Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Date delinking|Request for clarification: Date delinking]]	none	none	14 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai|Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai]]	none	none	13 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian race controversy|Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian race controversy]]	none	none	13 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Ryulong (2)|Request for clarification: Ryulong (2)]]	none	none	9 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren]]	none	none	7 July 2009

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: Date delinking

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

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Ohconfucius

In view of the following remedy in the recent ArbCom Date Delinking Case:

"31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

I seek clarification as to whether "Editing guidelines" includes the WP:Naming conventions, which is a policy page.

The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary.

This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

I would ask for the status of the edits to this guideline be clarified in relation to the remedy. The editor has been made aware of this request. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to MBisanz: Maybe I misunderstood the function of this page, but if clerks believe it should be moved to AE, then so be it. The reason I brought it here was because I am only seeking clarification as to what was covered – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. Anyway, I was not specifically after enforcement at this point, not clear as if there had been a breach.

Response to Mandy: I guess that the animosity and sarcasm from Manderson is to be expected, bearing in mind our historical antagonism. BTW, I am not one to judge whether the one "outrageous edit" was intended to game the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pmanderson

What does this have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into it?

Ohconfucious appears to have missed this outrageous edit in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.

As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.

It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to MiBisanz: If the arbitrators intend their wording to have anything like this scope, it would be nice if they would say so. But if this is simply moved to AE, would you make sure my response goes along? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Sigh. It's another thing to actively watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

Without looking at anything beyond the first couple of lines, this looks like something for WP:AE as it does not seem to rise to the level of an intractable dispute between enforcing admins over what a remedy means. MBisanz ^talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To Pmanderson

I'm recused on this case, so I won't be doing anything clerk-ish or admin-ish with regard to it. Best to ask another clerk. MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recused MBisanz ^talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai

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

• The Wurdalak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Urbanus et instructus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Jayron32

• The issue here is whether or not The Wurdalak and Manhattan Samurai are the same person or not. There appears to be strong behavioral evidence to link the two, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai/Archive, where a May 2nd comment by Nishkid64 indicated that the case was being handled by the Audit Subcommittee. A further note by RogerDavies at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Wurdalak indicates that ArbCom is involved in this case. The third account listed above was one that I thought was a clear Manhattan Samurai sock, but was instead linked to The Wurdalak. I am thoroughly confused by this, and need clarification on the AUSC's/ArbCom's position on the nature of these two accounts. Are they believed to be the same person or not? If they are not, what do I need to look for to know the difference between them. If they are, can we get the Sock categories and SPI reports merged? Thanks for the clarification on this! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

This doesn't really have anything to do with Audit, other than that Roger Davies of the Ban Appeal committee asked for an independent recheck. Last I knew, Wurdalak's block appeal was in the hands of the Ban Appeal subcommittee and I don't know what the disposition was. The Wurdalak (talk · contribs) and The Wurdulak (talk · contribs) (unblocked doppelganger) are not related to Manhattan Samurai on a technical level and appear to be geographically separated, although checkuser can never rule out the possibility of various forms of collusion and coordination from different locations. The technical findings with respect to Urbanus et instructus are consistent with The Wurdalak, but of course the importance of that turns on the outcome of the appeal. Check with the members of the ban appeal subcomittee on this one. Thatcher 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nishkid64

I based my findings on Thatcher's well-reasoned conclusion that The Wurdalak was not related to Manhattan Samurai. Since The Wurdalak is currently blocked, and will only be unblocked pending the result of his case before the Audit Subcommittee, I decided to block his sockpuppet indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

• Ice_Cold_Beer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)
• Big-dynamo (talk · contribs)
• Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs)
• AncientObserver (talk · contribs)

Statement by Panehesy

I have been banned from editing for a period of six months by User:Ice_Cold_Beer for 1. POV pushing. 2. Personal Attacks 3. Contributions without citations. This is the latest in a pattern of POV administration in the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I request that, of course, my ban be lifted, as I was not given proper administrative warning, nor was I properly communicated in the manner. I also did not engage in POV pushing. I frequently reminded the contributors to not engage in turning the article into a referendum on another related issue Afrocentricism, which was becoming a habit. At one point, an editor put in comments about how Afrocentricism tried to change the European heritage (which has nothing to do with the article).

I have notified one other user User:AncientObserver who is directly affected by the ban itself. As I am relatively new to this process, I am under a disadvantage as I am going linearly through the administrative hierarchy, and trying to navigate through these processes to get a remedy that allows the article to be complete. This article, as I understand it is almost like a sandbox in itself to prevent editing in the Ancient Egyptian article. For example, all the images shown in the Ancient Egyptian article exclude those which display Ancient Egyptians with negroid characteristics. Please advise. --Panehesy (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ice Cold Beer

I would like to note that this is not the proper forum for such a complaint and the complainant has not formatted this request properly. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by William M. Connolley

P has been banned from the article and talk only [1]. P is moving far too fast - he hasn't even noticed that he has turned the article into a redlink. It should be Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I fixed up the link to ICB though. The article itself is an edit warring disaster and a mess of socks, probably best erased William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've noticed Incidentally William M. Connolley who was looking over the article unlocked it immediately after our banning leading me to suspect that he had no intentions whatsoever of honoring the consensus of the talk page to return the article to a more recent version by AO. Yes I unlocked it after the banning, and in response to it. Because after that, there seemed a good chance that the edit warring might well be over (and I think that has proved to be true). I explained why I'd unprotected the article [2], though it would have been more helpful of me to point to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether the bans are a good idea, though I've enforced at least one [3]. As to honoring the consensus of the talk page I've not been following closely enough to know if there is such a thing as a consensus there - whenever I look it just looks like a mess - and I'm not really sure how I would "honour" it anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

@CoM: Large parts of your statement are wrong. I protected it for reasons that I had long forgotten but have now dug up [4]: I simply took over the protect from User:Hiberniantears to avoid tedious legal wrangling. I have no interest in the article contents. I've reverted once, to a version suggested by GoRight, mostly for the amusement of agreeing with someone I rarely agree with. finally banning four editors with whom they disagree - pardon? I haven't banned anyone. Have you mistaken this for Cold Fusion? Thank you for your offer to engage in constructive discussion and editing but I'm afraid, as I said, that I'm not interested in the article William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dbachmann

It is perfectly unclear why I am listed as "involved" here, since I have not taken any administrative actions in this area for a very long time. Not that this matters, since this is a painfully obvious case of a user banned for excellent reasons who just won't stop wikilawyering about it. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

I have also been banned with five other people including Panehesy Log of blocks and bans from contributing to this article for six months by User:Ice Cold Beer. I am very much surprised by this decision since I have received no warnings and also since User:Dbachmann who in the first place brought disruptive edits to the article is not banned. I suspect an abuse of power by adm Ice Cold Beer and ask that the ban be lifted.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by AncientObserver

I too am one of the banned editors. I was also not given a warning before being banned, only a message by Ice Cold Beer saying I was banned for "POV-pushing fringe theories". This came as a surprise to me because as far as I knew I was contributing constructively to the article and the talk page where ongoing discussion took place on the direction the article would take once it was unprotected. When I asked this Admin for clarification and evidence for why he banned me he explained what it meant but refused to provide evidence in the form of diffs, claiming that all of my edits to the talk page in general fit under the category of his justification for unilaterally banning myself and the others. I came to his talk page and asked him directly for evidence that I was pushing fringe theories on the article. He provided a diff of one of my edits for example but did not clarify what was wrong with it. The edit was relevant to the discussion and provided reliable sources on the topic. Incidentally William M. Connolley who was looking over the article unlocked it immediately after our banning leading me to suspect that he had no intentions whatsoever of honoring the consensus of the talk page to return the article to a more recent version. If this isn't the appropriate location to air our complaints and if the format isn't correct I will look into how to do it properly but we might as well inform someone of the situation. I think this definitely qualifies as abuse of power on Ice Cold Beer's part. I request that we be unbanned, Ice Cold Beer blocked from making decisions on this article and that the article remain unprotected so that we can restore it to a more recent version and let civil discussion on the talk page about content resume. I also believe that Dbachmann should be banned from the article because his disruptive edits are the source of this entire conflict. There hadn't been edit warring on the page for months before he showed up to cause trouble and he has been warned about his behavior before.

Comment by Wdford

I too was banned out of the blue by User:Ice Cold Beer. There were no warnings given, the process per WP:Banning policy was not followed, and there was no prior discussion at all. As far as I can tell I do not appear on any list of banned editors. Per policy admins are only allowed to impose bans "to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." However the article was actually functioning smoothly, with the isolated exception of the disruptive edits by Dbachmann, and many editors contributed constructively to challenge and remove points on either side that were POV or unsupported. The claimed rationale for the banning of POV-pushing is ridiculous, since the banned editors were arguing opposite sides of the coin, and all we have in common is a desire to have the controversial material properly explained rather than simply suppressed. It is quite revealing that those who failed to follow WP policies themselves now complain that this is "not the proper forum", and accuse the wronged editors of "wikilawyering". I ask that the higher authorities review the actions of User:Ice Cold Beer, and lift the ban. Wdford (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Slrubenstein

Ice Cold Beer questions suggests this is not the appropriate venue to request clarification; I believe it is, given the fact that in banning user:Ancient Observer, instead of edit differences providing evidence of disruptive editing, Ice Cold Beer simply refered to the ArbCom article probation [5]; thus, the question is: does the probation justify the ban? I personally think that it does not. I think that Ice Cold Beer is using the probation to prop up a ban made as an administrator that would not otherwise be sustained by the community.

User dab questions why he is a named party. My reading of the disputes on the article talk page is that they either began or were seriously fueled by dab's tendentious edit in which he identified the controversy with Afrocentrism [6]. This is an underhanded way of changing the topic of the article from a controversy over the racial identification of ancient Egyptions, in which there are at least two, if not several, sides, to a controversy over Afrocentrism. Of course, the controversy over the race of ancient Egyptians is a far more complicated controversy - between Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists, and between racial essentialists and social constructioniss. I am not trying to ask ArbCom to involve itself in a content dispute; I am explaining why, in the context of this content dispute, dab's comment was tendentious.

I do not think dab should be banned. But for the same reasons, I do not believe that those editors who disagree with him should be banned either. At least some of the banned editors have made good faith efforts to reach compromises. Banning them is counterproductive.

I admit I could be wrong here, but given that Ice Cold Beer has not provided edit-diffs for evidence (at least not on the article talk page, or the talk pages of Ancient Observe and others) how else am I to understand what appears to be hasty and ill-conceived bans? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein

Reply to Newyorkbrad: The more recent decisions tell us that appeals against discretionary sanctions are to be directed to either the ArbCom or to the relevant administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE). This older case does not contain such a provision. I recommend that the arbitrators clarify that this appeals procedure is applicable to all older discretionary sanctions remedies. Panehesy and the other complainants will then have the option to make an appeal to either WP:AE or to the Committee (by e-mail, I suppose, because there is no dedicated subpage for appeals).  Sandstein  13:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user User: deeceevoice

I've skimmed slRubenstein's comments above, and I agree with him.

I haven't been substantially involved in this article for some time, so I suppose that qualifies me as "uninvolved." If I had been involved, I suspect I would have been banned along with the other editors. This appears to be just another attempt at censoring a non-Eurocentric viewpoint at Wikipedia. The article banning of the above parties appears no different from the content ban precipitously and unjustly imposed on me at Afrocentrism - which subsequently was overturned. Dbachmann is at it again. The bans should be overturned and the article locked down in the interim. Bachmann & Co. drastically changed the article from a version that was arrived at after months of wrangling and negotiation to a highly POV and astoundingly inaccurate mischaracterization of the nature of subject matter, and now it seems these editors/admins have conspired to enforce their contorted and inaccurate version of the article by locking out those with whom they disagree. This isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Either you're willing to work collaboratively to hash out differences, or you're not. And I think it's quite clear to everyone involved, and those who are uninvolved, that collaboration and compromise are not Dbachmann's strong suit. That's not a slam on Bachmann; that's just stating fact. deeceevoice (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:ChildofMidnight

There has been atrocious policy violating behavior by Dbachmann, Ice Cold Beer and William Connolley. Dbachmann has a strong POV about how the article should read as shown here in this rant full of personal attacks such as the very first sentence that says "Slrubenstein quite obviously has no idea what he is talking about." [7]

Without appropriately assessing the situation Connolley and Ice Cold Beer have sided with Dbachmann and engaged in inappropriate reversions and protections in support of their preferred article version, finally banning four editors with whom they disagree. Ice Cold Beer has refused to provide a single diff in support of the ban despite repeated requests from several editors. These admins also fail to understand and appreciate that their view is not the only one that's valid. An article that was edited constructively and collaboratively by numerous editors with varying points of view over a period of several months was gutted by them because they didn't like it.

Dbachmann and Dougweller have been pushing one particular perspective, setting up Afrocentrism as a straw man and knocking it down, ignoring that there are many other perspectives in the history of the debate and investigation into who the Egyptians were. Their bias against Afrocentric approaches does not entitle them to launch a smearing attack on that approach or the editor who chooses to add content reflecting that perspective (most of the editors are not advocating that point of view, a fact that the admins involved seem unable to grasp which is good evidence of their refusal to properly investigate and their failure to understand the situation). This is not how we do things on Wikipedia and the situation needs prompt correction.

The appropriate action at this point is to ban Dbachmann from the article. He has caused enough disruption there. Ice Cold Beer and William Connolley should refrain from any admin actions related to the article, but they are welcome to engage in constructive discussion and editing. The four good faith editors should be apologized to and immediately unbanned. Their patience and restrained response in the face of this admin abuse has been extraordinary and should be commended. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Doug Weller and clarificiation in support of my statement: Wow indeed. Here's the consensus version of the article worked up by many editors over months [8]. Here's the version of the article reverted to by William Connolley (and previously protected by him) [9]. This is also the version being pushed by Dbachmann. If someone wants to argue that this version doesn't focus (almost solely) on Afrocentrism, setting it up only to debunk it, then I have serious concerns over his or her reading comprehension skills. The series of actions leading up to and including the ban are an outrageous abuse of admin tools and need to be corrected ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Dougweller

Wow. This is getting more and more surreal, I thought we had enough drama, but evidently I was wrong. The discrepancy between what I have written on various talk pages and what CoM claims I've said is a deep chasm (CoM, why do other people have to provide diffs but you seem to think it is ok to make personal attacks without providing them?). Among other things, I already made it clear to you that it is not true that the article only discusses Afro-Centrism and nothing before that school of thought developed, albeit only summarily, and I'd be surprised if you could have have anywhere that I said no other perspectives should be included, although you will find me saying that they should be included. Claims like this just make the whole issue even more of a quagmire. And I have seen very little 'good faith' in this debate, mainly a lot of bad faith. Sometimes your actions are very constructive, but I'm afraid not this time. Perhaps you would consider removing the personal attacks above? Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Second statement by user:Slrubenstein

A day has passed in which I have spent considerable time trying to sort out what has happened, and have given opportunity for various parties to respond to my requests for information. At this point i have to say, all I see is a massive abuse of administrative powers by user:Ice Cold Beer. It is true that there is a content dispute at Ancient Egyptian race controversy and in my own opinion several users are clearly making disruptive edits. But at least two of the banned users, user:AncientObserver and user:Wdford have sought out compromises and have strived to comply with our content and behavioral policies in their edits. What I find most upsetting is the complete lack of due process. I have seen no evidence, no edit-difs, provided to support banning these two users. I asked Ice Cold Beer for evidence and was told to look at ANI and FTN. I was not provided with specific links, but I searched and found the archived discussion at ANI, and FTN. At neither place was any evidence provided to support a ban of Ancient Observer or Wdford. At neither place was there a poll or even a discussion among mny administrators concerning banning Ancient Observer or Wdford. In short, Ice Cold Beer has made a unilateral decision to ban these users, without any evidence or discussion. I find it hard to believe that an ArbCom Parole is meant to deprive editors of the most basic and simple forms of due process. I would like to see the bans rescinded. Even here, Ice Cold Beer refuses to be held accountable for his actions. He seems to believe that this matter should have been handled at ArbCom enforcement - yet, Ice Cold Beer never brought this up at Arbcom Enforcement. Ice Cold Beer should be reprimanded for his mishandling of this case. If he believes he was enforcing an ArbCom decision, he should have opened up a case at ArbCom Enforcement, named the policies that were violated, and provided edit-difs. As is, editors like Ancient Observer and Wdford have nothing to defend thmselves against, because they are being denounced by a rogue admin. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A ban established through ArbCom enforcement would be, logically, a form of ArbCom enforcement. But a block made at AN/I is, like any other administrative block, one that any other administrator may overturn. I have approached Ice Cold Beer twice asking for supporting evidence for his ban. Since he has not provided it, I feel satisfied that this ban can be overturned. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Vassyana

I am inactive on current requests, but I felt I should comment here. More appropriate venues were suggested at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Banning and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Admins vs contributors. Almost no real attempt has been made to take that advice or otherwise persue normal dispute resolution. (Slrubenstein's attempts to discuss the matter with ICB is one of the few and limited exceptions, as an example.) While there may or may not be a problem with the administrative actions taken here, the manner in which this is generally being persued is disruptive, only serving to further increase the drama. I recommend that if editors persist in rejecting sensible suggestions for resolution, while continuing to make noise and drama over perceived wrongs, that the behavior be treated like any other disruptive conduct. While I am sympathetic to Slrubenstein's concerns, as administrators are expected to be prepared and willing to justify their actions, I do take partial issue with his statement about "depriv[ing] editors of the most basic and simple forms of due process". He may certainly have a valid point, but the lack of "due process" in this situation has at least as much to do with failing to persue repeatedly suggested avenues of recourse as with any failing on the part of the acting administrator. The failure to accept and follow up on that advice is illustrative of a core issue in this topic area, as well as other problematic topic areas. If this was raised at WP:AE for review as suggested, with possible companion requests at WP:FTN and/or WP:NPOVN to clarify the content assertions that cut to the core of the issue, we wouldn't be here right now and this situation would be resolved or on the way to resolution. --Vassyana (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not sure whether this belongs here for review by the arbitrators, or in the enforcement section to seek a consensus of the admins who are active on AE. I'm not trying to be a procedural pain-in-the-neck here, but it's just happenstance that the sanction was levied by an administrator directly and review was sought here, rather than the issue having been raised through a request on AE, in which case comments would have gone there. What do people think is the most efficient, drama-free way to address this type of issue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Arbitrator views and discussion

Well Brad, if you're not sure, them just imagine how we feel. As it happens the policy on appealing against a ban by a lone admin is not so clear and user-friendly, so your guidance would be gratefuly received. May I request you to assist us by finding out to whom we should be appealing, and that you then cut-and-paste this issue and its existing comments into that forum, with due notification etc of change of address, and with due regard to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, so that the matter can progress efficiently and free of drama. Please? Wdford (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Ryulong (2)

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

• Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Mythdon

I have additional questions regarding my mentorship ruling.

In regards to term A, it says:

Mythdon is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case, and is free to get a mentor of his/her choice. Mythdon is directed to inform the Committee once the mentor is selected. In case no mentor is found within 1 month, Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom;

In the recently closed Mattisse case, there is ruling of mentorship there as well stating that Matissee shall be assigned mentors by the committee within 15 days of that decision. But, also, unlike mine, there is a ruling here that directs Mattisse not to edit Wikipedia if the "plan" is not accomplished within the 15 day period without Committee permission. Because of that, I have this question; Since my month long time limit to find a mentor is up (it's been up since approximately June 24), am I prohibited from editing Wikipedia at all until the appointment or am I just prohibited from making edits that require the mentor approval?

In regards to term B, it says:

Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. Inability to work constructively with a mentor may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true;

I am having a hard time understanding the beginning sentence of that term "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I do not know what is being meant by "consult". Does it mean "consult your mentor when you're unsure of whether an edit is legitimate?" - My suspicion is "yes".

Since I'm not 100% sure as of this moment, I need further clarification on this case ruling. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

In response to: "Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter?" - To answer these first three questions, I'll respond to those all in the same answer; I intentionally have not found a mentor yet. The first reason is because I don't feel like doing so, and the other is because I'm not interested in having a mentor.

In response to: "...what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in?" - I don't feel like I need any guidance in any area. I feel that I've worked functional enough in the areas I've worked in before the remedy was put in place. I don't think I need any guidance from a mentor.

In response to: "What sort of advice would be most helpful for you?" - I don't think I need any advice. I think that I know how, what, where, and when to do something without advice from a mentor. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional question(s) from Mythdon

In regards to term D "Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", am I allowed to revert any post Ryulong makes on my talk page? Since the case, I have either reverted or ignored any post he's made on my talk page, but I think it's about time this gets clarified.

During the mentorship, can the committee pass a motion to place a site ban on me for a period of time through a simple majority vote if the committee has any reason to believe it is the only approach? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ryulong

The answers to your question is here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

I've only had a few things to say to Mythdon since the close of the case on his user talk. The first one was removed without comment, the second and third were removed referring to the arbitration proceedings. I know that he's restricted from commenting about me but I really doubt he's restricted from communicating with me entirely. There is no way he and I can constructively contribute in the same topic area if he continues to ignore my statements after I have to clean up after him being overly strict with content policies, simply being entirely unknowledgable in the topic area, or treating aspects of the project more bureaucratically than they should be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused from the underlying case (albeit not for reasons relating to Mythdon), so I'll leave it to someone else to answer Mythdon's questions. But if I may make a suggestion, would a non-recused arbitrator volunteer to communicate directly with Mythdon to address these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• In lieu of a motion or indication to the contrary, I would expect you to be free to edit for the time being. However, I would recommend staying as far away from controversy as possible and walking away if you find yourself in a conflict. That said, I have a couple of questions. Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter? On another aspect, what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in? What sort of advice would be most helpful for you? Answering these questions will help us move forward from this point and arrange a mentoring relationship for you. --Vassyana (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recused also from the underlying case, but I will ask the clerks to (a) link to the correct case in the title please, and (b) ensure that Ryulong is notified of this request. In view of this interaction, some further discussion may be appropriate here. Risker (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Following the answer(s) above by Mythdon to Vassyana's questions, I'll be asking my colleague arbitrators to pass a new motion in which Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom. The answer(s) are/is a sign that Mythdon is not here to work collaboratively according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines and ArbCom's rulings. It appears that Mythdon has learned little from the ArbCom case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)
• Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)

Statement by Sandstein

This request arises from Radeksz's currently unresolved appeal, at WP:AE#Appeal against discretionary sanctions by Radeksz, against discretionary sanctions imposed against him by Thatcher. Inter alia, Radeksz argues that the sanctions are inadmissible because he did not receive a prior warning about possible sanctions. The reviewing administrators (including arbitrator Kirill) disagree about the application of the pertinent clause of the relevant remedy:

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

— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions

I ask the Committee to clarify the following:

1. Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.) (Question struck, sorry, the remedy says clearly that it must be an uninvolved administrator.  Sandstein  15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
2. Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?
3. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?
4. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?

Thanks,  Sandstein  13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to Piotrus: This request is not intended to address the merits of Radeksz's conduct or sanctions. I am only requesting the clarification of the issues raised above, which are relevant beyond the specific case. That specific case is currently still pending at AE and will be decided there, unless the Committee decides to hear the appeal itself.  Sandstein  16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: Although Thatcher has – in unfortunately understandable frustration – now lifted the sanctions that caused the discussion that led to this request, I believe that a clarification of the points listed above remains desirable for future cases.  Sandstein  11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to GRBerry: Thanks, that's pretty much what I would have thought, too. Sorry, only upon reading your answer did I notice that the remedy is actually pretty clear about who has to issue the warning.  Sandstein  15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

For my views on Radek, see my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeal_against_discretionary_sanctions_by_Radeksz. Thatcher 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• You know, if you really want to micro-manage this thing, then all the warnings logged between July 28, 2008 and June 23, 2009 are invalid. The original case remedy #11 General restriction only dealt with "edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", and the warning template (which I wrote) quoted the decision. On July 28 2008 the General Restriction was replaced with Remedy #12, Discretionary sanctions which are quite broad, and yet no one updated the warning template. So for the past year, editors have been warned about incivility when they were in fact subject to sanction for a much broader range of problems. Thatcher 14:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to Kirill's characterization of my imposition of the 1RR restriction as expedient, and his characterization of the notification requirement as doing the paperwork seriously deprecates the Committee's finding of persistent and long term misconduct in this topic area. There is clear and convincing evidence that these editors have been engaged in edit warring for a long time. Did Kirill review User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview before he decided that I was being "expedient"? I thoroughly checked the editors for prior involvement in complaints or Enforcement requests that would demonstrate prior knowledge of the case and its remedies. Or, as an experiment, type the name of any editor I sanctioned in the Admin noticeboard search box. Here, I'll make it easy for you.

The idea that these editors were not aware that this was a disputed topic under prior Arbcom sanction is ludicrous, and the idea that each editor needs to be personally warned that his own conduct is of concern plays directly to the argument of (nearly) every editor involved that all the editing problems are someone else's fault. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that these editors are some of the biggest crybabies I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. You'd think I was holding their sainted grandmothers hostage in my basement, rather than impose a simple requirement that they not revert each other, and discuss their reverts. I have seen very little acknowledgment of personal responsibility for any part of this dispute, it's all someone else's fault, and now I see Biophys arguing against the very concept of a 1RR restriction (good luck with that).

No one has yet explained how Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia with the restrictions lifted. However, 13,000 words spent in arguing against an editing restriction imposed as a result of a revert war over the addition of a 2-word category is clearly detrimental. In the interests of paperwork and eschewing expediency, I have vacated my prior findings. Be well, do good works, and keep in touch. Thatcher 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Skapperod

According to the Strict construction of Remedy 12 it requires "a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator", but it does not require a specific wording and does not specify the place the warning must occur. Therefore, a warning given on an article talk page or one of the admins' noticeboards would be, according to the paperwork, just as good. I wrote the template {{Digwuren enforcement}} to make it easier to give warnings, but other forms of warnings would be acceptable. There is no formal requirement to log the warning in remedy 12, but it is the only practical way to handle enforcement. Without an easy-to-search list, admins will find it practically impossible to know whether an editor has been previously warned by some other admin. In future Enforcement requests, if you know that an editor has been warned but that warning is not logged, you can provide a diff to the warning in your complaint. Thatcher 12:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Skap, the bottom line is that there was no record of any warning, formal or informal, user talk or noticeboard, and no links to warnings by uninvolved admins were provided in the complaint. Therefore, the paperwork was not completed properly. Now it is. Thatcher 14:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Igny

Igny's assumptions about me are amusing. In point of fact, I vacated the 1RR restriction because first Kirill, and now Stephen Bain, have taken the view that a formal notification on the user's talk page is required, even if the user is demonstrably aware of the Arbitration case and the remedies involved. From looking at User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview and the noticeboard and Enforcement archives, it is clear that this "mob" as you say, has been active for a long time, and it is puzzle that no prior admin ever put them on formal notice. But there it is. Thatcher 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Followup to Carcharoth

Although I feel we have reached the point of diminishing returns, I think I should point out that GRBerry and Bainer, whom who both agree with, have diametrically opposed views on Sandstein's question #3. Thatcher 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Offliner

Please also clarify the following:

1. What exactly is the purpose of such a warning?
2. What exactly should the form of such a warning be? Please be very clear about which form is sufficient and which is not.
3. If sanctions have been placed without such a proper warning, should the sanctions be lifted?

Please make this as clear as possible. For example, prior to his sanctions, Radeksz was clearly aware of the Digwuren case as demonstrated by Thatcher. He was also warned for other things, such as edit warring. Does this constitute such a proper warning or not? Offliner (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Loosmark

IMO the remedy is crystal clear and so is what Kirill wrote. Radeksz was clearly never given a warning on his talk page at any point as the remedy requares therefore i don't understand why is Sandstein trying to create confusion. If we accept this bizzare logic that some editor "might have been aware of the warning" then we will end up arguing each and every time whether this was really so. I believe the ArbCom formulated the remedy that way exactly to prevent any ambiguities. Loosmark (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

There are several general questions that should be clarified by Arbcom to help administrators at AE:

1. Can the sanctions be issued without the warning or without giving a possibility to improve?. According to Digwuren case, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said [10]. That is why Thatcher rushed to issue such warnings to everyone (but forget Radek), and then immediately issued editing restrictions. The warning is not a "formality" because a user may be unaware that his specific actions (such as rare reverts in Nashi) are subject to the sanctions. After looking at the text of Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning (but not to immediate sanctions) if my behavior was problematic, and everyone probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. This matter was first brought to AE by Brandmaster: [11].
2. Russia does not belong to Eastern Europe; this is mostly Asia. Would any purely Russian/Soviet subjects (like article Nashi) fall under these sanctions? For example, List_of_Soviet_agents_in_the_United_States?Biophys (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Can sanctions for edit warring be issued to users who follow 1RR rule?. We need some safeguards here. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Seriously, I am now afraid to make any edits, because any serious correction can be viewed as a revert. I am also afraid to make any two non-sequential corrections in the same article during a week, because this can be viewed as a 1RR violation.
4. Can an argument about "tag-teams" be ever used to issue the sanctions? Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming?

No one suggests to reconsider all AE cases. However, some clarity maybe helpful for the future. Biophys (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

IMHO the crucial issue here is that Radek was restricted for doing 3 reverts (with edits summaries) in two weeks - in other words for being guilty of respecting all of our policies!

Not warning him first is just adding insult to the injury here... but it is an important issue as well. It is my understanding that warnings serve the preventative function, aiming at reforming a user; restrictions are punitive, aiming at stopping disruptive users who have not heeded warnings. Any user who is not clearly a vandal, per AGF, should be given a warning first, and only if he refuses to change, should than be restricted. Such a warning should also be given on his/her talkpage, since we cannot assume that editors will read the entire talk pages (or even AE or such threads) for all tiny warnings/exceptions/caveats/etc.

Radek, an experienced and constructive user, has followed all of our policies. Advice to use talk pages more often would be enough, particularly as he has shown much willingness to improve his (already within our standards) editing behavior. Yet he was suddenly and without a warning slapped down with 1RR restriction (which he followed on the article in question anyway...), for having the misfortune of editing an article outside his usual interests. This sends a really unhelpful message to all other neutral editors who could help improve the EE articles... "Come, edit those articles and get restricted without a warning for following normal policies anyway" :(

Bottom line is, if the ArbCom endorses sanction on Radek, it will mean that from now on anybody who does (or has ever done) more than one revert on any article in EE subjects, at any time, can be subject to a major 1RR editing restriction (if we restrict a user for 3 reverts in 2 weeks, why not 2 reverts in 3 weeks - or 5 weeks - and so goes the slippery slope...).

(PS. I do support all other recent restrictions by Thatcher, this one seems an unfortunate collateral damage casualty - so I'd strongly oppose initiating any kind of wider review which could undue most of the recent 1RR restrictions, which did indeed bring peace to affected articles - most of whom Radek never even edited...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Radeksz

While I understand that in filing this request for clarification Sandstein's purpose is to clarify a particular aspect of policy and procedure, I do want it noted, per Piotrus, that the fact that proper procedure was not followed is only one of my arguments. There are also others.

However, sticking to the narrow purpose of this request I think it's pretty clear from the text and the past interpretation of the case that the purpose of the warning is not to make an editor aware of the existence of the Digwuren case, but rather, in the language of the case so that the editor has a chance to take "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" - in other words to make the editor aware that their editing behavior may be problematic. I think this is precisely in there for border line case such as mine - where, since I was following 1RR/Week I really had no idea that I was breaking any kind of rules (as I've said before, this is the first time I've seen anyone get slapped with an accusation of "edit warring" and sanctions in the case of 1 revert per week). I'm also not arguing that a formal warning must be made in each instance - just that there needs to be AT LEAST ONE formal warning.

In light of the above I would also like a clarification on how exactly is the 1RR/Week restriction to be properly interpreted. If following 1RR/Week can get you restricted for edit warring, can reverting vandalisms get counted as a revert and lead to a ban? Of course I know there are clear cut cases, but what about something like this: [12]. I saw it yesterday, thought about reverting it since it looks like vandalism to me ... then thought better of it "just in case". There was no curse words in there, it was sort of on topic, no usual flags of typical vandalism - what if I reverted it and then some administrator decided that that was a violation of a 1RR restriction? And that's part of the trouble here - these kinds of harsh punishments for minor infractions, filed without proper procedures (even IF these procedures require some time to follow) create an atmosphere of paranoia (not to mention disillusionment and frustration) and hurt the regular work that editors do on these pages.radek (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for GRBerry

an involved editor on the other side of a dispute - can you clarify what you mean by "other side of dispute"? Does this mean a dispute on a particular article? Does it mean a current dispute or one in recent past? How narrowly is this defined? The wording in the case leaves this open to interpretation and there's been some controversy stemming from that ambiguity as a result.radek (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Skäpperöd

Formal notice and Digwuren list

The remedy does not require an administrator to place a formal notice on the editor's talk page, as was the case with superceded remedy 11. It only reads "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator" Yet, the formal notice reads that it is not effective unless logged at the Digwuren list. The list is titled: "List of editors placed under editing restriction", and the instruction for administrators below the title reads: "List here editors who have been placed on editing restriction by notice on their talk page, per remedy 11..."

It is not the active remedy (12) which requires a logged formal notice at the editors talk page, but remedy 11 which is superceded. Remedy 12 requires a warning that is only specified as linking the remedy by an uninvolved administrator, and optional counseling.

• Why does the Digwuren list read "per remedy 11" and is still maintained?
• Why does it list people not subject to an editing restriction, but who only received an adapted formal notice stemming from superceded remedy 11? I have no problem with being formally notified and listed somewhere as such, but I do have a problem with being listed as an editor under editing restrictions when in fact I am not subject to any.
• Why does the formal notice template generate a header "Notice of editing restrictions" if no editing restrictions are issued, and requires logging at the Digwuren list to be effective?

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Thatcher's reply to Skäpperöd

Exactly. I am not arguing against the formal notice itself and against a logging, how else would admins be able to keep up with who they warned, just that notice and list are maintained under the label "editing restrictions". I fully share your interpretation that a formal warning is not needed, and that there is no need for any additional warning if awareness of the remedy is evident. I had made that clear on your talk already, and my argumentation above was rather to point out that the whole "formal notice" concept in its current form is a remnant of a meanwhile non-existing remedy and must not be mistaken as a formal requirement. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Sandstein posed four questions (in italics here), here is my understanding of the proper answers to them from the period when I was active at Arbitration Enforcement. These answers apply to all cases where discretionary sanctions are in force, not merely to this specific case.

1. Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.)

It is best if it is given by an uninvolved administrator. Administrators who are working enforcement for the case are uninvolved. It is worst if it is given by an involved editor on the other side of a dispute. However, the fundamental purpose of the warning is met no matter who gives it.

2. Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?

Absolutely not. The discretionary sanctions exist because editors in the topic area have such a problematic history that they are skating on thin ice. They don't get guaranteed N^th chances, the first warning tells them that they cannot expect as much leniency as they would get elsewhere. If an admin working enforcement believes that counsel will work better than a sanction, the admin will use counsel.

It has also long been understood that anyone that was a party to the case is already warned by the case closing message simply from having been a party and no further warnings are required for case parties. This precedent establishes that individual incident warnings are not required.

3. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?

No. (Especially not for someone saying that another editor should be sanctioned under the case.) Such an editor has demonstrated awareness of the special rules and need to demonstrate the best possible behavior, a formal warning would not be of benefit to them. A logged warning may be of benefit at a later date so that it is obvious that they are aware, but that benefit comes from the logging and accrues to an admin enforcing the case, not to the editor warned because they gained no new knowledge from the warning.

4. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?

I don't like the idea of a notice at the top of a talk page; the one situation I was involved in where that was tried didn't work very well, but that was also trying a non-standard approach in an extreme battleground area, and I'm not certain which, if any, non-standard feature caused it to work poorly - it might have been the particular editors instead, as I know it the approach and talk page message worked fine in a different topic area.

In general the question is whether an editor is aware of the special conditions and need to be on the best possible behavior. This can be presumed to be the case if the warning was posted to their talk page. This really can't be presumed for a warning on a talk page or in the midst of a discussion; we all engage in tl;dr at times. Talk pages, especially on disputed topics, can have screens of templates at the top that we just scroll by without reading. And a comment in the middle of a discussion may not be noticed, especially if the discussion is fast moving, as is common for disputed topics. So user talk page warnings are far more likely to be seen by the editor and thus generate the required notice - but this remains irrelevant for an editor that is demonstrably aware of the data that a warning would provide. GRBerry 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Igny

Despite the fact that I was affected by this restriction, I am actually saddened that Thatcher gave in to the pressure and vacated the restrictions from this particular bunch of editors (yes, including radek and even me). With all due respect to Thatcher, I think he lacks teaching experience to deal with a bunch of editors upset by the punishment. From my teaching experience, I always expect students who are upset by the grades they receive and who claim unfair punishment and who demand, often without a compelling reason, a better grade or something. In fact, if I teach a big course, I expect to be flooded by those demands.

It is an absolute rule for a teacher not to give in to such demands (unless there are really really really exceptional circumstances), any exception from such a rule may have severe consequences and undermine the authority of the teacher. Next time, expect even bigger outcries from the punished editors who will cite plenty of different reasons and precedents, including the precedent of this case.

Thatcher mentioned the tens of thousands of words spent on this simple case, but that was to be expected when you deal with what essentially is a mob. Despite what individual editors may claim or feel, the tag teaming does indeed take place in Wikipedia on many controversial topics. It is hard to judge individual contribution to the tag teaming, or determine guilt of any particular participant without doubt. That is why I was actually glad with Thatcher's decision to punish all the involved editors and thought that finally someone decided to do something about the problem. That is extremely unfortunate that under the pressure of the mob the decision was overturned. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Like the purpose of warnings under general policy, the purpose of warnings here, in relation to the discretionary sanctions, is twofold. Obviously the primary purpose is to ensure that editors are aware of the existence of the discretionary sanctions before they can be made subject to them. This is particularly important in this case because the discretionary sanctions were not part of the original decision. The secondary purpose is so that editors know that their behaviour is being scrutinised and that they personally may be subject to sanctions, to allow them an opportunity to modify their behaviour. That the remedy comprehends this purpose too is apparent from the mention of counselling editors in addition to warning them, and from the list of factors in the third paragraph.

To answer Sandstein's three remaining questions:

1. The minimum that is required is that the editor is provided with a link to the discretionary sanctions section within the final decision, as the remedy states. Once an editor has been warned of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, they do not need to be warned again (though editors who were only ever warned of the existence of the original general restriction would have to be warned of the discretionary sanctions).
2. The terms of the remedy say fairly plainly that a warning is required. I would agree that if someone has been commenting in arbitration enforcement threads concerning the discretionary sanctions they can be taken to be aware of them, but the second purpose remains.
3. A talk page banner is not sufficient, no. A message on the user's talk page is the best method.

--bainer (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - agree with GRBerry and bainer here. Having said that, I do have a great deal of sympathy for admins who work in the area of arbitration enforcement. There were movements afoot to reform this area, including a request for comments held earlier this year (WP:AERFC). If proposals made there would improve things, no-one should be shy of attempting to implement any needed reform, and asking for guidance if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank-you , Thatcher, for pointing out that point about Sandstein's question 3. My view is that it depends on the case and editor in question, but user talk page messages are nearly always best to avoid any potential confusion or defence. It might seem like paperwork, but leaving a user talk page message ultimately reduces paperwork (and discussions like these) later. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---