. Just an additional clarification to Euryalus and others on that. However, by alluding to Jytdog's GMO topic ban, David is violating their own GMO topic ban (not a WP:BANEX instance). Such dancing around restrictions (i.e., clear meaning while not directly specifying GMO topic ban) was also part of the reasoning for David's topic ban. This is mostly outside the context of Jytdog's COI sanction, but since the GMO topic is being interjected, I figured it was worth clarifying for those not familiar with the GMO subject matter and on-wiki history. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by ImperferfectlyInformed
The main question in my mind: why is this necessary? Jytdog should able to work without accusing people of a conflict of interest. Focus on the content, not the editor. Perhaps clarifying that he can get involved with COI notified articles would help? I just don't see why you asking/accusing people of a COI helps a situation.

I experienced an abrasive accusation from Jytdog personally in late October (after he was topic-banned in August) when he essentially accused me of being a spammer (by calling the content I added "spammy", see diff) for adding a citation to the corporate website at uBiome. When I reacted with dismay at this unwarranted wording, his response was not exactly apologetic until it dragged out. I'll admit I wasn't perfect in this situation, either - in that I flew off the handle a bit. But the problem is that abrasiveness and poor language breeds unnecessary conflict and damage. Jytdog and I have edited around the same areas for several years without serious conflicts that I can recall, so for him to treat me like that makes me worry even more about the experience of newcomers. I'm hoping that sentiment analysis, mentoring, and additional tooling (with the recent focus by the WMF) will help to solve the problem of abrasiveness in a systematic way, but in the meantime I'm hoping we can hold firm about high expectations.

Before commenting, I glanced through Jytdog's recent contributions and it did seem to me that he was making a bit more of an effort to be courteous and stick to the content (altho it seemed like there there was lots of conflict). I'd rather not see any risk of politeness regressing due to a dive into talking about the editor rather than the content.

Now, I recognize that my comment may seem spiteful, and maybe on some level maybe I hold a grudge. My comment certainly won't score me any points in the small, tightly-knit circle of editors who frequent some of the same places that I do. But I frankly don't care about Wikipedia politics or hurting the feelings of long-term veterans. I'm concerned by the general perception, which is validated by my near-decade of years around this place, of Wikipedia as a hostile environment which pushes newcomers away.

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I do not have much to add, since Bishonen summed up the situation very well. The tension between outing and COI has been a concern of mine for many years now, and the current situation -- where, essentially, one must warn editors about COI or paid editing without being explicit about why the warning is being given -- is very unsatisfactory. Given the current restraints, making a mistake is very easy to do, and some allowances should be made for an editor such as Jytdog, who works very hard to protect the encyclopedia from biased editing. I urge the committee to lift the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
The statement quoted above by Jytdog, made by me about eight months ago, still accurately describes my opinion of Jytdog. He is a contentious editor in contentious areas that need contentious editing, and is usually right. At this time, I haven't studied the details of this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * After having read the dispute, I may not be able to provide a statement that is entirely consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because this case, in my opinion, illustrates a serious flaw in Wikipedia policies. There is a common saying that assume good faith is not a suicide pact.  It should not be.  However, the policy that the rule against doxing trumps the rule against paid editing comes very close to being a suicide pact.  By giving bad-faith editors and spammers a greater right to edit pseudonymously than the right of Wikipedia readers to a neutral point of view, we are subtly inviting paid editors.  I support leniency in enforcement of the rule against doxing paid editors because I don't support the rule against doxing paid editors.  I don't know if the ArbCom is allowed to take that thought into consideration.  I think that paid editors are parasites on Wikipedia and are not entitled to the right against exposure.  I support the removal of the sanction from User:Jytdog, but am not sure that my support can be considered, because it is based on honorable disagreement with Wikipedia policy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Jytdog: Clerk notes

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


 * I've changed the name of this request to "Jytdog" for style. Arbs/others, let me know if you have any objections. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Support the lifting of the COI Topic-ban, largely per Bishonen., thanks for posting those diffs but they seem to relate to GMO more than COI, and if so are not especially relevant to this ARCA. However please let me know if I have misinterpreted them, as it may require reconsideration of this support. , Tryptofish is right about the occasionally aggressive tone; lifting this ban won't help you much if you get blocked for that instead. Just some passing advice, good luck with the remainder of the appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have my concerns having recently seen you start policy based discussions using out of context and non-literal interpretations. There is nothing wrong with trying to read between the lines and sometimes what is not said is as important as what is said. However, when it comes to reading and interpreting policies as they're written, there is much less room for open-ended interpretation or departing from their literal meaning. You also received a block as recently as 15 January 2017 following two warnings for violating the 3RR, a policy you would be well aware of as an experienced editor. The COI policies, particularly the ones around private personal information, have been of great interest to you lately and the effects of knowingly violating these policies are substantially greater than the 3RR. Would you care to speak about this recent block to alleviate any concerns about good judgement and restraint? <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 01:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let there be no doubt about the original outing--that's what it was. Jytdog, to his credit, does not deny that, but checking comments by others on his talk page from around that time shows some doubt is expressed. There is no need to litigate this. The naysayers here argue, it seems, that Jytdog has a temper and breaks his topic bans regularly; as far as I know, though, he hasn't broken the COI ban and that's what we're talking about here (nor is that evidence really conclusive, as far as I'm concerned). Now, I am not even that interested in Jytdog's temper; what I want to hear, as one of the arbs involved with that case and a sometime colleague of Jytdog, is a commitment to uphold OUTING (a bright line) and to err, in all cases of unclarity, on the side of caution. In cases of possible COIs this means, of course, that Jytdog cannot share what all he might know (and this may mean he needs to stop himself from going fishing, so to speak), and I think he knows that--but I want to hear it, and I need to hear that in order to support lifting the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks dog--and thank you for your service. I support a lifting of the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am definitely willing to take a removal of the restriction into consideration, but because we are on the topic of outing, you'll understand if I take it quite seriously and need to review things at length. I'm already writing this comment into borrowed time on my sleep, and the next chance I will have to review this is this coming weekend. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog: Motion

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, though I think the first line would suffice. Jytdog has made it clear in his request that he understands future incidents will be dealt with harshly. Jytdog, thank you for sharing your essays on paid/COI editing and approaches to handling it, they were very much worth the read. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Thank you for your comments . <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support though per GorillaWarfare I think the first sentence is sufficient. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, agreeing with Euryalus and GorillaWarfare that the first sentence is enough.  Doug Weller  talk 11:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Drmies (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) On balance I support this, though I think there's a couple of important points to emphasize here. For one thing, you got blocked for one mistake, but you got a topic ban as an unblock condition in part because that one mistake occurred in the context of a history of boundary-pushing on the intersection of outing and COI issues. Second, I kind of wish this were more of a "I took a break from the subject and now I'm ready to return" than a "I've been working with one hand behind my back" thing. Working on COI stuff seems to be a lot like SPI or handling unblock requests, with similar risks of getting burned out from listening to BS a lot. Please go slow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) My thoughts are similar to Opabinia's. I was not on the Committee last year and do not have much background on the incident that led to the "outing" block, but I will credit Jytdog's assurance that that issue will not recur. Also, in Jytdog's favor is the fact that as reflected on his userpage, he has obviously given a great of thought to how COI and related issues on Wikipedia can best be addressed, and seems sincerely motivated to protect the neutrality and integrity of our content. That being said, I have an enduring concern that in some instances, our editors active in COI-prevention can sometimes lose sight of the fact that many "COI editors" are also BLP subjects or persons working on their behalf to mitigate legitimate article-content issues. In all but extreme situations, such people should be treated with the consideration due both to article subjects and to new editors. In particular, we should always bear in mind how natural it is for a BLP subject, whose English Wikipedia article is typically his or her number one search-engine result, to come here focused primarily on the article content and not on our internal policies and guidelines. See generally, Biographies of living persons; see also FAQ/Article subjects. I hope that Jytdog, like others active in this arena, will bear this important concept in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Jytdog has grown from this incident, something we don't see too often. He's acknowledged the issues, taken a step back (relatively speaking, not completely) and reviewed. That, in my opinion, was the intent of the original sanction to force Jytdog to become aware of the issue with the outing that occurred. I'm less concerned than I feel OR and NYB are from reading Jytdog's statements, that said, I do not dismiss those concerns. I'm good with granting this appeal. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Mostly per OR and Newyorkbrad.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 16:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 12)  DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (March 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 23:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Hijiri88
Do I need to come to ArbCom to appeal the original community-imposed IBAN?

I honestly think I don't, since the question of converting it to an ArbCom sanction was raised but never addressed, so that at present the ban is still classified as one of the community sanctions (listed at WP:RESTRICT), which as I understand can be appealed to ArbCom, but are not required to be appealed to ArbCom. I'm just posting this clarification request because I can kinda predict other users at my ongoing appeal interpreting it differently.

I am not sure if it's possible that a result of a clarification request like this could be the Committee spontaneously deciding to upgrade the ban to Arbitration remedy. If this is the case, I would encourage the Arbitrators to review my appeal and the recent activity by the other party before considering that option.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the AN discussion was SNOW-closed after only two Arbitrator opinions here. I really didn't anticipate it being that simple, and I opened this ARCA request based on the assumption that someone would say "Hey, isn't this an ArbCom sanction?" or "I think ArbCom should be consulted on this first." I may or may not have been right in that assumption, since no one but me mentioned it, but that might have been because I had already posted this ARCA request. Anyway, problem solved, so I guess there's no more need for clarification. Thank you, User:Callanecc, User:Doug Weller and User:Mkdw. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Yes it can be appealed to the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:UNBAN states that "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or, where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, to the Arbitration Committee. " So I'd say that you should appeal to the community, not to us, as an appeal to us for those reasons should almost always be made as soon as possible after the community places the ban. Doug Weller  talk 09:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think UNBAN is pretty clear on what options are available. Given the circumstances and that it was originally a community imposed ban, then it too, when possible, should be the community that determines whether to lift the ban. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2) (March 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * SoWhy

Statement by BU Rob13
See the conversation surrounding Regularization Bill here. Multiple administrators have interpreted the most recent change to WP:ARBPIA3 to mean that extended confirmed protection should only be used on articles in the topic area if edits by new editors or IPs come from multiple sources, are frequent, and are sustained (as we would do for normal disruption). Having been around for the last ARCA, this was plainly not the intent. As said last time around "The ban is not optional." Please clarify that the first method of enforcement should be ECP, with other alternatives more suitable to instances where an editor is editing across many articles or where ECP is otherwise not effective or sufficient. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noting the last (and most recent) discussion posted below by closed with consensus to protect pages as soon as the restriction is violated, but not before. That's all I'm asking for clarification in favor here - that the pages should be protected if the restriction is violated. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The wording states that those secondary options are to be used when ECP is not feasible, not when the secondary options are feasible. Could you clarify why ECP wouldn't have prevented the disruption/wasn't feasible? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, . There's a sharp difference between declining to action something and declining a request so that no other admin actions it, though. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify whether the restriction is mandatory or not? If it is, can you clarify what valid edit is omitted by ECP protecting an article? I really struggle to understand the logic in blocking an editor when protection would suffice and the protection has zero false positives by construction. ARBPIA#500/30 places ECP protection in the form of a behavioral restriction (rather than a technical restriction) on all ARBPIA articles. Regardless of intent, failing to protect an article in response to disruption weakens the restriction and allows editors not allowed to edit in the topic area to edit that article in the future. Again, no-one is saying we hold a gun to an admin's head and force them to protect. We're just saying they shouldn't take an admin action and actually decline protection when it would act as a simple enforcement of the ArbCom remedy. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The effect of this decision is that ARBPIA3#500/30 is fully optional and up to admin discretion. The typical protection policy already allows that. If a decision will not be enforced, you should rescind it. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But this remedy doesn't say protect articles to prevent disruption (which is covered by the protection policy) or jump up some levels via discretion (which is covered by active discretionary sanctions). It's a prohibition, full stop. Zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors are allowed in this topic area. If we really just intend to allow discretion, which I'm not against, then drop this remedy and rely on DS. We shouldn't have an unenforced prohibition on the books, though. Its confusing. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It just falls back on admin discretion, which is covered by DS. I agree limiting disruption is the goal, but if we want to back away from the heavy-handed prohibition to allow discretion, we should rescind the prohibition and make that clear. Saying "We're prohibiting this but not really" isn't good policy writing. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Can any arbitrator explain to me how "We have a prohibition, but admins don't have to enforce it and can actively decline requests to enforce it." is any different than "We have discretionary sanctions, which allow discretionary ECP protection, and admins are encouraged to make liberal use of it."? The latter is certainly more clear. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate for editors in the ARBPIA area to make their requests for page protection at AE instead of RFPP? One of the issues here, as I see it, is admins applying the typical "protection policy" mentality to this remedy, whereas this remedy is wholly distinct from our protection policy. Perhaps moving such requests to AE would be wise. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it's noted as a change to remedy, the mentality toward ARBPIA3#500/30 shown here is a change. The restriction has worked because it's been enforced whenever an IP editor/new editor has edited an article within the topic area with indefinite ECP. That has been the practice from Day 1 that ECP was implemented until now, and I believe there's been subtantially less disruption in the topic area since the advent of ECP than under the restriction before that, which is quite a good differential to see what effect indefinite ECP has had. This new interpretation of the remedy is the change you seek to avoid making in the absence of a rationale for doing so. This is the first time ever that I've seen an administrator decline this type of protection, and if other admins follow suit in enforcing the remedy only in cases of sustained and severe disruption, we can expect the "minor" disruption to get through. If we're already changing the interpretation of the remedy and how its enforced, we might as well change the wording as well to make things clear. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As an aside, as an excellent illustration of what happens when we don't extended confirmed protect articles in this topic area, Regulation Law (the article whose protection request started this) was edited by a block evading editor. I've now enforced the restriction with indefinite ECP. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether we should ECP protect articles that IPs edit in a topic area where they're prohibited from editing isn't a corner case. It's the entire set of cases. I'm still not 100% clear on why the Committee is resistant to handling this whole issue here (...should I open an ARCA about modifying the restriction directly below at the same time? how is it helpful to split discussion?). You're describing discretionary sanctions but continuing to preserve a prohibition. I'll continue enforcing the remedy as written until it's changed, because it's unfair to new editors to have unwritten rules and exceptions that they're unaware of and can't hope to understand. It's better to say "Clear this bar and you can edit in this area" than "Clear this bar and you won't be harassed by other editors, but until then, we may or may not bother you regardless of the quality of your edits. Good luck." ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy
The current wording of WP:ARBPIA3 is

Neither this wording nor the two previous ones (which explicitly used "may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters") contains a rule that ECP has to be used to enforce the prohibition, just that it's preferred. In this case there was only one editor who could have been dealt with individually, without the need to lock down the page.

That said, I have no particular opinion on the topic itself and I'd be fine if WP:ARBPIA3 was clarified to read "has to be enforced". Regards  So Why  18:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @BU Rob13: The current consensus (cf. the links NeilN provided and also at the recent AN/I thread) seems to be that ECP should be used "liberally but not automatically" (to borrow 's phrase) when it comes to this particular topic ban, i. e. iff there has been a disruption. At the time of the protection request, the article in question was newly created by a relatively new user and then stubyfied without a disruption in sight. The new user in this case didn't know about the ArbCom ruling and edited in good faith as far I can tell, so it was not a violation and thus no need to apply ECP. If the Committee believes this particular motion should apply to all articles, even before disruption happened, then yes, clarification is required since the current wording allows the interpretation we have seen become consensus (and which I based my decision on). And if your strict interpretation is to be the correct one, ArbCom should just protect all such pages preemptively and be done with it. But since they haven't done so in the past, it was a reasonable assumption by myself (and many others) that ArbCom didn't want to demolish the third pillar before disruption actually occurs. Regards  So Why  21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Kevin: So basically what you are saying is "admins are not robots but in such cases they have to behave like robots"? So why not make it easier? Let's just create a subpage that anyone with extendedconfirmed userrights can edit and where people can list articles that should be protected and an adminbot will just apply EC protection to all entries on that list. Regards  So Why  18:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As for the comments that there is a difference between declining and not doing something, please keep in mind that any admin patrolling WP:RFPP only decides based on the page as it presents itself at this time. It's not wheel-warring if another admin protects a page later on when later edits justify it. Thus declining to take action when a single good-faith editor without knowledge of the restrictions creates an article does not mean that the page cannot be protected later on if disruption occurs. That said, I personally think the Committee should reconsider the prohibition altogether and I agree with that it would work much better as a discretionary sanction. I understand the need to limit participation from certain high-conflict articles but the blanket ban currently in effect violates our fundamental principles, i. e. that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that any restrictions should only be enforced if no alternative represents itself. Plus, as DQ points out, a DS would be more useful in keeping track of the disruptive patterns. Regards  So  Why  07:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the discussion about the validity of this restriction should need a new ARCA request. has already pointed out, quite eloquently, that there have already been far too many ARCAs concerning this topic, so why force a new discussion? Evidently the current restriction is problematic and de facto unnecessary since an extended DS would serve the same purpose with the additional benefit, as DQ points out, of changing the venue to WP:AE which is where such requests actually should be decided anyway. Even if the Committee declines to take such action at this time, it should at least consider the last point, i.e. changing the venue to WP:AE for all such requests since WP:RFPP does not log actions and the log at WP:AN is only showing the newest protections (and not just those relating to this restriction). Regards  So  Why  13:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I can only agree with 's comments. I think when the restriction was created and reworded, the fundamental principle of "anyone can edit" was essentially abandoned by those who interpret it quite literally. wrote in his comment that "the committee's position is that, in general, enhanced protection should be the first line of defense" in these cases. I think it's important to emphasize the "defense" part. Yes, 30/500 can be used to defend an article against those who wish to corrupt it with their POV-pushing, vandalism or other discouraged behavior. But it should not be used preemptively when nothing has actually happened and especially not to punish those new or seldom editing users who follow all the rules.
 * I myself have deleted over 8000 pages and protected nearly 800 (probably handling thrice as many requests at RFPP), so I'm certainly not someone who believes that "anyone can edit" means "do what you want". But it does look like this restriction has been misused as a tool by some established editors to lock down as many articles as possible so that new editors can't edit them. And since only very few will take the time to become extended confirmed after the treatment MusikAnimal describes, it means that the pool of editors working on those articles will shrink constantly, thus hurting the whole project. Regards  So Why  19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
Past admin discussions: --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_8
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_9
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection

Admins are supposed to use their best judgement when enforcing various policies, guidelines, and rulings and I don't see why this should be an exception. 500/30 is a means to an end, and not the actual goal. Repeating the wording here, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." So let's say we have a BLP of an author who, along with other works, has written a controversial book on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Every so often IP editors come in and disrupt the section of the BLP that covers the book and its reception. Can the page be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Yes. But why should we immediately use the sledgehammer of 500/30 when semi or PC could suffice, allowing new/IP editors to constructively update the BLP? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To address the concerns above perhaps change to
 * This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
 * This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not optimal, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

Generally, admins are supposed to use the least-restrictive form of protection feasible to start with. 500/30 allows us to skip a few levels in certain topic areas. For example, if Palestine Liberation Organization was unprotected we can immediately apply 500/30, skipping over PC and semi, as that's the optimal solution. For other pages, 500/30 may not be optimal. Admins can apply it without enduring a barrage of criticism but can choose a lesser form of protection if that will stop current and anticipated future disruption just as well. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

, zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors in this topic area is not the goal; it is the preferred method to stop the disruption in this topic area (which is the actual goal). The current (or my proposed) wording makes it clear that 500/30 (i.e., zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors) is the preferred method to use to achieve that goal. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that this isn't a corner case. However I think Arbcom's intent was to clean up editing in this area by making it easier for admins to skip a few steps ordinarily mandated by protection policy. If you don't want admins to use their judgement about when to skip these steps then I could see ECP easily spreading to articles like the BLP example I proposed above. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by L235
Admins ≠ page protection robots. The restriction is mandatory to follow, and anyone may enforce it, but no one is required to – in the same way that, for example, WP:V is policy and mandatory, but no individual editor is required to enforce it by finding sources for any article they happen to notice bad sourcing on. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
A decline per ARBPIA3 makes no sense there. If yall want to say that this is like WP:V in which it is mandatory but nobody is required to enforce it then fine, but then dont also specifically get in the way of somebody else enforcing it. A good faith page protection request should be enough to trigger the protection. It means that the sanction has been violated on that specific page and that ECP would prevent further violations. Declining it on the basis of a decision that says it is the preferable method to deal with violations makes zero sense. If an admin would rather not protect the page then fine, dont, but dont also decline the request, just ignore it and allow somebody willing to deal with it to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
If the whole article can be reasonably construed to be under ARBPIA, then ECP should be applied when asked. After all, ECP protection would only mean that those who can't edit, won't edit. If the article is not under ARBPIA and only sections of it are, then that is where the individual edit can be reverted, etc. I don't get the declining protection on a page when the page is clearly part of ARBPIA and ECP blocked people can't edit regardless. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 19:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
I seem to have been pinged about this. I don't have any strong feeling about this rememdy except for some remorse for being the open who opened Pandora's Box. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MusikAnimal
I have very strong feelings about this, so let me first apologize for my tone. My sentiments are not targeted at any admins or the Arbitration Committee. We all want what's best for the project, so let me share what I think is best.

It is in my opinion preposterous and irresponsible to preemptively protect articles that have experienced little or no disruption, in direct conflict with the protection policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be open. Sure we get vandalism and POV pushers, but that's a natural consequence of a wiki and we can deal with it on a case by case basis. Any sort of blanket editing "prohibition" is contrary to the entire point of Wikipedia. What's worse about ARBPIA is we protect indefinitely. The idea is to use the shortest effective duration and lowest effective protection level, yet we for some reason are ignoring that philosophy entirely. I'm sorry but this infuriates me.

Let's assume there was no disruption at all on a given article, and in fact constructive editing from new users – do you then actually feel accomplished in applying indefinite protection, limiting editing to experienced editors? Do you really feel like you were doing the right thing by shutting out users who were helping? Are you OK with the idea that those editors may give up on the project? Think about that. Also, what if a new user creates a well-written article that falls under ARBPIA – We're going to immediately protect it? Are we meant to delete it? How do you think the editor feels about that? How would you feel if that happened to you? What if you were someone who simply is a big fan of Israel in general, and you find you can't edit most of the articles you want to edit? What would be your opinion of Wikipedia? Would you still want to be a part of the community?

Of course sometimes 30/500 does make sense, but that doesn't seem to be the case with most ARBPIA requests I see at RFPP. What's wrong with a brief semi if it does the job just as well? Use your judgement, ignore the rules... put the encyclopedia and the free knowledge movement first.

Maybe we should do some analysis and see how many constructive edit requests there are to these preemptively protected pages. It may shed some idea on the collateral damage we are causing. However I'm sure most newbies won't add edit requests, but simply give up.

Overall I'm going to have to be very stubborn about this. If others want to play the blanket "you can't edit this page" game, I'm not going to fight them, and I won't decline any RFPP requests, but I for one refuse to protect pages or rollback constructive edits merely because other related topics had at some point in the past experienced considerable disruption. No thanks, WP:IAR all day long for me. All articles deserve the same fair chance at openness. It's one thing to do the one-revert rule, impose discretionary sanctions, etc., but you should use caution and sane judgement with admin actions that affect innocent editors. The point of protection is to prevent disruption, not prevent progress... &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to also point out that on these ARBPIA articles that aren't protected, some people are reverting edits by users who are not extended confirmed – even if it was constructive. It is very difficult for me to sit back and watch this, and I can't fathom why you would think this is OK. If you wouldn't normally revert it then please, don't. Just don't. This is arguably worse than preemptive protection. With protection the editor never had a chance to try to edit constructively. Here the editor volunteered their time and effort, and you're knowingly removing their work. Take away the ARBPIA stuff and this can be blockable behaviour. Why is it all of a sudden acceptable? Surely you understand why it is unfair? These are not banned editors... their contributions carry the same weight as the next guy. I'm not necessarily saying the entire ARBPIA 30/500 restriction should be lifted, but if not doing so means we continue to punish innocent editors then yes, it should be lifted. The issue it seems is that people are looking at this ArbCom ruling and taking it literally, reverting any non-ECP editor. How is this is not a problem? My feelings here regarding edits differ from the protection in that I would have to feel inclined to intervene if it makes sense to do so. If I see you've reverted a clear improvement, merely because they don't meet the 30/500 threshold, barring an edit war I will have to kindly restore the content. I don't need policy or ArbCom rulings to tell me not to, and the same goes for page protection. The revision history tells you if protection is needed, just like the diff of an edit tells you whether or not it should be reverted. Right? Again, I apologize for being so stubborn, but surely you see why I would favour WP:5P3, WP:5P4 and especially WP:5P5. We should not be attempting to override or undermine the very fundamental principles that have made Wikipedia a success... &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The ruling advocating for 30/500 happened before it was implemented. And sure, many of these articles need ECP, without question. However as I said, this doesn't seem usually be the case at RFPP. What here suggests semi won't work? It will require some digging, but you'll find good edits from non-EC users. What about here? Note the now blocked extended-confirmed sock that was undoing those good anon edits. This one still isn't protected, and hasn't received one bad edit. Or here? I see lots of good and very little bad over the article's 12-year history. I just don't think we should feel like "automatic" protection should be a thing when it clearly is not only unhelpful but detrimental. I'm not that familiar with ArbCom process but doesn't a "clarification and amendment" mean it can be amended? At the very least perhaps we could ask editors not unconditionally undo good edits just because they think the article falls under ARBPIA. Instead, report to RFPP and let an admin decide. Good edits should stay, regardless of who made them. A "clause" saying this will go a long way, methinks. It's easy for us to impose a blanket "can't edit" restriction but we're not newbies, whom we teach to be bold and follow the fundamental five pillars. They're left hanging scratching their heads, wondering what this is all about when they thought they were helping. Then we link them WP:ARBPIA3 and expect them to read it? I'm all about protecting articles when the need is there, whatever we have to do to stop disruption, but don't go against our core philosophy and knowingly put a stop to good contributions when there is zero evidence to the contrary &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mifter
While I'm in the neighborhood stating my position in regards to other cases I thought I would add my perspective (noting that this discussion appears to be on its way to closure). I considered and decided against adding it earlier however after reflection I believe it cannot hurt to add what I have observed. I agree fully with MusikAnimal above that the current implementation of blanket ECP on articles in this topic seems to go against the general spirit and mission of Wikipedia as well as the protection policy itself. I further agree that clarifying the decision to read something along the lines that "ECP is fully authorized, and should be preferred whenever an issue arises in this topic that has not quickly and effectively been resolved by lesser steps" (addressing the concerned raised by NeilN above that we might want to jump to a higher standard of protection in this area) may be be prudent. In general after taking a fairly long wikibreak where I was semi-active and for portions completely inactive, coming back I have seen what I believe to be a startling shift towards a more closed encyclopedia. I recently raised a concern at AN that we are now blocking IPs without any or just a level 1 warning for extended duration, years in some instances, primarily due to conduct that occurred years ago. That is not the issue here, however it does inform what I believe to be a general shift in a worrisome direction. Further, having patrolled RFPP regularly since coming back the number of requests that simply state in essence that "anons never contribute positively" or are "only disruptive" accompanying requests for indefinite semi-protection is also alarming. We wonder why our community grows continually smaller and we struggle to retain new editors. To me, this is but one symptom of a larger issue. Clearly, this topic is an area where we have seen extraordinary levels of disruption and where a strong inclination towards using ECP where disruption is occurring/has occurred/is likely to occur is more than justified. However, I agree that a blanket position to prevent all unregistered and new editors from editing anywhere in this area runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and for articles on the fringe of the topic which have no history of disruption and in all honestly are unlikely to become areas of concern preemptively locking the articles causes more harm than good, freezes existing issues in place (whatever they may be), and only further reinforces the perception that Wikipedia for as open as we claim it to be is a closed system where you either fit in or get out. Mifter (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse for this clarification request only. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No individual administrator is required to enforce a particular arbitration decision, whether or not that decision provides for administrative discretion as regards the specific means of enforcement. In this case, we've deliberately left the choice of how to enforce the 500/30 editing restriction up to the enforcing administrators' discretion; while the committee's position is that, in general, enhanced protection should be the first line of defense here, we're not going to second-guess administrators who choose to utilize one of the other enforcement mechanisms absent some credible evidence that those administrators are doing so to deliberately undermine our decision. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with NeilN and Kirill on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill said it well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kirill Lokshin. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite a few editors have come forward with new information since I made my last comment. I will re-review this request this week. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can an Arbitrator please clarify to me what the Wikipedia definition of prohibition is? It's not matching the English language definition of the word. I agree with NeilN's view on what the intended effect SHOULD be, but we are purposefully undermining ourselves saying these edits are prohibited, but you don't have to enforce it. What then is a point of a prohibition? We could just take a page out of our history books from Prohibition in the United States.
 * Right now what I am hearing is that arbitrators do not want full prohibition. Fine, lets not make it that then, but lets make some sense. Without a full prohibition, this is honestly a very strong extended DS. This would work a lot better as an extended DS too as it actually gets logged so we can figure out where the disruption is coming from and better react to requests to change our enforcement methods on this.
 * Anything short of a change, and administrators are in violation of the remedy by not applying 500/30, especially after an IP has edited a page. To be clear, I wouldn't enact any sanction on such an administrator, but why make it an issue in the first place?
 * When this remedy was first in place, we did not have the 500/30 protection available to us, and an arbitrator called it something along the lines of an effective semi-protection over the pages. Now that we have 500/30 protection available which can be used as a discretionary sanction, is there a point to even continue having this restriction in place? This still affects a large amount of contributors who have good faith intent in the topic area. We are up to this now being the 11th ARCA on the matter, and 3rd potential motion. We need to fix this to something that makes some sense. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I see the prohibition in this case as similar to the old practice of criminal outlawry: participation by a non-500/30 editor on the affected topic is effectively deemed "illegal", and anyone may prevent or undo it using any means at their disposal—but, short of actually assisting the editor in evading the restriction (which is prohibited), no individual is required to act against them, or to act against them in any particular way. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable way of describing it, but I think the point being raised is a little bit different: if declining a public request for ECP is an "admin action", then that's different than simply not taking action because it puts a barrier in the way of other admins who might want to act. To continue the analogy, you can ignore the outlaw, or arrest him, but in this case the action is more like standing in the town square saying "I am not arresting that outlaw". Publicly declining a request for admin action is more-or-less an admin action, under the AE principle, and someone else coming along to take the action that's just been declined puts themselves at risk of wheel-warring accusations. (I'd say speeding is a better analogy, and letting someone off with a warning instead of a ticket doesn't actually mean there's suddenly no speed limits anymore.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't mean to suggest that decisions made later after a change of circumstances would be "wheel-warring". I don't really even mean to legitimize the possible accusations of it for "overturning" a non-action without any change of circumstances. I'm just trying to describe the pitfalls of responding to this request with "well, nobody's required to act". Proposing that the restriction be lifted should go in a separate request IMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems like a bit of a "missing the forest for the trees" issue. The purpose of the restriction was to cut down on disruption in this topic area caused by socks, POV-pushers, and good-faith but inexperienced editors who need time to become acquainted with the project before diving into such a difficult subject. As far as I can tell, it's working fairly well for that purpose. At least, we've seen very few issues reach the arbcom level that were actually about disruptive editing. However, we're now seeing many many questions about the logistics of managing the restriction. In this instance, I don't see that the last clarification lacks, um, clarity ;) It's "preferably" enforced by ECP, but different admins may have different preferences in different situations. It is entirely normal that enforcement of a restriction might not be 100% perfectly consistent every time and yet retain its intended effect. I think the best solution is to worry less about the corner cases unless they've clearly caused problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why ask for a new discussion" is mostly just organizational, so a consideration of loosening the restriction gets filed under its own header, gets noticed by watchers and attracts comments specifically on that topic, etc. (To be honest I hate the way ARCA is organized and archived, and I find archived ones hard to read when there's a lot of topic drift.) As for the AE thing, I don't really see the advantage - AE is structured to be a slower and more commentary-based venue. Are people looking specifically for a log of PIA-related ECPs? As far as I can tell, what we're doing now is working. It's more important that the remedy be effective than that it be perfect. If it works 99% of the time, then cleaning up the edge cases to catch the last 1% isn't really worth the investment. My preference is to do nothing unless there's empirical evidence that changes are needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it - not having been on the committee at the time - the problem was that the topic area had become so clogged with socks and POV-pushers that it was no longer possible to get much real editing done because of all the time and effort and goodwill being soaked up by behavior issues. The benefit of the restriction is that it is no longer necessary to invest time in evaluating each individual "new" editor's contributions to judge whether they're socking or block-evading or well-meaning but clueless. It is also arguably less bitey to tell a well-intentioned new editor "that topic area is restricted, but if you get some experience elsewhere, you can edit there later" than to greet them with suspicions and possibly outright accusations of socking, and similarly better to revert their newbish edits because of a general restriction than because they've been judged low-quality. There may be an argument for modifying the restriction - and MusikAnimal, real data is always great - but this ARCA isn't an argument about modifying it; it's about best practice in the mechanism of enforcement in a corner case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't pay attention to this for a few days and figured I'd come back to it with fresh eyes later, since a bunch of very sensible people have said they think there's a problem to be solved here. However, I'm still not seeing one. Maybe this is an example of the upside of arbcom not getting involved in its own enforcement (because it's easier that way to take the 50,000-foot view) or maybe it's the downside (because we get out of touch with common practice). But I still don't see a reason we should be second-guessing individual instances in which an admin exercises the relatively limited discretion they have by the existing wording of the restriction. The original 30/500 decision was implemented in late 2015, and ECP was rolled out last spring, so we have enough experience now to judge if any changes need to be made, if someone were interested in gathering data. I still think that should be its own filing, not a side issue arising from an old thread about a related topic that nobody but the participants is reading anymore :) Changing the restriction would have a sufficiently broad scope that IMO an ARCA request specifically on that topic would benefit from wider exposure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: The Rambling Man (March 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sandstein at 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Bishonen notified, 17:31, 6 March 2017

Statement by Sandstein
Yesterday I blocked in response to an AE request and then protected their user talk page, as provided for in the decision: "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." Bishonen subsequently reverted that protection without any attempt at discussion with me. She has also declined to act on my request to undo her unprotection.

I initially considered this to be a disallowed unilateral reversion of an AE action, but there is a nuance that gives me pause, which is why I am filing this as a clarification request and not as a request for sanctions against Bishonen:

I did mark the talk page protection as an AE action, but it does not appear to be a "sanction" as this term is commonly understood, which is why I did not initially log it. But the Committee's procedures tell us that "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator", without indicating whether AE actions such as talk page protections count as sanctions. Moreover, the rules about appeals, etc. "apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature." This seems to leave ambiguous the status of AE actions like page protections that are, as here, neither discretionary sanctions nor blocks, nor functionary actions. On the other hand, Bishonen's comment about being about to be desysopped indicates that she herself understood her reversal to be prohibited.

My main question is therefore: What, if any, prohibitions exist against unilateral reversion of AE talk page protections (or user rights removals, or other non-block AE admin actions) outside the regime of discretionary sanctions, and should the procedures be amended to remove this uncertainty?

There are also two additional questions that have come up in the, er, rambling AN thread about this matter: Does the Committee expect that there be a certain period of time in which an AE thread is left open for comment by others after the editor at which the request is directed has responded (or declined to do so); and is it problematic if the same admin who decides to act on an AE request also closes the thread? My impression is that the answer in both cases is "no" (after all, admins can take AE actions without even a request, let alone a formal closure), but perhaps I am mistaken.

I do not intend to address the merits of the block or the talk page protection here, unless asked to by an arbitrator, because I think that ought only to be discussed in response to a proper appeal (if any) by The Rambling Man at WP:AE.  Sandstein  17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bishonen: You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now.  Sandstein   18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Drmies: I did not mention the protection in my original closure because I decided on it after The Rambling Man's reaction to the block in which they continued the prohibited conduct. I assumed the protection provision was in the remedy to allow for such eventualities. If it was intended for other situations such as grave-dancing then this is not apparent from the remedy's wording. I chose it instead of talk page access removal because this action was specifically provided for in the remedy, and because it would also prevent disruption by others in addition to The Rambling Man, which given the circumstances seemed a possibility. I ask this question now because I want to know to which extent I must anticipate disruption of AE actions in the future, and whether this Committee is interested in preventing such disruption and therefore allowing for the orderly operation of AE.  Sandstein   00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with you and Bishonen that a waiting period at AE would be a mistake. I am sorry that you feel a "I've spoken, and the rest of you are beneath me and not deserving of any consideration" attitude from me. That's not what I am intending to project. I completely agree that as an admin I should respond to good-faith questions by other editors regarding my actions. My concern is that in situations like this that apparently involve a WP:UNBLOCKABLE editor and excite a lot of people, I do not want to discuss my actions in a zillion places at once (my talk page, the other editor's talk page, other admin's talk pages, AN, AE, ARCA, etc.). I simply do not have the time for that. I want to discuss them in one forum where focused, structured discussion is possible. And that is, in my view, an appeal discussion such as the one that is now underway at AE. This is why I decline to discuss the merits of the sanctions elsewhere.  Sandstein   11:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee: I intend to be open to good-faith questions. Bishonen's unilateral actions, however, indicate that she is not really interested in my reasons at all, or she would have consulted with me before lifting the protection, as admins are supposed to. This is why I consider her asking for them now to be a bad-faith attempt at distraction from her own actions.  Sandstein   11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee: I have no problem with discussing individual admin actions with individual editors. However, in situations such as here where the blocked editor apparently has a lot of friends, and noticeboard threads and accusations of ADMIN ABUSE!!! are flying left and right, I think I am justified to wait until there is an actual appeal discussion in which an actually affected party raises specific issues that I can address all at once. I don't know about you, but I do not have the time to follow multiple noticeboard threads 24/7 repeatedly justifying myself at great length over and over again to random, often involved editors. Accountability does not mean that I have to reply to each and every question by each and every editor, but to the community as a whole in the context of a sensible process.  Sandstein   13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller: You raise issues regarding the usefulness and policy-compliance of the talk page protection. These are valid questions, but above my pay grade as an enforcement admin. If ArbCom tells me in a remedy that I can do something at my discretion to stop a problem for Wikipedia, I do it and assume ArbCom has done the serious thinking about any policies that may apply. If you conclude that talk page protection isn't so good an idea after all, you should change the remedy.  Sandstein   11:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Several editors suggest that AE admins such as myself should use particular caution when dealing with "longstanding editors" or those with a "controversial reputation". I will not do so. I think this attitude is exactly why some editors have effectively become WP:UNBLOCKABLE. If an editor has been restricted by ArbCom, they have already been found to be a problem to Wikipedia. I will continue to attempt to apply sanctions as they are written and intended, without regard to reputation, contributions, or any particular editorial or social context (and it helps that I am normally quite ignorant of most of these factors). But, I must say, this episode reminds me why I took a long break from AE some time ago: if ArbCom is not willing to pull the ban or block trigger on problem editors themselves, delegates this to random admins, and then fails to back them up when they take heat for it, why should anybody continue to help ArbCom enforcing their decisions?  Sandstein   18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Several editors also raise concerns about my communication. I respectfully submit that I have made the reasons for my actions sufficiently clear in the AE closure and now in the AE appeal discussion. The problem seems to be that these editors do not agree with my reasons. That is their right, but they will have to live with this situation unless their view prevails on appeal. In general, while I acknowledge that it is possible that the drama around this action might have been reduced if there had been more discussion at AE before the block, it seems equally possible that the AE discussion would have failed to reach consensus for any one course of action, given the number of friends this problem editor apparently has, and that any subsequent unilateral enforcement action would have resulted in just as much brouhaha. Bishonen and the other editors who are now raising a ruckus should be ashamed of themselves for, in doing so, enabling and supporting the disruptive conduct of the editor at issue, and thereby impeding the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision.  Sandstein   17:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
You "do not intend to address the merits of the block or the talk page protection here", Sandstein? Discussing the block may be best kept for a response to a block appeal, OK, but why are you bundling the protection in with it? You should address the merits of the protection here, in view of the questions you're asking about my unprotection. You ought to explain why you thought protection was the right thing to do, especially as compared to the alternative of revoking talkpage access. You haven't explained that anywhere AFAICS — not on TRM's page, or my page, or the AN discussion. Now's your chance. It's ridiculous IMO to discuss the formalities you describe above without even addressing what the protection was for. I don't intend to take part in such a discussion. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
 * you ask for my hefty support for a minimum waiting period for AE complaints. (No, User:Bishzilla is the hefty one.) Sorry, I don't support it, as I have already said at AN. It's called discretionary sanctions for a reason: admins can place sanctions, including topic bans, at their own discretion in certain contentious areas, that the committee has placed under discretionary sanctions. And we do. I placed a number of topic bans in 2016, off my own bat, without reference to the page WP:AE. What's WP:AE for, then? It's for users to be able to draw the attention of uninvolved admins to supposed disruption in one of those contentious areas. If I'm reading you rightly, you're suggesting that once a complaint is at WP:AE, the quick, simple, single admin discretion no longer applies? Remember the committee came up with this system in order to make it simpler to admin these difficult areas, not to add a layer of bureaucracy. It seems unreasonable that I should be able to topic ban a user without further ado as long as it's not on AE, but once it is, I wouldn't be able to. Example here: just as I was typing up a one-month topic ban for a user for disruption at Donald Trump, another user took that disruption to WP:AE. I hesitated; should I hold my fire? But it seemed quite paradoxical to let the AE report prevent me from the simple adminning of the area that the discretionary sanctions system is supposed to encourage, so I went ahead. I reported fait accompli at WP:AE, some hours before any other administrator had commented, indeed while America was still asleep. America came by later; I want to draw your attention especially to Seraphimblade's comment right at the end. If you think my action there should in the future be classed as wrong, then surely it would also become wrong for us place discretionary sanctions on our own discretion at all. And if we can't do that, they will no longer be discretionary and should be renamed. "Special bureaucratic sanctions for contentious areas"..? Hmm, no... but I think I need to digress a little.


 * It must be baffling to many users that we bother referring to discretionary sanctions at all, which is a pretty bureaucratic thing even when done without WP:AE: the alerts, the special templates, the logs. Don't admins have a lot of discretion in all areas in any case, being as they are trusted users? Yes; they can block users, up to indefinite, in all areas, at the drop of a hat: no alerts etc etc. Sandstein could have blocked TRM in that way, i.e. not per AE, and I would have, if it was me. The only thing is, we can't topic ban other than per discretionary sanctions. The discussion at your talkpage doesn't seem very interested in this difference (it speaks mainly about blocks which needn't go, and normally don't go, via discretionary sanctions at all), but I think it's vital. That we can't topic ban in all areas has its own paradox: compare an indefinite block, which can be just slapped on, and a one-month topic ban, which requires a song and a dance. (In non-ds areas, topic bans have to be done via community consensus on AN or ANI.) All right, I'm getting to my conclusion: if you want, say, a 24-hour waiting period for AE complaints, then we surely can't also have the single admin topic banning per discretionary sanctions without involving WP:AE. We can't have such a double system. The savvy complainer would soon realize that they'd better avoid WP:AE, and speak directly to an admin they trust. And it doesn't make sense that if I'm about to topic ban somebody, and they unluckily just get taken to WP:AE, that prevents me from going ahead. So: a 24-hour, or whatever, waiting period would be OK, provided that WP:AE becomes compulsory for topic bans, and the double system of "WP:AE and lone rover admins" goes. Admittedly it would bring more bureaucracy instead of less, and the word "discretionary" would have to go. Rename them "topic sanctions", and rename WP:AE to Arbitration/Requests/Topic bans, for example.


 * I'm sorry, I guess I digressed a lot and not a little. I'm trying to make the point that a waiting period for WP:AE would defeat the purpose of the discretionary sanctions, which was to simplify; would encumber them, bog them down. I don't really want them to be renamed, I want them to remain discretionary, and that's why I don't support a waiting period. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Belatedly, I didn't intend to respond to your pissy reply above to my question why you protected TRM's talkpage: "Bishonen: You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now." But I will, after all, because I've just noticed some relevant discussion on the AE talkpage. Two people there asked politely if the talkpage protection was necessary, and you explicitly refused to lift, shorten, or discuss it: "I do not think that we should devote a lot of our limited time to fine-tune sanctions applying to problem editors, and therefore I do not intend to amend the protection duration. This concludes my discussion of this sanction, except in the case of an appeal by the sanctioned editor themself." That was just 50 minutes before I lifted the protection. When I did, I didn't know then that you had just refused to discuss. But you knew it. With what face do you show temper here on this board about me not asking you first? Why did you want me to ask you? Purely to have the pleasure of rebuffing me like you did those people? "This concludes my discussion of this sanction". I realize I've now asked another "why" question, and you don't like those. There's no need to tell me at this time that the rules say I must ask you first, which I already know. That would not be an answer to "Why did you want me to ask you?"


 * For my money, taking those procedural issues to ARCA was the real waste of "a lot of our limited time". Replying to questions in a timely manner would have saved time. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

Statement by Sir Joseph
This is a simple request. Was the protection of the page an AE action, or was it a general administrative action. If it was an AE action, then Bishonen acted outside the scope of administrative privilege; if it was a general sanction, then Bishonen acted appropriately. I don't think there needs to be any other discussion as that will get too messy and is irrelevant to the actions and procedures of arbritration. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 18:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
Points:
 * If an admin is going to be a stickler for process, then they should expect others to act in a like way; they should expect consistency. If an enforcement is not logged as an AE enforcement it cannot fall under AE; it is not an AE enforcement. Therefore an unblock is also not an AE Enforcement violation
 * Bishonen's edit summary is clearly irony and refers to how some might view her action rather than how she views her action. It seems disingenuous for Sandstein to use that statement as an admission of some kind of guilt.
 * As for closing AE's so quickly, while it might be possible for an admin to judge and close an AE in 40 minutes, the question is, is it wise to not include the input of one's colleagues. Unilateral actions by a single admin can often lead to decisions based on opinion rather a gathering of facts. If AE is to be revised or updated it would be humane to include in an AE enforcement request, the time for input and the thoughts of more than just one person. As a general observation:Unilateral actions on Wikipedia can be non- neutral as actions from admins as well as from non-admins. I would like to see admins with less ability to carry out actions unilaterally especially in the light of the present size of the encyclopedia and given that size and complexity, the inability for anyone to know all of the facts in any case. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC))


 * Laser brain. AE is not easy, but that fact and condition cannot allow contested actions to be ignored. As well, disagreement can be a necessary part of growth and is not the same as undermining. I assume Sandstein wanted discussion or he wouldn't have posted here. I certainly don't want to undermine anyone, but I also think there is reason for disagreement and clarifications and in the case of AE in general some fixing might be in order, too.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC))

AE vs discretionary sanctions and the letter of the law, and power:


 * I'm not sure where this could be discussed further. I agree with Bishonen that there is a conflict between posting an AE and the implied or even explicit usefulness of a discretionary sanction. I understand that admins are overworked, that AE is often a quagmire. I'd like to add a note for the editor who is not the admin. Are admins always right, always fair, always neutral, always without bias, always acting without the input of backroom politics and never corrupted by their own power over individuals. Let's say for a minute that despite the mostly good admins acting within the best of their abilities as fairly as they can, and I always want to assume this is true of all admins, that some of these more human-based concerns - that a lack of neutrality in some cases is merely human, that fairness is subjective- can lead to decisions that are unfair. Sandstein was acting within the rule of the law when he closed an AE he had judged. My concern, and this now is  not about Sandstein but is more general, is  not that admins act within the rule of law, but that the rule of law both at AE and with DS gives too much power, to much ability to damage, because it allows and supports fast-acting, unilateral actions. There are answers if a community is willing to discuss them, but I don't think the answer is to fall back on what is in place which supports unilateral power. I see very little in our RfA process that suggests our selected new admins have the ability to act above and beyond their own human ness, to be good judges of other human beings. Acting within Wikipedia's boundaries placed to protect both the encylopedia and collaboration may take more than acting within the law,  more than unilateral decision making and the beginning of that might be  more time rather than less and more input which tempers the individuality of any admin. Disrupting the encyclopedia does not just mean removing someone who is deemed to not be acting with in the best interests of WP but also of working with editors so we don't lose them and yes, as on Wikipedian said, we are bleeding editors. Much of the discussion on this page assumes at the base, a punitive model. How do we change that?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC))

I wasn't going to comment because Rexx's comments are clear and precise and true... and above all so obvious to anyone with WP experience at all. And to repeat, this is a false dichotomy, "You are ridiculously arguing that every uninvolved admin acts as a proxy for a complainant and that somehow makes them INVOVLED." No he didn't say all he said some and some it is, some does not equal all. For anyone who has any WP experience at all, yes, any admin can take a case to AE and ask a like minded buddy in private to "take the case". Do all admins do this, no. Some do. End of obvious story. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)) You said no one agreed with Rexx. That's not true and I said so.

. Its very true that AE is a difficult job, and its true that ArbCom has to support those like you who have spent so much time there. What I see is not a lack of support  but that in a big community there are nuances rather than strict letters of the law. AE could be revamped so that weight does not fall on any one or a very few editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC))

Statement by Andrew D.
In considering this issue of access to the talk page, please note TRM's behaviour while blocked. He is creating daily lists of action items which ping other editors, directing them to make edits. This seems contrary to WP:BLOCKEVASION, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor". Multiple pings might also be considered vexatious in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As there is some debate about this matter, a point which may require clarification is the clause "and they have independent reasons for making such edits". In some cases, we see a dialogue between TRM and the proxy editor on the talk page or a specific attribution such as "Posted here on behalf of The Rambling Man"  Does this mean that they are not acting independently?  If there's a lot of this, it might cause disputes or make a farce of the block.  Isn't the point of a block to suspend an editor's activities, whatever their merits?  Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is some contention about the difference between a block and a ban. My understanding is that the sanction imposed by Arbcom upon TRM is a type of ban which WP:BAN defines as "a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits".  A block has now been applied to enforce this ban.  Insofar as TRM has continued to be uncivil on his talk page, the enforcement should cover that too.  Andrew D. (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I think there are issues here that go beyond this specific request for clarification, and I'd like to beg the Committee's indulgence to outline them here.

Here is the time line:
 * 21:01, 5 March 2017, who by his own admission has had disputes with (TRM) files a request for AE enforcement against TRM.
 * 21:37, 5 March 2017 makes this comment at the discussion section Given that the most recent diff of TRM being "belittling" was in reply to someone else saying "fuck you" to him, I think you can probably cut him some slack for that one.
 * 21:42, 5 March 2017 Sandstein posts his decision to block TRM and then closes the AE thread and logs the block at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
 * 21:48, 5 March 2017 Having been informed of his month-long block, TRM vents his feelings in a sarcastic reply to Sandstein, culminating with what looks like a "rage-quit": Cheers Wikipedia and all those I worked with, it was awesome while it lasted. The shit admins won!
 * Over the next 20 minutes, TRM actually posts notes to other users, suggesting needed edits to upcoming main page content, as well as an almost chummy grumble to Floquenbeam about how other admins swore at him but were not sanctioned.
 * 22:08, 5 March 2017‎ Sandstein picks up on TRM's reply and fully-protects TRM's talk page giving as a reason in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins", but does not log the action as AE enforcement.
 * 23:57, 5 March 2017‎ removed the talk-page protection with the edit summary: "must be some mistake. If you want to stop the user himself from editing the page (not that I see much reason for that, either), then revoke tpa, please."
 * 01:42, 6 March 2017 Following a note from on Bishonen's talk page, I explained that the full protection had not been logged, so could not qualify as an AE sanction.
 * 06:14, 6 March 2017‎ Sandstein states that he did not log it because it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction.
 * 06:23, 6 March 2017 Sandstein mistakenly claims the remedy does not permit revoking talk page access, even though Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man specifically states Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
 * After I pointed out to him that only sanctions placed under AE enjoy exemption from normal admin discretion to overturn them, Sandstein changes his mind.
 * 11:09, 6 March 2017 Sandstein retrospectively logs the full talk page protection, some 11 hours after it had already been removed.

Now I have multiple concerns about Sandstein's judgement in the choice of block length (going right to the maximum allowed); his closure of the Discussion at AE only 40 minutes after the request; his lack of understanding of the most appropriate measure in response to TRM's venting; and his shenanigans with the Enforcement log, but all of that is expressed by others much better that I can at Administrators' noticeboard.

Nevertheless the current state of AE – which I accept is designed to cut through the phenomenon of WP:UNBLOCKABLE editors – now has the potential to be used to do an end-run around the WP:INVOLVED policy. The situation now is that an involved admin can simply post a request for action against an adversary who is subject to an AE warning, and – even if 100 admins opine against action – a single admin can still super-vote and take action. That leads to the situation where an involved admin can still be virtually certain of being able to indirectly take action, if the other party has an AE remedy hanging over them. Not only that, but the action now carries a "seal-of-approval" (no matter how ill-judged it was) that prevents other admins who disagree from overturning it (no matter how reasonable that might be). The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and I'm asking ArbCom to consider carefully whether in non-urgent cases there should be (1) a mandatory minimum period during which an AE request should remain open for discussion? (2) whether when contention is apparent, but some sort of consensus is emerging, that consensus should be respected? (3) whether it is desirable for the admin who takes action to be able to stifle discussion of their action by closing the request? --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you, in particular, didn't understand the point I am making. INVOLVED does indeed say that editors should not act as admins in cases where they are involved. It is to prevent one side of a dispute having "weapons" that the other side does not. But what we have here – and this is pertinent to 's misunderstanding as well – is a situation where an involved admin can use those "weapons" by proxy, simply by making a request at AE, with a near-certainty that the request will be carried out, because one admin who acts overrules all the others who don't believe action is the right course. That's even worse than asking another admin to apply a sanction for you (as that could be simply overturned on the judgement of a third admin), and it's precisely what the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:INVOLVED should prevent. If admins taking issues to AE really don't know how it actually works there at present, then the problem is even worse than I feared. --RexxS (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the point of a block is purely to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. The dialogues on TRM's talk page are certainly not disruption. Perhaps you're thinking about a site-ban, where it is considered best to revert ban-evading contributions, even if they are constructive? --RexxS (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * you state the talkpage protection was an arbitration enforcement action and shouldn't have been unilaterally overturned. If you want all AE actions to be protected from overturning, then you'd better change the policy that explicitly only states sanctions to say what you intend it to mean. You'll also need to change the logging policy to include "all actions", rather than just the laundry list of "block, restriction, ban, or sanction" that appears at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man, as even an experienced admin like Sandstein managed to get himself confused over that. --RexxS (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you don't seem able to grasp the point. Try it this way: an admin wants to place a sanction on an editor with whom they have a dispute; they can't do it themselves because of INVOLVED, but the other editor is subject to an AE warning; so all the involved admin needs do is request AE because it's certain that at least one other admin will agree, place the sanction and close the case, no matter how many others might disagree. That's what happened in this case, and we might as well have just let Ed17 place the sanction in the first place. If you don't see what's wrong with that, then you don't understand that exercise of effectively unfettered power is anathema to a collaborative project and that appropriate checks and balances are required. Those checks and balances have been sadly lacking here, and I don't accept that the enforcing admin should act as judge, jury and executioner, and then be able tell the community that they refuse to answer reasonable questions about their actions. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You're just wikilwayering the word "uninvolved". If you have an argument with an editor who is subject to AE, and want them sanctioned, you know as well as the rest of us that there's bound to be at least one other admin who will act on an AE request for you. That doesn't make them involved: it makes them your proxy, and it removes the protection that WP:INVOLVED is supposed to provide for anyone in dispute with an admin. It's just like the bad old days when involved admins were able to do an end-run around policy by asking one of their chums on IRC to do their dirty work for them. As far as anyone subject to an ArbCom prohibition is concerned, there might as well not be an INVOLVED policy. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Come off it – you're not talking to someone born yesterday. You think I haven't heard the fallacy of the excluded middle before? "Rexx suggests that some admins proxy for others; it would be ridiculous if every admin action were a proxy for another admin; therefore Rexx's suggestion is ridiculous." "Some" ≠ "every". The only thing ridiculous is expecting anybody else to buy into your transparent defence of the indefensible. --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker: Your refusal to face facts is astonishing. I would have preferred not to personalise what is a general problem, but if you can't see the issue without specifics, here they are: Sandstein takes AE action over the objections of other admins, and this is not the first instance of that happening. Do you deny that? Sandstein imposed the maximum penalty allowed without consideration of any extenuation. Do you deny that? Sandstein misunderstands ArbCom remedies and misuses sanctions like pre-emptive full protection? Do you deny that? Sandstein closed an AE request that he has decided and refuseed to allow further comments. Do you deny that? Sandstein refuses to answer reasonable queries about his actions per WP:ADMINACCOUNT. Do you deny that? If you don't think that creates any room for misuse of the system, then I really have no more time for you. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which admins? Ones who can't tell the difference between "admins" and "involved admins" certainly shouldn't. Tell me: (1) when you filed the complaint, did you expect another admin to sanction TRM or not? (2) Was the block length of 1 month appropriate or not? (3) In the circumstances, was full protection of the talk page better than removing talk page access, or not? --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
As someone who works WP:AE regularly, I'm interested in seeing some answers here. Sandstein acted in accordance with the remedies in TRM's case. The block and the talk page protection were allowed (And if I had to guess why it's protection and not revoking talk page access, it's because of the circus that normally ensues on TRM's talk page when action is taken against him). The remedy states also that the block can only be appealed at WP:AE. So now we have Sandstein facing criticism for the manner in which these actions where taken when they were taken within the bounds of the remedy (leaving aside discussion of the merits of the block) and another admin reversing an AE action without discussion.

If it's a badly written remedy, it should be amended. But we have to support our admins who work in this area and not allow them to be undermined when they act in accordance with the remedy. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe
I agree with the concerns RexxS has expressed. I would also appreciate confirmation from ArbCom that all actions by administrators, including enforcement of sanction via the WP:AE process, are subject to review by the community at WP:AN in the ordinary way - and can be overruled should a consensus to do so form. AE actions are already privileged through the threat to desysop those who reverse them without consensus, it would be quite another thing to give admins who make AE actions immunity from the scrutiny of their peers for the actions they take in the event that they prove to be contrary to a clear community consensus. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I worry about the way the process has played out here. A WP:AE appeal can only be made by the sanctioned user. If the community has a problem with the manner an administrator is undertaking AE enforcement actions, can we - absent an appeal by the user - review and modify what the administrator has done? In this case for example, there is clearly zero community support for the talk page protection and a fairly strong consensus that, even if the block was OK, it should have been 1 week or less, not 1 month. But would both these actions have had to stand if: (i) Bishonen hadn't acted boldly to revert the protection (apparently risking her tools in doing so); and (ii) TRM had not appealed at AE? One of the biggest concerns about overzealous WP:AE enforcement is that it may drive people away. By definition those people will not file appeals. So was Sandstein entitled to refuse to answer for his action at WP:AN per WP:ADMINACCOUNT prior to TRM making a formal appeal, and was the WP:AN capable of causing the talkpage to be unprotected (if Bishonen had not already unprotected it) and the block length to be reduced? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that concerns with Sandstein's communication in respect of AE actions have been raised before, resulting in the following remedy in May 2011: "Sandstein is advised to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions." (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling) I think that is again the crux of the issue other administrators have raised on this occasion. Poor communication with colleagues before and after the AE actions were taken, despite clear evidence that they are regarded to have been manifestly disproportionate. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
The whole circus is presumably why the committee remedy was to have the appeal at AE, and regardless of why the ctte adopted that, it is total waste to second guess and rewrite it in the middle. Just follow the route for appeal, no more is needed, here. It is simple, if the remedy laid out is followed: 1) editor action 2) AE complaint and/or discretionary AE sanction 3) appeal at AE. There should be none of this other stuff going on, it's just unneeded, and wasteful. And should the parties want a different route of appeal they can request it, here, later. --  Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a further note. RexxS comments about INVOLVED make little sense.  It is expected that many AE filings come from involved people.  That's not an end-run around INVOLVED, at all, that is precisely the way INVOLVED is to be handled. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, RexxS, your arguments about INVOLVED still make little sense. A User complains, an uninvolved Admin acts -- that does not make for an INVOLVED issue, anywhere on Wikipedia, including AE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS: I understand that is your claim but it makes no sense, whatsoever: viz. I complain about someone who is breaching policy in a dispute I have with them, they are sanctioned by an uninvolved admin -- it is impossible (either by letter of policy or by spirit of policy) for my involvement to make them INVOLVED. Your argument would make every admin always INVOLVED - your argument is thus irrational. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Now, as for the rest, RexxS, apart from your odd INVOLVED claim, there is an appeal process for those questions, just follow the process, and don't turn it into a drama fest about over-the-top existential issues (that's not how to advance a collaborative process or project), because it can all be handled at the appeal.  It's really quite simple and logical and community minded, someone does something so draining on the community that it actually results in an specific arbitration remedy, AE then provides enforcement, and the check is appeal.   Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. RexxS. You are ridiculously arguing that every uninvolved admin acts as a proxy for a complainant and that somehow makes them INVOVLED. Your argument makes no sense.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS: You come off it, as you are just making a totally ridiculous argument.  Perhaps it is because you are not saying what your really mean to say -- if you want want to accuse Sandstein of bad faith, and not actually trying to act appropriately to do the work of AE, and accuse him of being INVOLVED, then do so - and take the consequence of having the actual courage of your conviction -- but don't make your totally nonsensical argument about a policy that has absolutely no application, here - with a hand wave to your dark aspersion implication about "some admins" (who?) . And that, if you have not noticed, absolutely no one has bought into, because your argument is just so poor, when it is not just a veiled aspersion against "some". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS: No.  In fact, almost none of your so-called Sandstein "facts" are not controverted.  Most are being controverted at the appeal right now, and the rest are being controverted, here.  More to the point, none has to do with your nonsense arguments regarding INVOLVED, they have to to with other provisions of policy.  That you have no facts regarding INVOLVED, is progress, because now there is no further reason to discuss INVOLVED. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Little Olive Oil: Give your evidence, here, or don't cast you weird aspersion.  Just whom are you accusing?  Your silly claim of experience rings particularly hollow as evidence, or just very bad and useless argument, to anyone here who has any experience. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Little Olive Oil: I said, no one had bought into it before you cast your aspersion. RexxS argument is nonsense as a general proposition, although, yes, I did note it could possibly make sense as an accusation against someone in particular. Where is your evidence and who are you accusing? If you are just making claims for which you have no proof, than why are you bringing them up? Sure, it's always possible some unknown people are evil, and corrupt, but Wikipedia does not work under such conspiracy assumption, as any experienced person would know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Responding to the WBScibe issue, I get that his position is that he want's to jump in and do something but it is wrong. The appellant and the blocking administrator are the ones who need to work it out for the good of the community, so yes, the effected party is the one to appeal, and then the uninvovled rest can help them work it out. If the effected party does not want to work it out with the uninvolved administrator via appeal, then the party that refuses the appeal is refusing the community.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * On the page protection: Opibina has hit on the nub of the problem, if the ctte did not want uninvolved admin to protect the talk page for what in the uninvolved admin's discretionary view was continuing of the blocked for behavior, it would have been good to be more explicit: 'only protect if there is gravedancing', etc. That being said, there is enough confusion (although BU Rob makes some good points, as does some of Drmies reply) not to take any action against Bishonen -- she tried to do her best, too -- but rather clear-up the confusion, which is Callanecc's direction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller: There is subtlety in both what you say and what Rob says.  (From 10,000 feet view, IAR is just the tip of the iceberg in the realization that we work in a fuzzy policy environment.)  With respect to the committee specifically, you are tasked with providing tailor-made remedies, so the difference between you bending and breaking policy - in that specific task of tailoring remedies - is going to be very subtle, at best.  The committee on the one hand seemingly explicitly adopted page protection as a good remedy, here, so then getting a bit up-in-arms about how it should really be very, very rare, leads to the question of why mention it at all in the remedy?  (It is at least by one possible appearance that the ctte, already marked this precise circumstance as a good rare instance). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor
I don't really understand why this TRM guy gets such leniency for violating various policies (including the one, as commented above, about using other editors to do things for you while you are blocked). Do the rules apply to all of us equally, or do they just apply to ordinary people who don't have administrator buddies? Jtrainor (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mifter
I made a formal statement concerning my thoughts on the block at AE (link to my comments) but in regards to this clarification request I wished to concur with the points raised by RexxS and WJBscribe regarding examining this issue fully and clarifying that AE actions are subject to consensus in the usual way per discussion at AN. I write primarily, in response to the points raised by Andrew D. about TRM creating a "todo list" on his talk page and his raising concerns about WP:BLOCKEVASION. I will note from that policy that "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand" and in this case TRM's expertise in handling errors on the Main Page is not in dispute, rather it is the way in which he interacts with other editors. To summarily revert or prohibit those contributions just because this is being worked out is clearly detrimental to the encyclopedia and arguably is cutting off our nose to spite our collective faces. I would rather have him ping me (as one of the primary and few admins active at DYK) over an error that is about to hit the main page than revoke talk page access because of the letter of a policy. In my estimation even if the committee finds that the letter of WP:BLOCKEVASION applies here (which I do not believe it does) I believe the net positives of allowing TRM to request the correction of errors about to hit the main page (with millions of views per hour/day) justify ignoring it as prohibiting such corrections would cause more harm than good and additionally simply escalate the situation further. Mifter (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In further response to Andrew D., where he states, blocks per our blocking policy are preventative and not punitive. I believe you are referring to a ban which is a blanket prohibition on editing either a specific topic or the encyclopedia at large imposed by the community, Arbcom, the WMF, etc. and a declaration that an editor is persona non grata.  When a user is banned they are prohibited from editing regardless of merits.  Blocks are merely a preventative tool to protect the encyclopedia (blocks are used to implement bans but the vast majority of blocks are not bans.)  TRM is not banned, he is only (temporarily) blocked in this case.  Further, per my above argument and verbatim quote from the Block Evasion policy I do not believe block evasion applies in this case.  Mifter (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark
Given the valid concerns expressed about Sandstein's own unilateral actions, it is disappointing that he is making an issue out of Bishonen's removal of page protection. If Sandstein wanted the protection to be seen as part of his arbitration enforcement, he should have made that more clear. The block was too hasty and the protection was too careless. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mojoworker
Since it's caused some confusion (as seen in the statement by Jtrainor above), it would have been helpful if Andrew Davidson had quoted the entire sentence from WP:BLOCKEVASION: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." As Opabinia regalis notes below, if an editor in good standing wants to make those edits in their own name, then they've taken full responsibility for them. Mojoworker (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17
Please see WP:INVOLVED: "" My bolding. Bringing someone to AE is not an administrative action. Can you correct your statement above? Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So in your view, admins can't bring other editors to AE? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Ritchie333
Sandstein seems to have confused what Arbitration Enforcement allows as what it mandates. Had a 24-hour block been handed out, there would have been a small amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth, then it would pass and we'd all move on. By jumping to the maximum penalties allowed, he has created a wholly disproportionate amount of drama and his judgement has been called into question. For all the mantra of "blocks are preventative, not punitive", the block certainly isn't stopping draining conversations here, and at AE, and at AN! Some prevention! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would echo Boing's comments below and say that some of Sandstein's comments, such as "Bishonen's unilateral actions, however, indicate that she is not really interested in my reasons at all, or she would have consulted with me before lifting the protection, as admins are supposed to" can be construed as violating WP:CIVIL. Bishonen made a good-faith attempt to quell a dispute and gave an explanation, and you don't seem to be giving her respect for that. Why are you so keen to see her punished? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "I don't know about you, but I do not have the time to follow multiple noticeboard threads 24/7 repeatedly justifying myself at great length over and over again to random, often involved editors" You blocked a long-standing, albeit controversial, editor for a month. What on earth did you expect, high fives and barnstars all round? I am not at all surprised that you have received all this attention, and with a bit more foresight, you really ought to have expected it. Perhaps if you had thought about the harassment you might have picked up in advance, you may have decided on an alternative sanction instead. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Boing! said Zebedee
I think the suggestion of imposing a 24hr period before admin action can be taken in response to an AE request is missing the point and is, as Bish suggests, a mistake. It appears to me the frustration felt by some is over the enforcing *and* closing of the AE request by the same admin in a very short time and the cutting off of any further discussion that that entailed, not the enforcement action itself. I suggest the admin making an enforcement action should not be the one who closes the request, and the enforcing admin should always be open to question and/or discussion from colleagues after taking such action. (The apparent "I've spoken, and the rest of you are beneath me and not deserving of any consideration" attitude I see here stinks - I know this discussion is strictly about clarifying the pedantic minutiae of the rules, but I think that would be missing the wood for the trees.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't unilaterally closed the AE request, then you would have had a place to respond. Also, how does "You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now" tie in with "I completely agree that as an admin I should respond to good-faith questions by other editors regarding my actions. [...] I want to discuss them in one forum where focused, structured discussion is possible."? In this sorry affair I have seen little from you but a steadfast refusal to discuss your actions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I find your accusations of bad faith towards User:Bishonen very disappointing (and unfounded, as she has clearly explained why she did not think asking you first was required). Also, your insistence that you will only discuss your actions at an AE appeal mean that unless a blocked editor should make an appeal (as they actually have done in this case), you would refuse to discuss your actions with your fellow admins and community members. I do not think that is an acceptable attitude from an admin, and I would like to hear the opinions of Arbs on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC) (Adjusted for clarity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC))
 * Well, When you were asked why you protected that talk page, I think you'd have done yourself and the rest of us a far better service if you'd just answered the bloody question instead of giving us this evasive and pompous runaround. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
Commenting on one thing and one thing only:
 * The Committee very much can override policy. See WP:CONEXCEPT. Also see many, many historical examples such as WP:ARBPIA3. The Committee can't create policy, but it can issue binding remedies that overrule policy when tackling behavioral issues. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As written, the remedy allows for Sandstein's actions. They do not need to defend their actions based on the protection or blocking policies, because their authority derived from the remedy, not policy, and the remedy itself is exempt from consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT. They should still fulfill WP:ADMINACCT, and I believe they have, stating clearly that they believed the remedy gave preference to full protection over talk page access revocation. Now, if the Arbitration Committee passed a bad remedy, that's a valuable but very different discussion. 's statement that Sandstein didn't act within the bounds of the protection policy or blocking policy doesn't make much sense, because the Committee passed a remedy that allowed for these actions. This is similar to how I don't need to defend a protection under WP:ARBPIA3 as preventing current disruption, normally required under the protection policy, because ArbCom has decided that the topic area's volatility allows for extra-ordinary actions at administrator discretion. Policy writing is hard, and if the Committee got it wrong, it needs to own that, not say that some uninvolved admin should know what you meant to write in the remedy. I find it disturbing that Sandstein is under the microscope for acting at his discretion to do exactly what you wrote he could do at his discretion. Other admins are watching, myself included, and we will certainly remember that AE actions no longer require consensus to reverse when we go to make them in the future. We'll also remember that the Committee considers it overtly improper use of the tools to act as prescribed in a remedy if we don't do so how they expected. I doubt the Committee fully grasps the chilling effect this discussion is likely to have on AE actions in the more complicated cases. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can avoid talking about chilling effects, . We now have precedent that an administrator can reverse an AE action with impunity entirely unilaterally instead of discussing it. ArbCom is in the process of gutting its own ability to credibly address civility issues of long-term editors. I'm not saying the result here should have been page protection, but the reversal without discussion is beyond the pale. As for whether the action was valid under the remedy, the remedy states "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block". There is no requirement for anything to occur beforehand to justify such a protection. Now, I'm not arguing that admins should go around doing things willy-nilly under ArbCom remedies without reason, but I think Sandstein clearly stated his reasoning. He saw TRM as continuing to be condescending and belittling, and he believed the remedy preferred protection over talk page revocation to address that. That is a valid rationale under "their discretion". You can reverse the page protection because you think it's not the proper action, certainly. But a claim that it was invalid is far too generous to the Committee that wrote and approved this remedy. I can't bring myself to believe you truly think ArbCom remedies must follow usual policies. If so, how was WP:ARBPIA3 passed, which allows ECP protection on all pages in a topic area whether or not disruption has occurred, contrary to the community-based ECP policy? This was even more not-in-keeping with ECP policy at the time ECP was created, when the community had authorized its use for nothing. Moreover, if ArbCom restrictions had to abide by policy, then the community could overturn any remedy by altering policy to disallow it. Is that actually something this Committee would consider acceptable? I'm bewildered. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of walking away from this request with progress, can we get a clear statement (preferably by formal motion) that all AE actions cannot be reverted unilaterally but must be discussed first? In off-wiki discussion, it's been argued that this reversal was valid because the page protection wasn't a sanction, but just an action. That type of distinction clearly was never the intent of the bar on reverting AE sanctions, and clarity is always helpful. This isn't a change of policy or anything; just documenting current practices. I'm still seriously worried that the vague "Well, this reversal was understandable!" type comments by arbs below are going to affect the efficacy of AE. Sometimes we have bright lines for a reason, and requiring discussion is not a high bar to meet. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 09:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussing the actions of contributors is literally what you're doing in the post you just made about EEng and I. Is that a violation as well? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
Regarding a minimum 24-hour period for an AE complaint to remain open - we wouldn't need this if admins acted like they were supposed to and used their judgement and common sense when handling these cases. Case involving a clear-cut breach of a topic ban? Block away. Case involving WP:CIVIL and an editor with a controversial reputation? You know there's going to be various viewpoints so propose a course of action and wait an appropriate time for discussion. Or, if you feel you must take action right away, make it a regular admin block which allows the use of regular unblock channels. If you really, really feel you need to take unilateral AE action in a controversial matter then don't close the request yourself. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MLauba
a failure to log a sanction doesn't invalidate the sanction  - I believe going down that route is exactly the wrong path. On the contrary, an admin who wants to protect an action under the provisions of an arbitration remedy should always log them as such. Doing anything else opens the door wide open to gaming, or for instance, this very ARCA here. Otherwise, your motion will clash with WP:WHEEL. MLauba (Talk) 10:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The clash with WP:WHEEL would happen when an action gets reversed and claimed as being under arbitration remedy after the fact. Given the extraordinary protection afforded by arbitration enforcement actions (which I don't dispute) against reversal, properly logging them in the same go doesn't seem like a particularly onerous requirement. Do we ever get away with deleting an article while forgetting to close its AfD? We have stringent processes for many admin actions. The thought that for the most protected admin actions clear logging would be a burden too much is baffling. MLauba (Talk) 10:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

''I think this attitude is exactly why some editors have effectively become WP:UNBLOCKABLE. ''

I believe most of the very few true unblockables have become unblockable in no small part because they were hit by disproportionate sanctions by some admins. Refusing to give clear and forthright explanations to their peers at AN makes it worse. When a significant portion of the community starts to feel that an editor, even under harsh sanctions, is being treated unfairly, that's when subsequent enforcement actions become more difficult. In this specific instance, your constant evasion of your accountability towards your admin peers and your dismissal of any questioning as coming from "friends of the blocked" will, I trust, have done a lot to make future administrative actions against TRM more difficult. I'd suggest you ponder that the next time you consider what a proportionate sanction may be, rather than how much discussion is required to apply it.

For someone who has been active in AE for longer than I have been an admin, I keep being surprised that these drama fests pop up regularly around some of your actions (as opposed to other long term AE regulars). When the Arbcom issues restrictions instead of outright bans, their purpose is to try and retain the positives an editor has to offer. Some reform. Many get eaten up by resentment and earn themselves a ban later. If their resentment shifts from the existence of the sanctions to the fairness of their enforcement, and that fairness is questioned by others for good cause, it defeats the whole purpose of the sanction in the first place. The role of AE is to deter editors from resuming the conduct under sanction, not to drive them to the brink, and even less to generate a wave of undue sympathy for them.

To wit - TRM's appeal discussion centers on the duration (not the validity) of your sanction. If that were off the table, the admins discussing the appeal would most likely have spent a lot of time examining the nature of TRM's defence, which IMO doesn't do him any favours. We should not be discussing the merit of your actions. That we do is entirely on you. MLauba (Talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I quickly wish to note my support of Rexx's comments, particularly regarding WP:INVOLVED.

As for the meat of the situation I think there are four things that the Committee can do that would resolve most of these sorts of issues going forward - statements/amendments/declarations that:
 * 1) Arbitration Enforcement actions must be proportionate to the situation.
 * 2) The protections afforded to Arbitration Enforcement actions apply only to those actions that are unambiguously logged as being AE actions.
 * 3) *This noting can be in the block/protection/etc log and/or the case log, but must happen.
 * 4) *A sanction that is not logged is still valid, but only at the level of an ordinary admin action
 * 5) *A sanction may be logged retrospectively, but the AE action protections apply only from the time it is logged. Retrospective logging must be justified.
 * 6) *If it is unclear whether an action is an AE action or not, then users are encouraged to seek clarification from the admin making the action. Such clarification asked for in good faith must be given.
 * 7) Every admin making an Arbitration Enforcement action (or explicit inaction) must explain their action and the reasons they chose when asked in good faith by any user.
 * 8) *If an (in)action is based on non-public information, then the answer to the question should state this (e.g. "I blocked Example based on checkuser evidence." or simply "This was due to non-public information." where giving more detail is not possible/advisable).
 * 9) *If a question has been previously answered, simply pointing to that answer is permissible.
 * 10) Arbitration Enforcement actions do not require discussion, but if good-faith discussion is happening then the consensus of uninvolved administrators must be respected. This excludes situations with changed circumstances or new information, but any such action must be explicitly justified at the venue where discussion is happening.

I'd like the third point to apply to every admin action, but that is outside the scope of the Committee's remit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The more I read about this, the more I am in agreement with El C. Sandstein, not for the first time, has been overly harsh in imposing restrictions and then steadfastly refused to discuss his actions, in clear breach of WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." and "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. [for example] Failure to communicate ... (e.g., lack of explanations of actions)". This is backed up by a link to Requests for arbitration/Betacommand "Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.". A block of TRM was probably justified, the length possibly not, but the talk page almost certainly wasn't and there is no justification whatsoever for the refusal to respond in good faith to queries about it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
We need this many words over talk page? Cut to the chase: Talk page access should not be revoked when sanctions are enabled. It's the only way to appeal. Sending email to ArbCom is insufficient. Here's a remedy that will work: Don't read another editors talk page if you  don't like what they say. The corollary is already widely accepted: Don't post in User Talk space if the user has asked you not. Unlock the talk page. Trouts all around. --DHeyward (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender
Well, this block has caused more cyber-ink to be spilled, by more people, across more pages, than any event in recent Wikipedia history. I am much in agreement with RexxS and NeilN. I would also like to state that if community (especially additional admin) input had been allowed and assessed before any actions were taken, all these millions of bytes of commentary and drama would not be happening, and we would all have accepted whatever final decision/actions as fairly discussed and implemented. I'd like to compare the last AE report on TRM with this one: On 22 January, an AE was opened on TRM, and 9 people gave opinions. Sandstein closed the AE 7 hours later as "No action is required.":. The current AE was opened on 5 March. One person (administrator Iridescent) briefly commented, recommending cutting some slack for one of the reported comments. Sandstein closed the AE 40 minutes after the opening with a one-month block and 15 minutes after the block locked TRM's talk page. Given the stark difference in the level of community input between the January AE and the March AE, and given the enormous amount of controversy and back-and-forth generated by the action(s) this time, I think it would be a show of good faith if Sandstein would dial down at least somewhat and allow, in a show of good faith (not just to TRM, but mainly to the community at large which has been so disrupted by it), a reduction in the block length. Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorely disappointed in the amount of self-justification that Sandstein has been engaging in since the block was enacted. We all do rash things and make public mistakes and get defensive about them (that's human nature), but this new post is entirely inappropriate in my opinion. I would like to see an official block review implemented. Or, if that's no longer an option, an official review of Sandstein's actions in this case. Softlavender (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you are selectively removing pieces of civil comments from someone else's talkpage. Editors are allowed to discuss all kinds of things on their own talkpage; removing them is a violation of WP:TPO unless the editor whose talkpage it is agrees to the removal. I'm also not sure why you think those moderate comments are any worse (so to speak) than the harsher comments people have posted here or at AE or various other venues. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , please read the scope of this ARCA: It is for clarifying the legitimacy or allowability of Bishonen's unilateral unlocking of TRM's talkpage vis-a-vis the ArbCom sanctions enacted in the TRM ArbCom case. That you did not have ARCA on your watchlist is no one else's problem. If you wish to create an ArbCom case request or other noticeboard thread about some other subject, you are free to; if it is a WP:RFAR other editors will opine on its merit and if accepted you and others will provide evidence that the Arbitration Committee will then respond to and address. Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , here the Committee is responding to hundreds of points made by 29 people so far. If you want your specific points to be specifically and singularly addressed (or !voted on) by a specific group of people, you will need to open an appropriate dedicated thread in an appropriate venue. Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

 * 1) The AE report was closed too quickly for a case involving an established editor.
 * 2) The block was overlong, and that is precisely something the Committee should be voicing its opinion on, seeing that consensus is currently disputed.
 * 3) Sandstien has been less than communicative, despite the controversial nature of his action (speaking on it only when pressed).
 * 4) Sandstein should be admonished for all of the above, and the resulting mess. El_C 16:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Please note that some of the evidence compiled against TRM was, according to him, a product of himself being provoked by a personal attack directed against him by Floquenbeam, who himself was responding to TRM's "useless comments" reply. A personal attack which, on March 4, I warned Floquenbeam about. I note this for the record because it is mentioned only once in passing throughout this entire Request. I leave to the Committee to decide whether it constitutes as mitigating circumstances. El_C 21:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum2: TRM kept making the comparison: Floquenbeam was only given a warning for a personal attack, but TRM was blocked for a month for mild incivility and impatience. He is not without a point. I want to make one thing clear though: I, myself, never immediately block for NPA violations (unless they're especially egregious), I always give a one-time warning. I mention this because I had come under criticism, on the one hand, from Floquenbeam for the warning—and the other, from TRM for not blocking Floquenbeam. El_C 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum3: TRM writes about how Floquenbeam said to him: "makes people think you're a prick." How that was on Jan. 30, "falling squarely in the centre of the diffs presented." El_C 23:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum4: Committee members, I now notice that it has been a few days since any of you commented. If you were to please address my original four points as a single proposition. El_C 04:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum5: Next time, I best not raise attention to the Committee's inactivity (it wasn't inactivity then, it was lack of publicity—somehow, this entire ARCA existing was hidden in the body of the lengthy appeal), since it may end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. This entanglement is exactly what the Committee has been set out to do. And I regret to see that its latest iteration through the years has resulted in such a passive Committee. I realize I'm making no friends among the Arb Committee members when I raise attention to this and that probably, at best I, can expect further stonewalling to my comments here. But Committee members: I still challenge that you have failed to do your part here. El_C 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum6: Softlavender, I do have it on my watchlist. I also have ~60,000 other articles on my watchlist, so some do slip through the cracks. I never much like an Arbitration Committee that acts like a court of law, shackled by bureaucracy and legalism and proceduralism of the wiki, and I hope this isn't the case today. As far as I'm concerned, I don't need a separate RFAR for my points to be considered and commented on. If the Committee is looking into an issue, it ought to have the authority to examine its full scope, period. El_C 20:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum7: How many addendums?—and all for naught. I think that using an IP rather than one's own regular account works against the very argument s/he is purportedly advancing. El_C 11:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

 * I don't need to write anything, because El_C has summed it up beautifully in the section above. FWIW the block was not wrong, but certainly overlong, and the TP nonsense was definitely out of order. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
I find 's comment Bishonen and the other editors who are now raising a ruckus should be ashamed of themselves to be insulting and belittling. All anyone is asking Sandstein to do is communicate with other admins in good faith, and work to find a solution. At every turn, Sandstein has shown no indication that they are at all interested in resolving the problem at hand, instead attaching unnecessary preconditions to each step. He refused to discuss the page protection, unless a direct appeal from the blocked editor (who was unable to directly comment due to the page protection) was made. TRM later proposed a voluntary restriction for himself that would demonstrate that he was attempting to resolve the issue, but Sandstein was "not convinced". I went to Sandstein's talk to mediate in good faith, and asked what it would take to convince him. He declined to put forth any suggestion. I then came up with my own counter proposal, but Sandstein again refused to discuss it unless it came from TRM himself, and only if the current appeal was declined. TRM agreed to my proposal, and yet Sandstein and others still believe he has no intention of abiding by the restriction. So TRM clearly states that he understands the restriction and makes statements like Well, I'll not break the terms of my Arbcom sanctions ever again. And if I do, I expect to be banned from the project! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC), which fulfill every hoop that Sandstein has asked him to jump through, and yet instead of speaking with him or commenting on how to move forward, Sandstein is instead here insulting and belittling the admins who are attempting to resolve this contentious issue. It is becoming obvious that this issue is just an attempt to punish TRM, using Arbcom procedure to bludgeon anyone who wants to work toward a preventative solution. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Floquenbeam
Regarding 's recent statement: This is tiresome to repeat, but... it is impossible that some of the evidence compiled against TRM was a response to my personal attack, because none of the diffs presented against him occured after my personal attack. They all occured before it. You have cause and effect backwards. My personal attack was a frustrated response to his comment, not vice versa. I had assumed that you'd checked this out before giving me a warning; did you not do so, or did you lose track? Before I get another helpful warning on my page, I'm not excusing my personal attack, I'm not saying that your helpful warning was not justified because you've confused the order. I'm saying that you need to at least look at the diffs before saying things that are demonstrably not true.

While I'm here, may I suggest that this is as simple as telling TRM that the ArbCom remedy is functionally equivalent to "TRM is instructed to suffer fools gladly"? Then we'd at least all be on the same page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda
You know I try to avoid arbcom, and don't want to take the time of readers. Boing! summarized well for me, and so did the line just above "... suffer fools gladly" which might be true for all of us. A longer discussion can be read under User talk:El C. Nutshell: Imagine how much more time we all would have for article writing if nobody reports to AE, - very generally, not just this case. I am known for my dreams ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
El_C has absolutely nailed it, Don't get me wrong I still think the block was pathetic however the way Sandstein has handled it all has been laughable, This may sound extreme but fuck it - Sandstein IMHO should be desysopped not only for their actions but also for not discussing any of it,

All's I'm seeing is "It's not my fault" and "I'm not discussing it" sort of attitude here,

Admit your mistakes - Discuss the solutions and or your mistakes, Resolve shit, Move on, Not that hard. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved admin Coffee
Could the committee please be so kind as to remind our editors (, highlighted) that all editors are to comment on article content not their fellow contributors? It doesn't matter how disruptive an editor becomes; their behavior is not a free pass to break our rules of conduct. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved IP editor
Am I the only one that finds it absolutely hilarious that arbcom openly decides to take no action, when the admin openly admits to gaming the system? Sandstein openly admitted in his latest reply that he closed it so quickly to stop a non consensus from forming specifically to force that a strong consensus against would be required. That's nothing short of gaming the system, and that's just supposed to not even be commented on? While gaming the system isn't a policy and "only" a guideline, that just stinks. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think I even have an account? Because I don't. Never had, and unless Wikipedia changes quite drastically, it's highly unlikely that I ever will. It's simply not gaining me anything that I'm interested in in even the slightest. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't requesting a sanction though. I'm sorry if it came across as if I was. What I find to be stinking is that arbcom is choosing to not even comment on that it's a clear case of gaming the system. Just a simple acknowledging that that is indeed gaming the system would set a clear case that it's not acceptable for the future to game the system that way. I'd also ask, why mistakes having been made by both sides matter? Last I checked, arbcom is not a court and does not require one winner and one loser, so both having made mistakes doesn't make sense as some sort of defense. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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



The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , there's a lot in these various contributions, but I think it's important to note at least one thing: Bishonen did not undo your block, which, it seems to me, is the most important part of the sanction. I note also that in your decision you didn't mention the talk page protection, and if this is going to boil down to procedure, that is not unimportant. It is correct that the possibility of talk page protection was there to protect TRM from gravedancing in the case of a block or other sanction; the argument that protection was to prevent TRM from any further incivilities is not so strong. Obviously, removal of talk page access would have done that, and I don't know if we'd be here if you'd decided on that (and announced it in the decision, I suppose). So, why the protection? And given that the AN thread focused on the length of the block, why should this particular disagreement be so important as to warrant this request for clarification? [There may be more to discuss--questions about involvement, for instance, coming from various sides, but this one decision on Bishonen's part is the heart of the matter.] Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13, User:Doug Weller, I'm not sure what CONEXCEPT is doing here. Doug is laying out that there seemed to be no reason for preemptive protection, and that policy supports this. Sure, ArbCom can override consensus--but that's not the same as saying an admin can, citing Arb-enforced possible sanctions, set aside policy for apparently no good reason. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think the committee wants to see drastic actions be documented and explained properly. Whether that was done or not is one of the things we're looking into, I suppose. Also, Several editors suggest that AE admins such as myself should use particular caution when dealing with "longstanding editors" or those with a "controversial reputation"--I am not one of those editors, and I think the committee agrees that we should have parity. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13, "the remedy allowed talk page protection"--and you mention "...if the Arbitration Committee passed a bad remedy", but that's precisely it. If ArbCom passed a remedy against policy, it shouldn't have passed, but it wasn't a remedy against policy. Sandstein's protection could have been perfectly in line with the remedies drawn up by ArbCom, but, so the argument goes, it wasn't--some argue because it wasn't announced or argued explicitly or even recognized, some (Doug Weller) because there was no apparent need for it. DS/AE gives admins power, but not unlimited or arbitrary power. These are strong words, and I am not accusing Sandstein of being a kind of dictator--far from it, but we expect admins at AE to give a good reasoning for their decisions. I read over Sandstein's decision again, for the third time now, and there is nothing in there about the need for protecting the talk page, or about evidence of talk page disruption in the first place, never mind likely hypothetical evidence of talk page disruption. As for this chilling effect, I think that's overblown. Admins know, or should know, that the power that comes with acting at AE comes with the burden of having to explain their decision. No one I know, on ArbCom or outside of it, wants admins in general and Sandstein in specific to stop weighing in at AE: we, and the community, need them there, but, again, with disclosure of a. their precise actions and b. the justification of those action. You know as well as I do that revoking talk page access is rarely a first step, and protecting a talk page is exceptional--and, in this case, included in the remedies to prevent the editor from suffering abuse. That's all--I don't see this as a case that is so fundamental that we have to talk about chilling effects and remedy vs. policy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13, I do not subscribe to these alarmist expressions which, I believe, are stated too strongly--for instance, that ECP is somehow "contrary" to policy, or that undoing one aspect of an administrative action, in this case an undiscussed and relatively minor part of an administrative action, is to be equated with the entire undoing of someone's work with impunity. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't read enough of this yet to have an opinion on the overall issue, but I do have an opinion on the small sub-issue that's been raised in a few statements about TRM using his talk page to make edit suggestions. If a blocked editor wants to post suggestions on their talk page, they can hardly force anyone to take those suggestions, and if an unblocked editor in good standing wants to make those edits in their own name, then they've taken full responsibility for them and it doesn't matter if the idea came from a blocked editor or they thought of it in the shower or it came to them in a dream. I happen to think it would be good for TRM to take a real break and not look at Wikipedia for at least a few days, but I'm not his mother. Let's leave that sub-issue aside and focus on AE. Moving along, I too am curious about the decision to full-protect the talk page, which is certainly unusual - the fact that it was explicitly mentioned in the remedy is, I think, a testament to how unusual an action that would be. (As a historical matter, the wording in the TRM remedy was clearly derived from this restriction in the GGTF case. AFAICT protection was used under that remedy once, for about a day, under circumstances that look at this remove like both continued misbehavior and baiting/gravedancing by others.), do you mean that you decided on protection over revoking talk page access because only the former was explicitly listed in the remedy? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's an awful lot of stuff here that people seem interested in discussing, and that is worthy of discussion, but this isn't really the right venue or format for it. If you think there should be a rule about blocked editors posting article work on their talk pages, WT:BLOCK would be a good place to start. If you think WP:INVOLVED is insufficiently clear, there's a talk page for that too. I'll also put the various arguments/memes about "unblockables" and "people with admin friends" and so forth in that category, and the wiki-philosophical matter of the relationship between "policy" and arbcom decisions. I took my own advice and cut a bunch of comments about those issues from this post. I'm sympathetic to Sandstein's argument here that we can't realistically say "Use your discretion within parameters X and Y" and then when controversy erupts, respond with "Well, we didn't mean like that!" Admins should be able to expect that their discretion will be respected. On the other hand, I think most observers agree here that blocking TRM for a week and revoking talk page access only if significant disruption occurred would have been broadly considered a reasonable action. The decision to use the maximum available block length and do something unusual like full-protect the page is highly conspicuous, and I think that an admin making unusual and conspicuous decisions should expect to be questioned about them and should be prepared to explain them - being annoyed with the popcorn eaters at ANI is fine, but you don't need an arb-managed venue to respond to reasonable questions. (For one thing, it's not possible to stop the community from discussing a decision if they want to, and for another, arbs are slow ;)  On the issue of the protection in particular, it just straight-up didn't cross my mind that the protection sentence might be read as implying that the full range of block parameters couldn't be used, because this remedy wording has been used before and it hadn't come up. (FWIW, I did think of it as primarily protecting TRM from unwelcome talk-page posts he couldn't respond to or remove.) If the wording of the remedy is a sticking point, I'm sure we can come up with a revision that will introduce other unanticipated subtle ambiguities be clearer ;) Finally, I agree with Bish that there's no need for a general imposition of a mandatory waiting period for AE requests, though I do think it would be collegial to wait on a request you can reasonably expect disagreement about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to agree with and amplify 's point above that all of this angst and drama was an avoidable outcome. Yes, Sandstein's decision was "valid" within the written scope of the remedy - and I don't think there's much need for us to opine formally on that - but being permitted by the rules doesn't make a decision a good idea, and it doesn't excuse someone from the expectation that they will be responsive to comments and questions about their decision. I also want to highlight another point: editors who are under an arbcom restriction of some kind tend to feel bitter or frustrated or (rightly or wrongly) like they are being unfairly targeted for criticism. Sanctions that are severe and delivered rapidly tend to perpetuate that narrative. Feeling targeted, underappreciated, and "wronged" is not a good state of mind for the introspection we might hope to see following a sanction. Choosing sanctions that are disproportionate to the offense makes them less effective than they might otherwise have been, makes it harder for the next admin to apply proportionate sanctions for a subsequent problem, and creates a community distraction with significant opportunity costs; there are very practical reasons for being judicious in meting out AE sanctions. For those reasons I find it strange to react to this incident by suggesting even more rigidity in responding to disputed AE actions. Much like the last time this came up, a perfectly reasonable outcome is "there was some disagreement and differences of interpretation, and then everybody went to neutral ground to sort things out". On the other hand, while I hope that community feedback on this particular decision has been clear, I don't think that 's proposed formal admonishment is a useful path forward. Making a decision that turns out to be a bad idea is a "lesson learned" situation, not one necessarily calling for even more escalation. Given that the AE thread is still trundling along, and TRM hasn't chosen to appeal to arbcom, I'm not sure there's really much for us to do here at this stage, other than the log cleanup Callanecc mentioned.  I noticed your ping on preview,, and to be frank I think you're overreacting. If anybody sees anything further about this situation and thinks "That's an outrage! I must do something about this awful behavior at once!", don't. Just go get a beer or take a walk or whatever and see if you still care tomorrow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Though I expect everyone watching here is also watching there, FYI: the AE appeal has been closed upholding the block's basis but commuting the time to one week. Since the underlying matter is settled, and none of us thought that the original block was an invalid action or that any sanctions were needed in this incident, that likely concludes the need for our involvement here. I believe there's a separate motion in the works to streamline logging, but that's not directly related to this request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Recuse due to The ed17's involvement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * 1. On the block - The block is a legitimate arbitration enforcement action under the TRM remedy. Arguments about the block length are matters for the block appeal at WP:AE.
 * 2. On talkpage protection - The talkpage protection is also a legitimate arbitration enforcement action, and should not have been unilaterally undone. Three qualifiers: First: if we want to dispute technicalities it's worth noting that the talkpage protection was not logged at the time it was reversed (per point 1 above by ). Is an unlogged sanction still sanction? Yes, but there's a tiny amount of wriggle room. Second: the reversal was in good faith, and ties up with a legitimate sense that the AE complaint discussion was hastily closed. Third: there is some legitimacy to the idea that the rationale for Arbcom's talkpage protection rationale (gravedancing provoking more TRM replies)hadn't been met when the protection was applied (though this is really a matter for the AE appeal).
 * 3. On the AE closure: There is nothing in the AE rules that mandates that discussions stay open for any period of time, or that individual administrators cannot act unilaterally. This is a flaw in the AE rules, which periodically gives rise to issues like this. Separately from any outcome of this or the AE thread, the Committee or community should endorse a minimum 24-hour period for an AE complaint to remain open. That way there's at least some opportunity for other admins to weigh in, and some opportunity for a consensus to form. Most AE complaints are important, but few require such urgent responses that a 24-hour minimum would cause irreparable harm. There's a lengthier discussion on this here, which also proposes other minimum requirements. For now, suggest we start with 24 hours and see how it goes.
 * 4. What to do - Noting the above qualifiers, suggest the following:
 * , your actions were within the letter of the law, though there are some who might legitimately feel the block was too long and the talkpage protection unnecessary. Please feel free to respond further to these matters at the current AE appeal.
 * , the talkpage protection was an arbitration enforcement action and shouldn't have been unilaterally overturned. However the overturning was explicable in the circumstances listed above. Please don't do it again. Instead, do please lend your hefty support to a minimum waiting period for AE complaints, so we can avoid future repeats of this burgeoning multi-noticeboard circus. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5. On proxying from TRM's talkpage On an semi-related matter - Agree with, and note the second half of the sentence from BLOCKEVASION applies: ... unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, I can't get my head around your refusal to explain your reasons to anyone but an Arb. Reasons for Admin actions should always be open unless they involve confidential material. My opinion is that one way to avoid 'disruptions of AE actions' is to be open and willing to respond to reasonable questions such as "Why?". After all, you stated when you protected it that "I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block." As has already been pointed out, removing talk page access would have done that. Full protection might have been reasonable later if there were serious problems. And we normally don't worry about editors venting when blocked. In fact, sometimes it provides evidence as to whether the block was actually necessary (note that I am not suggesting this wasn't a good block, no comment on that right now, but that I've seen seriously unacceptable editors explode and make it clear that they don't belong here). In a nutshell, I agree with Euryalus. Doug Weller  talk 06:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this some more and took a look at our protection policy, specifically WP:NO-PREEMPT which says "Applying page protection in a pre-emptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons. However, brief periods of an appropriate and reasonable protection level are allowed in situations where blatant vandalism or disruption is occurring and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it." Our policy also has a section on blocked users which says "Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the template, re-blocking the user without talk page access should be preferred over protection." On one hand the remedy allowed talk page protection, but of course the Committee cannot override policy. Where's the evidence that there was disruption at a level of frequency that required page protection, or even that TRM's posts required removing talk page access?  Doug Weller  talk 09:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what Rob is getting at, but the wording at CONEXCEPT is unclear if not ambiguous. I see it as meaning that we can override a consensus decision, eg one made at ANI. Rob's reading it as overriding policy, and if that's what it means I wish it it made that explicit. Doug Weller  talk 13:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm in agreement with Opabinia. I also agree there's not much more for us to do here. Maybe we need to rewrite the remedy regarding protection, but we can do that after this is closed. I don't think any other action by us is required at the moment and so far as I'm concerned this can be closed shortly. As several have said, there's been too much avoidable sturm and drang already, we don't need more. What we do need is appropriate sanctions with the reasons provided openly. Doug Weller  talk 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus pretty much said everything I was thinking. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A few things:
 * I agree broadly with what said above, with the exception of introducing a compulsory waiting period for AE requests.
 * I agree with the points gives about why a waiting period isn't a good idea - they aren't discretionary anymore and we have two classes of sanctions, those imposed by individual admins and those imposed by consensus at AE.
 * Sandstein's block and page protection were not discretionary sanctions but rather the enforcement of a Committee sanction to which the standard provision on enforcement applies. This also means that the requirements at WP:AC/DS do not apply (that's something I'm working on fixing at the moment).
 * More generally, I agree with some comments made throughout discussions about this that the removal of talk page access could have worked in this situation. As far as I'm concerned (when enforcing ArbCom sanctions, or discretionary sanctions), unless stated otherwise in the decision, the authorisation to block includes all parts Special:Block (talk page access and email for accounts). Perhaps that's worth writing down somewhere for the future...
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm working on a motion to do that now. Primarily it indicates that some of the stuff in discretionary sanctions procedure applies to every AE sanction/action. For example, a failure to log a sanction doesn't invalidate the sanction and that sanction is defined as a discretionary sanction or as "any sanction, restriction, or other remedy placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions".
 * I take your point regarding bright-line rules, and generally I would absolutely agree with you. But, in this specific instance, rather than threatening/warning/desysoping, fixing the issue for next time is a better outcome for everyone. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's already the rule for a discretionary sanction, all the motion will do is extend this for every arbitration enforcement action. If an action is clearly recorded as "arbitration enforcement" (or "AE") in the block/protect/deletion/etc log then the rules currently apply. As far as I'm concerned, ignoring "arbitration enforcement" (or "AE") in the block/protect/deletion/etc log or notification and then arguing that it wasn't recorded on the case page log is gaming the system. In this instance, it was unclear to both parties whether it needed to be logged and then that not logging it meant it was invalid.
 * Not sure what this has to do with wheel-warring? For example, what this motion will do is that when admin places sanction (e.g. a block) and notes that it's arbitration enforcement (in the block log for example) but forgets to log it (in the DS log or the case page for non-DS) then it will be a valid sanction and cannot to unilaterally overturned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that accidentally deleting an article without closing its AfD happens reasonably regularly without too much kerfuffle (and generally with someone just doing the paperwork for the admin who clicked the delete button). I'd agree with you there would be a WHEEL concern if it hadn't been noted as arbitration enforcement when it was done (in the block/protection log), the central log that you type into is there for the record and the future rather than recording that a specific action was done as arbitration enforcement.
 * I think we might have our wires crossed a little. I'm saying that if an action is taken (such as a block or page protection) and it is noted in the automatic (block or protection) log that it is an arbitration enforcement action then it is a valid AE action and under the protection of the protections against reversal. The admin then going to the log page (whether WP:DSLOG or the individual case page) and recording it is not required for it to be considered under the protection of arbitration enforcement rules (only that the action itself is clearly recorded as "arbitration enforcement"). When the new (current) discretionary sanctions procedures were being written, that was one of things suggested during the community consultation to reduce the bureaucracy and complexity of the system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the AE request has now been closed there doesn't seem to be too much for the Committee to do here. In summary, it's good that this request was brought here so that the Committee was able to review the situation (that is, the questions around DS procedure being followed). There were mistakes on both sides and that looks to have been satisfactorily sorted out at AE; I don't see a need to sanction anyone. Stay tuned for a motion to clarify some of this in the near future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that formed part of the reason I (and I suspect other arbs) decided not to sanction the two admins. Mistakes were made by both parties so sanctioning them doesn't really solve the problem and give us a way forward. Instead we've left WP:AE to resolve the AE action itself and now we're looking at what we can do to try and stop this from happening again (by modifying some rules around AE and discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether one or both actions are as clear cut gaming the system as you suggest they are is a matter of debate. I can only speak for myself here, however my decision not to propose/support a motion to sanction both of them for (technically, and very technically for Bish's action) what is allowed by the policy/procedure was primarily because I'd rather avoid that dramah-fest and allow the community (in this case WP:AE) to solve issue at hand (TRM's block). Plus it allows me (as an arbitrator) time (and a lack of arb and community angst) to work on trying to fix this problem in the procedure so that it doesn't happen again (that is, closing the loopholes). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Recuse, FWIW Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)