Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:33, 26 March 2013

WP:ARCA

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
Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough	none	(orig. case)	25 March 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: GoodDay\|Amendment request: GoodDay]]	none	none	21 March 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Procedural issues at at WP:AE\|Clarification request: Procedural issues at at WP:AE]]	none	none	15 March 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Monty Hall problem\|Amendment request: Monty Hall problem]]	none	none	11 March 2013
Clarification request: Climate change	none	none	10 March 2013

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
at 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Case affected: Example arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Modified by Motion

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

This modification
Strike the modification.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

I'm probably unwise to rise to Fram's bait, but the true measure of whether List of Other Backward Classes was improved is the number of views it gets, which jumps five fold after the "disaster". Similarly of the several thousand OBCs, prior to the "disaster" only about 50 were listed, afterwards http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Other_Backward_Classes&oldid=531513891 almost all were listed], and within a few hours the list was complete. I'm sure that the idea of the sanction was not to prevent this sort of improvement.

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

Statement by Fram

The three enforcement requests:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127 was found to be not a violation of this restriction, but of another restriction Rich Farmbrough has, and he was blocked for it.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128, the upheld violation, which made "a massive improvement to an article of critical importance to hundreds of millions of people"; hyperbole much? The subject may be important to many people, but the article? As for a "massive improvement", it was a massive disaster.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement [1] is the current one.

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

As to Rich Farmbrough's "surprise" above, I have these pages on my watchlist, obviously. Lucky thing I did, as you didn't seem to be inclined to leave a courtesy notice about this, even though you are discussing edits I made. Speaking of "personal vendetta" though, [2]? I think you would be wiser not to start down that road... Fram (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Query by Sandstein

I'm commenting here in an administrative capacity as one of the administrators active at WP:AE. There is currently an earlier enforcement request open relating to the restriction that Rich Farmbrough asks to be lifted here. It appears that he has submitted this amendment request instead of responding to the enforcement request. I would like to ask arbitrators whether the processing of the enforcement request should be stayed pending the disposition of this amendment request, or not. (Pending an answer, I, at least, won't act on the enforcement request). Sandstein 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, T. Canens, for the procedural clarification. I have closed the AE request with a one-year block of Rich Farmbrough, subject of course to any modifications arbitrators may decide to make as a result of this request. Sandstein 23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

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

Comment by Orlady

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

Comment by Jclemens

I am afraid that Rich has provided plenty of evidence that the Arbitration Committee has erred. That is, by his conduct, he has regrettably demonstrated that he is not interested in being rehabilitated. He has not endorsed the sanctions placed on him by the committee and sought to edit without automation, so that he might understand the frustration his previous pattern of editing conduct has caused to so many other editors. Instead, he has fought the sanctions at every turn, arguing against their legitimacy. He become focused on perceived wrongs, and has focused his energies on criticizing the committee who sanctioned him.

The error, of course, was one of AGF'ing, of hoping that a productive editor like Rich could learn from his sanctions and return to productivity. It was an error on the side of humanity, of hope, of excessive optimism... but an error nevertheless. If the committee does not see fit to remedy its own error, its penalty will be having to deal with more of these requests from Rich. At some point, the committee's forbearance ceases to be humane, and simply allows Rich to make a spectacle of himself and waste the committee's and community's time. All of those who have served as arbitrators know of banned editors whose could return to editing, if they would just swallow their price, admit the legitimacy of their sanctions, and agree to not behave in the same manner in the future. It is my regretful assessment that Rich has fallen into this pattern as well, despite multiple efforts to enlighten him about the best way forward. Best wishes to the committee in deciding what to do with the situation from here on out... Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm not convinced that the restriction should be amended. Moreover, if we should find that restricting automated editing is not a workable remedy, it is far more likely that we'd opt to restrict all editing instead rather than leave the problematic edits unrestricted, and I doubt that it would be Rich Farmbrough's preferred outcome.
As to Sandstein's question, I think the AE request can proceed as usual, as I think it is highly unlikely that a majority of my colleagues would vote to grant the request. T. Canens (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we want to go ahead with the indef ban that was indicated as likely in the last motion, I think we're rightly done here. Courcelles 23:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: GoodDay

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

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

Notification: [3], [4], [5] and [6]

Statemant by GoodDay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question by A Quest for Knowledge

Is GoodDay allowed to edit hockey-related articles if they stay away from diacritics? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Resolute

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

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and comments

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

Clarification request: Procedural issues at at WP:AE

Initiated by Gatoclass (talk) at 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gatoclass (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification: [7]

Statement by Gatoclass

Firstly, my apologies to the Committee for adding to your current workload. However, hopefully these issues can be resolved quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

This request relates to a number of procedural issues that have recently arisen at WP:AE, which I think are probably best handled by the Committee. There are four in total—the first two raised at AE by Sandstein and the latter two raised here now by myself:

1/ Sandstein recently declined to act in a request regarding breach of 1RR at AE as he sees the 1RR restriction on certain pages subject to discretionary sanctions as having been a "community ... decision" rather than made by an administrator acting by authority of, and with stated reference to, those discretionary sanctions. The issue of whether or not 1RR can legitimately be adjudicated at AE therefore needs clarification. I don't think Sandstein himself objects to 1RR being adjudicated at AE; he apparently just wants a clear statement of the principle, so I am referring the matter here. The discussion regarding this issue can be found in the "Results" section of the recently closed Soosim request.

2/ Sandstein again declined to act on a recent request on the basis that the respondent had yet to receive an official warning, in spite of the fact that the respondent was a named party to the original Arbitration case.[8] As I have always taken the view that warnings are not required when a user is already clearly aware that discretionary sanctions apply in a topic area—a principle that I believe has been upheld in at least one previous Arbcom clarification request (when it was decided that participants in a previous AE request with regard to a particular topic area under discretionary sanctions don't need a formal warning)—so again this should not be a difficult matter to resolve, but I think it needs resolution so that we can avoid similar debates in future.

3/ In a recent appeal against the length of an AE sanction by a sanctioned user, Sandstein commented on the appeal in the "Result" section in spite of having participated in the adjudication of the request which led to the original sanction.[9] Though I don't think there is any formal prohibition against doing this, IIRC the convention at AE has always been that adjudicators of the original case confine their comments to the "Statements" section of an appeal. Regardless of precedent, however, I believe that it is a sound principle for admins to follow to allow appeals of cases they have adjudicated to be handled by different administrators, just as appeals in legal proceedings are handled by a different court made up of different judges. Therefore I am requesting that Arbcom formally endorse this principle, as I think users have a right to have their appeals reviewed by administrators independent of the original decision.

4/ In the same request referred to in 2/ above, Sandstein decided to issue a warning to the respondent before the request was concluded.[10][11] Since the outcome of a request is something to be decided by consensus of uninvolved administrators—whether it be no action, a reminder, an advisement, a warning, a topic ban etc.—I felt that issuance of this warning was out of process as it effectively pre-empts the consensus decision of the adjudicating administrators. I believe it is out of process even if the particular discussion looked to be heading to at least a warning for the respondent in any case. I am therefore requesting that Arbcom formally recognize the principle that remedies not be implemented in AE requests until discussion by uninvolved admins has concluded and a consensus view reached.

Thank you for your consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandstein for your quick and comprehensive response. I will not respond to all the points you raise as I am trying to keep this submission brief, except to concede that you are probably correct to say that there is no formal requirement for consensus amongst uninvolved admins involved in adjudicating an AE request, and that I was mistaken to suggest otherwise. However, I don't think the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions was intended to suggest that consensus amongst adjudicating admins can be ignored or pre-empted by administrative fiat, and I think it would be unwise for obvious reasons to endorse such a principle. Gatoclass (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I am in agreement with the general thrust of your comments. With regard to issue 1/, it is of no consequence to me whether or not 1RR is enforceable under AN3 as well as at AE, so long as there is no confusion that 1RR can be enforced at AE as a legitimate AE remedy. With regard to your comment about "elapsed time" since the original case, I can accept the argument that a new warning may be the most appropriate response after a long period since the last warning, just as long as a new warning isn't considered a necessary precondition for imposition of a sanction. With regard to your comment on 4/, I would agree that an editor still actively engaged in disruptive editing might justifiably be sanctioned at any point by any admin without the necessity of establishing consensus, and that such a sanction may even at times obviate the need for further action at the AE request. However, such action should only be permissible IMO when the editor concerned is continuing his disruptive editing even as the request proceeds; I can't conceive of any other reason why pre-emption of consensus might be considered appropriate. Perhaps I should also clarify that I have no issue with the notion of an admin imposing an AE sanction on his own outside of an AE request; just as long as remedies imposed as a result of AE requests themselves are imposed by consensus and not unilaterally. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

I have always held that 'if remedy affecting a user is changed - and the remedy is updated/superseded or otherwise changed - then the user would be, by virtue of being affected by the previous remedy, affected by the new remedy. This is especially the case when the user is a party to the original case with the now-superseded remedy. As the user was informed of the update to the remedy, he should - at the very minimum - be considered "notified and warned" due to previous involvement.

I believe that we used to notify (and warn, if appropriate) people immediately in certain cases (though I cannot name one right off the top of my head) when the remedy would be DS/Article Probation/etc. Maybe this needs to be the default action. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Thanks, Gatoclass, for bringing these issues here for clarification. I apologize for being the originator of so many AE-related procedural questions lately; I suspect, that being a lawyer, I do have the tendency to see procedural problems where more practically minded people don't – and vice versa. I anticipate that we'll not be able to fully answer all questions here, but hopefully the issues raised here can be addressed in the general review of DS/AE procedure that I understand is forthcoming, and the answers codified on the appropriate pages.

1) Yes, my problem is not with 1RR as such, but rather what I think is the unclear legal (for lack of another word) status of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. My understanding is that a restriction can be enforced through AE only if it was made with the authority of the Arbitration Committee, that is (a) by a majority decision of the full Committee, or (b) by an individual administrator as provided for by WP:AC/DS. The problem is that Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is not labeled as either. Although at one time it was apparently the subject of a Committee motion amending it, it is described on the case page as having been made "per community discussion and decision" – and community sanctions are not subject to AE. If the Committee could clarify what exactly the status of that restriction is, I'd appreciate it.
There's also another problem related to the legal status of that restriction. As written, the 1R restriction applies to all topic-area articles without requiring that users be first notified of it. I'm not sure that the authors of the restriction meant it to apply such that a new editor, who has no idea that there has been an arbitration case, or what arbitration and 1RR even mean, should be blocked without warning for making two reverts in a row to, say, the section Tel Aviv#Fashion, just because the article it is in "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". As written, therefore, I suspect that the restriction is overbroad. Now, if it is a Committee decision, editors are bound by it nonetheless, although I assume that individual administrators (who have no duty to act on AE requests) can still decline to be the ones to enforce it. But if it is a discretionary sanction, then it is unenforceable if the user has not previously received the kind of warning described in WP:AC/DS#Warnings (e.g. in an edit notice) – and probably a specific warning about 1RR, too, rather than a general warning about the decision, because if the restriction is a discretionary sanction rather than a Committee decision, then it is not part of the decision proper.

2) As currently written, WP:AC/DS#Warnings provides that "prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions". This wording does not make an exception for editors who were party to the original case or who are otherwise assumed to be aware of the case. Therefore, in a conservative interpretation of the wording so as not to accidentally overstep AE authority, I am of the view that a warning is still required even for such editors. Whether that makes any sense is another question, and one that is for the Committee to answer. I suspect that it has to do what the purpose of these "warnings" is supposed to be, a question that has come up a lot recently: If they are meant to serve only as notifications about the possibility of discretionary sanctions, then a separate notification to users who already know about the decision is superfluous. If however they are meant to warn the user to desist from a specific action, then there is still a point in requiring them to be issued to users who are aware of the decision. I understand that AGK is preparing a motion about precisely this question, which will hopefully resolve this.

3) That's indeed a thorny issue, and I would very much appreciate clarification (and, if needed, correction) from the Committee about this. I discussed it with another editor and suggested to AGK that it be also addressed in his upcoming motion. As I explain below, I think that Gatoclass misunderstands the AE process when he suggests that an administrator who comments on the merits of an enforcement request "participates in the adjudication of the request". Rather, the only person who adjudicates the request is the individual administrator who imposes a sanction, if any, in response to the request. Nonetheless, the question of whether an administrator who voiced an opinion about an enforcement request is involved (in the sense of WP:INVOLVED) in any future appeal is a valid one, made more difficult by the fact that there are currently very few, if any, rules about how an appeal at WP:AE is to be conducted.

In principle, I agree that it would be preferable, to prevent the appearance of bias, if an appeal were heard only by people who have not previously expressed an opinion about the matter. However, I think that there are also valid arguments for not considering an administrator in the situation I described to be involved:

First, WP:INVOLVED excludes actions made in an administrative capacity (which I believe commenting on the merits of an AE request is) from triggering involvement, so technically an administrator who comments as uninvolved in a discussion about an AE request can be seen as remaining uninvolved in any followup discussion, including an appeal. (If not, would they also be considered involved in any future discussion about the same user, or even the same topic area? That would exhaust the admin pool pretty quickly).
Second, there are few administrators who participate in AE, perhaps understandably given the amount of stress one can be exposed to in that role. This means that if commenting on a request excludes participation in a future appeals discussion, one of two things will happen:

Either fewer administrators (or possibly none at all) comment on AE requests, so as not to exclude themselves from a future appeal. That is undesirable, as it will tend to reduce the quality of the decisions made. It will cause additional stress to whoever does make a decision, because when challenged about it they can't point to the support of colleagues. And it may also lead to an unwelcome division of labor among AE admins, where one group focuses on responding to requests and the other on second-guessing those decisions on appeal.
Or, and this is the second possibility, it may result in there being too few uninvolved administrators to form a useful consensus about the outcome of any appeal, because most have already voiced an opinion about the initial request. In extremis, one remaining uninvolved administrator could by themselves overrule, on appeal, the unanimous opinion of five others who commented about the request being appealed.

I hope that the Committee's clarification will help define recusal rules that take these various concerns into account.

4) I think that Gatoclass is subject to a misconception when he says that "the outcome of a request is something to be decided by consensus of uninvolved administrators". No rule that I know of provides for this. Rather, all enforcement provisions that I know of, including WP:AC/DS, provide that "an uninvolved administrator" – singular – may act in enforcement, that is, without necessarily having to take into account anybody else's opinion. It is only as a matter of practice that administrators working at AE have become used to exchanging opinions about the merits of enforcement requests and possible courses of action before one of them acts on the enforcement request. That's obviously a good thing particularly in complicated cases, but it does not mean that discussion, much less a consensus, is required. In that sense, one administrator deciding to take action (in this case, issuing a warning, because I am of the view that it was required and not previously given, see point 2 above) does not preempt any other administrator from taking any other action that they deem possible and appropriate (such as a block), which I made a point of noting. However, a clarification about this aspect of AE procedure could also be helpful. Sandstein 07:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update to 4): Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions clarifies that "best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case". This means, e contrario, that in all other (i.e. most) cases administrators are not expected (let alone required) by the Committee to discuss (and much less to seek consensus for) sanctions with others. Sandstein 09:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

I don't believe that a DS warning was originally meant as a sanction. That is, a person misbehaves, is warned, misbehaves again then recieves a sanction. I think the word 'warning' was always meant as closer to the definition of 'notification'. That is a person who has not necessarily misbehaved is warned that there are rules which they may not be aware of.

This follows with the logic that it is unfair to sanction someone who reasonably was not aware of the special rules. They must be warned (notified) of the rules before a sanction can fairly be applied. So any knowledge of the special rules counts as a person being "warned".

Treating it as a sanction unfairly provides a procedural Get out of Jail Free card for people aware of the rules, yet not warned (sanctioned) because a warning is mandatory.

Really, Arbcom could solve this AND the Who Can Issue Warnings? issue by clearly separating warning (sanction) and warning (notification). Any editor can warn (notify), an uninvolved admin is required for a warning (sanction). Now use different words for the two meanings. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, and this would also address the appeals issue. A warning (notification) can't be appealed but a warning (sanction) can. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ErikHaugen

Regarding (1), T. Canens makes a great point about the community sanctions helping define what "expected standards of behavior" means, but also in this case notice that EdJohnston argued that "Since Arbcom touched the 1RR in 2012, I think they own it now". It seems a little squishy, but I'm sympathetic to this argument as well.

Regarding (2), I wish warnings were just notices and never implied guilt; it would be nice to move away from this conception that this is a "2 strikes" kind of thing where the first warning is "you did something bad, stop it or else we'll block/ban/whatever you." I don't like these because they're kind of a big deal to receive, yet I think people issuing them don't necessarily realize how odious it is to get them. Once we clarify this, we can also clarify that sanctions don't require prior special warnings as long as it is clear that the editor knew about the DS in question—for example, if the user was a party to the case and got the notice of the results on the user talk page.

Regarding (3), it does seem strange to appear to be on a panel deciding the appeal of an administrative action that you took! I do some RMs—I would never consider closing a move review of an move request closure I made, for example. This may not be as clear-cut, but still.

Regarding (4), I think if the warning is a notice and not a statement of guilt, then it is fine. Anyone should be able to slap it on anyone's talk page, anytime. This warning, which AFAICT is the one we're talking about here, appears to be a notice, not a statement of guilt, so I think what Sandstein did is ok. Here is an example of a warning that is a statement of guilt, not simply a notice: "...If you continue to misconduct yourself..." etc. This difference in language is huge. Both let the noob who wants to edit something like Tel Aviv#Fashion know what's up, one also serves as a rap sheet. I'm probably trying to get at the same thing here that 204. is trying to get at. HaugenErik (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Given that all these issues concern Sandstein's conduct and he was previously the subject of an arbitration request regarding his conduct at AE, which led to an "advisement" about his actions there, I think there should be serious consideration given to examining this editor's actions. He has become incredibly domineering over the process. The stuff he is doing at the Marek case is extremely unnecessary and confrontational, but he seems to think being an admin means he can just do whatever he likes there. I am honestly thinking about initiating some process against him because his current monopolization of the process is a problem when he conducts himself in such a fashion. Should Arbs here think it is enough concern, perhaps they could consider evicting him from the AE process without stripping Sandstein of his administrator status. I am certainly tempted to file an arbitration request against him because of what he is doing, but since this request is practically all about him I feel it can be settled here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

The Devil's Advocate has intervened above to make a series of points which appear to be an all-out attack on Sandstein. They are unrelated to the procedural rules for WP:AE being discussed here.

As such his statement should be disregarded.

It was written in the heat of the moment shortly after reverting some of Sandstein's administrative edits at WP:AE [12] where I am also participating. After being warned, he launched into an outspoken personal attack on Sandstein,[13][14] calling him an "officious little jerk" and "petty tyrant".

The purpose of this clarification request is not to examine Sandstein's record as an administrator at WP:AE, but to give general procedural guidance for enforcing sanctions or administering warnings.

Given his animosity towards Sandstein, it was inappropriate for The Devil's Advocate to have exploited this opportunity to take potshots at Sandstein without justification. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

We are currently working on something that will, among other things, address questions 2 & 3. For 1, I think the best way to parse this under our current DS framework is that the 1RR is a community consensus that partially defines the "expected standards of behavior [and] normal editorial process" in this topic area, such that a violation is ground for application of discretionary sanctions in the form of a block. The provision for "block without warning" can be read to mean only that a block does not require a 1RR warning on the user's talk page, and so interpreted, does not conflict with the overall warning requirement for discretionary sanctions, which can be satisfied by a warning in the editnotice. As to 4, AE actions do not require a consensus of admins; on the other hand, in most cases it may well be preferable, out of courtesy, to refrain from taking action while an admin discussion is ongoing.T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a fellow lawyer (not just wikilawyer), I can understand the each of the procedural issues that Sandstein has raised. Trust me, I could write several paragraphs of detailed analysis in response to each of Gatoclass's questions. But as important, I can equally understand the perspective of all the non-lawyers out there, who are simply trying to edit articles that are the subject of DS in peace. They must feel that the AE process has degenerated into a quasi-incomprehensible bureaucratic quagmire, one which even its administrators and the arbitrators do not fully understand. The purpose of arbitration enforcement is to enforce the remedies enacted in arbitration committee decisions, as well as discretionary sanctions that follow from those remedies, in a way that is fair both to the editors against whom enforcement is sought, as well as to other editors and ultimately the readers of the disputed articles. With this in mind, I would say in response to question 1 that it makes little difference to me whether 1RR restrictions (a blunt instrument to put it mildly) are enforced at AE or at AN3. Isn't the better question which venue will lead to more equitable and efficient enforcement?, rather than which is correct according to some rule book? As for the issue of warnings, I suggest that if there is legitimate doubt whether an editor is on notice of possible sanctions, then a warning rather than a more severe sanction should be given. Where an editor who was named in the decision immediately reoffends soon after DS is imposed, I doubt the need for another warning; but if substantial time has elapsed since the decision, giving a final warning may be preferable. The 204 IP's comment that there is a distinction to be made between "warning" as notice and "warning" as sanction has merit. In response to Gataclass's point (4), while ultimate decisions at AE are often best made by consensus rather than unilaterally, but I would think that a single administrator can still issue a warning during the discussion in an attempt to avoid further disruptive editing while the discussion is pending; compare in-chambers opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Monty Hall problem

Initiated by Martin Hogbin (talk) at 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

All users
Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Request removal of discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Martin Hogbin

Civil discussion on ways to improve the article now takes place on the talk page and general discussion about the subject that is relevant to improving the article continues on the arguments page. There has been no incivility, edit warring, or other bad behaviour connected with the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ningauble

Although the situation has improved since a time when the discussion page saw frequent, explicit personal attacks, our 17th most talked about article continues to be the locus of unproductive and unconstructive contention.

A handful of frequent participants have effectively reached an agreement to disagree more or less civilly about their divergent views; but virtually any attempt to actually improve clarity, neutrality, and due weight in the article, especially by anyone outside this group, is overwhelmed and thwarted by tendentious objections and voluminous digressions, as the regulars seize opportunities to re-grind their favorite axes. This environment of antagonistic browbeating is so severe that Guy Macon, a member of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, has repeatedly (most recently in the thread started here) called for the regulars to just go away and let somebody else work on improving the article.

Aside: My own view that editor contention has resulted in undue emphasis on contention within the article itself, and that the article interprets sources in ways that misrepresent what sources say, is supported by closing statements in last year'sRfC; but I would be nuts to try to improve it in this environment. (I have tried occasionally, so it is fair to say I sometimes do go nuts.) Distortions in the current article, such as the inadequately sourced and apparently incorrect narrative under A second controversy, and the (mis-)interpretation of the context sources refer to under Criticism of the simple solutions, appear to me to result from a kind of Groupthink consensus among a handful of disputants to defend the one thing they agree about – that the article should express their disagreements.

I recommend against removal of discretionary sanctions. If anything, I think there has been inadequate moderation of the discussion page, from which all but the most pugnacious or masochistic contributors are regularly driven away. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard Gill

Why the article will never stabilize: MHP appears to be a simple problem which you can solve with common sense. Most people's initial common sense solution is however wrong. So new editors will keep coming to the page wanting to rewrite the article according to their common sense understanding (right or wrong). But wikipedia articles have to be based on published sources, not on individual editors' common sense!

Next probem: there is a huge literature on MHP because it interests ordinary folk (people who like solving fun brainteasers), and it interests educationalists, and cognitive scientists, and mathematicans, and statisticians, and decision theorists. The mathematicians and statisticians and decision theorists have developed tools and language to solve problems like this in a systematic way ... precisely because ordinary human cognition tends to go wrong as soon as probabilistic reasoning. People have been debating what probability means for 300 years and there is still no consensus. There are a number of different schools who nowadays live mostly in peaceful coexistence.

Conclusion: the talk page of the article will always be a debating ground. The article will always be a big article, because it's a big topic. Yet right now, in my opinion, the article is reasonably balanced, comprehensive, and it's a fantastic resource. So there is no problem needing a fix.

Ningauble's small print comments -- inadequately sourced and apparently incorrect narrative under A second controversy, and the (mis-)interpretation of the context sources refer to under Criticism of the simple solutions -- should be raised on the talk page of the article. The inadequate sourcing is easy to fix. As to his claims of incorrect narrative and misinterpretation of context - I'm not aware of errors.

I agree that the "regulars" ought to move on now and give newcomers a chance.

Finally: I recommend lifting of discretionary sanctions. It would make the talk page of the article a more welcoming place to newcomers. Richard Gill (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kmhkmh

I mostly agree with Richard Gill's statement regarding the nature of the problem and the state of the article. However I don't quite agree with his final conclusion regarding lifting the discretionary sanctions. The article will always be subject to "opinionated" edits and always be high maintenance (unless it gets locked down completely in a somewhat reasonable state). Though it might helpful if old editors stay away (many actually did) to remove personal confrontation and frustrations, I seriously doubt it will improve the situation in the long run, because due to the nature of the problem chances are the new editors will sooner or later pick up exactly where the old ones left off. We will get the same or similar conflicts just with new players. The discretionary sanction may help to keep those conflicts under control. Moreover since the state of the article it somewhat reasonable, there is no need for an urgent improvement but the danger of a rapid deterioration.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

In my considered opinion, we should rethink this issue and consider new solutions.

This is the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia, and is featured at WP:HALLOFLAME.

After well over a million words, we have not reached a consensus on article content. To this day Talk:Monty Hall problem is full of spirited debates about what the content of the Monty Hall problem page should be. Another million words are unlikely to change that.

This has reduced the quality of the page, as evidenced by the fact that it is a former featured article. A comparison of the present page with the with the (featured 2005 version) is instructive.

Every avenue of dispute resolution has been tried, some repeatedly. Unlike many articles with unresolved content disputes, this does not appear to be the result of any behavioral problems. Instead, it is an unfortunate interaction between editors, each of whom is doing the right thing when viewed in isolation.

In my opinion, it is time to ignore all rules and start considering new ways to solve this, the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia.

I propose applying a 6-month topic ban -- no editing of the MHP page or MHP talk page -- on every editor who was working on the page two years ago, one year ago, and is still working on the page today (this of course includes me). I predict that within a few months the remaining editors (and perhaps those who have gone away discouraged) will create an article that is far superior to the one we have now, and they will do it without any major conflicts. Giving the boot to a handful of editors who, collectively, have completely failed to figure out what should be in the article will have a positive effect. Of course it should be made clear that this does not imply any wrongdoing on anyone's part, but rather is an attempt to solve the problem with a reboot.

Two years is enough. It is time to step aside and let someone else try. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Monty Hall problem#view from the outside

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Discretionary sanctions

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

I think that someone brought this up the other day on the mailing list the idea of doing a general cleanup of the sanctions ArbCom has handed out over the past several years. Monty Hall problem was on that list, if I recall correctly. We have a lot on our plate now, so I think it might take a few weeks or months before we get to this, but I personally would support such an action. NW (Talk) 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of tense discussion still occurring on the talkpage (which apparently amounts to well over a million words), I feel that loosening restrictions at this stage might be premature. I don't see that the sanctions are hindering progress, and may well be assisting contributors to discuss matters on the talkpage. Decline for now, though quite willing to look again as part of the general clean up that NW mentions above. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced that we should be removing this topic area from discretionary sanctions. In principle, I don't think sanctions should be hanging over the heads of constructive contributors; but in practice, I do not think a topic area can completely reform itself in a year or two, even if the roster of active contributors completely changes or the existing set of regulars reform their conduct. I would decline this amendment request, without prejudice to reconsidering in six or twelve months. It's a little too soon for my comfort. AGK [•] 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As we can address this as part of the general sanctions cleanup, I think it's best to decline this for now, unless there's some special reason why we should address this immediately. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are there any specific editing practices or article improvements that the discretionary sanctions are interfering with? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read over the talk page (or at least bits and pieces of the ones linked above, I find myself moving toward Guy Macon's view. Perhaps we should consider having those who have more than 5 edits to the article talk page in the last six months (or an alternate metric) just step away from the article for one year. I don't know if it will ultimately change things for the article, but good faith editors who move away from a longterm controversy start finding out whether it's the editing or the arguments that draw them to Wikipedia. (I'm expecting most if not all of the editors involved here will find it's the editing.) Risker (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Climate change

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

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

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Elvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cybersaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
dave souza (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Kennvido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
J. Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy (initiator)

Intro

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

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

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

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

Ways to read the ambiguity

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

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

INTERPRETATION OPTION 3) Other?

Insights from case version history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

NewsAndEventsGuy's Reply to Elvey's opening comments

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

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

NewsAndEventsGuy's Updated Comments

(1) Clerk Penwhale's comment below is based on his subjective interpretation of DS text, or so he said in this side conversation, but nonetheless are consistent with the persuasive remarks by......
(2) Dave Souza, who has convinced me that there are two elements before AE sanctions will be imposed by an uninvolved admin, and they are

Element 1 - Simple harmless "notice" or awareness of ARBCC of a sort that does not carry a presumption of guilt; and

Element 2 - A warning by an uninvolved admin following problematic editor behavior

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

NewsAndEventsGuy's PROPOSAL

Maybe this will take a motion, I don't know, but this makes sense to me

A Change "Notifications" section heading and add one sentence of text to read

ADMINISTRATOR WARNINGS

Any editor may informally call ARBCC to the attention of any other editor at any time, for any reason, and such notices are deemed nothing more than "FYI". Formal warnings may only be given by an uninvolved administrator after a showing of problematic editor behavior. In this section, any user may log a formal ARBCC warning given by an uninvolved administrator to any other editor, or may add their own name.

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

C Close this clarification request

D Thank you all for your attention, and attention to these details. Sometimes a little prevention goes a long way.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Dave Souza, and alt wording

You should include the part about anyone letting anyone else know about ARBCC anytime for any reason as an FYI. Consider the problem ed who has already been politely told about how he is afoul of DR, RS, NPOV, etc

NAEG to X - Caution, please see ARBCC

X to NAEG - Sanctions?? You threatening ME with SANCTIONS??

NAEG to X - Just calling your attention to ARBCC

X to NAEG - Harassment!!!! Accusations!!!! Slander!!!! I ((((demand)))) to know the basis of this warning!!!!

NAEG to X - See prior comments in this thread

X to NAEG - I filed an ANI on you

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

NAEG to X - Caution, please see ARBCC

X to NAEG - Sanctions?? You threatening ME with SANCTIONS??

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

Presumably, that ends the drama.

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

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

@AGK I await your motion with interest! Do you have a guesstimate when you will really sink your teeth into motion prep? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the draft I will check it out. OK with me for this request to be closed & archived . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elvey

Per the Clerk's note below, NAEG should immediately revert the 3 adds (and of course an uninvolved admin can add me, NAEG, JJ, etc. if they have adequate rationale to do so and do so appropriately, at which point those editors will be subject to discretionary sanctions).

When have I last edited in Climate Change? If I haven't then ISTM that even an admin, let a lone a non-admin can't make these sanctions apply to me by posting my name up. Untrue? I may have edited in Climate Change long ago, but if I have come closer than [15], it was either so long ago or so minor I don't recall. Since this restriction went into effect? I don't think so. As far as I know, Wikipedia has no [Minority Report (film)|Minority Report-style PreCrime police force], and NAEG has no precognitive abilities. I can't find any edits at all; is there a tool to search for this? [Deafening silence]

NewsAndEventsGuy's reply on my talk page confirms (diff) he is attempting to apply sanctions for my daring to launch an AN proceeding against J Johnson (JJ) in a way that policy specifically permits, but some admins didn't like as much as the complaint processes they insisted I use instead, saying, saying that he did it because I had not "shown a positive response to the multiple pieces of advice (such as rfc/u) presented by several eds in your recent AN proceeding against JJ." I had a very hard time there because only at the end did admin Dougweller realize he had made about half a dozen false accusations against me, and there was quite a snowball effect from the false accusations that made it look like it was I and not Dougweller who didn't understand policy.

Doug wants it both ways. He has what reason to comment here if he is sorry for the over half a dozen false accusations he made against me? If he isn't sorry, then he's lying when he says he's already apologized to me; in his comment below, he even explicitly blames me for his confusion! I haven't accepted an apology from Doug - because he hasn't given me one. Details below.

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

I've asked Doug MULTIPLE TIMES AND I'd STILL like to have answers to: Doug, "do you accept that you falsely accused me about half a dozen times or that "Clearly the 'failure to get a clue' was yours?... (It was long after I'd clearly shown I had NOT violated 2RR.) Would you mind explicitly retracting the false accusations, which you made here:"denying 2 reverts" and here (2): warning retracted, but "you are now saying that you weren't even at 2RR" isn't and here (4-7, depending on how you count repeats):"he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had)", "Now you are admitting to [violating] 2RR? Which you did.", "clearly don't understand", "need to start AGFing", and finally "My edit above is my response." - which is a restatement of the last 3 false accusations)? An apology would go a lot further than a futile and defensive (and on and on-going) attempt to deny or justify ~half a dozen false accusations. How 'bout it, Doug?" I see that you retracted one false accusation but then reverted that retraction. Yes, you said "sorry for the confusion", but you didn't say it to me, rather, you did continue to assert that the confusion was mine. In your comment below, you even explicitly blame me for your confusion! You haven't acknowledged or apologized for your confusion. Again, I ask for relief - Would you please explicitly (e.g. state here or at least somewhere that you) retract the ~half dozen false accusations I linked to above? (rather than doing so in place but then restoring them?)"

I feel it's clear that Doug has not retracted his false accusations against me, and yet is badgering me for favors and answers regarding what he imagines are my misunderstandings.

This is so ridiculous!: Doug is posting here and to my talk page in a desperate attempt to convince me to admit to misunderstanding what the warning he gave me was for. (If I do, the (long since archived!) warning I put on his talk page for having been abusive would be retractable.) But he won't take the time to do the edit to Earthquake prediction that he deceptively said he'd do. !?

Doug won't retract his false accusations, OR answer my questions, e.g.:

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

and yet gets pissy if I expect him to answer questions I've already asked before answering his. I wrote, "I have not said anything that actually showed I was confused or wrong about what the warning you misused is for; if you think I have, feel free to provide a diff/link." I guess Doug's reply and link were an attempt to show that I have. Well, it failed. Doug, if you want to understand why, look at each of the false accusations I point out that I feel you've made. Which of them do you admit to, and which do you not. If you cease trying to keep it a secret which ones you do or don't admit to, we can make some progress, and figurw out who actually misunderstands the warnings in question. Post particularly, see my reply to which Doug replied by falsely accusing me of "denying 2 reverts" when I had done no such thing. (link above.) I am SICK and TIRED of arguing with an admin who has done such a horrible job reading what I've written, that he's still making the same false accusations against me that I've refuted what feels like a million times.

Isn't there a term for someone who is psychologically incapable of admitting, even to themselves, that they've done something wrong? Me, can admit it if I do something wrong, and not have my brain explode. I admitted and clearly apologized when I felt I'd screwed up 5 days ago, and it hasn't killed me-and AFAIK, I hadn't even violated policy.

Also, I just discovered something! It looks like there are two clearly conflicting statements in policy - the ones I quoted and referenced (from WP:Reprimands) that clearly state that AN was the place for me to bring the dispute with JJ, and the one that, unfortunately, the folks beating me up at AN refused to quote or reference, but may have been thinking of. So there was policy clearly supporting my use of AN, and there's a conflict with other policy that I'll document and try to get addressed after the dust settles.

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

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

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

Request for Clarification

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

Climate Change sanctions/restrictions

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

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

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

Statement by Dougweller

Since I've been dragged into this I shall comment. Because a 3rd edit by Elvey had an automatic edit summary that said it was a revert, I gave him a 3RR template. His response was to template me for abuse of the 3RR template. Things spiraled downhill from there as I allowed his language to confuse me and although I apologised he didn't accept my apology. However, he never withdrew his accusation that I'd abused the template and indeed seems confused about the purpose of the template. I've asked him twice, once at AN and last night at his talk page about this. My post to his talk page says " I'd still like to know if you think a 3RR warning is meant to be given to an editor who has made 3 reverts or to an editor who has made more than 3 reverts. In the discussion about the 3RR warning I mistakenly gave you, you wrote[16] "I didn't break 3RR"(I never suggested you did) and "So even if I had violated 2RR <sic>, which I hadn't and you acknowledge I hadn't, you abused the template by using it to accuse me of edit warring." But that's wrong. If you'd "violated 2RR" ('violated' is a confusing word here as there is nothing to violate) you would be at 3RR and the template would have been appropriate - that's what it's for. Are we agreed on this?" My post was before his last response above. He hasn't responded to my question.

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

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

Statement by dave souza

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

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

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

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

It may be worth considering removing or striking notifications by non-admins, but looking at the discretionary sanctions page, it states that "{{Uw-sanctions}} can be used to satisfy the "Warning" provision of the discretionary sanctions process. A warning need not be issued by an administrator; see the template's documentation for further details." . dave souza, talk 17:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps simple wording under the heading could be "This section logs formal warnings by uninvolved administrators. Informal notification may be given on user talk pages by others, but should not be listed here." As an option, clerks could remove non-admin notifications and advise the user concerned of this rule. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement J. Johnson

I have added myself as a very much interested party.

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

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

Statement by Sandstein

The request by NewsAndEventsGuy is a bit confusing, but it raises the following questions:

Since 2011 the topic is subject to WP:AC/DS, which require "warnings". It is unclear under the wording of these procedures who may issue "warnings" - whether uninvolved administrators or all editors. It is similarly unclear who may log such warnings on the case page.
The "Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions" section of the case page has a subsection called "Notifications", even though no provision of the decision calls for "notifications" (instead, as mentioned above, "warnings" are required).

I recommend to resolve these questions by

clarifying the relevant wording of WP:AC/DS, and
standardizing the format, title etc. of the logging subsections of all DS case pages, which are rather diverse at the moment.

I understand that AGK (talk · contribs) is currently evaluating, pursuant to a now-archived clarification request by me, whether under DS, "warnings" should be replaced by "notifications" that do not presuppose misconduct. Sandstein 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

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

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

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

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

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

NewsAndEventsGuy: I have published a draft motion at User talk:AGK/DS, where you are welcome to submit your thoughts and comments. AGK [•] 23:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 245: / Line 245: @@
 ===Statement by The Devil's Advocate===
 Given that all these issues concern Sandstein's conduct and he was previously the subject of an arbitration request regarding his conduct at AE, which led to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling#Sandstein advised|an "advisement" about his actions there]], I think there should be serious consideration given to examining this editor's actions. He has become incredibly domineering over the process. The stuff he is doing at the Marek case is extremely unnecessary and confrontational, but he seems to think being an admin means he can just do whatever he likes there. I am honestly thinking about initiating some process against him because his current monopolization of the process is a problem when he conducts himself in such a fashion. Should Arbs here think it is enough concern, perhaps they could consider evicting him from the AE process without stripping Sandstein of his administrator status. I am certainly tempted to file an arbitration request against him because of what he is doing, but since this request is practically all about him I feel it can be settled here.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="vermillion">'''The Devil's Advocate'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="burntorange">tlk.</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Devil's Advocate|<font color="red">cntrb.</font>]]</sub> 03:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
+===Statement by Mathsci===
+The Devil's Advocate has intervened above to make a series of points which appear to be an all-out attack on Sandstein. They are unrelated to the procedural rules for [[WP:AE]] being discussed here.
+As such his statement should be disregarded.
+It was written in the heat of the moment shortly after reverting some of Sandstein's administrative edits at [[WP:AE]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=546832809] where I am also participating. After being warned, he launched into an outspoken personal attack on Sandstein,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&diff=prev&oldid=546920518][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&diff=prev&oldid=546943533] calling him an "officious little jerk" and  "petty tyrant".
+The purpose of this clarification request is not to examine Sandstein's  record as an administrator at [[WP:AE]], but to give general procedural guidance for enforcing sanctions or administering warnings.
+Given his animosity towards Sandstein, it was inappropriate for The Devil's Advocate to have exploited this opportunity to take potshots at Sandstein without justification. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 === Clerk notes ===