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: {Speed of Light}|Request for clarification: {Speed of Light}]]	none	none	26 September 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement|Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement]]	none	none	12 September 2010

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: {Speed of Light}

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: [[1]]

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by your Hell in a Bucket

There have been comments made about Iblis and myself being disruptive in recent discussions regarding Brews Ohare. While I do not deny I have civility issues and prior to the sanctions being imposed it was a fairly common occurrence. However since the sanctions were lifted I do not feel my actions or Iblis has crossed the line. On a recent mistaken block Risker made a comment saying that Iblis was reverting to disruptive editing habits and which was also eventually directed at myself. [[2]]I am concerned because this is not at all clear to me, I can understand blocking for incivility or attacks but this one escapes me. I've tried raising the issues with people making comments that were similar and no one is willing to answer the question. I understand this is and has been a huge headache for all invovled but some clarification here would be great, really not looking to be sanctioned again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Georgewilliamherbert read what I wrote on the AE page and he didn't see any problems.

Detailed explanation of AE involvement

Obviously when asked by another editor to get involved in an area where you are normally not involved, one has to be very careful. I think I did act with care when Brews told that he wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia for a few weeks and wanted me to keep an eye on an article. That was before any AE request was filed, the issue was merely the possibility of an article getting deleted without much input from univolved editors. I didn't get involved myself, rather I informed the person who Brews was talking to on the talk page that Brews wasn't going to edit for quite a while. saw that there was an AE request and I there that Brews wasn't going to edit Wikipedia. Saying that "I'm Brews advocate" was a bit of joke, but it is also to indicate that I'm bringing some information originating from Brews (the fact that he is absent and that he asked me t take look at certain articles). The AFD that I mention there was the previous AFD, the current AFD is different and has more participants. I got involved in neither of them. What I set out to do on Brews behalf was to merely monitor if there is suffcient review from math editors. In case there hadn't been, I would have raised the issue at Wiki-Project math. David did get involved in the latter AFD, but then he has a history of editing such articles together with Brews. I also mentioned on the AE page that I asked Hans Adler to take a look at the articles in question and give his opinion on Brews conduct. So, I think I did put all the information I had on the table, I didn't get involved myself in any disputes on Brews behalf, in the sense of putting forward Brews' arguments on which decisions are going to be based at AFD or AE. I clearly stated what is my opinion and what information Brews had communicated to me on the AE page, and I made an effort to get the issues reviewed by indpendent editors of good standing here. The latter issue was the main objective and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

There have been other recent incidents where people have been making accusations based on vague perceptions. I suggested to Georgewilliamherbert here a better way to deal wit this. Also, I explained what the relevant issues with Brews and me are as far as editing articles here is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'll repeat what I just said on my talk page: The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. Risker (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement

Initiated by olive (talk) at 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect At Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: TimidGuy[3], Future Perfect At Sunrise[4]Jmh649[5]Cirt[6]Edith Siruis Lee[7]

Statement:Littleolive oil

I’d like to request clarifications per the TM arbitration ruling [8] that impacts a restriction placed on me.[9]

A. Clarification of “warning” per this section of the TM arbitration:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question Shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; 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. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

Jmh649 (Doc James) made a unilateral edit. [10] I replaced the content to its original place asking for discussion. [11]He warned me citing WP:UNDUE [12] and later used this instance as a warning when he applied for sanctions[13]

• How can an editor be warned for something that isn’t wrong?

• Should a warning per the arbitration be specific to the error the editor has made? Doc James warns me for WP:UNDUE, although never explains what he means, but then asks to have me sanctioned for editing against consensus and for edit warring.

• Who warns? Editors involved in a discussion, uninvolved editors/admins?

B. Reverting against consensus in an RfC: [14]

The RfC was not closed, [15] and no consensus had been shown. Doc James called this edit warring. I had told him on the talk page I would only revert once should he want to revert me. [16]. I had also begun the process for formal mediation as an attempt to move beyond an impasse on discussion of the lead. [17]

C. Edit warring:

Doc James uses these five edits across almost a week, but there is nothing close to violating 3RR. Edith’s edit is not the same content as any of the other “reverts.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [18] : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors

2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [19]06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A

3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [20] 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A

4. Littleolive does not follow RfC:[21] 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…

5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead[22] 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B

6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [23] 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C

I don’t see how this is a violation at all, or evidence of tag-team editing. And there was no consensus. Shouldn’t “that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles." from the arbitration be adhered to?

D. Additional irregularities:

• In the AE appeal, despite a note explaining I would be able to comment later in the day, FP sanctioned me before I could defend myself, and the case was closed. Was there “gross misconduct”?

• I was sanctioned with two other editors. Per the TM arbitration neither sockpuppetry nor meat puppetry was shown, but the sanction suggests we are one editor. The restriction was given with no time limit.

E. Request to have the restriction overturned:

A clarification would be useful for future situations helping to prevent any possible misunderstandings, and or mistakes. As well, I was restricted for 2 reverts of completely different content made over several days, I can¹t see that I violated Wikipedia policy /guidelnes, and neither in “spirit nor letter”, the arbitration, so would ask that consideration be given to overturning the 1RR restriction against me.

To the arbitration commitee re: Comments by Cirt:

Per the TM arbitration:"Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed...thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee". [24]

I hope the Arbitrators and or AE enforcers will respect my request to have this clarification dealt with here in this more neutral environment. That two appeals were posted around the same time is sheer coincidence. I can't imagine that meat puppets would be silly enough to post so close together inviting the usual and predictable narrative. The two issues at stake are the lack of evidence of wrongdoing, and the lack of following the procedure by the sanctioning admin as outlined by ArbCom. Those are the significant and only points here. Anything else deflects from the real issues.(olive (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

To Coren and clerks: I honestly asked for clarification which was questioned by editors who are not neutral to this situation, and by one who is not uninvolved. Those clarifications affect my restrictions. The restrictions and the clarification are interconnected in the most fundamental way. And respectfully, why is the arbitration being ignored. It says specifically that appeals may be made to the Arbitration Commitee. I did bold my statement rather than carry on a convoluted discussion on this page. How else to remind editors of what I had written? I hope the Arbitration Commitee will stand by their own Arbitration statements. If they don't what value do their statements have, and how can any editor get a fair hearing on Wikipedia. This is a serious issue (olive (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Note: I am one editor not three. I should be heard and dealt with as one editor. The Arbitration did not show meat puppetry or sock puppetry so please respect me and my concerns as one editor.(olive (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Comment to the Arbs and Kbob: Thanks to the Arbs, especially NYB for clarifying the text of the arbitration. The increased specificity of the TM Arbitration decisions over the more general discretionary sanctions can only make cases like this one easier to deal with. When the wording of a decision is specific, its easier to determine if the criteria has been met or it hasn't. The TM arbitration clearly defines what that criteria is. In highly contentious articles it should never be the case that one editor involved in a dispute on a contentious article is responsible for removing anyone else in that discussion. Asking an uninvolved experience/admin editor to make a judgement call is far more neutral and fair, and can be the first clearly defined step in assessing the situation. An editor who has been warned by a neutral editor who has no stake in the discussion, and then who continues with the same behaviour is less likely to end up here.

In my case, and I wanted to clarify that in terms of Kbob's post, that not only did I ask to have the arbitration clarified which it now has been, I asked that my situation be looked at in terms of a basic principle... Did the editor do anything wrong? In my case, two reverts, a week apart, on different content, in the months between the TM arbitration and the filed AE is not by any definition edit warring, especially that the mistaken enforcement appeal was compounded by false information concernong the RfC and consensus. Three editors were sanctioned based on this incorrect information, and none of those editors was warned by a neutral party. Those three editors were the same editors engaged in discussion on the TM research with Doc James the editor who posted the AE Enforcement, an editor who had reverted himself more than double what I did for example in the same time period. I don't see that there was any edit warring on the TM article, but if there was all parties should be restricted to 1RR. There is a very basic and fundamental issue here. Evidence presented by Doc James does not show wrong doing. If that "bottom line" isn't dealt with the door is open for messes of pretty big proportions as editors drag their adversaries to Notice Boards and to the Artb committee for manufactured or misunderstood wrongs.

The points are: first, was there wrong doing, and second were the steps outlined in the arbitration clearly followed so editors could deal or discuss even wrongly perceived mistakes. Why were there sanctions in the first place? On top of this a case was closed before editors could even lay out these points and were sanctioned point blank as if they had engaged in gross misconduct. (olive (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC))

• • • Note to Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, and Arbitration Committee:

It seems apparent that editors were improperly sanctioned: The conditions of the Arbitration decision were not met: Appropriate warnings per the arbitration as clarified here by Newyorkbrad were not issued. Allegations of wrong doing are based on incorrect and inaccurate information. Would arbitrators suggest filing another case.(olive (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

To NewYorkBrad: Thanks very much for clarifying the text of the TM Arb 1. I do ask for multiple clarifications. I assume my questions should be applied to the TM Arb2 since no one replied here one way or the other concerning filing another case, or replied to those additional questions.(olive (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Will Beback

FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), has requested an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• This does seem to be an appeal rather than a request for clarification, and if so it duplicates the WP:AE appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee. While it may not have been the intent, it has the effect of forum shopping. I think it would be appropriate to merge the appeals and deal with them in one location, either WP:AE or WP:ARA.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• To Newyorkbrad and other drafters of ArbCom remedies: The more tricky clauses that get added to remedies, the more room there is for misunderstanding and for wikilawyering. There is a standard WP:Discretionary sanction. It's not clear why this case requires a special variation. Unless someone can explain what is unique about this case, I'd like to propose an amendment to the case replacing this unique sanction with the standard discretionary sanction. Otherwise editors, admins, functionaries, and arbitrators are likely to get caught in more enforcement "gotchas".   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the TM discretionary sanctions remedy, followed by the Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions remedy.

Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Transcendental meditation; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; 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. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to comply may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator shall be considered "uninvolved" only if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes as an editor in articles within the topic. Hitherto uninvolved administrators enforcing the provisions of this decision shall not be considered to have become involved by their participation in enforcement. Any disputes about administrator involvement are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so.

-Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Discretionary sanctions Passed 9 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.

-Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could the ArbCom please clarify the purpose of all the additional text in the TMM decision? In what way was the TMM case different from the R&I case that it required a sanction procedure five times as long?   Will Beback  talk 

Statement by Jmh649

User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

Chronology of recent appeals

1. 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
2. 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.

---

Notes

• It seems quite odd that both of these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts (see [26] and [27]) filed appeals, at two different locations, on the same day, within less than two hours of each other.
• This seems like forumshopping of very similar requests to multiple Wikipedia-process pages at the same time, and also possible meat-puppetry as a tactic, initiating multiple debates about what is substantively the same issue.

Question

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement

• Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with this comment [28], by Will Beback - this request by Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), above, does indeed seem like forumshopping. It also appears to be more of an appeal than a request for "clarification" about anything in particular, rather a form of protestation. As such, it should be merged into the already-existing and duplicate-appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), on WP:AE, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fladrif

This "Request for Clarification" appears not to seek clarification at all, but rather to appeal the AE sanctions. The arguments being presented do not seek clarification of anything, but instead argue that the sanctions were improperly and improvidently imposed. The appealing party admits as much, stating that the issues are "lack of evidence of wrongdoing" and "lack of following procedure by the sanctioning admin". Cirt's observation that this request appears to be forum shopping is essentially admitted, when the appealing party states that she hopes that her request will be dealt with "here in this more neutral environment". Apparently she believes that the AE Appeals process is not a neutral environment, and thus wants to avoid having her complaint heard there. Such forum shopping should not be permitted. These sanctions were not the result was not some rogue admin acting precipitously without evidence, process or justification: at least three uninvolved administrators strongly agreed with the sanctions that were imposed. [29][30][31] They should not be lifted or modified. Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Roger, Brad, Rex The central fact here is that not one, not two, but three uninvolved, independent, neutral admins agreed that, under the plain meaning of the actual language of the TM ArbCom decision, the three sanctioned editors had been sufficiently warned about their editing conduct, and that their continued editing conduct after such fair warning was so clearly and eggregiously in violation of the requirements of the ArbCom decision as to warrant (i) a temporary topic-ban for one editor, and (ii) a collective 1RR restriction on the three sanctioned editors. They were asked to reconsider the decision, did, and determined that on further reflection, the sanctions were even more clearly warranted. A fourth uninvolved, neutral admin has agreed that the sanctions should not be lifted and denied the appeal. For LOO and ESL to claim, as they do now, that (i) they didn't do anything wrong and (ii) even if they did, the wrong person gave them notice so they shouldn't be expected to have to pay attention to the warning, is WP:WIKILAWYERING at its worst. To try to claim now that the only sanction that can be imposed after an extensive ArbCom proceeding in which every named editor was put on notice to clean up their act, and a clear and repeated violation of the requirements of that decision, is yet another warning is just nonsensical. Every dog gets one bite. Not three. Fladrif (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Edith Sirius Lee

I want to comment about the suggestion that Olive and I should have worked together and agreed about the way to react to the AE (the location, etc.). As I said in my appeal, if I was mislead and broken a rule, then I apologize. However, common sense tells me that Olive should not be limited in her actions because of actions that I have taken. In the past, we have been in disagreements about procedures, etc. We do not think alike. She should have her way. I should have my way. I might contribute further to the discussion here, but for now this is all what I have to say. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Point added: Will Beback does not provide any evidence for the presupposition in his comment [32]. The presupposition is that the clarification [33] of a well informed, neutral and uninvolved administrator would add tricky clauses in the policy and that these clauses would be special variations for this case. The rest of his comment builds on this presupposition. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Away for two weeks

Starting from today, for the next two weeks I will be travelling with little access to the Internet. So, I will not contribute any more here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

Accusations of sock and meatpuppetry were evaluated in detail on the TM ArbCom and were found to have no merit. Everyone is an independent editor. I therefore object to the continued attempts by some editors, to lump together other editors and paint them with one black brush. Assertions of forum shopping and coordinated editing appear to have no basis in fact. Each editor is unique and their behavior deserves to be examined individually. This current filing is one example. Littleolive oil should not be punished because another editor happens to make here own appeal near the same time. I urge the Arb Committee to look at this Request carefully. It is my understanding that Littleolive oil has outlined her case, not as an appeal attempt, but to demonstrate the clear need for clarification on the Enforcement policies as outlined in the ArbCom decision. Such clarification will then have direct bearing on any future appeal(s), either by Littleolive oil or others, as well as any future enforcement actions for other involved editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's surprising to me to see that an editor, who seems knowledgeable about law based on their edit history, would be so eager to discount the clarification given here by Committee members and urge them to disregard an individual editor's rights to due process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

Thanks are due to Brad and Roger for the clarification of the intentions behind the wording. As a consequence, I believe I am correct that a request for AE under discretionary sanctions in this area now should be a request for a warning in the first instance – unless the editor in question is a named party and is accused of gross misconduct. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fladrif

I agree completely with the sentiment of what you say, and I'd always want to see neutral, uninvolved admins exercising their judgement boldly in the best interests of the encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I completely endorse your actions. However, following Roger and Brad's comments, I merely observe that any party who may be even tangentially involved is going to have to find a neutral, uninvolved administrator to issue a warning and give the other editor a chance to amend their behaviour, before they can present a request for enforcement. In other words, unless a neutral, uninvolved, experienced third party happens to have already noticed a certain behaviour and given a warning, requests for enforcement in future will end up being a two-stage process. --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This is not a request for clarification, despite the bold type, but an appeal/protest. Given that this is already ongoing at AE, this is the wrong forum. Clerks, please close and make sure that any relevant info is copied as appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• I was the arbitrator who drafted the sentence about giving warnings before imposing sanctions (in another case, but it's been adopted into the text of our standard discretionary sanctions remedy). What I had in mind in drafting it, though I suppose it isn't as clear as it could be, is a warning given by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute. The purpose, which I hope is obvious, is to avoid anyone claiming "I didn't know I was at risk of sanctions" or "I didn't realize that a neutral, experienced person thought there was something wrong with my editing." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Is anything further requested of the committee here? If there are no further postings in the near future, I believe this can be archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am grateful to Brad for his clarification of the intended underlying meaning: I certainly interpreted it to mean that the warning should come from a neutral third-party and should give the warnee an opportunity to address the conduct. Roger Davies ^talk 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Who warned who is a complete red herring here (though I don't disagree with the best practices mentioned above). Frankly I don't understand how editors who were involved in a case can later claim they were unaware of the discretionary sanctions or should have received better/more warnings or that someone should have more clearly explained to them what the problem was. All of the editors who appealed these sanctions were involved in the case, repeatedly warned before things got to the level of a case and should by this time know how Wikipedia works. The findings in the case they were involved in clearly set out the problems in the area, the relevant policies and what sanctions might happen if things continued to be a problem - exactly how much more clear could anyone be? Shell ^babelfish 02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)