Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 99

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Huldra at 23:17, 1 December 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 Huldra
How is the above statement: "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" to be interpreted?

I have discussed it with User:Opabinia regalis and User:Callanecc at some length here.

There are presently 2 different interpretations, lets call them Version 1 and Version 2:
 * In Version 1: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after their own edit
 * In Version 2: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other users edit

I can live with either version (both are an improvement on what we had), I just need to know which one is the correct interpretation. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the example that User:SMcCandlish: as I wrote on the above discussion with Opabinia regalia and Callanecc: that is only if you revert late, after almost 24 hours. In effect, both Version 1 and Version 2 will, if there are only 2 editors involved, result that the new stuff is in the article about half the time, on average.


 * As I said, I can live with both versions, but if Version 2 is the valid version, then I think we would need the addition suggested by Callanecc.


 * The reason I would prefer version 1, is that that is a fixed edit to relate to. Take an example, under Version 2 :


 * 1) Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
 * 2) Editor B partly removes/change the material at 00:05, 1 Jan
 * 3) Editor C partly removes/change the material further, at 00:10, 1 Jan

...then what should editor A relate to: can A edit 24 hours after editor B’s edit, or is it 24 hours after editor C’s edit?

(In Version 1, it is easy: it is 24 hours after editor A’s first edit.)

I’m sorry to be so nitpicking here: but 12+ years in the I/P area has thought me that there is absolutely no issue so small that it cannot be quarrelled over, or get you reported, so this really needs to be clarified. Huldra (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok User:Callanecc, thank you for your reply.
 * (And yes, in RL editors will battle it out on talk pages, or in edit lines: none of us wants to waste time edit warring)


 * (But, I’m trying to figure exactly how the rules will be interpreted, knowing all too well that the threshold for being reported is rather ......low.)


 * However, keep in mind that if B, or C, removes as much as a single word from what A has added, it would be counted as a (partial) revert...this makes Version 2 sound more and more like the dreaded "consensus required", which wasn't wanted by the "regulars" in the I/P area. It also open up for personal interpretation: say, was this one word removal important enough for it to be counted as a partial revert? And if D, E and F messes around with the text that A added, A must wait until no-one change it for 24 hours? Oh horror.


 * I do not like rules which are open to a lot of interpretation! I like rules that are absolute clear, which each and every one of us has to follow. And, Version 1 is such a rule.... Just saying....Huldra (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I once said, a bit flippantly, that it is easy to avoid all edit wars: you could just forbid all editing. Which is the way we are going. With Version 1, we would always, sooner or later end up on the talk page: there is a limit to how much damage/disruption an editor can make, if they are only allowed one edit a day! My BIG problem with Version 2 is that it is unclear...if there are more than two editors: what will count as an revert, and what will not count as an revert? I expect lots of reports about this in the future....And a lot of waste of time. Sigh. Huldra (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad I tried to answer that above, and here: User_talk:Opabinia_regalis/Archive_15

The short answer is: if you revert after almost 24 hours, yes, then the new stuff will stay in, most of the time.

If you revert immediately, then the new stuff will stay out, most of the time.

If, on average, a revert is done after 12 hours, then the new stuff will stay in half of the time. Actually, this is much the same both for Version 1, and Version 2. However, lots of complications might ensue with Version 2, if there are more than 2 editors, and/or partial reverts, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish ok, one ongoing example, at Mausoleum of Abu Huraira:


 * 16:01, 8 December 2017 editor A adds label
 * 17:54, 8 December 2017 editor B removes label
 * 17:59, 8 December 2017 editor C re add same label.

If I have understood correctly, according to Version 2, editor C (User:Shrike) has broken the rule? He has not broken the rule according to Version 1, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think Option 3 is a definite improvement to Option 2. Huldra (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Opabinia regalis yeah, the I/P area on the WP dramah boards is not my idea of  fun.....(It's a thousand times more fun to actually  write articles in the area...which is, thankfully, what I'm mostly doing.)
 * However, I do sincerely hope that you don't go back to the old 1RR, or 3RR system. Remember: all this started, because in the "old system", in a one to one editor "fight", the editor wanting to add something always won, as that first addition don't count towards RR.
 * I think all the 3 Versions suggested is an improvement to the old system, my preference would be:
 * Version 1
 * Version 3
 * Version 2
 * ...in descending order. I can live will any version, but I really have to know which is valid, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Several editors here say they support Version 2, as that, they say, limit edit warring. BUT, recall, we didn't start this in order to "limit edit warring"...as there was no edit warring in the previous version (in a one to one editor "fight") ...as the editor wanting to add something always won. So the argument supporting Version 2 (instead of Version 1) because it  "limit edit warring" is a bit of a Red herring, IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, to repeat, edit warring is not a great problem in the IP area, after 1RR was introduced years ago. The damage one can do with one edit a day is ...limited, to say the least.
 * Secondly, I still favour Version 1, for the clarity. Take an example, playing out just now, on Qusra article:


 * after a 5 day break, I add stuff in 3 edits, last  22:59, 26 December 2017‎
 * 04:41, 27 December 2017 another editor again removes some stuff...NOT any of the new stuff I added; in order to find out who added that stuff, you have to look through the edits for weeks back! (Ok, spoiler alert: I added it, about 3, or 4 weeks ago)


 * When can I reintroduce some of the stuff removed? Under Version 2, I have honestly no idea, is it 04:42, 28 December?? Under Version 1 know: it is 23:00, 27 December.


 * This is the problem with Version 2 in RL: typically editing goes back and forth like this..the sentence "of the first revert made to their edit" is bound to be contested, ie, I could revert at 23:00, 27 December, saying it was not the first revert....the first revert of some of this stuff was back some weeks ago, on 06:27, 3 December 2017.


 * This is why I like Version 1: it is "clean", and absolutely crystal clear what is meant. Huldra (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I would really appreciate if some of you, that is, those of you who voted for Version 2, answered the above question. When could I safely have reintroduced stuff removed from  Qusra, under Version 2? I  simply do not know. Huldra (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:KrakatoaKatie could you please tell me under Version 2: when would I have been able to reinsert some of the stuff in the above example? (Without breaking the rules, that is.) Was it 04:42, 28 December, or 23:00, 27 December? Im not trying to be difficult her, but I  honestly have no idea, (I have twice been blocked, without any warning, for something I had no clue that I had done anything wrong. I do  not want it to be a third time. It was the two most disheartening experiences I have had on Wikipedia, far worse than having user names like this, or the zillion nastiness here. So yeah, I am going to nag about this until I get a clear answer.) Huldra (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) editor Cullen328
I support 's interpretation that "the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert." These restrictions are designed to encourage broader talk page discussion leading to consensus, and slowing down article space reversions serves that goal. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Only version 2 is logically feasible. Example of why: I make an edit at 00:01. No one notices it until 23:59, and they revert it. Two minutes later, at 00:02, more than 24 hours has passed under version 1, so I'd be free to re-revert. Not cool, and not the intent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC) And (to followup to the followup) nothing in that scenario or any scenario we're contemplate has anything to do with -reverts. If you make a series of tweaks to your own stuff, admins treat it as a single edit for determining xRR matters. No one is going to be fooled by patently silly attempts at system gaming. I think this is all a moot point, since some combination of versions 2–4 (if we call Callenecc's no. 4) is going to be the result. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian seems to be making a point that's not really on-point. Yes, this ArbCom language is an "extension of" 1RR (itself based on 3RR). However, that in and of itself means it is not the same as 1RR; otherwise the new wording would not exist, and the decision simply would have imposed the same 1RR rule we're used to.  This is different: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours".  There is no way to interpret that, that makes any sense, other than "within 24 hours of the revert by the other editor".  This interpretation has no effect at all on "regular" 1RR or 3RR.  Since the intent is to restrain editwarring, not to punish some particular editor in relation to some other particular editor, the further consistent interpretation is that if A puts material in, B reverts it, C restores it, D reverts it, neither A nor C can re-restore it for 24 hours after D's revert. Otherwise, people can just email-coordinate an unstoppable WP:TAGTEAM.  C becomes a new "original author" from the point of their own re-insertion, but it doesn't just erase A's connection to the material. The wording could probably be clarified as "If an edit is reverted by another editor, the same editor may not restore it within 24 hours of that revert." That would cover every instance. E.g. to continue with the same example of rapid-fire editwarring: if E restores, F reverts, and G restores, G's restoration is an edit, and B, D, and F cannot revert it the same day. If H reverts, that's an edit, so A, C, E, and G cannot restore the same day.  Easy-peasy. The problem here is the word "original", which implies only A is subject to the special 1RR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that Kingsindian's response is "SMcCandlish claims that the intent was to stop edit-warring. No ...", followed by a lot of rationalization, I'm comfortable just stopping here, other than stating the obvious: Any system can be gamed with determination, but version 2 is much less gameable because it forces each party to wait a full day, and they'll eventually run out of tag-team partners.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "name me a person who edits regularly in the ARPIA area, and I'll find you an edit in their recent history which violates version 2" – That would likely be because it hasn't been the typical interpretation (and wouldn't be under "traditional" 1RR, though it arguably makes more sense in this application of the concept – thus this entire ARCA discussion). If it were already the common and certain interpretation, then people would avoid making edits that transgress it. Kind of a "Q.E.D.", really.  As I said in a thread at my user talk page involving some of these peeps, no one cares about edits that may or may not have transgressed this principle, before it is certain that it is the principle, even as recently as one full day ago, because those edits are already stale in AE's eyes; sanctions that could be imposed are to be preventative, not punitive – if people aren't editingwarring pretty much right now, and clearly trying to game the special 1RR, then there's not any clear enforcement action to take, especially when ArbCom is still deliberating about which interpretation should really be employed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Re: "If, as you agree, nobody actually follows version 2, and everyone follows version 1, then the clarification should ..." – The longer Arb comment I see down there disagrees.  ArbCom isn't bureaucratically bound by what label a request has; the committee is here to do what makes the most sense for the project in the context. And various clarification requests have resulted in amendments (though ArbCom is officially not bound by precedent anyway).  PS: I don't agree that no one follows version 2; I just take your word for it that many presently do not (otherwise this ARCA would not be open). I have been advising, when people ask me [I'm not sure why], that they should follow version 2 since it is clearly the safest bet in the interim, regardless what ArbCom might ultimately decide; it's not possible to be sanctioned for revert-warring .  :-)   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Zero0000's idea that version 2 could be use to permanently prevent someone from editing is implausible, since the editor wanting to game that way is subject to the same restriction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Seraphim Blade's "Version 3" works for me, too. I think that might assuage Kingsindian's concerns, while also addressing the GAMING scenario I outlined above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Callanecc's effective Version 4, "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit", seems good to me. It still resolves the gameability of Version 1, while being more restrictive than "traditional" 1RR, and apparently assuaging the concerns about Version 2 (even though I don't think those concerns are realistic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
Option 2 was definitely the intent. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
May I remind people that this rule was simply a tweaking of the 1RR rule. In 1RR, a person is allowed to make 1 revert per day. This mechanism depends entirely on their edit time, not the other person's edit time. Therefore, version 1 is the only logically consistent and easily-understandable interpretation here. I have always interpreted the rule that way, and as far as I know, everyone else in this area has as well. To take one example of out hundreds, see this AE request, where the complainant, the defendant, and everybody else in the discussion works with version 1. Indeed, if version 2 was applicable, this revert would have been a 1RR violation. Please don't change the interpretation now. There is no evidence that version 1 is creating any problems: if it's not broke, don't fix it.

Btw, there is nothing unfair about version 1. It slows down the edit-war, just as version 2 does. In the hypothetical example floated above, the second person can make a revert of their own after 24 hours from their edit. May I remind people that most consensus in Wikipedia is achieved through editing: often what is needed is simply a rephrasing which everyone can live by. If version 1 is unfair, so is 3RR, which is policy. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The comments by Arbs are extremely weird. Everyone recognizes that version 1 is the current interpretation, used by all sides in the area. (Please find me a single case where version 2 was used.) Now, ArbCom wants to change the interpretation to version 2. Why? Who asked for it? Did anyone complain that the (tweaked) 1RR isn't working properly? What's the evidence for any such thing? I remind ArbCom that the original amendment process just wanted you to tweak the standard 1RR a little bit to get rid of the "first mover" advantage. Initially you capriciously added the "consensus required" provision, which was only removed after lots of strife. Now you want to capriciously change the remedy again. If ArbCom failed to write the original remedy properly, fix your wording to match the practice, instead of trying to make everyone change their practice to match your wording. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously doubting that version 1 is the current practice? Please find me a single instance of anyone using version 2. Even the people who are commenting in this section (who work in ARBPIA) saying that they would like version 2, actually use version 1. I can easily prove this assertion if anyone cares. Having established that version 1 is indeed the current practice, here's the point. Nobody asked ArbCom to change the practice from version 1 to version 2. Why would you do such a thing anyway? Where is the evidence that version 1 is not working, or that anyone has complained about it? Why are you insisting that everyone in this area change their practice to match the wording which ArbCom screwed up? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me come at this from another angle, since people are so enamored of the "logicality" of version 2. People who are arguing for version 2 haven't thought the thing through. Many reverts are partial. Let me give an example: Person X writes "A B C D", person Y changes it to "A B Q R" which is a partial revert. Person Z changes it to "A P Q S" which is another partial revert. This text is incorrect in some small way, so person X changes it to A P Q D". But this is another "revert" which "introduces material which X introduced initially". With version 1, all person X would have to check is that they make only one edit a day to the page. With version 2, the matter would be extremely complicated: they would have to check all intermediate edits which could theoretically have reverted any edit they made in the past and then wait 24 hours after that edit. One surefire way to avoid this situation is to wait 24 hours after the last person's edit. But then some other editor can swoop in after 23 hours, so you may have to wait 24 more hours after that person's edit. The whole thing is absurd. It beats me why people want to change a perfectly fine provision which was working without a hitch for the past several months. "Just because you can" is not a good enough reason. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in example 1 which involves spelling errors. And that is a simple example I coulhd construct in 2 minutes. I can think of many more elaborate ones. The point is the one I made in the last sentence of my comment: while making an edit, a person has to check each edit in the past 24 hours and compare it to all their own edits in the past, and check if any of them could be classified as a partial revert. In contrast, version 1 is clean and simple: if you only edit the page once a day, you can never run afoul of it. As for your "gaming" comment, it is a guarantee that every rule in this area will be gamed, or to go one level deeper: people will accuse other people of gaming the remedy (see the AE request I linked above, for an example). The remedies should be simple and clear. Version 2 is neither. Btw, this was the problem with the "consensus required" provision as well: it was neither simple nor clear. Version 2 is just a wannabe "consensus required" remedy. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is how I respond to 's comment and 's comment.
 * 1) I am sorry for banging on about this, but it is not a matter of what "I support". I claimed that  version 1 is used by everyone in this area. I have yet to hear a single case where version 2 is used. Why on Earth would you change the remedy when there have been no complaints about it? Where is the evidence that version 1 is not working? You are asking everyone in this area to change their practice. Why? Just because you can?
 * 2) SMcCandlish claims that the intent was to stop edit-warring. No, the issue which the tweaking was supposed to address was a very simple and narrow one: editor A adds something, editor B reverts (using up their 1RR), then editor A reverts (using up their 1RR). And now editor A has a "first mover advantage". Please read the original request. A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period. There were zero mentions of edit-warring or tag-teaming or all the other bogeys which are now being shoved into the discussion. If only ArbCom had simply done what had been asked of them, we wouldn't be here. ArbCom first screwed up by using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Then when after lots of strife, that "consensus required" provision was removed, ArbCom now wants to impose another capricious remedy. Because they don't carry any of the burden of their screw-ups. How about, the next time the remedy blows up in everyone's faces, instead of blocking the perpetrators, we block a member of ArbCom or the wise guys who propose these fancy schemes?
 * 3) SMcCandlish's proposed tweaking will not change anything in my argument. Indeed, their statement makes it completely clear that the "original edit" which is at issue can be indefinitely long back in the past. This is a recipe for disaster. Here's the thought process required for every edit: Whenever a person (editor A) makes a change (edit 1) to an article, they have to look at all the edits in the past 24 hours, check if edit 1 could be considered a revert of one of those edits (say edit 2); if yes, look at the entire history and see if any of their past edits (edit 3) were reverted by edit 2 and then check if edit 1 is reintroducing material from edit 3. There is a simple heuristic for avoiding these mental gymnastics: don't edit an article unless the last edit is 24 hours old. But this can be tricky because other people can edit in the meantime, which can push the "safe" time back indefinitely.
 * 4) Version 2 will not stop edit-warring or tag-teaming. All one has to do to edit-war is wait 24 hours after the last edit. If there are only 3 editors active on the article (2 vs 1), tag-teaming can go on indefinitely, same as version 1.

This mindset that you can or should control editor behavior minutely must be jettisoned. We are not children to be disciplined by adults, especially when the adults in question can't even get their own act straight. Finally, let me plead for some perspective. What is the damage people are afraid of? How much damage can a person inflict if they're only allowed to make the edit once per day? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * did not address any of the points I made; and their new assertion, which they think is "obvious", is wrong again. Version 2 requires no more determination, thought or work than version 1 to game. Suppose there are two editors on the page. Each of them simply waits 24 hours to revert. Since the other person can't do anything within 24 hours anyway, each of them is safe in their practice. Meanwhile, people are ignoring the really "obvious" thing here: the wider the restrictions and the more untested they are, the higher the potential for gaming. Indeed, if I was the type to make a malicious sockpuppet, I would do the following. First, I create a new account, get it to 30/500. I go to any of the pages and find an old dispute. Then I rephrase the text to take one side of the dispute (taking care to not explicitly mark it as a revert) and wait for someone to revert me. Voila! That person has "restored a reverted version within 24 hours". Rinse and repeat with another user. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In 's example, there was no violation of either version 1 or version 2 (because A and C are not the same person). But it simply shows that version 2 doesn't help against edit-warring or tag-teaming. Btw, I make a challenge here: name any person who edits regularly in the I/P area, and I'll find you a violation of version 2 in the recent history. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To eliminate a technical irrelevance in 's latest comment, please look at this edit (and the preceding and subsequent edits by other people), which clearly violates version 2 -- it removes "shifting" which was earlier removed and reverted. I mention this not to single out Sir Joseph, but to make the point that everyone in this area violates version 2 all the time. My standing offer remains: name me a person who edits regularly in the ARPIA area, and I'll find you an edit in their recent history which violates version 2. It's revealing that nobody here has taken me up on the challenge. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a clarification request, not an amendment request. If, as you agree, nobody actually follows version 2, and everyone follows version 1, then the clarification should simply affirm the practice and avoid ambiguity. An amendment request would require, at a minimum, some argument or evidence that the current remedy isn't working and needs some change. QED, indeed. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I have to ask: is there any kind of evidence or logic which would change your mind? Or are you simply lawyering for some outcome which you have already decided? If it's the latter, why are we even arguing? You have the power to do whatever you want. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Initially, you asked me to show that version 1 is current practice. I did. asked me to address 's points. I did. In total, I have written about 2000 words trying to argue against option 2 from all angles I can think of. My point is simple: what kind of evidence or logic are you looking for? If you won't change your mind no matter what you hear (as most people tend to do), then there's no point arguing. I'm sorry, I can't show that version 2 is responsible for Benghazi or hasn't released its tax returns yet. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about option 3 or whatever are all beside the point. What exactly is gained by all the rigmarole, except forcing everyone to learn new rules? In all this verbiage, nobody has given a single reason why version 1 should be changed at all. Nor is there any evidence that it isn't working as intended, or that there is any doubt about how it works. There was one point of ambiguity raised by one editor who doesn't even regularly edit in ARBPIA, which led to this clarification request. All ArbCom had to do was affirm the current practice and remove ambiguity. For some reason, people are loath to take this simple, commonsensical and completely logical step, but are floating all kinds of fancy schemes, including going back to original 1RR and creating some new "option 3".

Sometimes the status quo is good for a reason. See Chesterton%27s_fence. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on proposal
's "Callanecc version 2" does not help to fix any of the problems described in this edit (see point 3 1 ) and the scenario in this edit. The reason is simple: unlike 3RR, 1RR and the currently practiced by everybody version 1, "Callanecc version 2", can allow the original edit which was reverted to be indefinitely long in the past. Therefore, one must in theory (and sometimes in practice) check one's own entire edit history when making a revert: to check if the edit in question reverted one of your past edits.

This is not merely a theoretical issue: in this area, many things are litigated over and over again, by many different people. Thus an edit can be a revert of an edit long in the past. I'll give a simple example which happened right in the middle of this ARCA (I swear I did not set this up deliberately; I didn't even realize it till brought it up). Please read this talk page discussion. This state of affairs makes no sense, which is why everyone in this area, who don't agree on anything, instinctively and without communication, follow version 1 (it's a Schelling point).

Overall, as I point out repeatedly above, "Callanecc version 2" requires no more thought, determination or work to game or edit-war, as compared to version 1. There is no evidence that "Callanecc version 2" was the intent, or that version 1 is not working. Version 1 should not be changed, because it will require that everyone change their practice from a clearly working remedy to a clearly bad and untested remedy which requires more cognitive load by editors but brings no advantages. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 's comment misses my entire point (maybe I was unclear). Neither version 1 nor version 2 was violated in this case, so it cannot have anything to do with whether things "worked perfectly" or not. My point was the old issues get re-litigated all the time in this area. That's all. Instead, consider a slightly tweaked alternative scenario: suppose, a year ago, I and some other editors got consensus that a paragraph belongs in the lead. Suppose I was part of that discussion and wrote the final version of the paragraph. One year hence, some editor with 22 edits comes along and removes the passage. I see the change on my watchlist and undo it. Then I have broken "Callanecc's version 2". There are two points here:

Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I doubt any admin will sanction me here, because I have taken an extreme case to make my point. But the point is still that the rule was broken by me. The fact that admins will likely ignore silly rules is a good thing, but one shouldn't write silly rules in the first place.
 * I would likely talk with the person who I reverted on the talk page. That is fine, but it requires work and time; it doesn't come automatically. And it has nothing to do with the rule: it will happen because I know how Wikipedia works and how to discuss on the talk page, not because of some irrelevant rule. If I was the type of person who is disinclined to discuss with the editor (and want to avoid breaking the rule), I will just wait 24 hours to make my revert. The rule has nothing to do with my good faith or behavior at all; a point which I have been crying myself hoarse about.

says that both version 1 and version 2 have good arguments. I don't believe that there's really any good argument for #2 but let's concede this point for the sake of argument. There is a crucial difference between #1 and #2: #1 is the accepted interpretation by every single editor in this area. Therefore, changing to version 2 will force everyone to change their practice. And for what? As I have showed multiple times above, version #2 requires no more effort, thought, bad faith, or determination to circumvent. Indeed, it is an open invitation for people (including trolls and socks) to dredge up past conflicts to get people sanctioned. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
I think option-2 makes sense. Lets play this by a case scenario on case1 - suppose an edit is reverted 27 hours after it is inserted into the article - the original author is then free to immediately revert the revert - moving the article away from the status-quo? I don't think this is wise. The original author should back off, discuss, and if there is going to be a revert-war (not advisable for all involved!) - revert after 24 hours. If a 3rd editor comes along - he is free to re-revert if he sides with the author.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on proposal
Callanecc's version 2 is clearly superior. Counter should start from first revert (causing a 24 Hour discussion period or intervention by other editors) - and not from the original edit (which could be "sneaked in" - see below).

Regarding the recent example brought up by user:Kingsindian - it is a case where the rule worked perfectly. Kingsindian inserted a large chunk of text to the lead This got reverted due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=814844094&oldid=814843737 already in infobox. This is not a summary of section 3.3 (Casualties) - but rather a POVish fork relying on questionable sources.]. We discussed (which is what should be done!) in the talk page over the course of half an hour - he saw some of my points (that what was added didn't match the body), I saw some of his points (that this was removed "sneaked out" in 2015 and no one noticed). I self-reverted - self-revert - will modify to match body. - and then made a series of edits to match the body, we discussed some of these edits, and I made a further edit based on Kingsindian's comments ‎Reverting the final paragraph of the lead: re - Add Protection Clusters figures for civilians.. Or in short - two editors coming to an agreement on the talk-page, in a contentious subject area, within 5 hours (2 hours (7:25-09:08) on the initial exchange, one followup to the followup edit was discussed in a laid back fashion as was finally resolved in another 3 (additional edit at 12:46)).

Now - lets imagine Kingsindian's original edit had "sneaked in" - and someone noticed it 48 hours later (just as the original removal in 2015 was sneaked out without anyone noticing). And for the sake of argument (of the original author clause) lets consider Kingsindian's original edit as an addition and not a revert (we could wikilawyer this at AE - but bringing back a paragraph from 20 months ago does seem like authorship and in any event this is an illustrative example):
 * 1) In the case of version #1, had I reverted him, he wouldn't have had to discuss with me (he would have - his conduct is generally exemplary - but not all editors are of the same cloth) - he could've reverted me right back (as 48 hours elapsed since his original authorship).
 * 2) In the case of version #2, he has to discuss for 24 hours before making any action. This fosters actual discussion - as the author instead of doing a "knee jerk counter revert" is forced to defend his work on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
Version 2 makes the most sense and seems to be the only option for editing here. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add since Huldra mentioned it and Kingsindian did, or did and reverted, that the case in question might be used as a discussion as to which version is proper, but the article in question is not under ARBPIA sanctions, so if people are stated as violating 1RR, that might give people the impression that people in question did something wrong, when nobody in that article violated any sanction. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
Version 2 is the most reasonable. Version 1 is simply pedantic and can be used as a blunted weapon. Further I'm under the understanding in the case of a 3RR that consecutive edits by the same editor count as one edit. It would seem reasonable that the same logic should apply here. And in such a conflict ridden area of wikipedia its better not to give people a cannon to fire.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian, What you are talking about to me would fall under gaming the system in the event that it's reported as a violation of these sanctions. A minor change, a general maintenance post to fix grammar and such, is or least should be outside of the scope of these sanctions. At some point here someone has to call bullshit and say competence is required. Be that the admins that enforce this or ARBCOM right here and now. Someone chasing a ban of someone because they changed "Csll" to "call" and later also separately actually edits the article once shouldn't be allowed. This kind of thing shouldn't be seen the same as a bickering partisan who came into promote their end of this spectrum.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

At some point you really have to draw a line in the sand. Consecutive edits aren't fundamentally different than one single edit. This is fairly normal behavior across wikipedia. Gaming is considered disruptive across wikipedia whether the article is under sanctions or not. Here you are being asked to make an ungameable system. You can't. If gaming would be an issue here with people reporting others for making consecutive edits then your actions would be more fruitful in taking on that gaming.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57
Version 2 makes far more sense; version 1 potentially allows controversial material to be reverted back into an article almost immediately (if their original edit is reverted more than 24 hours after they made it) rather than making the editor adding it to take time out to reconsider the material; this also follows Wikipedia norms like WP:BRD. Number  5  7  22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
I hope that everybody who supports Version 2 suffers from a painful itch from which there is no relief, just like the hell you will be creating in the arena of editing in a contentious area. What you're describing works fine if people are edit-warring over the inclusion or exclusion of the same bit of information; no editor who has already participated in the edit war may take part again within 24 hours of the last edit. It is absolutely unworkable in situations in which one editor edits another editor's contribution in a manner the first editor doesn't like, or in which three or more editors make their tweaks to a bit of contested text. What will it mean in those situations? We'll see you at WP:AE and find out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System
I'm inclined to think that Option 2 sounds like a better idea, but that it is unworkable in cases where multiple editors edit. On normal articles, restoring to a past version would be considered one revert. But within the 24 hour rule, I would support an Option 3, it should be within 24 hours of the first revert to the editor's work. This would address the concerns on both sides. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the question that has been raised by Icewhiz, Kingsindian and others is when you have more complex situations involving multiple editors. For example, let's say Editor A makes an edit. Editor B makes a partial revert. Then 3 hours later there is another partial revert, perhaps changing some language or individual words. Let's say you add "The sky is blue and it rained on Tuesday". The first editor removes "it rained on Tuesday", and the second editor changes it to "The sea is purple" - when would you be able to restore your original edit? It would become difficult for Editor A to keep track - since the discussion is open now, we should have a stable and clear understanding, not introduce further confusion. I think if version 1 is changed, it needs to be stated very clearly that the 24 hour period starts after the first revert. Seraphim System ( talk ) 00:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what I had in mind. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Let's have Option 2. It allows me to permanently prevent another editor from editing. All I have to do is revert them within 24 hours, then re-revert them (using different wording of the essentially the same content) every 24 hours. Eventually they will get tired of waiting and go away. Zerotalk 01:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, Callanecc's suggestion "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." will prevent this and is acceptable as an alternative to Option 1. The plain Option 2, however, won't work; I won't repeat Kingsindian's proofs. Zerotalk 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course that is what would happen eventually. However a rule that requires admins to monitor the situation and make frequent judgement calls in situations that are technically within the rule is a bad rule. As much as plausible we should write the rule so that obeying the rule is acceptable behavior and disobeying it is unacceptable behavior. I submit that both Option 1 and your revision of Option 2 come reasonably close to that, but the original Option 2 does not. Zerotalk 02:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "Zero000's idea that version 2 could be use to permanently prevent someone from editing is implausible, since the editor wanting to game that way is subject to the same restriction", but this is not true since self-reverts are not counted as reverts at all. Zerotalk 03:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I concur in Kingsindian's belief that virtual all the editors in this area have always assumed that Option 1 is what the rule is. I was surprised when one (exactly one) editor interpreted it differently. I'll also point out that revert limits in the past, including the all-important 3RR rule, have involved the time between the reverts of one editor, not some complex calculation involving the edits of multiple edits. So without a doubt Option 1 is the clearest and least surprising option. I agree with Kingsindian's conclusion. Zerotalk 08:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The irreparable vagueness of Version 2. What is "the first revert made to their edit"? Suppose (1) editor A adds something, (2) editor B removes it, (3) editor A adds it again, (4) editor B removes it again. Is editor A allowed to edit the material 24 hours after edit 2 (the first revert of A's insertion of this material), or 24 hours after edit 4 (the first revert of edit 3)? The confusion gets worse if the edits are not so clear-cut as this but overlap only partially, or if edit (3) adds material that can argued as equivalent but isn't the same. These are not artificial scenarios but just everyday editing. As it stands, Version 2 is an open invitation for wikilawyers to take their editing opponents to AE in the hope that some admin will agree with their interpretation, and sometimes that tactic will work. In contrast, what is allowed under Version 1 will be clear to almost everyone in most practical situations. Zerotalk 01:23, 3 January 2018 (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: Clerk notes

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


 * Renamed to "Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles". Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My interpretation is version 2 - the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert. The purpose of this part of the motion was to replace the requirement for consensus to be achieved by making editors wait before restoring their own edit after it had been reverted. This was so it would be more likely that the two users would discuss it and (probably more likely/hopeful) that other editors will be able to comment (or revert if the edit is inappropriate). I'm open to amending the restriction to "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the other user's revert ." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The first thing to consider is whether editor B or C actually "reverted" editor A's original edit. In that situation (depending on the their edit) both editor B and C have "reverted" so editor A cannot change it until 24 hours after editor C, and editor B can't change it until 24 hours after editor C's edit. Having said that, (depending on the edit) all of those editors would be very wise not to revert until after they've started a discussion on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to remember that just because an editor technically breaches the restriction does not mean that they will or should get blocked. There is a reason we don't have bots automatically blocking people who breach 1RR reason. We have human admins review the situation before issuing blocks to determine whether the editors involved are being disruptive or not. If the editors who are breaching the restriction are working constructively by modifying each other's edits then there isn't a need to block them. If, on the other hand, editors are reverting each others edits and are not working constructively then blocking them likely is the best way forward and that's where this restriction is useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment, that's exactly what version 2 already does. See User talk:Callanecc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . So turning that into language for a motion, how does this look: replace "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours with If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In that instance Zero, assuming neither of you had made an attempt to discuss the issue, I can two edit warring blocks on the horizon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My interpretation is also version 2, for the same reasons. Doug Weller  talk 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with version 2. With all the endless clarifications on this issue, one might reasonably dispute that version 2 is a good rule, but it's the one we have. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was trying to decide which of my neglected non-work-related responsibilities I should catch up on today, and for some reason I picked this one, and trying to read all this is sapping my will to live. I'm increasingly concerned that there is no "right" interpretation of the various forms this remedy has taken and we're all just playing Calvinball. I get the impression that most variations on "stronger-than-1RR" restrictions that have been tried have caused a disproportionate level of confusion (see also: "consensus required"). Everyone knows what 3RR is, and everyone knows what 3-2 is. Am I just being grumpy, or is there a case here for flushing the whole mess and going back to plain old 1RR? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, OK, I'd forgotten how we wandered off down this path in the first place, amid all the "Version 3.14159 is broken because it doesn't cover what should happen when someone edits on a leap second!" stuff ;) Backing up a bit, I like Callanecc's wording if indeed the best way to do this is something like version 2, but I'm becoming persuaded that the simplicity of version 1 is worth the occasional weird edge case along the lines of SMC's example. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keen on additional points of view from regular I/P editors, but for now, an unpopular contrary view from me: I prefer version 1 for the reasons outlined by Huldra and Kingsindian - it's simpler, it avoids disputes over partial reverts, or in circumstances where there are more than two editors, and it achieves the same basic outcome of slowing down edit wars. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is version 2. Basically, "its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" from the time it was reverted. While I think both would significantly reduce edit warring, version 2 does more to foster discussion. It effectively removes a technicality that would make the restore time consistent across all applications. Either the sanction language could be updated or an example situation included in the documentation. Mkdw  talk 14:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which Arbitrators are recognizing version 1 as the current practice? "Everyone" seems fairly inaccurate against the comments from other Arbitrators; one in five gave a preference for version 1 but did not explicitly state that's the current practice. The four of five state they "interpret" the meaning as version 2 as the current meaning. I would rather match intent of the remedy than match current practice. The reason being is that current practice isn't always the best practice. Look at WP:CIVIL for example. Also, I view version 2 as already in place but needing clarification; and not a change. Mkdw  talk 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all clarifications are not going to reflect the practices of some. There would be no point on requesting a clarification on something if the automatic expectation was that the outcome would always result in affirming the current practice; clarifications affirm the intent and purpose of the sanction/enforcement. Doing so otherwise would be a horrible practice. People would ignore sanctions/enforcements and then come to ARCA citing 'current practice' expecting the 'clarification' to endorse their actions, regardless of the actual intent and purpose. Mkdw  talk 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The very nature of this discussion is to work out the fine details and nuance regarding some of our more complicated governing policies and rules. You've been one of the most vocal opponents of version 2, so I'm not sure why you're asking about the point of talking about it with you. If you feel the current discussion of 'current practice versus intent' is exhausted, then I tend to agree. There have been other substantive arguments for version 1, and I've been following them as well. I replied to specifically to you because you asked me a bunch of questions and you continuously bring up current practice in your lengthy section, as recently as yesterday. Mkdw  talk 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To those supporting "version 1," how do you respond to SMcCandlish's point above? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 2 seems the more reasonable. It's the most direct way of doing what is intended: to wait 24 hoursbefore continuding the disagreement..  DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. In this specific example, at Qusra, the material which was removed was not added in the previous 24 hours. Therefore, in both versions of the proposed motion, you can revert right away once. The burden is then on Icewhiz; in version 1, he can revert within 24 hours of his own edit, and in version 2, he has to wait 24 hours after your edit. If that's not clear, let me know and I'll try again. :-) Katietalk 00:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Version 1

 * Support
 * 1) Second choice. This version would help but I think version 2 would make the biggest difference in both preventing and slowing down the edit warring. In addition I think version 2 was the original intention. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Euryalus (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) I was originally on Team Version 2, but I've become convinced that the simplicity of version 1 is preferable. I think the focus on what "slows down the edit war" more is a bit off-point; it's more important to know when the clock started than to be slightly "slower". Anyone playing games with the details of timing should be called out for their manipulative behavior anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice. Version 2 was the original intent, but this avoids certain issues unique to version 2. In particular, what happens if someone removes a piece of information two months after it was added? Is that a revert? That's a question that editors regularly argue over with 1RR/3RR, so if we can avoid it here, let's do so. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Second choice. Katietalk 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The alternative is superior.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * I'm undecided at this time. Frankly, there are good arguments presented above against both "option 1" and "option 2," and part of me wishes that we could find a better alternative altogether, although I understand that some of our best wikiminds have tried for years with no great success. Also, although it hasn't been part of this discussion, I don't really care for the last sentence (of either option), which I think may help lead to blocking of good-faith editors who aren't aware of all the details of the special editing rules for these pages or momentarily lose sight of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem then is not the rules, but unreasonable enforcement of the rules at AE. The procedures designed to give stability have protected unfairness. It is impossible to write rules that admins can misapply.  DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Version 2

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) First choice. Per my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) If the purpose is to prevent edit warring, this is the correct time frame and much less susceptible to gaming.  DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 14:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC) term expired--Kostas20142 (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Second choice. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice, as it stretches out the time frame. Katietalk 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Alex Shih (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) The ARCA requested a clarification on the intent and I think version 2 was clearly it. The issue of sorting out partial reverts will be challenging, but something I would hope could be done on a case-by-case basis and within the confines of good taste and good judgement. I trust the community and administrators to take these two things into account when applying an action. It is after all why we have people reviewing these things and not robots automatically blocking editors who violate a strict set of perimeters. Mkdw  talk  03:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) First choice. Both are gameable, but I think this one is less so. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * Pinging arbitrators listed as active but not yet commenting here: we're a couple of votes short on either option, it'd be good to wrap this up in the next few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Pseudoscience (January 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Iantresman at 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=522442641#Result_concerning_Iantresman


 * 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''


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=522442641#Result_concerning_Iantresman
 * To have the decision reversed

Statement by Iantresman
Over 5 years ago, I was topic banned under Discretionary Sanctions for discussing a source. I wish to have this decision reversed.
 * 1) In 2006, I last edited and contributed to the article Dusty Plasma (history) Six years later in Nov 2012, I revisited the article, as I noticed that a reference I had used had been removed, on the grounds that was "unreliable", although material added to the article, based on the reference, was left in place, unquestioned. I chose not to revert the reference, but follow standard editing procedures, and discuss the source first (see "Reference restoration" in talk), as all the sources/facts I had, contradicted this view.
 * 2) I feel that my discussion shows that I attempted to "Deal with facts" per WP:TALK, eg. (a) noting the source was from an academic publisher (b) providing numerous references to reviews, (c) at least one quote from the book (d) author credentials (e) Citations to the source.
 * 3) Other editors seemed to base their views on (a) the title of the book, (b) the fact (undisputed) that the editor has unconventional views on cosmology that are not included in the book (a simple quote from the book would counter this view). After I had been topic banned, other editors had the luxury of being able to continue the discussion concerning the reliability of the removed source ("Book 'Physics of the Plasma Universe"') in a style reminiscent of WP:FORUM.
 * 4) Although I was banned under Discretionary Sanctions / Pseudoscience, I feel that the use of "Broadly construed" then and now, was outside of the permitted scope, and no editor could have known that the article was covered by it:
 * The article Dusty Plasma has no connection to pseudoscience, and neither did any of the content I added (it was never questioned, and there is still material based on the source in the article to this day)
 * "Broadly construed" in my case, seems to be quite contrived, and not too dissimilar from "Six degrees of separation":
 * a. My source was edited by Anthony Peratt (who has impeccable credentials)
 * b. Peratt has written unconventional articles on what is known as the Plasma Universe (scientific and peer reviewed)
 * c. The "Plasma Universe" is also applied to, and is sometimes used synonymously with the subject "Plasma Cosmology" (also peer reviewed)
 * d. The article "Plasma Cosmology" was incorrectly tagged with "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" before being removed.
 * e. "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" was a sub-category of "Category:Pseudoscience"

The fact is, that I never edited the article against consensus. I don't believe that Wikipedia ever set out to ban editors who discuss sources in good faith, and didn't intend Discretionary Sanctions to be over-extended in this way. --Iantresman (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Notes


 * Littleolive has hit the nail on the head, "damned if you do and damned if you don't". Since I was acused of Wikilawyering in my Discretionary Sanctions (DS) case (disputed by at least one other editor), the last thing I'm going to do is go to ArbCom in case I compound the allegation. The problem with DS and Arbitration processes, are that there is no discussion; I can make a statement, and I have no idea whether it is upheld, ignored, or why it may be rejected. To this day, I do not know what I did wrong considering I felt that I was following editing guidelines to the letter with lots of WP:TALK,  and why other editors appeared to be taken at face value based only on their opinion. --Iantresman (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf Your wrote: "The root cause of (almost) every sanction is that one or more editors are unable to work constructively with the community". Not only do I agree, but I believe that in my discussion I was following WP:TALK especially WP:TALK. I would welcome any advice on how I can be more constructive and collaborative. --Iantresman (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf Thank you for your advice, particularly on where to find editing help. Presumably if old bans can not be appealed, then by the same logic, they can also never be used against me in the future? --Iantresman (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Newyorkbrad One appeal that you may not find as it was made directly to Timotheus_Canens, and which I failed was a "Topic ban reconsideration" in March 2017, only 9 months ago. To put it in context:
 * Dec 2016: "Nomination of Pensée for deletion" I was asked if I wanted to contribute to the AfD, but declined(diff) because of my topic ban. Following discussion and taking advice, it was suggested that it could be a "test case" for me(diff). I took part, being the only person to provide references. I also checked with Timotheus Canens, which was positive.
 * Dec 2016: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos" Although another grey area, I took part in another AfD a few weeks later, again being the only person to provide references. I did not ask, as I felt that my previous participation was deemed OK.
 * Feb 2017. "Fringe sources identify someone as a scientist" Based on my previous participations, and my consideration that this was another grey area, and that I was not discussing either pseudoscience nor plasma physics, I took part (without asking). Timotheus Canens disagreed with my presumptions.
 * So technically I've been out of trouble for only nine months, though my paricipation was I believe respectful and constructive. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am currently "banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to plasma physics and astrophysics". I would obviously like to edit articles in these subject areas. I don't believe I will have any issue in following Wikipedia policies, though I did not believe I had any issues which resulted in my ban, as did at least two other editors (so I'm not trying to be defiant or bloody minded).
 * I would also like to point out that just because I am interested in certain topics, does not mean that I have a belief that those topics are correct (science and Wikipedia does not accept beliefs as evidence). And my interests were certainly not a problem when I earned my university certificates in astronomy, cosmology and radio astronomy from the University of Central Lancashire and Jodrell Bank in 2010 (certificates available to cynics on request). --Iantresman (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (1) I believe that disclosing any off-Wiki associations I may have, contravenes Wikipedia's policies on privacy, and I would ask you to remove them (2) Using any off-Wiki associations I may have, could be considered an ad hominem suggesting "discrediting my views", and contravene policies on "No personal attacks", and I would ask that you remove them. Suggesting that peoples' off-Wiki associations should be taken into account because of various religious and political proclivities, might make us illogically consider otherwise satisfactory editing. The rest of your post I am quite happy with. --Iantresman (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
This appears to be an attempt to relitigate the merits of a 5-year-old AE action instead of anything resembling a request to lift the sanction as no longer necessary. As I do not believe the committee should be entertaining requests of the former category five years after the fact, I do not intend to respond substantively unless requested by the committee. T. Canens (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) MjolnirPants
As a disinterested outsider with no familiarity with the events descriped by the OP, I can say that the OP makes a compelling case for having been wrongly sanctioned. Assuming -in my usual cynical way- that the initial discussion with OP was hair-pullingly frustrating for those who disagree with them, I still can't see that as requiring anything more than a 6 month topic ban at worst.

While the committee may not be interested in relitigating old disputes (which is some bullshit, all in itself; it's essentially saying that ArbCom doesn't make mistakes), I wonder if the committee is possessed of that typical human ability to read between the lines: The OP is requesting that a 5-year-old sanction which they have abided in good faith, despite believing that it was wrongly and unfairly imposed should be lifted because the OP has given 5 years worth of evidence that they are perfectly capable of controlling themselves in this subject area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My point isn't that you guys should consider whether this was fair or not, but that you should consider whether it is necessary, given that Iantresman a) Obviously still considers it unfair and yet b) lived with it anyways. As far as I know, they haven't violated it at all. That's a pretty
 * I also don't think it's very reasonable to conclude that a failure to appeal is necessarily an acceptance of the merit of the sanction. It could well be that the OP felt that it would be futile to appeal (which, if it was wrongfully imposed, would very likely be true, as the imposing body would be the same body hearing the appeal). Or it could be that the OP simply felt that the sanction wasn't worth appealing, as they don't or didn't intend to edit in that area in any case. Or maybe the OP was afraid appealing it would be seen as disruptive and result in further sanctions (not a particularly reasonable belief, but then, not a particularly uncommon one, either). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
I have to agree with MjolnirPants. If it is valid to say that a sanction is no longer necessary then it is also valid to say that it was never necessary. All our AE admins are volunteers and human beings, and it is possible for them to make mistakes. Even if the principal issue is whether the sanction is necessary now, regardless of whether it ever was, then "I didn't do X in the first place" is a point in the claimant's favor. It means he can be trusted not to start. It certainly shouldn't be held against him. If lantresman was willing to submit to the admins' authority and obey a punishment that he believes he did not deserve (even if he believes wrongly), that is also a point showing that he can work in a collaborative project. We all have to bite our tongues sometime. If pleading innocent is enough to get a request automatically thrown out, I have to wonder what editors who were or believe themselves to be wrongly sanctioned are supposed to do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As Thryduulf points out, topic bans, whether they are deserved or not, are held against the sanctioned editor forever. They're like a brand that says "filth." There should be some avenue toward having it removed.  Surely no one here thinks that the admins are never wrong or that sanctioned editors have to apologize for actions that they did not perform.  Even the best legal systems in the world make mistakes sometimes, and we're all amateurs here.
 * Also, there doesn't seem to be anything in WP:APPEAL or WP:TBAN that says there's a time limit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Another concern. The upshot of this thread seems to be "If you do not appeal your sanctions right away and in as loud a voice as possible, we will interpret that as a confession/guilty plea and you will permanently lose your right to argue otherwise." Think about that.  Won't that just encourage people to appeal their sanctions at the earliest possible opportunity?  People who would otherwise wait or give everyone time to cool down now have to move immediately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment by olive
Is there a time limit for asking that a sanction be reversed? Most often I've seen requests refused because enough time had not passed. This is confusing for editors. I agree with Darkfrog and Mpants. This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. What is there in this editor's history that says he is not worthy of a revisit to his sanction? Above all what is missing in most AEs is that admins and arbs do not ask questions of the editor applying. If you don't understand, ask him, communicate with him; don't assume you understand. The concern here is that an editor has no recourse. We should be trying to hold on to editors, helping them edit, to be productive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC))


 * Thryduulf

Comment made before Thryduulf's cmt to Olive below... and thank you for your response. I understand the distinction but does every editor who appeals understand these kinds of distinctions before thy appeal. Do you see what I am saying?

While your explanations are sensible, logical and beautifully worded, they are the understanding of the admins and arbs not the editor who appeals. That an editor chooses "not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits" assumes that the editor knows how to word or create an appeal that is within the realm of how the admins/arbs believe and expect a case should be presented and worded. My own experience is that editors do not always know how to word an appeal, do not have that view into the perspective of those they are dealing with. This is especially true for editors with less experience. We are throwing out cases because they are not presented in a way that is acceptable rather than that they are with out merit seems to me. That's why its imperative to ask an editor what they are saying or asking for. Right now its a guessing game as to how to present a case as to what to say or how to present information. Admins and arbs are seeing this from one view editors from another. With experience sure, editors can become good at presenting their cases, but the less experienced in the ways of AEs are severely handicapped. While Wikipedia was not originally designed to be punitive we are punishing editors for lacking knowledge and experience in presenting their cases. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC))


 * I have seen that a wrongly designed appeal is a lost appeal, sadly. This is no one's fault in my mind just the way appeals have become.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC))

Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience)
The root cause of (almost) every sanction is that one or more editors are unable to work constructively with the community or a subset of it (which can be as small as one other editor), either generally or in relation to a specific topic area. Sanctions should be, and mostly are, preventative not punitive - that is intended to allow editors to be productive and constructive in ways/areas where they can be while protecting the project by preventing them disrupting other areas. People can change, people can mature and (relevant in some cases) real-world situations can change so that the restrictions are no needed. Indeed in an ideal world every sanction would at some point no longer be necessary. For this reason appeals should always be focused on explaining/demonstrating why sanctions are no longer needed now. Whether they were needed at some point in the past has increasingly little relevance the longer ago that point was. I also strongly agree with BU Rob13 when they say "Choosing not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits".

As for the specific sanctions here, I think that in December 2017 is completely irrelevant at this point whether they were required when imposed in November 2012, but that if they weren't required then they should have been appealed when they were still relevant. It's probably also worth noting that real world events seem to have changed, in that in 2012 Plasma cosmology was described as a fringe theory that had not been critically evaluated (or at least had not had a significant amount of critical evaluation). In the intervening five years though it seems that it has been evaluated and rejected - which could have a significant impact on how the need for sanctions would be evaluated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a distinction being made here between appealing a restriction on the grounds that it wasn't required when imposed, and appealing a restriction on the grounds that it isn't required now. The first sort of appeal should be made relatively soon after the restriction was imposed (how long exactly will vary based on different circumstances, but certainly beyond a year I'd be looking for some accompanying explanation about why the appeal wasn't made originally and why it is still relevant - an absence from the project for unavoidable real-world reasons would be one possible example.). The second sort of appeal should, in contrast, not be made too quickly because to be successful the person appealing will need to show that one or more things have changed and that just isn't possible immediately. Again different circumstances will dictate different lengths of time but in most cases less than 3-6 months is going to require evidence that something significant in the real world has changed - an example being the various restrictions imposed in the run up to the 2016 US presidential election were set to expire when the losing candidate conceded defeat, even though this was only expected to be a few weeks away (maybe less), as many of the problems were related to speculation about the outcome and/or its consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When someone appeals using the wrong sort of appeal the responses will indicate this - a very good example is the arbitrator's comments below. They don't have to know in advance, they just need to read the responses they get. We also have Guide to appealing blocks and we should have a similar one for appealing other sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor has a choice of whether to listen to the advice they are given or not. If they choose not to listen then yes the appeal is lost. If they do listen then there are three ways it can go - (1) the appeal can be rejected, almost certainly without prejudice to a new appeal based on what the admins say they are looking for (although this will only work once or twice per editor per period of time); (2) the appeal can be withdrawn and new appeal made based on what the admins say they are looking for; (3) the appeal can be modified to include the information the admins say they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest at this point in reviewing five-year-old discussions to re-litigate a five-year-old topic ban, and the arbs below have indicated the same thing. If you want your appeal to be successful you need to demonstrate that your current behaviour and interactions mean that the topic ban is no longer required - whether it ever was is not relevant. I suggest that at this point it's probably best to withdraw this appeal, take a bit of time (a few days at least, probably at least a week is better. Certainly wait until after this appeal is archived) to work on a new appeal in your userspace that relates to your current behaviour - there are editors who will help you with this if you ask (although I can't remember where to find them off the top of my head, asking at the Help desk will lead you to them if you can't find them directly). If you want to get advice on your editing style, then or now, then this is not the right forum in which to get it (Teahouse or using the template on your talk page are). One thing though that will definitely count against an appeal is not listening to advice given to you. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * re old bans, this is not a simple yes/no question. It is and will remain factual that you were topic banned and that you chose not to appeal it at the time (regardless of why), any sanctions you received for breaching it (I haven't looked to see if there are any) will also remain in your history. However, it should only be brought up where relevant and it will be ignored if it is brought up where it is not relevant (and bringing it up where it is clearly not relevant may reflect badly on the person bringing it up). Equally it will only impact anything in future to the degree that it is relevant to the particular situation at hand, and the longer ago the ban and, especially the longer ago any sanctions for breaching it, the less likely it is to be relevant and (generally speaking) the less significant any relevance will be. If you are (accused of being) disruptive in the future regarding Plasma cosmology or something closely related then your previous topic ban will likely be relevant, if you do/are accused of doing something completely different (say, introducing copyvios into Cephalotes eduarduli (example article selected by special:random) then it is going to be pretty much irrelevant. If you aren't disruptive at all going forwards then almost nobody is going to care about the five year old disruption and it wont trouble you at all. It is not possible to speak in absolutes though as Wikipedia is not a court and there are no firm rules. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"If you do not appeal your sanctions right away and in as loud a voice as possible, we will interpret that as a confession/guilty plea and you will permanently lose your right to argue otherwise." That's not what I'm saying, and not what I interpret the arbs or anyone else (other than you) saying. The point is that you always need to appeal on the basis of why a remedy is not needed now. In practical terms this means that if you appeal in the first period then you need to show why the sanction was not necessary in the first place, and if you appeal in the second period then you need to show what has changed to mean it is no longer necessary (whether or not it ever was). The first period generally runs from immediately after the sanction was imposed through to around 2-6 months later, and the second period generally from around 6 weeks after it was placed and doesn't end (unless the restrictions expire or are lifted), although there are plenty of circumstances that can extend either period forwards or backwards. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) A couple of quick points. I'm not saying that if you don't appeal the merits of your sanction in the first period after it is imposed that this is a concession that it was valid, just that for the purposes of a later appeal it is rarely relevant whether it was or was not valid or required at the time (and so it's easier for everybody to just treat it as if it was) - i.e. explain why the sanction isn't required now, whether it ever was or not. Regarding timescales, as I said there are many factors that can move either period in either direction, and yes some can be quite significant in terms of time, but if you are making an appeal significantly outside the usual timeframe then I expect the person appealing to acknowledge this and note what the factors are that mean an appeal to the initial validity is still relevant after a long time or why something has changed so much sooner than would normally be expected (and obviously people may disagree about what is and isn't relevant). In terms of this appeal, I'm not seeing anything that convinces me that it is worth considering whether the sanction was valid 5 years ago, nor initially was there anything presented on which to judge an appeal regarding whether it is required now. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon
Holy exploding wikilawyering, Batman! Per MPants and Euryalus - just lift the sanction and move on... -- Begoon 12:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
Too many ifs and buts. Lift the ban already. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC).

Statement by John Cline

 * I am familiar with the precursors necessitating this request. I'd like, therefor, to squash the misnomers that Iantresman exercised a level of diligence less than what ought reasonably be due when he put this request forward, that he misspoke his request therein, or that he missed some threshold for timeliness that does not seem to exist.
 * Iantresman is not one to initiate discussion without giving consideration to all relevant matters before, including, in this case, the guide to appealing blocks and other such guides. He is meticulous and compulsively thorough, never slothful or indiscriminate. As such, when he opened this discussion seeking an amendment of discretionary sanctions, saying: "I wish to have this decision reversed.", he could not have been more clear or concise, nor, <abbr title="In my honest opinion">IMHO, more apt or astute.
 * I disagree with its having been re-framed as a request to modify the pseudoscience case by simply vacating the sanctions placed against Iantresman, therein.
 * I specifically contend the following points:
 * It is no small distinction that Iantresman is not sanctioned for failing to adhere the restrictions imposed by the pseudoscience remedy bearing his name but instead by acts sacrosanct when accorded with WP:AC/DS; this should not have been marginalized by bureaucratic muddling.
 * If ever there could be a sanction worthy of being, a fair mind would be well taxed in trying to find one more worthy than what this placement seems to merit.
 * That one could rightly assume Iantresman had accepted and agreed with his sanction is inarguable if his subsequent action, after abiding the sanction, had been to request its removal, as no longer needed (as members have advised).
 * Iantresman should not, instead, be held to timeliness criteria that did not exist when his request was published (seeing the precedent for such mindset born in this discussion).
 * Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) SMcCandlish
I think the appellant's request for the topic ban to be lifted should be granted, since it's unlikely this serves any preventative purpose at all. It's also fairly unlikely it ever did, though that may not be relevant to the decision.

I think what's happening here is some parties are bureaucratically treating this like a courtroom, and wikilawyering ("ha ha, he said 'have this decision reversed', and I can willfully choose to interpret that as 'have the record expunged' instead of 'have the effect of the decision terminated', and hot damn I'm clever'). It's patently obvious what the intent of the request is. Whether someone agrees with how the person feels about the nature and rationale of the original sanction when it was issued, and wants to litigate about whether someone should be able to appeal a sanction after X amount of time, it doesn't change the obvious underlying nature of the request.

That said, I would like to address the wonkishundefined procedural stuff: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC); revised: 00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I have to agree entirely with  on almost every point.
 * 2) My one quibble is with Thryduulf's and originally 's idea that failure to appeal a sanction in a timely manner equals concession that it was valid. That's just plain counterfactual, and we all know it, even if as a practical matter we might have to treat it  that's the case, to stop people re-litigating stuff from 2004 when everyone who might contradict them is long gone.  In reality though, any of these and more might result in a year+ delay:
 * 3) * Many editors simply become dispirited, even despondent, and leave for a while when faced with this sort of thing. No one likes feeling rejected by their intentional community, and some take it harder than others.
 * 4) * Others don't know the appeal process and find the prospect daunting and frustrating.
 * 5) ** As I've learned from experience, it can be very inconsistently applied: I was directed and redirected in a farcical AN/ARCA/AE/ARCA×2 run-around and actually did not get the issue resolved until a neutral third party filed a second ARCA on behalf of me and the other affected parties, which met with further wikilawyering about whether such an ARCA was permissible. That kind of b.s. should never, ever happen again.
 * 6) * Others are simply temperamentally unsuited to deal with such a thing until after a considerable amount of time has passed. They vary:
 * 7) ** They may be insecure and severely averse to conflict if it might affect them personally.
 * 8) ** They may be prone to outage, and too apoplectic to really put together a coherent appeal for a long time. (And probably others between these extremes).
 * 9) *Some have high blood pressure, ulcers, viral conditions, or other problems that make them choose to avoid stress and conflict because of their physiological effects, until they no longer feel a strong reaction to the issue.
 * 10) *Plenty are just terrified of admins and ArbCom, and don't lose that fear until after a lot of observation about how an appeal can succeed.
 * 11) *Some also just have lives. They may have demanding careers, kids to raise, and so on. If a pleasurable hobby starts to feel like a crappy job with crappy co-workers, their interest in dealing with said crap is apt to be very low. It may take them a long time to remember that they actually enjoyed part of their time here, and to miss it, and to decide to make room for it again in their lives.
 * 12) *A few are kids. A whole lot of maturing and understanding can happen in a short time when you're smart and entering your teen years. This may include figuring out how to use a "political" process instead of posting a GFYs rant.
 * 13) Thus, any kind of hard deadline for appeals of the actual validity of sanctions should be around the 18 month mark, if not longer (yes this means most non-indef sanctions would be appealable not just amendable for their entire duration). I took an almost-total wikibreak for a year myself, and it easily could have been longer.  Furthermore, ArbCom and AE and ANI have no trouble at all dredging up stuff way older than that when they want to bring the banhammer down on someone.  So, No double-standards, please.  Especially since it's actually a triple standard: If you're not one of the AE in-crowd and attempt to use evidence more than about a year old, you may find yourself boomeranged for it, as I did, while those doing the boomeranging will themselves use even older evidence against you.  If that sounds too hypocritical to be real, I assure you it is not.  I've also seen an Arb, who was supposed to be, turn prosecutor and go digging up extraneous dirt almost a year old looking for reasons to oppose an appeal, rather than weighing the evidence presented.  Was several years ago, but it happened and nothing was done about it, so it could happen again.  Give appellants a  of procedural slack.  We want to retain editors and get them editing as broadly as they're competent to contribute. ArbCom's goal is not to WP:WIN at being a prosecution simulator.
 * 14) As for someone else's "If it is valid to say that a sanction is no longer necessary then it is also valid to say that it was never necessary" – A) Interpreted with the more obvious meaning, sure.  People shouldn't be castigated for  it – for objecting to the original sanction as (in their view) bogus – as long as they eventually get around to why the sanction's not needed now. (They should be aware that doing so may be detrimental to their amendment request, though, which is something some appellants don't absorb.)  B) Interpreted the other way, i.e. that a sanction not necessary now was never necessary, categorically speaking ... it just couldn't possibly be true.  It would presuppose that people do not learn and grow, that sanctions cannot have a preventative and instructive effect.  In the majority of successful requests to end or reduce/narrow sanctions, the sanctions were clearly needed when issued – or at least among the solutions available and reasonable, when some solution from among them was needed – and later became not-needed-any-longer. Normally I would automatically assume the first of these two meanings. But said commenter's "topic bans ... [are] like a brand that says 'filth.' There should be some avenue toward having it removed. Surely no one here thinks that ... sanctioned editors have to apologize for actions that they did not perform" leans toward the second.
 * I see lots in this that speaks to the now and why the T-ban should be lifted and that this is the desire; it's just not the bulk of the material. Examples: "it was suggested that it could be a 'test case' for me. I took part, being the only person to provide references."; "I took part in another [grey-area] AfD a few weeks later, again being the only person to provide references."; "I would obviously like to edit articles in these subject areas. I don't believe I will have any issue in following Wikipedia policies"; and "just because I am interested in certain topics, does not mean that I have a belief that those topics are correct", and so on. We need to be mindful that it can be difficult for us mere hominids to entirely let go of a feeling of being wronged while trying to get out from under the cloud of it (and judging from Iantresman's later posts, this doesn't look like an editor incapable of separating these things, nor one who is just "biding" and trying to snow us before returning to singleminded disruptive WP:TRUTH activity). Only a few months ago there was another ARCA here in which it was questioned whether the sanction had ever really been needed, and there was way less resistance to just lifting it. I think this has turned semi-sour only because of the imprecise "have this decision reversed" opening wording, later restated more clearly as "would ... like to edit articles in these subject areas". ArbCom doesn't have its hands tied, and does not have to respond to this request by literally vacating the original sanction; it can simply lift it as not likely to be preventative of actual disruption. For those who love to play moot court, it's a normal legal process to parole people from prison, without getting into whether the original prosecution was valid (absent a showing of prosecutorial misconduct or the like).

Statement by EdJohnston (re Pseudoscience)
Ian Tresman was an original named party of the 2006 case, WP:ARBPS. He is a supporter of plasma universe ideas, generally considered on WP to be pseudoscience. (Arbcom, in its 2006 WP:ARBPS decision, made a finding of fact which linked to Ian Tresman's personal website). In a 15 July 2007 posting at WP:COIN, Ian stated "I have not used a pseudonym. My interests are readily found..."). Ian is not here arguing that his topic ban from plasma physics is no longer necessary, he is arguing that an AE decision about him from 2012 was wrongly decided. Those diffs are all available for review, so nothing prevents Arbcom from looking into this if they want to. The only problem is that some memories may have faded, but there should still be enough to go on. (The AE complaint was about inappropriate insistence on Ian's part about including a book, claimed to be tainted by fringe thinking, into the reference list of our article on Dusty plasma, which is a mainstream non-fringe topic in astronomy).

When Arbcom reviews AE decisions they often use the standard of 'within discretion', and from the limited data presented in this appeal, nothing jumps out to me as *not* within discretion. (Of course, I might say that because I did participate in the 2012 AE decision, though only to say that the user was adequately warned about discretionary sanctions). The question of whether Ian's topic ban is still necessary is a different question for which different data might need to be looked at, none of which is presented here. When admins are reviewing topic bans it is a common to say that 'indef topic bans can't be waited out'. In other words, there needs to be a record of positive editing (or an indication of a change of heart) to show that the previous problems won't recur. None of that data is included here, and I'd recommend that Arbcom decline this appeal. User:Callanecc has made other proposals below (Jan. 2) for what Ian might do next, including asking for AE review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I replaced part of my above statement that might have implied that Ian Tresman's views are already known on the internet. based on a criticism by User:Iantresman. I found that Arbcom had already linked to Ian's personal website in a 2006 finding of fact. Though I don't link to it here, I quote Arbcom's mention of it above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2018 (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.

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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


 * Changed name of case to Pseudoscience because that is the case under which discretionary sanctions were imposed. For the Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm also not that interested in reviewing the merits of a 5-year old discretionary sanction, the time for that was more than 4 years ago. Very briefly though, Tim's justification that the article was within the area authorised for discretionary sanctions was reasonable at the time. The fact that it isn't (or likely wouldn't) be considered a fringe theory now is irrelevant to whether the sanction was (and hence is) valid. As this appeal does not request that the sanction be removed for any other reason, and that this appeal is about re-litigating the 5-year old decision, I am declining the appeal at this time without prejudice an appeal being filed at AE (or here) arguing that the sanction is no longer needed (not on its original merits since the committee will already have opined on that). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited, I meant what OR said after "except". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to reinforce/clarify that I'm not declining your appeal completely. What I'm saying is that, given it's been 5 years since the sanction was originally imposed, it's too late to claim that that the sanction either wasn't originally permissible (given the topic) or warranted (due to your editing) at this point in time. As Thryduulf points out, what you should do instead,, is appeal on the premise that the sanction is no longer needed and that, in 2017/2018 it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. You can make that appeal directly to Timotheus Canens or to AN or AE, or even back to ARCA if you wish (though I'd suggest AN or AE first, before coming back here). An appeal that the sanction is no longer necessary should use examples from your more recent editing (6-12 months) to show that you are not being disruptive and that you are acting inside community expectations. The evidence (from the last 3-12 months) you include could be, for example, that you haven't been recently blocked or given a different sanction (warning or ban) but instead that you have engaged in calm discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If we were to hear Iantresman's appeal on the assumption that they meant that the topic ban isn't needed now then there a couple concerns I still have. The first is that my general approach to AE appeals at ARCA is that I tend to consider whether the sanction was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion rather than whether the sanction is needed except where there extenuating circumstances. Given previous points made that it was 5 years ago, the answer to that question is yes, therefore I'd decline the appeal. However, even if, given the age of the sanction, I were to disregard that and consider removing it (that is, consider age as an extenuating circumstance), the appeal from Iantresman does not address whether or not the sanction is needed now but rather only addresses the original merits of the sanction so I'd decline it for that reason. My advice to would be the same as above, it would benefit you to, instead of continuing this appeal and adding new stuff to it which will become convoluted, file a new appeal which addresses whether the sanction is needed now. I'd suggest that an appeal addressing whether the sanction is needed now would be best at AN or AE (or even to T. Canens on his talk page) rather than jumping to the highest level of appeal (that is, here) as a first step. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's never a good sign when an ARCA begins with "Over 5 years ago..." and then goes on with "In 2006..." ;) I was about to say what Callanecc said but he beat me to it. (Except that I think it would technically be OK to appeal here or at AE with an argument that the sanctions are unnecessary/out of date/whatever, as opposed to the current formulation that largely parallels the argument made in the original AE in 2012.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the remedy was never needed to begin with, it should be easy to show that it's not needed on an ongoing basis, either here or at AE if you prefer. See the other appeal here for an example - useful input includes e.g. links to discussions in which you worked well with other editors or edited well about other topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But, but, I have a copy of the Bikeshed Construction and Maintenance Safety Guide right here, and in chapter 4, section 3, subsection 6, paragraph 2, it says plain as day that notices must be posted at least two weeks in advance of any proposed color change and the notice must be in the color proposed for the bikeshed and it must specify whether objections to the proposed color should be posted at AE or ARCA or both ;) Fine, fine, I'm encouraged by the fact that several commenters I wouldn't call soft on fringe views are in support of this; let's just do it now. One thing, though -, can you link the past appeal you think we need to see first? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The links are in a couple of different places, and tracing them has been a bit of a trip down memory lane; I'll try to pull them together here tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If a sanctioned editor believes they are wrongly sanctioned, they should appeal in a timely fashion. I would interpret what is "timely" quite generously - probably within a year or so of the sanction or within a reasonable time after returning, if they took a break from the project after being sanctioned. Choosing not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits, in my opinion. Administrators cannot reasonably be expected to defend the merits of a sanction they placed five years ago, which they've likely long-since forgotten about. If this same appeal had been made 4.5 years ago, the Committee would have seriously considered it as we do the vast majority of appeals on the merits of the original sanction. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I still see nothing in the appeal that speaks to likelihood of being an issue in the topic area today, so I still would decline this. I'd encourage Iantresman to file an appeal at AN or AE detailing how they will not be an issue in the topic area going forward. As a side note, the appeal to the enforcing admin was declined for a recent violation of the topic ban, but I am not inclined to hold that against Iantresman. He received the dubious advice from multiple admins to edit in "gray areas" as a test case. That is equivalent to telling him to probe the boundaries of his topic ban, which is something that should be heavily avoided. We shouldn't hold it against him when he pushes slightly too far. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As do I. Doug Weller  talk 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Callanecc and OR. Katietalk 15:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Callanecc also, no prejudice toward filing a new appeal following the advice given. Alex Shih (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to believe this elderly sanction can be removed. Suggest you post a request at AE indicating that whether or not the sanction had validity back then, it no longer does. I'd also be happy for us to do this right here, absent any fervent objection. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting the above a bit more bluntly: support lifting the sanction, essentially per : whatever the original merits, let's not make Iantresman jump through more hoops. Instead, let's just lift it and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In general I agree with Thryduulf's comments above. I also have a recollection of a prior appeal by Iantresman, which should be referenced in any future appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, the earlier appeal I was thinking of was from 2012, so is a bit more ancient history and therefore a bit less relevant than I had thought. Given the age, rather than get into the specifics from back then, I'll ask Iantresman in any future appeal to address the direct questions of what topics he would like to edit that he now cannot, and whether he is confident that he'll be able to edit them consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My recollection is that you (Iantresman) hold views on some cosmology related subject that are or were not in step with commonly accepted understandings of the universe. That of course is your prerogative, but you know that we have policies as to how majority and minority theories are to be presented. Do you believe you will have any issue in following those policies, if you resume editing in these areas? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SlimVirgin at 23:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) WP:ARBAPDS
 * 2) Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment


 * 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''


 * Sandstein
 * MONGO


 * Information about amendment request
 * WP:ARBAPDS
 * State the desired modification


 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * State the desired modification

Statement by SlimVirgin
I don't know whether I've filled in the template properly or whether this is the right page. This is a request about AE and, not about a particular case. Sandstein has just closed an AE against with a three-month topic ban "from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". He did this not because MONGO had been disruptive in the content area, but because he had posted a few angry posts at AE in response to a request for action against DHeyward. The topic ban seems to me to be a category mistake. As a result of it, MONGO has retired.

There was no consensus for the ban among uninvolved admins, but Sandstein closed the discussion anyway after less than 24 hours. When I objected as an uninvolved admin by posting underneath the closed discussion as soon as I saw it (rather than reopening it), he removed my post, and when I restored it, he told me that I "may be sanctioned for disruption".

What can be done about this situation at AE, which seems to have been going on forever, that Sandstein can simply ignore the views of other uninvolved admins? I'm posting here because he has refused all requests to reopen the discussion at AE. SarahSV (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging the admins who commented at the AE: SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions: Sandstein talk, SV talk, AE talk, Sandstein talk again.


 * , I asked you elsewhere to post examples of admins (other than Sandstein) who overrule the consensus of uninvolved admins at AE. Please post examples.


 * Yes, discretionary sanctions allow admins to take action without consensus, but this is nothing new. We can block and protect without consensus, and we imposed topic bans without consensus—instead of blocking or protecting—years before discretionary sanctions were a twinkle in ArbCom's eye. But there is a big difference between that and ignoring consensus once it has formed, or jumping the gun and closing a discussion as it is forming. Admins should not do that, at AE or anywhere else. SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , this isn't an appeal, it's an objection to the AE discussion being closed by one admin less than 24 hours after it opened while other admins were still discussing it. (I wish we could drop the legalistic approach to these discussions, as in only this type of person that can do that type of thing, etc.) This is an objection to a system that seems to allow one admin to do whatever he wants, no matter what anyone else says. Is he allowed to overrule ten uninvolved admins, 50, 500? What is ArbCom's view on the role of consensus among uninvolved admins at AE? SarahSV (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , it's worth adding that I encourage you to appeal the topic ban, and I assume you can do that here in your own section if you want to. SarahSV (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Noting that I wrote the above before reading 's post, which I hope MONGO will consider. SarahSV (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * When Sandstein lifted the topic ban, he issued a threat to take action against MONGO again: "If you repeat such conduct, I intend to impose a indefinite topic ban and/or a block." This is not appropriate. MONGO should not have to edit under the cloud of Sandstein deciding that a remark of his violates something, especially when it might lead to a topic ban in an unrelated area. SarahSV (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I am not curently able to comment in detail but will be able to do so in the morning by UTC.  Sandstein  23:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an appeal of an AE sanction by somebody who is not the sanctioned editor. Such appeals are not allowed according to ArbCom procedure. Multiple people have told SlimVirgin this on her talk page and on the AE talk page. That she nonetheless submits this appeal here, five minutes after reading MONGO's statement that they do not wish to appeal, is disruptive.

SlimVirgin's conduct at WP:AE, where she reverted my removal of her request to discuss the case from the AE page was likewise disruptive. AE is a forum in which to process enforcement requests and not to discuss past enforcement actions; such discussions belong on talk pages or in other discussion fora, as, again, multiple other editors have told her. Intentional breaches of decorum are sanctionable, to which I made reference. As an administrator, SlimVirgin in particular should know and follow AE procedure. I agree with BU Rob13 below that her conduct in this matter can be read as attempting to bully me into changing an AE decision she does not agree with.

I have addressed SlimVirgin's procedural concerns with respect to the closure on her talk page, and to some extent on my talk page and on the AE talk page. I explained there that I believe that I have followed all rules regarding the conduct of sanctioning administrators as laid down in ArbCom's procedures. I remain available for questions by arbitrators if they desire further clarification in this respect. Because this appeal is out of order, as noted above, I do not intend to comment on the merits of the sanction here, unless requested to by arbitrators.  Sandstein  07:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Because the original appeal by SlimVirgin is, as you write, improper, the Arbitration Committee should not consider it. If AE is to function in a effective and predictable manner, editors and administrators need to be able to rely on the Arbitration Committee applying the rules it has enacted. This case is an example for why the rule against third-party appeals makes sense: SlimVirgin's request has, against MONGO's wishes, highlighted MONGO's misconduct in a public forum and caused them additional stress, to say nothing of the administrative overhead for everyone involved. SlimVirgin should at the least be admonished not to disrupt the process again in this manner.
 * If this were a valid appeal, I would also disagree with the alternative sanctions you propose. I believe that no sanction should ever include a prohibition against personal attacks. That's because such a prohibition already applies to all editors per WP:NPA and indeed the Terms of Use. Issuing a separate prohibition misleadingly implies that it does not already applies to everybody. I'd also be skeptical of exchanging a topic ban for a longer AE ban. The misconduct at issue was triggered by frustration about perceived discrimination of editors with conservative views with respect to US politics. This is a motivation not specific to AE but could just as well result in similar misconduct in article talk page discussions about US politics. A topic ban is therefore a more appropriate instrument to prevent future misconduct.
 * We do now have a valid appeal by MONGO, however. I'll comment on it at a later time, as I have to go to work now.  Sandstein   07:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As regards the appeal by MONGO, if it had been made to me directly, I'd likely have granted it and lifted the topic ban. I believe that sanctions should be lifted as soon as they are no longer necessary. In almost all cases, that requires that the sanctioned user convincingly expresses that they understand why what they did was wrong and that they won't do it again. I believe that MONGO is sincere when they say that they regret the statements they made. For these reasons, I'm not opposed to the Arbitration Committee lifting the topic ban on appeal. However, if such conduct is repeated in a discretionary sanctions topic area and is brought to AE again, I will consider imposing an indefinite topic ban.  Sandstein   08:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You suggest that I lift the ban myself. My understanding is - perhaps out of caution - that once ArbCom is seized of an appeal, they are in charge of the procedure and the sanction, and I cannot therefore lift or modify the sanction on my own any more. (If the appealing editor had wanted me to do this, they could have appealed to me rather than to ARCA.) If this understanding of procedure is incorrect, i suggest that procedure is clarified accordingly.
 * As to the 24h waiting period at AE, if you do this you should take into account that AE actions undertaken by admins on their own without a request, or in response to requests in fora other than AE, would not have this waiting period. Potentially controversial AE actions would then be perhaps more often be made through these other venues. If you don't want to authorize admins to act on their own without prior discussion, that is fine with me, but then you'd need to fundamentally rethink the whole AE process. In my view, this is a solution in search of a problem, because if there is controversy over an AE action, then the point at which it can be resolved through discussion and consensus is the appeals process, and not any very vaguely described pre-sanction discussion.  Sandstein   13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators, thank you for your responses. I currently read 4 arbitrators as confirming that I as sanctioning admin am authorized to lift the sanction while this appeal before the Committee remains pending. I intend to do so as soon as a majority of active arbitrators (i.e., 7) has confirmed this view. I do not intend to substitute it with a NPA restriction, because as explained I consider such restrictions harmful, or with an AE ban, because as long as they do not make personal attacks there is no particular need to exclude MONGO from AE. Of course, other admins remain free to take such other enforcement actions as they see fit.  Sandstein   14:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll lift the ban as soon as MONGO's talk page is unprotected so I may post the appropriate notice (see User talk:Bishonen).  Sandstein   07:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now lifted the ban and noted this on MONGO's talk page and the sanctions log.  Sandstein   11:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
I just commented here and am not able due to a horrible migraine to do more today. In summary my linked comment states that I am not planning on submitting a formal request for modification of my topic ban at this time, due to the probability of creating a dramafest and possibly angering some I have deeply and needlessly offended.--MONGO 23:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see SlimVirgin's approach to this matter as bullying as described above by Sandstein. My take is SlimVirgin felt that the discussion was closed down before a consensus was established and the AE request was open less than a day when there was no editing on my part in the topic area, so a rapid closure was unnecessary. In other words, SlimVirgin seems to indicate that by time she noticed the AE request, it was already closed and she was not able to offer an opinion on the matter. The other point that SlimVirgin has pointed out is that the applied remedy was incorrect as I had not been disruptive in the topic space itself, but instead at the AE noticeboard. The original arbcom admonishment I received 2.5 years ago in the American Politics 2 case stated I had added "hostility to the topic area" and I believe Sandstein was considering my comments at the just closed AE request against DHeyward to be a further example of the things I had been admonished for in the American Politics 2 case.--MONGO 08:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is now essentially an appeal on my part. Hoping this does not lead to excessive drama as I am not up to it and have determined that if the appeal is not successful, I'm taking at least a sabbatical from the English Wikipedia (I never seem to get myself in trouble at Commons so I might try and help there I guess) for the duration of the existing topic ban. Anyway, I saw that long time editing partner had been reported to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. I looked over the diffs provided and I felt they were possibly violations but only barely if at all. One in fact struck me as odd in that it was on the last day of his existing 30 day topic ban and I know DHeyward well enough that he's not so stupid he would tempt fate on his last day of an existing topic ban. After I received a well deserved admonishment from the arbitration committee in 2015 I had in essence retired mostly from US political articles, sticking my nose in there only very infrequently and my editing history will testify to that effect. But I have noticed a lot of the same people reporting each other it seemed doing a tit for tat (I felt) at AE with the same names popping up frequently. Seeing some of the comments I lashed out at DHeyward's detractors, both present and not even present at that discussion here. I'll frankly say I am embarrassed by the comment I made there and would go so far as to say it was blockworthy, even a longish block, especially since removed part of it,  reminded me to not make personal attacks  and I yet restored it. There is no excuse for the comments I made, they were extremely harsh and unnecessary. MrX and I had a sort back and forth and MrX then filed an AE request regarding my comments and  then removed all my comment from the AE request on DHeyward  and then posted he was waiting for me to address the issue. I did not initially respond to the report and in fact bluntly said I would not be responding. Sandstein then stated that he was considering a indefinite topic ban on me from American politics etc. articles. The full discussion lasted about half a day and those commenting ranged from being in agreement with Sandstein's proposal to suggesting that a different resolution should be applied, primarily based on the lack of diffs showing I have been disruptive in the topic space itself. Sandstein apparently did adjust the invoked sanction to a 90 day topic ban rather than the indefinite one he initially suggested. After posting to my talkpage about the sanction he had applied, I resigned. I intend to not edit anywhere until my topic ban is lifted, amended or expires. I have contemplated leaving because I feel I have lost the support of the community overall.

The above are the facts of the case, I was way out of line, I probably deserved a block for making personal attacks and restoring them after MrX had removed part of them, and Sandstein did not completely ignore the input of other administrators or the community.

Things moved rapidly during the AE report MrX had filed and in reflection I feel that while my comments were inexcusable I also felt that the both barrels loaded response by Sandstein, who posted a rather draconian indefinite topic ban plan, the type of ban that is oftentimes rarely amended or lifted, was inaccurate. Furthermore I felt very slighted by his comment in the same paragraph in which Sandstein said I have a long block log for "disruptive conduct". I asked Sandstein about this as I have not been blocked in nearly 10 years and others chimed in that my block log was well in the past. The harsh implied penalty as well as the bringing forth of my old blocks certainly indicated to me that Sandstein may have been angry at me or was working on a reputation I may have. These sorts of comments, posted very early in the discussion, have perhaps the inadvertent effect of setting the tone of the oncoming penalty, a sort of pragmatism that I know was not done in a calculated manner by Sandstein, but does impact how the discussion is likely to go. The rush to judgement should be metered and dispassionate and I will confess that I have found Sandstein to be overly aggressive and at times overly harsh in is application of sanctions. I want to say that I am literally fearful that anyone posting a complaint about me I may not get a fair hearing by Sandstein since he apparently has an entrenched and negative view of my activities. Perhaps this is a preposterous paranoia on my part especially considering I do not think Sandstein has ever previously sanctioned or suggested I be sanctioned. Nevertheless, his comments early on made me conclude I either have a terrible reputation or his opinion of me is very low. Both of these things make me feel like staying around this website is a bad plan for me.

I do have a few ideas if anyone cares to think about them:

1). Hereforth allow AE reports to remain open for 24 hours unless the reported party is doing harm to the project and a near immediate sanction must be implemented. 2). Tailor the sanction to better fit the offense. In my case, a 90-180 day NPA parole would have been better since I had not been seen to be disruptive in the topic area itself. I am opposed to civilty paroles because we do have some cultural/language barriers and one person's blunt speak may be anothers incivility. What I engaged in was beyond incivility, I made personal attacks so there is a clear distinction. I would prefer that my current sanction be changed to a NPA parole, but this isn't really a big deal to me because I have lost most of my desire to contribute. MrX somewhere said he felt my sanction was small considering I had admitted I rarely edit that topic area anymore anyway...he's probably right. 3). Admin working in AE and anywhere should remember that many nonadmins feel genuinely at the mercy of the admin corp. Having once been an admin I can attest to how losing the bit is a very marginalizing experience. I ask admins to understand that we do at times feel threatened and at times powerless and this does impact how we may respond (generally defensively but oftentimes angrily) when we are approached by administrators. Likewise when reminding people to be nice, expect them to not be since no one likes being told what to do. 4). All should only use the noticeboards as a last resort. Even when there may be clear and obvious diffs to provide, we should all try and give each other the benefit of the doubt if at all possible.

Thanks....--MONGO 06:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The Quixotic Potato
It is no secret that I disagree with MONGO politically (see my userpage), but I think this topic ban is not helping our encyclopedia. Retired or not, I would like to see this topic ban undone. Sandstein acted in good faith and I understand Sandstein's reasoning, but I think it was a bad decision. Blocking for incivility would've been a good decision. There is no one here (at the time of this timestamp) that I fully agree with. Unfortunately asking people to calm down is usually counterproductive. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
You don't like how the AE report was closed? Well, tough noogies, that's the "discretionary" in "discretionary sanctions". And for the record there was in fact weak consensus for the restriction.

I actually find it hilarious that some editors (well, two, Sarah and Rambling Man) are acting like this is some nefarious breach of norms whereas this is exactly how WP:AE functions and has always functioned. There've been literally dozens if not hundreds of editors who've come through WP:AE who've been sanctioned (or not) with much less consensus than in this case. Again, that's the "discretionary" in "discretionary sanctions". WP:AE has always been like this. This is just clueless in the sense that Sarah apparently just discovered that WP:AE exists and "discretionary sanctions" are a thing. Even though, you know, they've been around for more than half a decade (and lots of admins, including some sitting on the ArbCom right now, have argued till they're blue in the face that they're effective).

You don't like this? Then get rid of WP:AE and discretionary sanctions. Riiiiggghhhhhthttttt....

Otherwise it's gonna look very much like MONGO is being given special treatment - what about all the other editors who got sanctioned with far less consensus over the years? - just cuz he's MONGO.

(Note that this is neither an endorsement nor a criticism of discretionary sanctions) (or MONGO's sanction for that matter)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX " If, alternatively, Arbcom intended that AE should be a IAR free for all where the loudest and most persistent voices win, then that that would be good to know as well.-" - I think that's called "WP:ANI" and it is my understanding that that's why an ArbCom came up with DS in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

- Sarah, it's actually YOUR job to provide diffs to support your claim (the claim: "What can be done about this situation at AE, which seems to have been going on forever, that Sandstein can simply ignore the views of other uninvolved admins?)", not mine. Best I can see you provide nothing, just your own displeasure at how the MONGO report was closed. Sorry, but that's not enough for, well, anything, otherwise there's some AE decisions I'd like to re-litigate myself.

Also, just a general question - for the ArbCom as well - what EXACTLY is being asked for here? What is the clarification being requested? What is the amendment being proposed? There doesn't appear to be anything of the sort. Just a sanction-related version of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. In the most charitable interpretation this is a thinly disguised appeal on behalf of MONGO in contravention of Wikipedia policy (as I asked elsewhere, what exactly is the difference between an "appeal" of a sanction and a request to "review" a sanction on behalf of someone else?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

- I just want to point out that converting a AP topic ban into a civility parole (isn't making personal attacks *already* prohibited?) is not exactly doing MONGO any favors. With a topic ban, you more or less know what you need to do to not run afoul of it. But changing one's personality, or how it manifests itself in an online space... yeah, that's tricky. I mean, I've seen a few people do it, but generally, no. It just leads to more trouble. Chances are in a few weeks MONGO will say something snide (maybe not even THAT snide) to somebody in a completely different setting, that person will note that MONGO is under this civility parole and then go running to WP:AE.

This is sort of an offer you can't not refuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Given User:MONGO's statement - and the fact that it constitutes an actual appeal - I think the sanctions should be vacated or rescinded or whatever. Per my comment right above, substituting in a civility parole (again, "personal attack parole" makes no sense) is a bad idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
I would very much like for the committee to review SlimVirgin's actions and comments over the past 12 hours to determine if they align with the policies and practices of arbitration enforcement, and the spirit of resolving conduct disputes on Wikipedia. Specifically, she has relentlessly hounded Sandstein as evidenced at WP:AE, WT:WT, user talk:Slim Virgin and user talk:Sandstein. She has insisted that Sandstein should pursue a consensus amongst admins, a demand which is in stark opposition to policy and practice. If, alternatively, Arbcom intended that AE should be a IAR free for all where the loudest and most persistent voices win, then that that would be good to know as well.- MrX 00:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(I appreciate MONGO's statement, and I'm sincerely sorry to hear that he has a migraine. That really sucks.)


 * You wrote: The wise thing to do when your admin action is (almost universally) condemned is to reopen it and work toward a consensus solution rather than to quote policy and try to shut down debate. I'm not sure if that is intended to be hypothetical, but I assume it is your reflection of what happened in this case. Sandstein's actions were not almost universally condemned. They were not condemned by at least 12 editors: myself,, , , , , , , ,  and .  said he disagreed with the close, but did not indicate that he condemned Sandstein's actions.   seems to have reservations, but no outright condemnation.


 * That's roughly the same number of editors who have criticized Sandstein's actions, and a larger number than those who have actually condemned his actions. Please, anyone, let me know if I've misrepresented your comments on this matter.- MrX 16:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought this was over, but it seems that some folks don't know how to move on. The continued hounding of Sandstein is appalling and I'm bewildered that Arbcom continues to sit on its collective hands ignoring it. Haven't we had enough drama here for one week without proxy complaints on behalf of MONGO, who has, to his credit, moved on with grace.?- MrX 00:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I’ve recused because of my minor involvement at the AE, but I do want to note my thoughts on this whole issue. First, the Committee should only hear an appeal from MONGO. Appeals on behalf of other editors are not policy-based. Further, some of the behavior surrounding this situation has been very subpar. I don’t know whether ARCA is the right place to take that up, but the threats Sandstein has been subjected to cannot be allowed to continue. Admins should not be bullied out of enforcing arbitration remedies. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Winkelvi
A few things I want to address:


 * Is there something in the collective water that Wikipedia admins are drinking lately - especially those with itchy trigger fingers who are younger in age and/or inexperienced at being admins? I'm asking only because there's some really bold and bad decisions being made lately in the way of long blocks and sanctions and it's all been by young admins and new admins.  Sheesh.


 * It's no secret that and I have tussled in the past, and I have been vocal about his brash communication and aggressive edits over the last few years, but I can't help but voice my objection to what happened to him today.  This sanction seems like some huge overkill and just more unneeded drahmuh.


 * It's totally uncool that Sandstein is ignoring the views of other uninvolved admins. It's even more uncool that he refused requests to reopen the case and is now saying he's going to suddenly become incommunicado and unavailable for the next 12 hours or so.  Same thing happened with another young admin with a quick trigger-finger two weeks ago.  What the...?

Sorry, but as the member of a community where we are supposed to have some level of trust in those essentially running the place, these kind of actions (just like the other two instances I mentioned here as well) leave a chilling effect, a bad taste in experienced editors' mouths, and is starting to chase away long time, experienced, and good content contributors. My opinion is something needs to be done about this new trend as well as MONGO's over-the-top sanction and dissing admins like. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
Sandstein states here, "In the instant case, I did read and take into consideration the opinions of others, even if I did not follow all of them. There being no consensus about the nature of the sanction to impose, the issue of overruling colleagues did not arise."


 * I see little evidence he read or took into consideration the opinions of other admins. This indicates he did not read the revised proposal, he either didn't read or ignored my nudge to address the revised proposal, and the close misrepresented the revised proposal as detailed here (the top part)
 * No consensus was allowed to form as Sandstein closed the case before even twenty four hours had passed. Bearing this in mind, his "no consensus" statement seems very self-serving. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , it shows he considered the initial proposal, which was easy to dismiss, not the revised one. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , for the nth time (sorry, not directed towards you specifically) a "6th month ban on discussion" was not the proposal on the table. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the waiting time discussion, I'm going to repeat what I said here: An admin has the authority to levy sanctions on anyone without needing input or a post to the AE board. I wouldn't want to change this. However if a request is posted to the board and another admin disagrees with the first admin's proposal before the first admin takes action then I do think consensus should be necessary at that point. Expanding: Recognizing that this could lead to an impasse, any admin should be able to close the request 36 hours after it was opened with the appropriate explanatory notes. However if there is significant disagreement about sanctions and discussion is exhausted/getting repetitive, consideration should be given whether or not to kick it up to Arbcom. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
Whether intentional or not Slim Virgin's presentation seems rather unfair and I think that unfairness stems from SV not dealing with the entirety of Sandstein's extensive rationale. So I present that rationale, here: "Taking into consideration the discussion above, we agree that this is actionable conduct, but some admins would prefer a sanction that reflects that there are no complaints with respect to MONGO's article-space editing. As noted above, I'm of the view that a sanction limited to non-articlespace is impractical and does not reflect that Wikipedia editing does not occur in segregated namespaces, but that casting aspersions against others affects all work that the affected editors undertake; for instance, it severely hinders the ability of the involved editors to work together and find consensus on content issues. I am therefore topic-banning MONGO from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. As regards the duration of the sanction, I must take into consideration, on the one hand, that MONGO has been admonished by ArbCom against such conduct and has a long block log, and that their immediate reaction to this request was to blame others and to disclaim responsibility; but, on the other hand, that no blocks are recent, and that MONGO has now apologized for their remarks. Accordingly, I'm imposing the topic ban for a duration of three months. Sandstein 09:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)"

Agree or disagree, it extensively addresses why it was done, including what Slim Virgin calls a "category error". And contra Neil, yes it shows he considered others' statements. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil, Your proposal for a 6th month ban on discussion (and do obvious, uncontrovertial maintenance) is addressed with a 3 month clean-break, does appear considered, above, both in shortening length and in similar relative effect/enforcement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Oh, right, you mean the, for lack of a better term, 'civility parole' thing that bans him saying certain things -- well, the Arbs do have recent relatively high-profile experience with that and they seemed rather disenchanted with it being pretty unenforceable, unlike the clean break, which was the reason the clean-break was chosen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If I am being called to say whether I "condemn" Sandstein's action, I don't. My position, is rather closer to Drmies, and Golden Ring.  For myself, reading it all, I think Sandstein did honestly try 'to do the right thing' (even were it not what I would have done, were I in his shoes), and did generally try to take all the comments into account.  I did not opine in the AE (I don't know if I ever have commented in that forum), and you don't need yet another, after the fact, opinion on the underlying facts. As for timing, again, your timing rules are whatever your timing rules are, but just looking at the AE discussion, itself, it does appear like it was aired out there by multiple people. As for appeal, you have whatever rules you have created. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Responding to comments about AE 'not working', or 'it's broken' (like there's something that's not?) or 'why do we have AE?' - you'll just have to dig through the history to truly answer that but one thing that seems apparent to me, is the major answer to all those complaints already exists: appeal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * While I agree there is now an appeal and that Sandstein would now be inclined to grant in some form, you appear to send a 'mixed message', if what you are suggesting is Sandstein now act unilaterally (are you putting him in a situation, where to some, he 'gets it wrong' again?). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * They can be. But here and now, we have multiple people opining on different ideas for handling the matter.  As I said, you send a mixed message. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

, and to the rest of the Comittee, too. First of all, your burn it down remedy is bizarre, unless you are willing to go whole hog and disband your ctte or resign (after all, if you read the comments of many over the years, your ctte, does not do much, and when it does, it regularly does it wrong) or you can press ahead with the realization that nothing is perfect. I also, don't think sweeping infexible new creeping rules is wise.

My suggestions, 1) every year or six months as a ctte off-wiki audit every AE case for a week(s)/a month, (or have some of our statistcians give you a random sampling technique) after that time publish the draft audit (for structured community comment/your revision) hand out a bunch of 'attagals/boys/etc', and 'no's, this is how that kind should be handled', and overtime you'll have a 'common law' body of precedent, that everyone can look to. And in successive audits, you can refine/correct prior audits.

With cases such as the present one when you have an actual appeal, go ahead and make some rulings, even though as this one is, it's over (Brad I am sure there is a SCOTUS phrase for that) although, when it's over, you should probably be more circumspect, with your eye firmly planning on making future AE 'better', never perfect, but in the context of discussing an actual case issue that arose). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
My opinion from the original AE was that MONGO's talk behavior was way out of line, considering past warnings/etc, but understanding from others they edit in AP2 space without any drama to the content of their edits. I do understand the point made by the closing, that it is hard to block talk page behavior and yet expect the editor to continue to participate in the same article space, if the TBAN prevents them from participating in any discussion, which my read now makes me think a TBAN might have been the wrong approach, or at least a shorter standard TBAN. --M asem (t) 00:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by olive
This is about process versus common sense. If an AE closes in less than 24 hours, chances are many aren't even aware the AE has been filed. If another or other admins ask that a case be reopened then nothing is lost by extending discussion. Wikipedia has unfortunately given a great deal of power to individual admins in the application of discretionary sanctions and in AEs. In a community of this size, that power can be misused and so must be  must be tempered with the openness to listen to fellow admins and editors,  and the flexibility to apply sanctions with discrimination knowing that nothing in our policies and guidelines points to rigid consistency. Wikipedia is and will continue to be open to abuse if individual admins cannot adjust their thinking and decisions based on the specifics of a situation. Admins must know that they will not be judged for changing their minds and that flexibility and collaboration will be respected.

And by the way that another admin questions a decision is good and healthy in this community. We don't want or need dictators which is what happens if decision makers are above discussion with those those who may disagree or misunderstand them.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC))
 * There is a bottom line here: AE doesn't always work very well. Process should not override common sense and humane judgement. Admins like Sandstein are following the letter of the law and shouldn't be faulted for that but at the same time a single admin makes mistakes and sometimes big ones and sadly, sometimes editors are railroaded. Are there any admins here who feel they've always been right or fair? So like isaacl I believe we need to have a circuit breaker for those times when a community of admins sees a potential mistake. We are a collaborative community and that must refer not just to editing practices but also to judgement and decisions. The problem we have here is that Sandstein feels he has done the right thing. Others disagree and Sandstein is not interested in dealing with those other opinions. Fair enough for an admin to stand by his decisions. However,  no admin should be in a position to implement something that is not fair or just in the eyes of a community. What we need is a formalized guide for such situations. In a collaborative community a single admin should be overridden by a group. How can that be implemented. Several months ago an editor emailed and asked me if I thought our AE process was making people sick. I've thought about that for along time. And in the end, yes, when people are treated unfairly, unjustly, especially in a community which purports to be collaborative, for me, a word synonymous with of the people, then we are making people sick and we are losing editors and we are responsible-all of us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC))


 * Note: Among the "masses" appeals are generally considered to be useless.There seems to be a general sense that those appealing are guilty so why bother looking at the case in detail again, or there are those who want to make sure the sanction holds. If this seems cynical with a dash of hopelessness; it is. I speak from experience where for example I had an arb accuse me of something I'd never done. Had she looked at the case she wouldn't have made the mistake. When I asked for a clarification on the point I was ignored. So my sense is that do it right at AE, including a 24 hour, at the very least, time period on the case.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC))

Statement by TheGracefulSlick
Let me just start off by saying I respect Sandstein immensely for his ability to read consensus at AFD so I am saddened by recent events. However, when SlimVirgin dared to have an issue with your close, your response can be summed up as: "that sucks but procedure says I can". Your close was ill-adviced and caused a shootout among several esteemed editors. Can you honestly stand behind your closure and say the ends justify the means? What have you accomplished or proven because it certainly has not been in the interest of the encyclopedia, regardless of whether "procedure says I can" or not. And I share Littleolive's opinion: SlimVirgin's inquiry is healthy and I wish more admins had the moxy to speak up more often.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
I also object strongly to applying a content area ban to an editor that didn't involve the content. Sandstein closed my appeal and it was the draconian decision and hounding of me that led to his comments. I have an ARCA request below because of how admins working in AE are not communicating properly even after they admit errors in clarity. I am now subject to an AP2 topic ban because AE admins believe I violated a BLP topic ban. I don't think ArbCom intended to create a roulette wheel of sanctions but that is how it is operated. I would like to know how I earned an AP2 topic ban for supposedely violating a BLP topic ban with an edit that still exists. AE has become Kafka's attic. --DHeyward (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And to be perfectly clear, MONGO's comments were in a BLP enforcement AE discussion, not an AP2 discussion. An AP2 restriction is a non-sequitur solution that appears to be from a motivation unencumbered by the goals of the project. is correct and the TBAN should be undone..

Statement by WJBscribe
The rule about appeals being made by the sanctioned editor only should not be used to allow administrators taking enforcement actions at AE from evading proper scrutiny of their actions by the community. Sandstein does good work at AE but his aggressive enforcement focused on the letter of the law followed by (IMO) hiding behind the process to avoid communicating with colleagues even when it is clear that a mounting consensus is against his decision has repeatedly caused problems. Indeed, I remind the committee of the following remedy from May 2011: "Sandstein is advised to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions." (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling). This issue could have been resolved by proper communication between Sandstein and other users, to see if his action was supported by broader community opinion. AE actions can be taken without first establishing consensus, but they cannot be allowed to stand if consensus is clearly against them. Likewise, in my opinion it is impermissible for an admin to review an AE thread, identify that a consensus is already against their proposed course of action, and take it anyway. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93
This dramafest demonstrates once again our collective inability to deal with respected contributors who are occasionally very unpleasant. These folks are at fault for carrying on in a "this is the way I am: take it or leave it" attitude. And the community is at fault for whacking them with impossible and/or disproportionate sanctions.

I mention this, first, to explain my position at AE. I am unsure whether MONGO deserved a tban. His comments were terrible: but I've received far worse from editors against whom sanctions weren't even considered. Just see my RFA. But if MONGO is to receive a tban, it should be a clearly defined one, not subject to endless further drama. In that respect, at least, I find Sandstein's action appropriate.

But (and this is the second reason for my commentary above) Sandstein is certainly aware of the drama that ensues from sanctioning seasoned content contributors. For that reason, if none else, he should have made an effort to obtain broader admin support. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The sole purpose of AE is to allow us to get on with building an encyclopedia: and therefore, extra care with respect to certain editors is entirely justifiable.

I have great respect for Sandstein. But it was pointed out to him that he created more drama than he solved, and he responded by saying he followed the rules. This is concerning, and in my view requires examination by ARBCOM. Furthermore, the admin corps at AE clearly failed to deal with the situation in a drama-reducing manner: perhaps ARBCOM can do better. Vanamonde (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) RegentsPark
It is a truth (that should be) universally acknowledged, that a single admin in search of sanctions should always make a good faith attempt to find and abide by consensus. In this instance, Sandstein did not do that. Instead, he went against consensus in sanctioning MONGO, and gave a rather unfortunate reason for doing so My experience is that is almost not possible to impose AE sanctions against long-term community members without a substantial minority, or even a majority, of other long-term community members disagreeing with it for one reason or another, a reason which sort of indicates that he believes he is better positioned to make unbiased judgements than other admins (always a dangerous sign in anyone with power). He should also not have reverted SlimVirgin when she made additional comments on the closed AE report, but rather have waited for someone else to do so. In both cases, though Sandstein admittedly followed the letter of policy on admin action, he clearly did not follow its spirit. The wise thing to do when your admin action is ( almost universally widely) condemned is to reopen it and work toward a consensus solution rather than to quote policy and try to shut down debate. We're seeing the unfortunate consequences of when an admin chooses the shutting down option over the consensus seeking one.

Sandstein does good work at AE, it is not easy to make judgement after judgement against editors and I respect that. I also think that the action he took against MONGO was clearer than some of the suggestions that were being made on AE. But it is important that he realize that not attempting to seek consensus and then attempting to shut down debate on his actions is not the wiki way and that viewing yourself as a bulwark against a perception that long term content editors get special treatment from admins is probably neither constructive nor accurate. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed "almost universally" to widely per MrX's comment. I meant "universally condemned by admins" but perhaps that's not the case either. Widely fits the bill well. --regentspark (comment) 17:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
A few years ago someone described Sandstein's actions at AE as being those of a "judge, jury and executioner" (admittedly, it was said by someone who has not had a great track record here). This is what happens when that position is taken. It's very unfortunate and, I think, rather unnecessary. I'm sure that they acted in good faith but when numerous other long-standing contributors, including admins, query an action then surely discretion is the better part of valour? Instead of continuing to suggest that it was done to protect the project and is non-negotiable, open it up for review. FWIW, I have had practically no interaction with MONGO or with the subject area - it just looks like a bad decision to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
Just to note that the committee dealt with very similar issues in this case in 2015. That decision included Although administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be directed to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement and was passed 10-0.

Even with that in mind, I think it is stretching things to say that Sandstein acted against an emerging consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE. There was general agreement of uninvolved admins at AE that MONGO's comments were sanction-worthy; the debate, by and large, was over what, not if.

I sympathise with those who tried to craft a narrower sanction that fit the offence better, but the background of DHeyward's narrow tban should be kept in mind; there have been a number of voices in that context arguing that admins should impose bans from all of AP2 or do nothing, because anything narrower causes trouble. Sandstein's action was well within admin discretion and a reasonable one given the discussion at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The idea of a minimum waiting time for AE has been discussed repeatedly and rejected, and for good reasons
 * For the majority of cases, it is either unnecessary or counter-productive, because:
 * There is ongoing disruption which a 24-hour waiting period would enable; or
 * Many cases are obvious and easily dealt with on a single admin's discretion.
 * A waiting period creates a disincentive to use AE. It will encourage editors to instead take complaints directly to friendly admins for action, since admins can act unilaterally unless a report is made to AE, in which case they have to wait 24h.
 * The waiting period would create a trap for admins who might be about to impose a sanction, not knowing that seconds before they click the save button, someone else has made a complaint at AE.
 * It's not at all clear that a minimum waiting period would have helped with this request, which had an unusually high level of admin participation for requests at AE.
 * So unless you intend to make AE a compulsory step in all enforcement actions, and are prepared to tolerate 24 hours of ongoing disruption before a sanction can be imposed, please don't create a minimum waiting period at AE.
 * I'll add that those trying to picture Sandstein as steaming in and overruling their colleagues don't appear to have read the discussion. He was the first to comment on the AE request, 14 hours before closing it.  During the intervening period, there was a considerable discussion in which a majority of admins argued for a broad topic ban and Sandstein took care to interact with the thoughts of those who argued for a narrower ban in his final comment on the request.  His actions were not only well within discretion but very reasonable in view of the discussion.  Not everyone agreed with him, but he was hardly a lone voice.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
At the initial case I said I wasn't sure what to do, but I certainly wasn't disagreeing with Sandstein and I don't disagree with his close. I also don't see how his close is "universally" or even "widely" condemned. Such decisions are always made in a heated environment (by definition) and they aren't always easy to make; as far as I'm concerned Sandstein did nothing wrong, and made a judgment call based on the discussion and others' opinions that they handled procedurally correctly (he may remember that he overturned a procedurally incorrect but ethically correct block I placed for formal reasons). That this shouldn't be brought by someone who isn't MONGO is pretty much a fact according to our policies, but that's not the biggest deal to me; a bigger deal for me is that for all intents and purposes this just makes matters even worse, complicating a possible future appeal by MONGO, which I hope is in the works. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ceoil
While politically I fall on the polar opposite side to MONGO and greatly admire VM, I have looked up to MONGO's article work for over ten years (and have said before that his FACs are what first motivated me stop editing as an IP and open an account) and see a sometimes gruff talk page style that *does not* spill over into POV main space article contributions. I also don't think Sandstein did anything wrong per say, just a little quickly, but it seems a very harsh penalty given the length of service and the overwhelming positive contribution the man has made to this website. MONGO is informed, and given the current political climate and polarisation, its increasing difficult to keeps ones cool. Cutting him at the knee with a broad topic ban seems extremely harsh, when he's generally an amenable sort of guy and some limited restrictions on talk page conduct might better serve.

On the initial close; if consensus often does not ultimately inform the decision, what is the point of a board inviting discussion. Its it just a procedural tick the box? Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mz7
As others before me have pointed out, Sandstein was definitely allowed to take this arbitration enforcement action unilaterally (that is, without consideration for the opinions of other administrators) under the procedures set forth at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (though admins should take heed of the principle cited in GoldenRing's statement). Under the same set of procedures, any appeal – defined at the top of the page as including any request for the reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction – must be brought by the editor who is under sanction, in this case MONGO (see WP:AC/DS). If the sanctioned editor chooses not to file a formal appeal, then the process forbids any request for reconsideration on the issue made by your average Joe. The unfortunate happenstance here is that the process precludes all administrator peer review in the event that the sanctioned editor chooses not to file a formal appeal, regardless of whether the sanctioned editor has otherwise expressed their disagreement to the sanction. Only when the sanctioned editor decides to appeal can any discussion of a reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction happen.

With this in mind, I think the committee should procedurally endorse Sanstein's action without prejudice to the consideration of a future appeal by MONGO. As I noted in the original AE discussion, however, there is something about the "precluding all admin peer review" that strikes me as rather un-Wikipedia, and I would appreciate if the committee can explicitly clarify that, yes, this is what was originally intended when the process was designed. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC), last modified 19:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish (involved historically, not topically)
I have no opinion on MONGO's actions/statements personally, and am not involved in topic area. "This is a request about AE and Sandstein, not about a particular case." I agree that a shut-down that fast, with lengthy sanctions, for not making Sandstein happy at AE, rather than for disruption in the content area at issue, is doubly inappropriate; it's insufficient time for a proper examination, and whether Sandstein is pleased with the kowtowing in his royal court is irrelevant. But this stuff is habitual with him, for.

I object in the strongest possible terms to this "an ARCA cannot be brought on behalf of someone else" nonsense, because it absolutely is not true. An ARCA can be opened by anyone, to:
 * Seek clarification when they feel a clarification is needed, e.g. because they're uncertain how an ArbCom decision or AE enforcement action in furtherance of an ArbCom decision might apply to them.
 * Seek amendment of a previous decision or of an AE administrative action on behalf of ArbCom, e.g. because they're concerned about how it could be applied to them, or they think something wrong has been done and may be interpreted as a form of wrongful precedent.
 * About AE decisions, because there is no other avenue of appeal for them, and these decisions often do not affect single editors in some kind of vacuum, but are applied repetitively in case after case as a form of "standard operating procedure".
 * About administrative action, because ArbCom is the only embody empowered to examine whether an administrator's actions are compliant with WP:ADMIN policy; previous RfCs to establish a community-consensus alternative venue for this have failed to gather sufficient support. If Sandstein or ArbCom would rather it be a full WP:RFARB, well, "be careful what you wish for".

Not every ARCA that involves someone else is an "appeal" of their sanction (repeat: "This is a request about AE and Sandstein, not about a particular case"), so the ArbCom rule about appeals is not some huge, smothering gag that can be duct-taped over all attempts to examine administrative AE actions in any instance in which one isn't a directly aggrieved party. Having serious concerns about procedure being followed, about vague or capricious sanctions being used, about a general sense that AE has become a minefield where one is more likely to be punished for offending just the wrong person than to have the substance of an issue examined, are – each and severably – sufficient reason for anyone to use ARCA.

A really obvious precedent – about actions by Sandstein, again – is the ARCA opened by on behalf of me and three other editors, over similar "Judge Dredd admin" activities at ARCA – a request which was accepted and acted upon by ArbCom. Permalink to the whole thing here. This is worth reviewing in detail, including the background (Sandstein made unsupportable claims of wrongdoing against me and all these other parties, and refused to even look at evidence he was wrong, even after other admins told him he was (e.g. ); we then got a year-long appeal runaround (see, and, etc.), until NE Ent, who at that time understood process better than we did, got it resolved for us.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  20:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with 's comment below; it's also consistent with what I said in a couple of other ARCAs shortly before this one. re "his appeal must be automatically closed as 'no action' - simply by default. Why should anyone waste [our] time on the appeal if a user is no longer active?" –  because most such retirements are not permanent and are predicated on [a strong perception of] unjust treatment; they become permanent usually only when wikilaywering is misused to avoid addressing the [alleged] injustice. I.e., you would set up a self-fulfilling prophecy and justify it with circular reasoning. I repeat what I said in a previous ARCA: It's not ArbCom/AE's job to WP:WIN at all costs in a game of being a badass simulation of prosecution; anyone who acts like that is the goal has no business being part of these processes (see next subsection).  The purpose of these processes is to retain productive editors in a productive capacity. That cannot be done by driving them off the system and laughing at them as they leave.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Also concur with 's main thrust; "neither the 'Arbitration enforcement' nor 'Arbitration enforcement 2' case made much progress on ... safeguards against arbitrary enforcement decisions" [in the undesirable sense of "arbitrary"] is clearly true. Neitehr did the WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review, as I cover at  in the ARCA above this one, and in more detail here. It's no accident that an increasing number of ARCAs involve such matters; there are real problems here, possibly worsening.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)  's "the fact that Mongo was AE topic-banned for content or behavior not made in mainspace" [or, rather, at the locus of the dispute – some DS have been applied to internal topics, as at WP:ARBATC&#93;] gets to the heart of various disputes about AE and DS and Sandstein in particular; the NE_Ent-filed ARCA I highlight above was all about another case of Sandstein using DS against people for making "personalized" comments in AE itself, when by definition a noticeboard about user behavior is automatically "personalized"; it's exactly like charging someone with defamation  a court case  they brought the case against someone and it necessarily made allegations. It's amazing to me that someone with a real-world legal background can't see the problem with this.  But this is just one of many issues with DS and AE as presently deployed.   (in multiple ARCAs) and  (in the one after this one) argue that the confusing situation that an AE decision can, supposedly, be appealed to ArbCom (ARCA), to AN, or to AE should be used as an excuse to shut down appeals. Most systems of appeal are a chain of escalating appeals, so this is not going to match user expectations. And ArbCom is already clear that one should appeal first to the sanction-issuing admin, yet this does not prevent an appeal after that to ArbCom. Furthermore, it's a large part of ArbCom's job to review administrative decisions, be they individual or collective. , so it's completely illogical that a dismissive or "back up other admins at all costs" pseudo-review by AN or by AE itself cannot be reviewed further by ArbCom.  The ARCA I mention above, opened by NE Ent for others, was exactly such a request – and ArbCom had no trouble accepting it, and bringing it to a satisfactory resolution, which got two editors to come back, me among them.  In point of fact, AN refused to actually come to a decision in that case, and claimed that only ArbCom could do it.  So, the idea that the "use AN or AE or ArbCom" thing is actually a standardized practice with established norms is completely false.  Even AN admins don't agree that AN (or its ANI subpage) is an appropriate appeal venue for anything AE does. And AE can't sanely be viewed as a final appeal avenue for its own decisions; that's a conflict of interest and the fox guarding the henhouse. On this side matter,
 * writes: "This is how AE has always worked" (twice in slightly different wording). When the continual refrain is "AE is not working properly", that is clearly not an adequate answer. We its been "working" this way, and it's not actually working. Re: "If you want to change how AE works, do it properly" – Since AE only exists as a body of ArbCom, having ArbCom examine the problems with it and suggesting ways to fix them  doing it properly, unless ArbCom wants something more specific, like a special RfC page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)  The fact that people were citing WP:DIVA as a besmirching and dismissing weapon is why that page was MfDed and radically rewritten has WP:HIGHMAINT several years ago. The page we have now is worth perusing; leaving Wikipedia because one feels maligned and abused is not WP:PRAM trantrum-throwing or devious WP:GAMING, as described therein. It's an understandable human reaction to get kicked around. See also departure by  recently, for even more egregious reasons. People who leave on such a basis are generally not scheming and are pretty certain they are not coming back. If they do, it can sometimes take years to come to that decision. Please do not belittle others' senses of justice and honor; it's in the same class as spiritual and other cultural differences, and going there is never going to be productive. This also speaks a bit to comments by   NE Ent earlier, like proposing to punitively block people for announcing they're leaving after being sanctioned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)  Self-correction: The block idea was 's, not 's; sorry, I misremembered!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein and AE have proved to be a bad combination, for a long time
Sandstein wikilawyered against resolution for the entire year that the above drama dragged out. See also his process-above-all avoidance of resolution on this very page right now (search for "de novo" in the ARCA above, and "I think that this appeal should be rejected on procedural grounds" in this one, below). His approach has not changed in the slightest in 5+ years, despite stern criticism from multiple Arbitrators about it.

One of the sitting Arbs at the time,, wrote in NE Ent's ARCA: "@Sandstein: I have probably already told you this, but I think that your approach to WP:AE is overly formalistic and bureaucratic and, speaking personally, I consider this a problem. This case is a good example of your approach", and focused on Sandstein's reliance on wikilawyering and dubious interpretations of procedure to skirt resolution and examination. Sandstein's response to this criticism was "if you think that my work at WP:AE does more harm than good, I'm happy to quit it if you would like me to. I'm not interested in helping out where I'm not welcome to, and I really have no time for all of this." (This does not comport very well with WP:ADMINACCT). Not the first time this has come up. I'll just link to (Andreas) quoting all the Salient details, from  Arbs, after Sandstein said he'd quit AE "duty" if Arbs wanted him to:. So, why hasn't he?

I could make a broader and very detailed case for why he should do so, including difficulty separating his personal opinions/feelings from administrative matters that are brought to AE, and a seeming inability to ever concede a mistake, but I'm skeptical this is a good thread for such a diff-pile, given the narrowness of this ARCA and it not being an RfArb. I'll close with a quote from  dating to the July 2013 AN request: "I've seen Sandstein's knee-jerk, almost random punishments result in the departure of three long-standing, hard-working, talent[ed], trustworthy editors ... And the whole WMF movement is in the midst of an editor-retention crisis. Get it?" Sandstein's response to this was, in the same breath as admitting his own lack of empathy, to mock his victims as "throwing a screaming fit and rage-quitting Wikipedia", plus further snide, character-assassinating aspersions of being inveterate, incompetent troublemakers ,. This is not the only such series of incidents.

The passage of time (and my cowed avoidance of him for several years) was giving me the wishful-thinking illusion that maybe this was all just something Sandstein had learned and grown past, but that's clearly not the case after all. If someone keeps throwing the banhammer around like a fun toy, it's time to take that dangerous weapon away. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  21:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
There are certain rules established by Arbcom, and they must be respected. One may agree or disagree with closing by Sandstein (I suggested something different on AE), but he obviously acted by the rules and in the limits of his discretion in this case. If MONGO disagree, he must talk with the closing administrator and submit an appeal to AE. This is by the rules. Not submitting an appeal can mean one of three things: (a) MONGO agree with closing by Sandstein, (b) he does not care, or (c) he does not want to act by the rules. In either case, bringing this complaint, rather than a request for amendment does not help to resolve anything because the initiative must belong to MONGO. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the comments just made by MONGO above, I think his sanction could be removed and this thread closed simply per WP:IAR. If not, I think this appeal should be readdressed to WP:AE (rather than be directly handled by Arbcom) because this is proper noticeboard to handle such requests and minimize disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl
The tension between arbitration enforcement actions being taken on the initiative of an individual administrator versus a consensus discussion at the enforcement noticeboard was the key issue underlying Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement, which produced the following statement that is incorporated in the discretionary sanctions instructions: In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. The case also stated Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request are reminded that they should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. Trying to achieve the goal of discretionary sanctions&mdash;to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles&mdash;while still having safeguards against arbitrary enforcement decisions is a difficult task (neither the "Arbitration enforcement" nor "Arbitration enforcement 2" case made much progress on this front). Perhaps some sort of circuit-breaker rules can be defined: if certain triggering events occur, such as an arbitrator requesting that a consensus discussion be held at the enforcement noticeboard, then administrators must reach a consensus decision before enacting any sanctions. If possible, the circuit-breaker rules should be based on objective standards that track the emergence of the issue as being contentious, so that administrators are not tempted to rush to judgment solely to avoid tripping a circuit-breaker. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas as of yet on what rules would be useful.

Another possibility would be to have the reverse: necessary conditions for an administrator to take individual action. If these conditions are not in place, then an administrator must first announce their planned action at the enforcement noticeboard and wait for a set period of time before enacting it. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

, I disagree with a mandatory 24-hour waiting period after an enforcement request is filed before action is taken. I echo what Sandstein said and what I said above: this can precipitate hasty action by administrators in order to avoid the clock and consensus discussion. I think a waiting period needs to have some triggering conditions.

As I discussed in the "Arbitration enforcement" case, discretionary sanctions in its current form give broad authority to administrators to use their judgment in deciding the best course of action. If the arbitration committee wishes to require a mandatory discussion period, then it should revisit the process and consider moving to a "notice-and-action" model, where a request for enforcement must be raised for all issues. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Workshop&diff=674674201&oldid=674665270 discussed during the "Arbitration enforcement" case], I feel there is a danger in having a mandatory waiting period that applies only to filed requests, as this encourages people to file quickly in order to trigger the waiting period. The process should foster collaborative discussion first, rather than provide incentives for quick filings. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih
Writing here instead as I have commented at the original AE. is correct that although I have disagreed with close, but I have nothing further to add as many have pointed out that it was procedurally correct. I am still hoping the decision can be reconsidered because, as the subsequent turmoil suggests, it does not represent the best interest of the project. I wholeheartedly endorse 's proposal below. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
I don't believe Sandstein is temperamentally suited for AE. If there is a place for a no confidence vote on that, I make it here. I also don't like the fact that Mongo was AE topic-banned for content or behavior not made in mainspace. I probably agree with that guy about zero politically, but fair is fair and dirty is dirty... That topic ban is for the abuse of mainspace, not a handy "put into jail free" card. Finally, I wish the political warriors would get the hell out of contemporary political biography. That might be wishing for the unachievable, but I like to think that conservatives and lefties alike can check the politics at the door and behave like NPOV-respecting Wikipedians. I don't know if Mongo qualifies as such a content warrior, but there unquestionably is a lot of political gamesmanship going on and there needs to be a topic-ban slaughter of a bunch of the gamers, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @ - Sure, he's a fantastic closer: for example, turning an obvious Keep at Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used by Donald Trump into a no consensus muddle, apparently on an IDONTLIKEIT basis or something... Carrite (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni
I think that Sandstein's topic ban was good at the time: I don't think any of the alternatives would have been useful, but at the same time, seeing MONGO's appeal above, I would support it if it was lifted entirely and replaced with a strong warning about repeating similar actions. I oppose what seems to be suggesting as an NPA ban: those don't work, especially not with popular editors. If it was ever enforced, we'd wind up right back here again. A warning accomplishes the same thing, and doesn't add an additional layer of bureaucracy. Also, FWIW, as one of the editors who was subject to the actions in question, I personally didn't mind. I like MONGO, and I knew he was defending a friend. I see his point of view there, even if I obviously ended up disagreeing with it: people of good will can end up disagreeing and even calling eachother names, and it be fine, though the latter shouldn't happen frequently. I can only speak for myself in that regard, but I thought it might be worth something. Also, I think this appeal would be easier to handle at AE now that MONGO is actually appealing it, though that is of course up to him. It would also likely have a quicker resolution there. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * a 24 hour waiting period at AE would likely have the opposite effect that you want. The AE regulars would just go directly to a favourable admin. This is similar to how AE is becoming used less as an appeal venue in favour of AN: vested contributors have realized that a consensus of admins at AE is unlikely to overturn a legitimately imposed sanction, so they try their luck at AN. A 24 hour wait would make AE only useful for sanctioning new users, who for the most part don’t actually need AE action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve never suggested blocking anyone for announcing their retirement on this or any other page. I did say that I thought DHeyward’s actions at Jimbo-talk should be taken as a part of a consistent pattern of trying to test the limits of the DS system as a part of reviewing his appeal, but I think a block would be pointless, and on AE and here have explicitly said it was unclear as to whether that was a TBAN violation given the ARCA factor. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv
I support granting the following relief to MONGO: Lifting the sanction entirely, without replacing it with another sanction. Given MONGO's statement above, which ticks all my boxes for a mea culpa and promise not to repeat, I believe it serves no further purpose and lifting it will boost general editor morale in this sector. MONGO's statement strikes me as heartfelt, genuine, thoughtful, and introspective. Moreover, the statement makes it clear that MONGO was affected by the odd circumstances of the situation, particularly the ultrafast pacing of AE (perhaps a special case of the meatball:ForestFire or meatball:AngryCloud). I think that's forgivable.

As to the other aspects of MONGO's statement, I think we should look at improving the AE/DS process generally. I believe MONGO's suggestion of a minimum 24-hour window is probably right-minded. Though I believe there should be the option for reviewing admins to take preliminary action to preserve a status quo, there should still probably be a minimum 24-hour window before that preliminary action becomes a final decision that has to go through the appeals process. 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
I join, , and others expressing concern with Sandstein's overall approach to AE. "Overly formalistic and bureaucratic" is a good way to put it. Even in this latest episode, after inquiries and concerns from admins and editors alike, Sandstein is convinced he has done the right thing. Also see here for another example of Sandstein's approach. That episode was kicked off by a rapid fire, controversial AE action by Sandstein and subsequent refusal to discuss with others. Sound familiar? Admins active at AE should be a little more open to feedback about their actions. That example, coupled with SMcCandlish's above seem to show that Sandstein's activity at AE sometimes causes more disruption than benefit. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
I would like to add to the list by : d) Mongo might not have known what the rules were, especially if those rules are not written down or if the written version is out of date; e) Mongo might have decided that he did not want to make a fuss and would wait until the sanction expired or until everyone calmed down/could look at the issue with fresh eyes. Any policy, written or otherwise, that places "If you don't complain or don't complain in the exact right way, then you are confessing and agreeing that you deserve to be punished" will only make trouble for Wikipedia by preventing people from getting punishments lifted, by saddling admins with appeals by editors who would have been willing to wait out their sanctions and by generally rendering the atmosphere more toxic. Think about it. You're an admin. You just gave an editor a sanction that they don't think they deserve but they're willing to shut up and edit somewhere else for three months. Then that editor finds out "If you don't appeal, we'll assume you agree that you're a dirty troublemaker." Well now they have to appeal and you the admin have to be on the receiving end. Appealing is not disruption, but it is work for everyone involved. There's a flip side to this. I'd like everyone to try this on for size: "Sandstein did not violate any policies. Perhaps we should modify or revoke the sanction anyway." Lifting a sanction on Mongo does not require imposing one on Sandstein. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Condolences on the new members on election to the Ninth Circle of Hell Arbcom.

The rigidity of WP:AC/DS and the Ignore all rules pillar have not, do not, and will never co-exist very well. (Which is, of course, what NYB just said in Bradspeak). Therefore, per WP:Policy fallacy, while arbcom 18 is certainly empowered to rewrite AC/DS wording, it's really not going to help.

Stepping back to actual proximate causes, what should have been a simple appeal / rewording -- because, yes, banning an editor from mainspace due to poor wikipedia space behavior doesn't actual make sense -- blew up into this drama fest because of MONGO just having to "Retire" (see WP:OWB).

What ya'll really ought to -- but probably won't: although it's direct and simple and would probably work, it doesn't fit some "fairness / sympathy" vibe that mucks up WP dispute resolution -- is add this DS: Such a siteban may only appealed to the arbitration committee via email.

Wikipedia would be better served if the involved admins would, as hard as it is in the heat of the moment, to dial down the rhetoric while disagreeing.

Statement by Dennis Brown
Speaking on procedure rather than merits: I'm seeing a lot of discussion about "consensus" but it is my understanding that AE isn't about consensus at all, and in fact, any closing or action taken by any admin is theirs alone: they own it. My understanding is that any admin may close at any time, with or without sanction, and the close itself is considered an admin action (I forget the Arb case, but yes, you concluded that). And that AE isn't even required at all, that an admin can act outside of AE just as he would within the walls of that board. It is a nice sounding board for admin to hear the opinions of other admin and non-admin alike, but all *actions* are considered unilateral, whether or not others agreed, so there is no requirement to consider other opinions or gain consensus. You would have to change policy if you wanted it to become a consensus board. This complaint seems completely out of process and unsupported by policy. WP:AE or WP:AN are the normal channels to appeal, and should be filed by the sanctioned party. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
In response to asking to post examples of admins (other than Sandstein) who overrule the consensus of uninvolved admins at AE., I can give this example (pointed to me by Tarc) by current Arb. I don't know whether the sanction was merited or not, but what I see in that request is that any admin can use their judgement to impose sanctions and need not wait for a consensus at AE. As far as I know, this is how AE has functioned always.

Aside from this explicit example, one should also keep in mind that AE sanctions need not involve any request at all: any admin can act unilaterally. If other admins don't get a chance to weigh in, how can one determine consensus? Many of Coffee's recent blocks didn't follow an AE request. One can also recall the old Eric Corbett drama, where admins (including Arbs) engaged in this practice. This is how AE has always worked. If you want to change how AE works, do it properly, don't engage in special pleading. I will support people in the former endeavour. 's points are also interesting, though I haven't considered them in detail. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark
I agree with, , and everyone else who has expressed concern with Sandstein's conduct. Sure, he may technically be empowered to hand out lengthy sanctions unilaterally and without any regard for the opinions of his peers, but that doesn't make it a good idea. As noted above, this is not the first time he has created a dramafest with his over-the-top application of sanctions. Eventually, the community is going to get fed up... maybe sooner than later. Lepricavark (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen
This thread was brought to my attention. I see that Sandstein is still being Sandstein and Arbcom are still being Arbcom by not bringing his actions under proper control. This is the combination that made me leave WP for some years ago. Unless Arbcom shows some sort of ability to control admins who lack empathy and whose first reaction to anyone who points out that they have done wrong is to look at what sanctions they can bring against the critic, then I have no intention of returning to Wikipedia and risking another outbreak of Sandsteinism against me or similar behaviour from other toxic admins. And this extends to not SOFIXITing any of the numerous errors I have spotted when browsing WP. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to point out something in common here with my experience, My case was another one in which Sandstein threatened me with sanctions under an area whose articles I have never edited. I just pointed out that he was misguided about some matters of fact to do with the sanctions he was applying to one or two others and his immediate reaction was to attack me with his Admin powers. Here is another instance where his first reaction was to try to avoid Peter cohen (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Coretheapple
I just saw this matter referenced on SlimVirgin's talk page. Am not acquainted with Mongo and I don't recall ever encountering him.

In this discussion I find myself in total agreement with editors with whom I rarely agree (Carrite comes to mind). It is simply wrong and deeply unfair for an administrator to issue a sweeping topic ban against an editor on the basis of comments made outside of mainspace. SlimVirgin's points are well-taken. There is nothing that bothers me more than losing good contributors on the basis of unfair or arbitrary administrator actions. I am glad that Mongo is appealing and hope that this matter is satisfactorily resolved. Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Mr rnddude
If I had been aware of this sooner, I would have posted here much earlier. This is my statement and is basically a copy-paste of what I said several days ago on TRM's talk page (with some fluff removed): Based on the closing sanction placed against MONGO I expected to see some AP2 related evidence of either disruptive editing or disruption on article talk pages. Instead I find that he's received a TBAN from AP2 as a remedy against personal attacks - and they were egregious personal attacks - at WP:AE, User talk:Mr X, and WP:AN. Given that sanctions should be preventative and not punitive, I think that the failure to meaningfully address the issues presented and the slapping of a TBAN that does not prevent the issues, but, does prevent any constructive editing to a topic area unrelated (strictly speaking) to the conduct is ... appalling. Nothing, except an impending future block, prevents MONGO from repeating those exact same comments in any place that isn't covered by AP2. This is, quite obviously, meant to punish MONGO for their comments and not prevent them from making similar comments in the future. I too echo SV's sentiment: what can be done? first to prevent this sort of renegade punitive sanctions in the future and second how do we address the renegade actions of admins who impose such sanctions. Thank you for your time, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I'm pleased to see that we have a reasonable outcome at this point. Nevertheless this request for clarification has not clarified the underlying problem, that the mechanism of AE is unbalanced. No matter how many admins review the issue and conclude that no action is necessary, or a warning is sufficient, it only takes one admin to decide that excessively punitive sanctions are justified for them to be applied. And unfortunately we have at least one admin who is not capable of taking a nuanced view, but can only follow unbendingly what they perceive policy to be. With normal sanctions there are checks and balances for that – other admins may reverse the first decision or reduce its severity on their judgement, but AE has removed those checks, allowing unfettered use of admin powers. This would be ameliorated if there were a functional mechanism for questioning AE decisions, but when an admin refuses point-blank to listen to criticism of their actions, and even hides behind a rigid interpretation of policy preventing anyone but the recipient of the sanctions from appealing those sanctions, we find ourselves without recourse. Kudos to Sarah for making an IAR appeal, and to the Arbs for entertaining it. It was the right thing™ to do. Now, I request that the Arbs carefully consider whether they want this IAR mechanism as the only alternative to an unfairly sanctioned editor – who is likely already too pissed-off to want to re-engage – making an appeal themselves. You need to fix the problem: you could vet the admins whom you allow to work at AE; or create a mechanism that ensures that other admins' views have to be taken into account in determining any AE action; or create usable channel for review of AE decisions. This isn't the first time this issue has arisen and it won't be the last unless you act. The present situation is untenable, and if left unaddressed will surely recur. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
Many people have already stated my opinion, so I will just be brief. I think what is needed is a total redoing of the AE space. Perhaps a working group of several members can start the process to make it a more fair and equitable place for adjudication. It's not working the way it is now, so we need to try something else. (On a side note, I do think we should also bring back RFC/U, which would IMO cut down on AN/I requests.) Sir Joseph (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2018 (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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse having made a statement. GoldenRing (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse from anything specific to this particular topic ban/AE thread. If this turns into a discussion on AE/discretionary sanctions generally, I do not intend to be recused from that. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Awaiting any further statements, including from Sandstein. Note that we'll read through the related AE thread in reviewing this, so there's no need to re-post here every thought that was posted there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My thoughts:
 * Yes, the general rule is that only the subject of a sanction can appeal it. This usually makes good sense. If an editor who is (for example) blocked or topic-banned on AE accepts the sanction, that usually means it's more-or-less reasonable, and it wouldn't do anyone any good for someone else to protest it. And the appeal system might be overwhelmed if anyone could appeal from any sanction against anyone else.


 * This rule against User:A's appealing User:B's sanction works well 95+% of the time. But it occasionally causes problems, in instances where many editors deeply disagree with a sanction and think it's unfair or wrongful, but the sanctioned editor refuses to appeal it for whatever reason. (For anyone who might not have noticed it, MONGO's explanation for not having appealed is here. I appreciate his desire not to create drama by appealing, but we are getting the drama anyway.) When this situation came up in a case two years ago, I asked whether exceptions to the rule might sometimes be justified. Unfortunately, no one was able to suggest how to craft the exceptions without swallowing the rule.


 * This ARCA request has much the same effect as SlimVirgin's appealing from the sanction against MONGO. She (and some of the commenters) also raise broader questions about how AE functions, but they are raised in the context of a particular AE decision that she disagrees with, and if we agreed with her views, then presumably we would consider overturning that decision.


 * Nonetheless, since I've spent the time reviewing the case, and MONGO may appeal in the future, let's talk about the substance a little bit and see if we can actually resolve this. We can all agree that MONGO's comments were a series of uncivil and unhealthy personal attacks. Some of them could be blockable even if they didn't relate to a topic-area under DS. And this is not the first time MONGO has lost his head on-wiki. In the same diff cited above, MONGO acknowledged yesterday that I made some hasty comments (not my first as I do write passionately at times) that were highly insulting to a number of editors. I was wrong to make so many deep insults and I do need to remind myself that we all should try and pretend we are sitting in the same room together, maybe we have vastly divergent opinions, maybe we can find commonality, but we all and especially me need to be a whole lot nicer to each other.


 * As noted by SlimVirgin, NeilN, and others, MONGO's misconduct did not take place in article space, but primarily on AE (and, a month ago, on AN). I can imagine cases in which misconduct on noticeboards or talkpages warrants a topic-ban that includes mainspace&mdash; but here, no one has identified any bad article-space edits at all. As MONGO wrote, in his first response to the enforcement request, [m]y comments [were] here at AE where I will gladly impose a self exile.


 * Although there is no appeal formally before us, in anticipation of a possible one (or under IAR if need be), I ask Sandstein and the other admins in the AE thread if they would consider substituting for the three-month topic-ban a restriction for six months against MONGO's (1) participating in AE discussions relating to editors other than himself, and (2) making personal attacks against other editors. I also ask MONGO whether he would accept such a result, and just as importantly, abide by it. And I would also say to MONGO that this has to be the last time we have this discussion.


 * With regard to the broader issue of "whether an AE sanction requires consensus," this has been discussed before. An AE administrator is not required to wait for consensus, especially when there is an obvious violation. But where discussion is ongoing, opinion is divided, and disruption is not ongoing, it will often be prudent to wait for at least a rough consensus to emerge. There's also been a repeated suggestion that AE threads, absent ongoing disruption or other urgency, should stay open for at least 24 hours.


 * I hope these comments help. Procedural formalism would suggest that I should have written "improper appeal" (or, for the benefit of my legal colleagues Sandstein and Salvio giuliano, "rule of jus tertii") and nothing more&mdash;but procedural formalism doesn't sustain a community or write an encyclopedia. But neither does making accusations against other editors or calling one another various names. That point, incidentally, applies not only to MONGO. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Confirming per your latest comments that I have no objection to your lifting the topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Since discussion has wound down, you can please go ahead and lift the topic-ban, as you've indicated you believe should happen, without waiting any longer. As a practical matter it has all but already happened anyway&mdash;in self-parodying legal terms, aequitas factum habet quod fieri oportuit&mdash;"equity looks upon as done that which ought to have been done." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Recuse. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems we do have an appeal before us now. Brad's comments are well-reasoned and I agree, though I don't like civility/NPA restrictions. They're difficult to enforce and have historically created more drama about what is and isn't civil or uncivil. In this case, though, MONGO seems to agree to a six-month NPA restriction and a concurrent ban on AE participation, and I would be in favor of that in the interest of settling this down sooner rather than later. MONGO says he realizes that his behavior has not always been collegial, and if he knows it, he should be able to restrain himself. I also concur with Brad's directive that this has to be the last warning to MONGO about his temper.
 * I also strongly suggest that AE admins take to heart the repeated suggestion about holding those threads open for at least 24 hours unless there's current, ongoing disruption. That was not the case here; we're all busy and we need to give people time to see these requests. Just because you can close it doesn't necessarily mean you should. Katietalk 12:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also confirming that I have no objection to you lifting the topic ban yourself. Katietalk 17:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Mostly what KrakatoaKatie and Newyorkbrad said, except the bit about replacement sanctions:
 * - Accept this appeal: MONGO has now lodged an appeal, which overcomes a technical issue with this discussion. Sandstein’s most recent comment reads like they accept that appeal. If so, the path of least bureaucracy would be for them to now lift the topic ban. But if we do need an actual ARCA vote on it, support lifting the topic ban and replacing it with nothing. MONGO: it seems like heat of the moment stuff. Please don't do it again.


 * - Support an AE waiting period Separate to anything in this appeal, we have long needed a minimum time between AE filing and close. I've supported this since 2016, including at Arbcom election time and this talkpage thread. Great to see it proposed again in this thread. Strongly support an amendment to this procedure to impose a 24-hour waiting period between AE filing and close, with exceptions only for obvious ongoing vandalism and for snow declines.


 * - Support a further clarification As a proposal again unrelated to this specific appeal, support this amendment: ”Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged reasonably expected, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement.” -- Euryalus (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AE appeals can be made directly to the enforcing admin; if the enforcing admin has accepted the appeal it seems the path of least bureaucracy to proceed with that acceptance, at least in this instance. But equally happy to go ahead with a vote by the committee. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have to disagree, then. The procedure grants the enforcing admin the authority to make a direct decision on appeals of their action. There's a legitimate case for an enforcing admin to decline to do so on the grounds that the appeal is being considered in another forum, but there's also the option for them to proceed if they wish, at least while those other fora have failed to reach a point of view (after which those other fora would prevail in likely order of seniority). In neither case is it a matter of "getting it wrong" - a sanction was unilaterally imposed (as authorised by the procedure), it can be unilaterally undone by the same admin (also as authorised by the procedure) if they consider the appeal to have validity. But again, no problem if it's preferred to be remanded here for a vote. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * - I agree that Mongo's appeal should be accepted and also hope that action by us will not be needed and that Sandstein will lift the topic ban. Likewise I will support any motion calling for a minimum time between a filing at AE and a decision, given appropriate exceptions. I haven't definitely decided about Euryalus's proposal about explicit consensus but at the moment it appeals to me. Doug Weller  talk 18:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You really don't need a majority of Arbs to do this. And I hope you counted me: "hope that action by us will not be needed and that Sanstein will lift the topic ban." Doug Weller  talk 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve removed TPP but of course tou could have posted through it. Doug Weller  talk 07:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on the same page as Euryalus. Mongo's appeal should be accepted, preferably by Sandstein - though I'm sure if he refuses we can sort out a motion. I'm not sure I agree with a minimum time period between filing AE and decision, in many cases this is not needed - If someone can think of a way to increase the general period, but to allow a short circuit for urgency (e.g. 1RR violations). Finally, I do like the suggestion that reasonably expected thoughts of other admins be taken into account. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)