Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 02:56, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding 4

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Information about amendment request

• Finding 4
• Vacate this finding.

Finding 4 cites "letter and spirit of bot policy" (without, of course, quoting the policy) and gives four alleged examples, apparently supported by links.

1. running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([1]),
2. running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([2])
3. running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([3]),
4. running unapproved bot tasks ([4]).

Taking these in order:

1. There is no bot policy that says that high speed manual tasks need approval. In fact current WP:BOTPOL specifically says Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.
2. There is no bot policy that says that high volume manual tasks need approval. That would be absurd. People like the late lamented User:JimCubb who did such sterling work on the WP:Listas problem, our spelling fixers, like John of Reading, our stub-sorters like PamD, these are all working within policy, as indeed was I. The diff supposedly supporting this is just the opinion of CBM.
3. It is not the case that a task that is permitted automatically is prohibited manually. CBM has often stated that this is policy, but I have never seen this piece of folklore anywhere else than in this case and in comments by CBM.
4. It is a generally accepted principle that bots using AWB may perform "general fixes" at the same time. These are built-in to AWB and are carefully selected by the developers to be non-controversial and robust. One admin took exception to one of these fixes against consensus, and repeatedly blocked the bot. You can even see CBM confirming that he his happy with all the "general fixes" except the WP:IDONTLIKEIT change.

One line summary

Three of the four examples are clearly within policy. The fourth is within standard usage, and even so I went to great lengths to oblige CBM.

I have attempted to keep this short, so may have omitted something you think important. Please feel free to ask any questions, and I will do my best to answer them. I am happy to answer questions of opinion or fact, or even motivation.

Worm That Turned I have specifically focussed this requested amendment on facts, rather than opinion. The fact is that, whether there were issues with my editing or not, a matter I am quite happy to discuss, this finding blatantly misrepresents the Bot Policy of the time.

There is plenty more to damn this finding, for example the most recent evidence cited for 1) was 18 months old, for 3) was 2 1/2 years old, and for 4) was 2 years old.

Even if this related to, say civility, or copyvio, these would have been out-dated. For BOTPOL, it is far more so, the culture changed between 2009/2010 and 2012, and in response so did the behaviour of bot operators, my tools were re-built from the ground up to address or remove concerns that had been expressed. Moreover I adhered ever more strictly to the BOTPOL, possibly excessively so, for example BRFAs like[this one] were not needed under the exception that allows bots to edit their own subpages, or their owner's sub-pages without BAG approval.

In summary, without even resorting to the broader context, the drafting of a finding like this shows a complete lack of knowledge of the appropriate parts of wiki-culture from 2009-12, a lack of relevance, due to the untimely nature of the so-called "supporting evidence", and a complete failure to read or understand WP:BOTPOL. Continuing to support it when these flaws have been pointed out would be morally bankrupt.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

From those Arbitrators who have already commented, I would like to hear one compelling reason that lies about a living person are more acceptable on arbitration pages than on articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

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

• Rich, you're a good editor. You have a lot to give to the encyclopedia. However, I've spent too much time looking over this case over the past 2 years as an arbitrator. Quite simply, I agree with the outcome at the time. Roger Davies, you and I sat down and discussed the topic ban at Wikimania and it seems that nothing has changed since then. I've read over your request and don't agree that this remedy should be vacated - your automated editing was causing significant issues at the time. I'm sorry to see that you still don't accept that. Good luck with your other endeavours, Rich - I hope they serve you well. Worm^TT(talk) 11:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Rich. Dave has covered the ground here and it pretty much goes without saying that I concur. Best,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The vacating of old findings or remedies is unlikely here at this time, per the above. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Per above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There may come a time when this will be best for the project, and I will support then, but these restrictions are needed, per my colleagues. Oppose. AGK [•] 06:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be more willing to consider a specific request for a specific usecase, but especially as it stands these restrictions are necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by User:Rich Farmbrough at 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cases affected

• Ayn Rand arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Monty Hall problem arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Longevity arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Cold fusion 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Tree shaping arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Gibraltar arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Ayn Rand: Remedy 13
2. Monty Hall problem: Remedy 5
3. Longevity: Remedy 1
4. Cold fusion 2: (Remedy 10)
5. Tree shaping: Remedy 5
6. Gibraltar: Remedy 9

• Ayn Rand: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike the remedy

This remedy is stale. The only actions in the 3 years are a warning for disruption in 2013 (which could have been made anyway), and, in January, a 1 month topic ban of a dynamic IP account.

There was a severe edit war on Ayn Rand in October 2013. That's recent enough that I think this restriction is still needed as a reminder and as an enforcement tool for sysops in the area.--v/r - TP 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP was subject of an AE block in January, 2014 per the outcome of this WP:AN3 case. The IP is block evasion by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. Ayn Rand continues to be controversial so I recommend keeping the discretionary sanctions. Until April 2014 there was still a 1RR/week restriction in effect per the DS, but it was lifted. At present there should not be any continuing need for a 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

• Monty Hall problem: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike the remedy

These stale discretionary sanctions have never been used, indeed all the time based sanctions are long expired.

Although this remedy has not been "used" in the limited sense that no editors have been sanctioned under its provisions (as far as I know), the log of notifications shows an instance this year where, in my opinion, the fact of the article being under this sort of probationary status has been used to good effect.

That said, apart from heading off conduct so egregious that it might be sanctionable sooner or later even without provision for special discretion, I am not sure this remedy, or anything else within the committee's remit as generally understood, can do much to improve a situation that continues to see episodes of unproductive discussion. Standards of conduct and decorum are well and good, but do not prevent dancing round and round in circles without improving this formerly featured article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

• Longevity: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike the remedy

These stale discretionary sanctions have never been used.

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Not evident why discretionary sanctions were threatened years ago. Please strike.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cold fusion 2: Discretionary sanctions
• Remedy already superseded: however we should update table on {{Ds/topics}}

Note that this remedy was never invoked.

There has been continued disruptive editing, but I agree with User:Gaijin42 that this can rolled up under pseudoscience, as long as it is clear that the intent is only to roll it up, not to strike the remedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it would be covered by the pseudoscience case. So sure, nuke this one to clean up some record keeping, but it doesn't really change the editing environment for the article/topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic area was subject to enough disruption to require a full case resulting in its own specific sanctions years after the pseudoscience ruling had been put into effect. This was partly because a number of editors were of the opinion that cold fusion does not fall within the scope of pseudoscience (and the argument on that meta-topic was interminable.) If the current, specific ruling that Cold Fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions goes away, I think that a very clear, citeable statement by Arbcom that this topic is subject to sanctions under the pseudoscience umbrella would be necessary to avoid a repeat of this history. --Noren (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough is mistaken that this remedy was never invoked, see for example [5] and [6]. It was made more difficult to find these invocations because the name of the case has been retroactively changed and the logging of enforcement has been moved to merge with the older pseudoscience case.--Noren (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per a 15 Nov 2012 Arbcom motion, enforcement of Cold Fusion remedies is consolidated with Pseudoscience. This tells admins that problematic editing of Cold Fusion can be processed as though it were an WP:ARBPS violation. It's fine that enforcement was redirected to another case, but if Cold Fusion is dropped then we will be back to square one whenever CF problems occur. So I agree with Noren's advice about this and would oppose removing the Cold Fusion remedy. To understand what the 2012 motion was trying to do you should read the comments by User:T. Canens at the bottom of the discussion section, below the votes. It seems that cold fusion and homeopathy were both rolled into pseudoscience. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

• Tree shaping: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike remedy.

Note that this remedy was never invoked apart form two warnings in 2011.

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

• Gibraltar: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike the remedy

This remedy is stale, no action has been taken since 2011.

I issued a 0RR restriction on Operation Flavius for an editor in February this year. I did this under the WP:TROUBLES case, but I could equally have used the DS authorised for the Gibraltar topic area instead (the article is about a military action against IRA members on Gibraltar). Obviously if DS had been repealed for Gibraltar then I could still have issued this sanction under The Troubles. I don't remember at this distance whether the focus of this editor was Gibraltar or The Troubles though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

The proliferation of areas under discretionary sanctions (in addition to other forms of sanction) makes editing Wikipedia both more complex and trouble prone for all editors, but especially new editors. It makes sense to remove obsolete sanctions, and obsolete notices (indeed I removed obsolete notices from 56 of the 136 articles listed under "Community probation" only the other day).

None of these areas seem to have been significantly troubled since the case, and certainly not in a way where DS would be required to resolve them.

I would hope that none of these requested amendments would be controversial, but if one or more are I would welcome as an alternative, suspension of those sanctions for a year, with a view to striking them.

@Timotheus Canens: I certainly never implied that Pseudo-science sanction should have an exemption for cold fusion. I would be interested to know where you got such an idea. In this case we simply do not need any special note about it, its standing is simply as part of pseudo-science.

I have left a message on the main article talk pages for these topic areas (Talk:Ayn Rand, Talk:Monty Hall problem, Talk:Longevity, Talk:Tree shaping and Talk:Gibraltar) advising editors there of this amendment request and asking for any comments about the proposal to be left here. I haven't left messages on any deeper pages (e.g. Talk:History of Gibraltar) as I don't know how to define the set of which pages have the DS template on that are relevant to these cases, and I'd be here all day if I tried to do that manually. Anyone else is of course free to do so.

I suggest waiting a few days to allow for any such comments before actioning (or not) these amendments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the cold fusion topic area is removed from the scope of the pseudoscience DS authorisation, then this should be explicitly noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions as well as on the Cold Fusion 2 case page. I also note that the pseudoscience DS are authorised for "articles" rather than "pages", arbitrators may wish to consider amending that similarly to the motion last month.

And, off topic for this request but while I'm here, I asked for clarification of a BASC decision the other day at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cookiecutteramaru's topic ban (where the BASC decision page told me to ask), but this appears to have slipped under the radar. Thryduulf (talk)

This request is such a mess that I don't even know where to put my comment... This entire request should be thrown out as out of process. This combines a huge variety of unrelated cases, effectively massing a herd of buffalo, making examination of each individual specimen impractical. For example, I don't think the Gibraltar remedies should be altered or softened at all. What does that have to do with the Monty Hall case? Just toss this entire request and let the proposer start over, one at a time, if there is an actual need for such alterations (which I doubt). Carrite (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the premise of this amendment request is fundamentally flawed. Remedies don't necessarily lose value because they're not actively invoked. That's all that has been researched below by Beeblebrox, whether they were actively invoked. I'm not too familiar with any of the ArbCom cases touched by this list of amendment proposals. I'm more familiar with e.g. the two Prem Rawat Arbcom cases: my experience there is that one doesn't have to invoke a remedy explicitly to demonstrate its value. Example, undoing this edit part of my edit summary read "...read templates on top of the talk page too, please", referring to the sensitivity of the topic in general, without naming any ArbCom case or remedy in particular.

I'm convinced that toning down the remedies has no advantage: when editors behave reasonably with the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind such remedies are not bothering anyone either.

At least a possibility to re-instate remedies easily if this proves necessesary needs to be built in in the amendment proposal.

Further I want to remark to ArbCom members you'd be sanctioning one of Rich Farmbrough's "mass" operations here, specifically what should still be a red flag, see #Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.

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

• I remember (some in more detail than others) the arbitration cases that led to discretionary sanctions being authorized in these areas. Basically, we authorize DS in a topic-area where there has been disruptive editing by several (not just one or two) editors in a topic-area, and there is a likelihood of continued disruptive editing in the future. I accept, without having checked, Rich's statement that these topic-areas have not been edited disruptively for some time. The question then is, is that likely to continue if we lift the DS. In some areas it probably is, if the specific editors who were editing problematically have moved on (and no one has replaced them in that regard), or if the real-world cause of editing disputes on an article has disappeared (although I don't think that would apply here). I would certainly be open to lifting DS on a topic-area if the active editors in the topic-area told us that they thought DS was no longer necessary and was dampening the editing environment. I'm not as sure whether we want to adopt a presumption of "if DS were authorized awhile ago and the topic is calm now, we will lift the DS based on the passage of time as a housekeeping matter." I ask my colleagues who were active in the DS review a couple of months ago if this issue was discussed then and in any event what their thoughts are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The relevant principle was briefly discussed here and then added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Authorisation, which now reads [w]hen it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary for a particular area of conflict, only the committee may rescind the authorisation of them, either at the request of any editor at ARCA or of its own initiative. I'd say this is the case here and would support a motion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally speaking, if disruptive behavior has settled down in an area and is not likely to resume, I'm in favor of removing discretionary sanctions from them. There are some areas that will probably always remain "hot" and there's little likelihood of that happening, but in these, it looks like things have cooled off quite a lot. We could always leave open the possibility of restoring sanctions by motion if significant disruption resumes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree that it is not desirable to have sanctions in place when there have been no recent problems and would likely support motions to remove them from these areas once we have confirmed Rich's findings. (Not saying I don't believe him, it's just best practice to double-check such things). Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on Beeblebrox's #Analysis, I would support a motion to de-authorise discretionary sanctions for these topic areas. AGK [•] 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also support such a motion. Thank you Beeblebrox for that analysis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Pseudoscience and fringe science except cold fusion" as a discretionary sanctions area makes little sense, so I'm opposed to carving out a special exemption for CF. I'm open to a motion lifting the remainder per Beeblebrox's analysis. T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with my colleagues. Unless someone else beats to me, I'll draft a motion wrapping up he various loose ends on this tomorrow. Thanks to Rich Farmbrough for bringing this to us. And it's good to see the obsolescence provision in the new DS procedure been used properly.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per above, Thryduulf has posted about this request on the talkpages of the lead articles in the various topic-areas, to give the editors and admins active in the topics notice that this is being considered. (I thank him for doing so.) We might just want to wait a few more days before voting on a motion to see if we get any further input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

I am adding this section for point-by-point analysis of each request, this should help inform how we proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ayn Rand

Arb enforcement actions

3 users blocked in 2009, 1 in 2013, 1 January of this year

Article placed under 1RR from October 2013 to April this year

Recent article history

On the main article on Rand herself: minor editorial conflicts continue, nothing recent beyond what one would expect in an article on such a polarizing figure, nothing particularly nasty on talk page, seems fairly civil

The articles on objectivism and her novels seem fairly quiet

• Monty Hall Problem

Arb enforcement actions

1 user blocked in 2011, 1IP used by that same user blocked in 2012

Recent article history

minor editorial disputes continue, there was a recent discussion the talk page last month that turned more personal than it should have, but the article itself is not experiencing serious disruption.

• Longevity

Arb enforcement actions

Numerous warnings handed out right after the case closed n 2011, one user blocked for violating their topic ban, DS appears to have never been invoked

Recent article history

Main article appears free of conflict. No substantive discussion on talk page between announcement of DS in 2011 and a note directing users to this request a few days ago

Checked several related articles, some subject to simple vandalism, no serious editorial disputes

• Cold fusion 2

Arb enforcement actions

Numerous blocks in 2011, all of the same user who was subsequently community banned that same year

Please note this sanction was already Superseded by motion, 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC). See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. So the discussion is not whether we should vacate the original sanction but rather whether it should be removed from the umbrella of the pseudoscience DS.

However, there do not appear to be any notes in the enforcement logs that directly relate to cold fusion.

Recent article history

Talk page is quite active (47 archives!) but discussion is mostly civil and the article itself is fairly stable and free of major editorial disputes

• Tree shaping

Arb enforcement actions

Three warnings in 2011, no blocks or bans

Recent article history

Pleasantly surprised to see that several users subject to now-expired individual sanctions in the original case having civil, collaborative discussions on talk page, no serious disruption of article content for some time.

• Gibraltar

Arb enforcement actions

Several warnings and individual sanctions applied in 2010-2011, all long since expired

no logged blocks or bans

Note that this is one of the decisions whose wording was modified by the committee last month, though that should not have any impact on the matter in front of us today

Recent article history

Main article and talk page appear free of prolonged, tendentious disputes, nothing beyond what one would expect for any article on a country

The entire history of an oft-disputed territory, broadly construed is an awful lot of material. Checked a sample of related pages and found no significant disruption of content.

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I've copyedited the motion to bring in the Homeopathy case, which is in the same position as Cold Fusion 2 and aded a change in wording for the Pseudoscience remedy ("articles" to "pages") for consistency with everything else. I also made a small change to the preamble. Thanks to Tim for pointing these out. Please revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. And thanks for adding point #8, i think that's a fine idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks. It's #9 now, with Brad's changes.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Let's get rid of this cruft, it's no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. I have taken the liberty of adding the second sentence of #7, and a new #8 (old #8 becomes #9). Any arbitrator can revert if these changes aren't desired, but if there is consensus for them, I think this is easier than adding another motion. I also made a minor copyedit to #4, and copyedited the introductory clause so it will be independently comprehensible when the motion is posted to the noticeboards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. AGK [•] 06:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 08:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. T. Canens (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. LFaraone 23:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Initiated by Xenophrenic (talk) at 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7.1 (topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed)
2. Remedy 7.2 (prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect anywhere on Wikipedia)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Collect (diff of notification of this thread on Collect's talk page)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Xenophrenic_topic-banned
• Request for the lifting of Arbitration remedies 7.1 and 7.2 as no longer necessary.

The Arbitration Committee imposed upon me a topic ban and a one-way interaction ban on 5 September 2013, with instructions that I may appeal to ArbCom after 6 months. Now that 14 months have passed, I am requesting that the bans be lifted as no longer necessary, and an undue burden. The "Finding of Fact" about me indicates the Arbs perceived some problems with my Talk page interaction with other Wikipedia editors. I "personalized" the discussions by stubbornly demanding that editors substantiate certain negative personal comments about me, even to the point of "edit warring over comments that negatively portray" me, and "thereby further increasing tension" as I repeatedly deleted those comments and replaced them with {{rpa}} templates. I agree that my conduct was substandard. I have since grown thicker skin and changed the way I respond to those situations -- with the best response often being for me to just ignore it and get back to collaborative editing. I apologize to the Arbs, the clerks and the community for their wasted time and energy due to my part in this matter, and extend my assurance that I won't repeat that conduct. With regard to User:Collect, I "engaged in unnecessary mockery" of his use of Cheers by responding with Where everybody knows your name. I've ceased that response as well, but more to the larger point, I have and will continue to refrain from unnecessary mockery of editors. And Collect: Please accept my apology.

In addition to being no longer necessary, these two remedies are becoming increasingly burdensome. I frequently find myself having to play Six Broadly Construed Degrees of Separation whenever I see the words 'Tea' and 'Party' somewhere in an article I wish to edit or discuss. (Example: while typing a question to Newyorkbrad in response to his comment, I discovered he was talking about a lawsuit drafted by a Tea Party activist, so I had to hold my tongue, lest someone twist that into a topic ban violation.) See this discussion for an example of how reasonable people can completely disagree on what is "related to" the Tea Party; there are 1000s of articles linked to Tea Party. It is cumbersome to "not interact with" an editor after they revert your edits and open a Request for Comment(RfC) on those very edits, while still trying to communicate on the Talk page. More examples upon request.

I'm up against the word-limit now, but if there are any reservations about lifting the sanctions, I can strengthen my request by providing details on:

• (Good behavior) -how every editor sanctioned in this ArbCom case 14 months ago, except me (and Snowded), has since received additional Blocks, Bans, ArbCom sanctions, or violated existing sanctions
• (Topic relevance) -how the FoF evidence for me described an editor-interaction problem not specifically related to the TPm "topic" or subject matter, unlike many of the other FoFs describing problems related to topic content, sources and POV

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I'll leave you with these wise words on I-BANs, with which I happen to agree. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First - this is a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other.

• Response to Collect: Either I was unclear, or you have misunderstood. I make no complaint against you here; I have no issue with you here. To the contrary, for more than 14 months there has been only productive discourse whenever you and I have crossed paths at noticeboards and Talk pages. I only provided diffs to the Infobox RfC example above to illustrate the contortions I must go through in order to respond to your direct interaction with me while "not interacting with you". It would be so much easier to just converse normally with you, rather than talk past you while pretending you aren't part of the discussion, as I try to convey my thoughts to you within the constraints of a one-way I-Ban. Given that I am already constrained by Wikipedia's policies on civility and collaboration, and you now have my assurance I won't transgress again, and you can rest assured that repeated transgression will likely result in doubly swift and harsh penalties, what utility do you see in maintaining the I-Ban?

• Response to Thargor Orlando: Thank you, um... I think? I agree with you on your two points: my edits weren't "problematic the way other editors' edits were", and you'll find no evidence that I've "continued that behavior". I agree, and that is why I am now asking to have the sanctions lifted. I must strongly disagree, however, with your assertion that I have not kept away from Tea Party-related articles. Looking at the 5 diffs you provided, the first three articles have no mention of the Tea Party at all. The remaining two articles do briefly mention the Tea Party in sections near the end of the articles, unbeknownst to me, but the subjects of those articles are the farthest thing from "related to" the Tea Party. And there was no obvious indication that I should search for TP references buried in those two biographies while I was rapidly making minor tweaks to infobox templates in a batch of biographies. Had I known that the words "Tea Party" existed in those two articles, I most certainly would have requested clarification here, as I have in the past. Your examples perfectly highlight my point that reasonable people can disagree on what is "related to" Tea Party articles, and the burden such a topic ban imposes.

• Thargor Orlando, why must it be either/or? I believe ArbCom wanted both (to keep me away from Tea Party content and that I demonstrate non-disruptive interaction), and I have conducted myself accordingly. I still frequent contentious subject matter involving politics, religion, war, conspiracy — all the hot spots — but without incident over 14 months. I also feel I have exercised an abundance of caution in avoiding TPm-related content. I can't count how many articles and discussions I've avoided because of the topic ban, and I've even refrained from pestering the Committee with what could have been almost daily clarification requests, opting instead simply to edit elsewhere. Even in this specific case, where the Arbiter who authored the topic ban (who better knows its intent?) gave me the green light to continue editing an article containing "Tea Party" text, I opted to take onboard the advice of others and ceased editing that article. I believe I've taken proper care in complying with the intent and spirit of the topic ban, your two examples containing Tea Party text notwithstanding.

• @Seraphimblade: If it will grease the wheels in this process, and satisfy Collect, I can return here in 49 days and resubmit my request to have the I-Ban lifted. I admit I still do not understand the reasoning behind the requested delay, but at this point ... whatever works to bring closure to the matter.

I would be fully unaffected by this amendment, as I have no sanctions extant under the Tea Party Movement case. My appeal to Jimbo has met with absolutely no response, but we are well past the six month mark making this amendment request totally moot. The one way interaction ban should be carefully weighed - I have not interacted with Xenophrenic at any point, and would just as soon have him continued to be constrained. Collect (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am, moreover, aghast that the common use in infoboxes to include degrees received is what his major complaint appears to be. There was, in fact, a discussion on the template page, as I trust he is aware, and he appeared to be in full accord with the solution, so I do not know what his issue with me is here. Collect (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to people who note my belief that 1 way bans should be of specified duration - I still hold that view. I do not understand why my position here that the single 1 way ban should not be abrogated at this point is of any dispute, though I would think that making it for a specified period as MastCell notes would not be amiss. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic I would suggest that a "date certain" to end the iban is in accord with my consistent positions on such bans, and think perhaps setting it at 1 January 2015 would not be unduly burdensome. I further note that I have never had any "enemies list" to stalk or make derogatory comments about on Wikipedia, though I will grant some of your older posts did vex me a tad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}[reply]

My position has always been that 1 way Ibans should have a defined term, at least to the best of my recollection, and the charge of "hypocrisy" is painful. The case presented, however, seeks two distinct and basically unrelated changes to the ArbCom sanctions, thus separating the two seemed to me to be rational. Setting a time certain is rational, but tying it to this request is quite imperfect. One should note that I have, as far as I can tell, been civil to Xenophrenic, and have not made any edits with any intent other than benefitting the project. This would leave the sole issue the actual TPm topic ban, for which I proffer no opinion. Nor did I proffer evidence against any editor in the TPm case, and the "findings" against me were drafted by an Arbitrator using diffs not presented by anyone other than the single arbitrator. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the initial clarification before, so I'm commenting to note that, while I haven't had any further encounters with Xenophrenic since then, others certainly have and probably didn't notice that he was under sanction, given that even in the last few months he has edits to sanction-related articles like Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [7], Efforts to impeach Barack Obama [8], United States House of Representatives v. Obama [9], Van Jones [10], and Alan Grayson [11] (and this is using a fairly narrow standard of "broadly construed." If the topic ban is about keeping him from engaging in incivility on these pages, I'm unaware of any evidence that he's continued that behavior. If the topic ban, however, was to keep him away from Tea Party-related articles, he has very clearly not done so. I have no interest in stalking his edits to keep him in line, but the result of this appeal should really be about the intent of the topic ban, especially as his edits, at first glance, do not appear to be problematic the way other editors' edits were. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic:, and that's all my point is: if the idea is to keep you away from Tea Party-related articles, and you're not taking the proper care in making sure you're doing so, then this amendment should be denied. If the point was to demonstrate that you can actually be civil and not disruptive with those you disagree with on contentious articles, then I agree with you. It's all about what ArbCom was trying to accomplish. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has previously been very vocal and consistent in his belief that one-way interaction bans are unfair and useless:

• "One-way interaction bans have never made a great deal of sense, and continue to make little sense. I rather believe I have said this in the past... but the fact remains - one way bans are an open invitation to see Game theory at work. All one way bans should simply be made mutual by motion." (edit summary: "one way bans have never worked").
• "as noted frequently (including just above on this noticeboard) - such bans (one-way interaction bans) do not work."
• "the idea of a '1 way ban' has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other."
• (Basically a reiteration of the preceding comment)
• "One way interaction bans are problematic at best... I commend editors to read the ArbCom discussions thereon, and see how poorly the 'one way bans' work in general."

In light of Collect's vehement opposition to one-way interaction bans, I find his support for continuing such a ban here puzzling. I'm not sure it has any bearing on whether Xenophrenic's interaction ban should be lifted (it probably should, on a trial basis and on the basis of good behavior, particularly as the 1-way ban allows Collect to revert him with impunity). It's more that, having now spent more than 8 years on Wikipedia, my patience with hypocrisy is pretty much depleted and I find it difficult to ignore. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Collect: if I'm understanding you correctly, you would object to the IBAN being lifted at this time, but would not object to ending it as of 1 January? I'm not clear on what difference having it run for an extra month and a half would make? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would grant this petition. AGK [•] 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm okay with both the t-ban and the i-ban going. Perhaps the way forward is that both are suspended immediately and if there are no problem with either by the end of the year, they both expire on 31st December. If there's enthusaism for this, I'll propose a suitably convoluted motion,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Per above colleagues. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think lifting both bans makes sense. I have no strong opinion on when or exactly how the bans are lifted, but I don't see much point in saying that we will lift them, and then imposing some odd time limit or suspension/expiration plan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

WP:AC/DS

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)
• 41.223.50.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)

Today, John Vandenberg, an administrator, alerted me about the discretionary sanctions applying to the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this as a "notification" on the case page, which he later changed to a "warning". Judging by an earlier comment, he did so to register his disapproval of my speedy deletion of an article created by a sock of a banned user. After I removed the alert after having read it, it was immediately reinstated by an anonymous user, 41.223.50.67.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts the purpose of such alerts is to advise an editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I am and have been active as an administrator by issuing discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and am therefore perfectly aware of the existence of these sanctions, as John Vandenberg confirmed he knew. The alert therefore served no procedure-based purpose. This also applies to the unneeded logging on the case page: Unlike earlier notifications, alerts are not logged on a case page because they can be searched for with an edit filter. John Vandenberg knew this because he used the correct alert template as provided for in WP:AC/DS.

It therefore appears that John Vandenberg used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that he misused the alerts procedure to mark his disapproval of a deletion I made and to deter me from making further admin actions in this area with which he disagrees. That is disruptive because this is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. It is also disruptive because it has had the effect, whether intended or not, to create the incorrect impression in another administrator that I am disqualified from acting as an admin in this topic area because I received this alert.

To the extent the now-"warning" is meant as a sanction in and of itself, it is meritless and disruptive: The speedy deletion I made was compliant with WP:CSD#G5, and does not conflict with the prior AfD because the ban evasion issue was not considered there. Any concerns about this deletion should have been discussed at deletion review.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". Nobody other than the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue such sanctions. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify that alerts should not be used for any other than their intended purpose, and to take such actions (e.g., issuing a warning) as it deems appropriate to ensure that John Vandenberg will not continue to issue alerts disruptively. By way of appeal of discretionary sanctions, I also ask the Committee to remove the "warning" from the log as being without merit.

Prior to making this request, I discussed the issue with John Vandenberg, but we failed to reach an understanding, and he invited me to submit this matter to this forum for review.  Sandstein  16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand John Vandenberg's contention that I used admin tools while involved. I have never interacted with "Polandball" or related pages or users editorially, but only in an administrative capacity. Per WP:INVOLVED, such continued administrative activity does not speak to bias (even if others may not agree with the admin actions), but is instead merely part of an admin's job. John Vandenberg's casting of unfounded aspersions of misusing admin tools and of "battleground mentality" is also disruptive. As I said elsewhere, I did fail to take into consideration that my alerting the user who filed a DRV request concerning an AfD I closed might be perceived as an improperly adversarial action, even though an alert is not supposed to be one and I didn't oppose the restoration of the article proposed at DRV. I'll keep this in mind in a similar future situation. Nonetheless, because alerts may be issued by anyone, including involved users, the alert raises no question of involvement.

As concerns the "warning", either it is meant as a discretionary sanction for misconduct (as the warning by me he cites was) and in this case is appealed here as meritless and disruptive, or it is not and has therefore no place in a log under the new procedures.  Sandstein  18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Vandenberg: Alerts are not admin actions because they neither require advanced permissions nor are they restricted to administrators. But neither are they editorial actions that speak to bias and would disqualify an admin that issues them, because they are intended to be neutral and informative in nature. Are you seriously contending that merely issuing an alert makes me involved and unable to act as an administrator, and on that basis you alerted and warned me? It should be obvious that this can't be the case, if only because by that logic your own warning would be inadmissible because it was preceded by your alert which would have disqualified you from acting further.

This episode indicates, to me, that this whole alerts system is unworkably cludgy and may need to be scrapped if even former arbitrators can't understand it, and that perhaps general clarification is needed that discretionary sanctions and alerts are, shall we we say, not the ideal way to respond to concerns about admin actions - such concerns are normally a matter for the Committee alone.  Sandstein  21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, Sandstein is obviously 'WP:INVOLVED' in the current DRV about Polandball, however not surprisingly he claims to be uninvolved. To quickly recap, he is the admin who deleted the article at DRV; when notified of the DRV, he decided to issue a DS alert to the person who initiated the DRV, and speedy delete another related article which had survived an AFD and was mentioned on the current DRV. When User:Nick undid the speedy deletion, Sandstein also demanded that Nick redelete it. IMO, this is fairly clear battleground mentality, only including the use of admin buttons for good measure. All quite unnecessary, as a sizable chunk of the community would participate in the DRV, so his voice there would be heard. It is very strange logic that Sandstein felt he had to alert user:Josve05a about discretionary sanctions, but objects to me feeling the same way about his own editing/admining in this topical area. He claims his alert to user:Josve05a was not an admin action (otherwise he would surely run afoul of 'WP:INVOLVED'), but then cant see he is participating as a normal contributor. Maybe he considers a DS alert to be a friendly chat, when he gives one to someone else ...

Anyway, the nature of this clarification is the use of alerts and the logging of them on case pages. Obviously some serious saber rattling would have quickly occurred had I sanctioned Sandstein, so I went with an alert only with a stern message with the hope he could see how others were viewing it. He didnt; he continued to post aggressively. When I found the right DS alert template and posted it, the edit filter notice reminded me to check if he had been notified any time in the last 12 months, and press Save again if I was sure it had not occurred. As I didnt find any prior notices (in edit filter log or on talk page archives), I proceeded to save the alert. I then went to the relevant arbcase to log it as is the usual procedure. I knew DS had been standardised earlier this year, and was pleasantly surprised by the edit filter logging, but it didnt occur to me that alerts would not be logged. The arbcase log for the EE case had all the signs of logging being part of the standard procedure.

Since Sandstein objected to the logging, I went and had a look at other cases and found quite a few examples of the log including notifications and warnings; I did offer to give Sandstein examples of such notices and warnings, but we are here now. Here are the ones that I've quickly found in arbcom case logs since April 2014.

• notice by user:JHunterJ - April
• warning by user:Callanecc - May 2014
• warning & alert - user:Tom Reedy - June 2014
• warning by .. Sandstein .. - July 2014
• alert by user:Drmies - August 2014
• caution by user:HJ Mitchell - September 2014
• warning by user:EdJohnston - September 2014

If it is no longer appropriate to log alerts/notices/warnings on the arbcom case, an edit filter should be added to ensure admins are aware of this change. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, when you put a notice on user talk:Josve05a, were you doing that as an admin or as a normal user? If it was the "editor Sandstein" who popped that friendly note on user talk:Josve05a, and not the "admin Sandstein", can't you see that you've become INVOLVED? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, so you issued a DS alert to user talk:Josve05a with your "editor Sandstein" hat on, and you want admins to be exempt from discretionary sanctions? Thanks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing to add to the clarification and amendment section, but I will state, as I have repeatedly said, I'm really getting fed up watching good content be deleted and destroyed as a result of battleground mentality. It genuinely makes me sad watching material that people have put their heart and soul into, being deleted because it was written by this week's bogeyman. Nick (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise. The CSD-G5 criteria cannot be used on any page that has survived a deletion discussion (AfD). The CSD-G5 deletion by Sandstein was out of process. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions for further information. Regards, Nick (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the DS alert is going to be used without a sting it has to be used for everyone all the time. Its common for editors to know an article is under DS, but this isn't something one can assume. Of course, the use of the alert can been abused and can be seen as threatening. Use that is universal will over time render the warning as commonplace and standard, will de sting. Whether it was used in this instance as an implied threat, I don't know or care. Behind many of the actions I've seen against editors over the years are threats, some so complex as to be almost invisible. I know how that feels, so am not condoning anything that threatens but unless we deal with the surface level of an action and ignore assumption we will never get to supportive editing situations.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• DS alerts may be placed by any editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

One of the goals of the recent reforms which turned "warnings" to "alerts" was to remove the stigma of the warning/alert. Apparently, that stigma is alive and well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a "warning" is an administrative function. Its only purpose is administration of the website. No, a User does not have to have privileges to do much of administration on Wikipedia. The idea is anathema to the community, which expects good users to administer, even to requiring such at RfAdmin, moreover, the website would not function, if users did not step up. So no, giving a warning does not mean one is INVOLVED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Vandenberg's actions in this case are wrong on so many levels at once it's hard to know where to start. About his technical misunderstanding of the nature of alerts and the non-logging of "warnings", I think all has been said. More importantly, his warning was wrong on its merits. As for the speedying of Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (the only issue he actually mentioned in the warning), Sandstein was processing a valid G5 speedy; the fact that there had been an earlier "keep" AfD is obviously irrelevant as long as the facts justifying the speedy weren't known and discussed during the AfD. As for Sandstein's actions in the Polandball issue, which seems to be what John Vandenberg is really more concerned about, the claim that he was showing an inadmissable battleground attitude is utter nonsense when you look at his actual, very measured and balanced, comments in that DRV. Finally, the "warning", whether logged or not, was also out of process. A "warning" under DS means that I, an administrator, will hand out a block or topic ban to you, the person I am warning, if you repeat the behaviour I am warning you over. Does John Vandenberg seriously believe he would be entitled to block Sandstein if he did a G5 speedy like this again in the future? That beggars belief. Even if John Vandenberg had legitimate reasons to be concerned over Sandstein's actions, then his recourse would be not to impose "sanctions" on him, but to ask Arbcom to review Sandstein's actions; that, however, is not in any way inside the scope of what the DS are about, and therefore also doesn't belong in the DS logs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request is eerily similar to this one made some time ago, where four editors were given "civility warnings" by Sandstein, apparently at random. The result of the clarification request was a delinking of the four names in the ARBATC case page. If any action other than delinking is recommended for the current situation, it would only be reasonable to revisit the other situation as well. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• When I get back from a trip on Monday, I will wade into the technicalities here. For now, I will simply note that Russavia is surely laughing his ass off at the drama he is causing here without even trying. Let's all try not to give him more reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent the past half hour or so reading over the back-story to this request, and perhaps I am in the advanced stages of serving out my last term as an arbitrator, but I really wish I hadn't. Let's back up a step. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality encyclopedia, in an environment of collaboration and community among the contributors." The entire administrative apparatus, including "discretionary sanctions" and the arbitration process and the other WP: pages where some of us spend too much of our wikitime, is ancillary to the objectives of Wikipedia that brought us all here. Debating the rules of these administrative processes should not become, in intent or in effect, an end in itself. Put differently, if the bickering about the rule-sets governing administrative processes on Wikipedia has become more complicated than some of the real-world rule-sets that I interpret every day as a litigation attorney, something is wrong. The dispute, or set of disputes, crystalized in this request is so many levels removed from the purpose and objectives of Wikipedia that it is sad. Beyond that, I will leave sorting out the fine points here to my colleagues who were more active in the DS recodification project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? I do not think it fair to say that anyone in this request is requesting clarification with non-constructive motives. These editors have a legitimate need of a ruling here, and you cannot legitimately refuse to be understanding of that and still expect the project's administrators to do their job. AGK [•] 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There is an alarming failure here to grasp the distinction between the two relevant procedural entities. Cautions or warnings are sanctions and need logged; alerts (previously known as notices) are not sanctions and carry no implicit accusation of guilt. These two used to be more or less the same thing. In the recent update of procedures, they were split off and it is wrong to interchange them. John Vandenberg needs to decide whether he wanted to caution and sanction Sandstein (it appears he did) or alert him. If it is the former, he should issue Sandstein with a hand-written caution (and delete the alert template, which he may not use for that purpose). If it is the latter, Sandstein is already aware per point II of the relevant procedure and he must not attempt to 're-alert' him. I accept JV's claim that he was not aware of the changes in procedure, but I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes. If you do not, you can be sanctioned by the committee, and given that this process is hardly in its infancy you are likely to find the committee exercises this right.

  On the complaint of JV about Sandstein, my position is that it cannot be heard in this venue. With the procedural confusion clarified (not that there should have been any in the first place), I suggest JV take this complaint up, perhaps with a handful of other administrators, directly with Sandstein. Neither party appears to have made an adequate effort to resolve this together, despite, as administrators, being obliged to do so. Should those attempts prove futile, a proper case request should then be filed. AGK [•] 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I essentially agree with AGK. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with AGK. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As do I. Worm^TT(talk) 08:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And I. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I do as well but it's frustrating the amount of time I had to spend, back several months ago, to get a solid grasp of how this system works. Brad makes a point: the system is quite complicated, and has become a bit of a self-contained beast. While I was able to pick it up, I'm afraid it would simply be incredibly daunting for any new user to navigate. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• AGK summarises things well but makes one key mis-step. He asks that: "I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes." The response by NativeForeigner and NYB show that the estimate of 'five minutes' to update oneself on these changes is a woeful underestimate. What is needed here is some feedback from newer admins on how easy it is to understand the system as it currently stands. It is also incredibly important that ordinary editors, especially those potentially facing sanctions, find the system easy to use. If the system fails that test, then it will be unfit for purpose. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carcharoth: DS is easy to understand, because we put months of effort into writing polished, clear documentation for it. NYB and NF are not good test cases: while voting earlier this year, they had to get to grips with both the new system and the changes made from the old system. Current administrators merely need to read and follow WP:AC/DS.

  More to the point, the new system is working. Let us leave it at that. AGK [•] 06:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

I don't know how to structure this thing, so I'll just lay out a summary here: It has now been close to a year since an interaction ban was imposed between me and The Rambling Man. Likewise between Medeis and The Rambling Man. There have been several breaches of the IBAN as it's defined, but there has been no will to enforce it. So I would like to ask for either an immediate vacate of the IBAN, or at least a finite end to it, for example maybe on the anniversary of when it was imposed. My path almost never crosses TRM's, and when he takes verbal shots at us on the reference desk (which is where all this started in the first place), my usual approach is to ignore it. Medeis and TRM's situation is much touchier, as they both work at the "In The News" page, and several complaints have been lodged about that (with no action taken). So I can't give you any good advice on how to handle that case, that's up to you all. I would just like my own IBAN rescinded (both directions, of course) so that I don't feel like I have a sword hanging over my head. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OR, at least amended so that I can report facts without fear of reprisal. That might be the better option, as I really have ZERO interest in directly interacting with that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I've notified The Rambling Man of this request. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]