Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) at 13:36, 10 December 2014 (→‎Civility enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion: expand. thanks for the spot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Civility enforcement none (orig. case) 4 December 2014
Clarification request and appeal: Discretionary sanctions alerts none none 1 November 2014

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!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. 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.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

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
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

Amendment request: Civility enforcement

Initiated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 09:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Civility enforcement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 1
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • Self, no confirmation needed
Information about amendment request

Statement by Hawkeye7

As of December 2014, I have contributed to 39 Featured Articles, a featured list, 75 A class articles, 178 Good Articles, and 163 DYK articles. I have been active as a MILHIST administrator, being re-elected to a fourth term in September 2014. In this capacity I have assessed articles, closed A class reviews, and written articles and reviews for the MILHIST newsletter. I assist at DYK with reviews and assembly of the prep areas. I have also written and maintained the MilHistBot and FACBot used by the featured article and MILHIST A-class article processes, and for updating the MILHIST announcements page. I was runner up in the WikiCup in 2013.

I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Paralympic Committee. I was instructor in four Wikimedia Australia workshops, and an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012, where I filed stories and interviews for Wikinews, and worked on keeping the Paralympic articles up to the minute. Since then I have continued expanding the Paralympic articles, particularly relating to wheelchair basketball and rugby, and the games in Sochi in 2014. I attended Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013 on a scholarship from the Wikimedia Foundation. I also ran, albeit unsuccessfully, for the post of president of our Australian chapter.

In all of these activities, the loss of my admin tool set has been keenly felt. It is embarrassing to have to file constant requests for admin assistance, and painful to watch DYK run late because I cannot reset the queues. I am not seeking to have my admin status returned; merely to be restored to being a editor in good standing with the community by having the verdict against me vacated. Per WP:CLOUD: exceptions may exist in some cases, for example reinstatement may be by Arbcom appeal or perhaps consensus was reached to leave the matter a particular way at the time. This often happens in cases where passage of time is needed to decide what is fair, where demanding reaffirmation could actually be seen as unfair or impractical. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

An earlier request in 2012 so I could be a candidate in the ArbCom election that year was dismissed without prejudice to refiling at a later date, on the grounds that ArbCom was fully engaged in that year's elections. I was hoping that the community might adopt proposed measures to supplement or replace the RfA process. Chances of reform have now dimmed, but I chose to wait until after a recent case had close before refiling. ArbCom have criticised me for being a poor politician, but I have always tried to do the right thing, and I hope that the Committee will consider this request.

@Thryduulf I am asking for the verdict against me to be vacated. The last sentence differs from the conventional wording, "may regain the tools via a request for adminship". In my case, ArbCom retained the right to overturn the RfA verdict. It also precludes the use of an alternate mechanism in the event of reform of the RfA process.
@Newyorkbrad Thanks for your comments. You will be sorely missed when you leave ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade The admonishment was part of the Racepacket case. A conflict between an editor (LauraHale) who was a close friend of mine, and one called Racepacket spiralled out of control, with Racepacket harassing her, and attempting to contact her employer about her Wikipedia editing. This resulted in an RfC/U, and then an ArbCom case. My part was quite minor. The Olympics Project decided to rename one of the articles she was editing, and had up for GA review. Racepacket jumped in, and the GA bot became confused, resulting in multiple copies of the review being generated. The tools were needed to fix this problem, so I stepped in. When Racepacket interfered, I blocked him for 48 hours while I repaired the articles. It was very wrong of me to do this. Another admin (Ironholds) reviewed my block, found that it was improper because I was WP:INVOLVED, and switched the block to a more reasonable one of a week. When the case went to ArbCom, my bad block was again reviewed, and I was rightly admonished by the Committee. There was only one admonishment. Ironically, while the case was ongoing, ArbCom put a stay on my content work, so I only did admin work for a time. ArbCom criticised me for issuing very few blocks, so I became more involved in this area. Racepacket's one year ban was subsequently extended after he made comments about me on another Wiki, which ArbCom did not choose to share with me. Every now and then one of his socks shows up, and I file another SPI.Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade The second case, which happened a year later, involved the editor now known as Eric Corbett. I had never had any interaction with him before, and knew nothing of him. When I came in, he had been blocked by one admin, and then promptly unblocked by another. He then said this, and I blocked him. The case went to ArbCom, which defined wheel-warring as "undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator". At the time I believed that I had not done this, but ArbCom ruled otherwise. The one week block was not overturned. During an appeal for admin assistance I said that Eric seems to be a koala (an Australian military term meaning a protected species). This was considered an egregious personal attack, but I had not meant it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade I would prefer never to block anyone again. Ever. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano You seem to have forgotten that you wheel warred by lifting my block without any attempt at discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs I have not been in any trouble for three years, but that means little because the case continues. I find it very difficult to believe that the remedy ArbCom adopted was the best possible under the circumstances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf I found some more:
  • There were two successful ones, both in May 2011, neither of whom had been desysopped for cause:
When ArbCom votes to desysop, it does so with the expectation that the admin may leave immediately after their desyop. Up to 2010, 13 out of 29, or nearly half, did so. (This is not counting 13 more who were also blocked.) Since 2010 though, only one has done so; another 11 chose to stay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ GorillaWarfare: (1) I am not going to run for ArbCom. (2) The remedy specifies only RfA, so if another mechanism is put in place, it is not available to me. (3) ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time So the clause about RfA can be removed by a vote by ArbCom. Therefore, the result of any RfA would be subject to ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

The relevant remedy reads, in full, "Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time."

Given the last sentence, I don't understand what is being asked of the committee? It seems clear to me that ArbCom has declared that it has no objection to the community giving Hawkeye7 admin status following a request at RFA whenever they (the community) feel he can be trusted with the tools - there is no need to get the committee's permission to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm not reading the power of veto in that sentence that you are, particularly as the "conventional wording" post-dates your case. RFA reform has been in discussion for a long time, but serious proposals for the way forward being an alternative process first emerged long after your case so the intent of the restriction is clearly only to distinguish between requesting adminship from the arbitration committee and requesting it from the community (or from Jimbo).

In any case I don't see the need for this to be vacated - at most replacing the final sentence with the now standard wording or "Hawkeye7 may regain the tools following a successful request for adminship at RFA or alternative community-sanctioned process". However, I think all that is actually needed is a clarification from the Committee that the wording used here means the same thing as the standard wording.

To avoid the issue arising again in future, it may be worth the committee explicitly stating (by motion?) that if the community sanctions an alternative process or processes to the current RFA (whether a direct replacement or not) then any editor who has been desysopped by the Committee with instruction/allowance to reapply at RFA or by "request for adminship" may use such any alternative process (they would be entitled to use if they had never held the tools in the first place) without explicit permission from the Committee. I would strongly encourage them to use better wording than that though! Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: I am not aware of any such list, but I've looked through all the closed nominations from 2014, and this year there have been three former administrators who stood at RFA. All of them resigned under a cloud rather than being actively desysopped, and all three were unsuccessful:

It's now 2am, so I haven't looked at 2013 or earlier and probably wont get time to do so for a day or two. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Harry Mitchell

I've worked with Hawkeye at MilHist and DYK and I have the utmost respect for his work. He has made some mistakes in the past, and I won't dispute that the events leading up to the desysop were—shall we say—not his finest hour, but I thought at the time (and, now that I know Hawkeye better, have no doubt) that the 'personal attack' was a misguided attempt at humour with no malice intended. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then (as near as makes almost no difference, three years' worth—half a lifetime on Wikipedia). I believe Hawkeye has redeemed himself, and has amply demonstrated his trustworthiness. If we had a suitable process for (re-)appointing administrators, Hawkeye would be an admin again. But the standards at RfA have little, if anything, to do with what would make a good admins and more to do with extracting a pound of flesh from candidates in retribution for perceived wrongs by the candidate, RfA, Wikipedia, The System™, or something else.

Although I understand the reluctance to get back to reinstating removed admin rights, ArbCom does have the ultimate ability (ArbCom giveth, ArbCom taketh away, blessed be the name of ArbCom!) to do so, and I would echo Anthony's comments that devolving such authority to the community (while in principle an idea I heartily support) while the community has no functional process to make such decisions would be unwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An analogy comes to mind that, to me, nicely addresses the jurisdictional/constitutional argument against this request: for ever other remedy, ArbCom retains the sole jurisdiction to vacate the remedy. ArbCom is not in the habit of posting appeals by editors it has site-banned on ANI, nor does it tell editors topic-banned by arbitration remedy to appeal to the community, so why would it insist that an admin desysopped by remedy go through RfA (which, as a side issue, is a broken process that is the greatest act of masochism on Wikipedia)? It seems out of sync with all other arbitration remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Hawkeye is crystal clear that he is not asking the Committee to restore his admin bit. Why then is almost the entire response from the Committee discussing Committee re-sysopping? Of course if the Committee were to take such action it would be welcome, no doubt, but perhaps it is better to focus first on the question of restoring the more intangible but more important "good standing". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Eric Corbett

Hawkeye7 demonstrated quite clearly at the recent GGTF ArbCom case that he has not moved on and is still carrying his grudges around with him. It would be a grave mistake for him to be re-sysopped without undergoing an RfA. Eric Corbett 18:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yet Another User

Clerk notes

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

Civility enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Hi @Hawkeye7: That is indeed a stellar body of work. It is true that we still have jurisdiction over the case but, even at that time, the committee was moving away from reinstating sysop privileges (something it had once regularly done) and leaving it to the community to make the call. There is no bar to you going to RFA and this is touched on in the remedy discussion. ArbCom has been seeking for some time to return peripheral responsibilities (which it has had foisted on it as part of a delegation of God-King powers) and, regretfully, this is one which I would be very reluctant to resurrect.  Roger Davies talk 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far I can see, the last time ArbCom resysopped someone was in 2009. Since then, the updated Arbitration policy has been ratified, giving ArbCom authority in its own right and incidentally superseding our earlier authority as a delegation of Jimmy's powers (which includes the power to sysop). In the process, the policy limited ArbCom's jurisdiction to removing sysop privileges.

      However, we do have the authority, as part of our ongoing jurisdiction over cases, to restore the tools when we withdrew them because a fatal error in an earlier decision. We have never been down this route because truly fatal errors are rare and because we are not in the business of re-writing history for the dozens of former admins who were desysopped by us or resigned under a cloud.

      The sysop/desysop process has three components: (a) community consensus, which determines who may receive the tools but not who may lose them; (b) ArbCom, whose decisions determine when an admin loses the tools but not who may gain them; and (c) the bureaucrats who independently and after due diligence execute the sysop/desysop process and we have no authority (apart from a vague term in the "Management of websites" section of the Terms of Use) to compel them.

      What ArbCom certainly does have the jurisdiction to do - always assuming that sufficient cogent arguments and persuasive examples would be provided to convince arbitrators to accept - is hear a case about serious conduct issues arising at RFA, the resulting toxicity/dysfuntionality of the RFA environment, and the consequent misapplication of policy/guidelines there. In such a situation, ArbCom could issue temporary injunctions, mandate a binding RFC to resolve the issues, or impose procedures to ensure that RFA is policy-compliant, and issue injunctions in the interim.

      In other words, while ArbCom cannot resysop desysopped individual admins by fiat, it can do something within the framework of a case.

       Roger Davies talk 13:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Awaiting further statements. My preliminary reaction to this request differs from Roger's in that I would be open to restoring adminship to an administrator we had previously desysopped where circumstances warranted, consistent with decisions this Committee has made on occasions in the past. ¶ In this instance, I cast the sole vote in opposition to desysopping Hawkeye7 in the original case in February 2012 (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision#Hawkeye7 desysopped). My view at that time was that while Hawkeye7 had significantly mishandled the incident that led to the case, there were mitigating factors, one of which was that the matter would likely never have come before this Committee at all if it had not happened to involve a particular editor, and another of which was that I saw little likelihood of repetition of the incident. ¶ If Hawkeye7's description above of his contributions since February 2012 is a fair one, which I have no reason to doubt but on while I will await community input, I believe that more than two and one-half years away from adminship would be a sufficient sanction for the misconduct we found, and I would be inclined to vote to grant this request. ¶ That being said, based on evolution in this Committee's practices in recent years, I anticipate that this approach might not receive majority support from my colleagues. In that event, I hope that the community would be open to a new request from Hawkeye7 at RfA (particularly if he agrees in such request to avoid controversial blocks). In addition, if the community were to create a new or revised approach to selecting administrators in addition to or in lieu of RfA, nothing in our prior decision would bar Hawkeye7 from applying and being considered under such approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For crystal clarity:
      • (1) No one is disputing that Hawkeye7 is eligible to file a new RfA at any time if he chooses to, and that if he passes the RfA, he will be an administrator again without any action required by this Committee. In the past, on occasion we have imposed "do not resysop without ArbCom's permission" only in a couple of cases where heavy non-public information was involved in a desysopping. This is not in that category and we specifically did not make that statement here.
      • (2) No one is disputing that if the community creates a new avenue for selecting administrators, in addition to or in lieu of RfA, then Hawkeye7 is eliglble to apply for that avenue without ArbCom's permission either beforehand or afterwards. The wording of the remedy adopted several years ago, long before the current discussion about potentially replacing or supplementing RfA, was not at all intended to lock in the then- or now-current RfA system. If anyone thinks there is genuine as opposed to theoretical doubt about this point even after this thread, we can pass a motion, but I think it would be the height of bureaucracy.
      • (3) When I initially read Hawkeye7's amendment request here, I took his statements about how he could use admin tools again, has contributed well in the past three years, and didn't think RfA was really open to him as a request that we restore his adminship. If that is not what he meant, I think the clarification we have provided has achieved the purpose of his request. I remain open to considering terminating the sanction and restoring his adminship by Committee motion if he were to make that request, but the point is moot if it is not what he is or was requesting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Newyorkbrad I actually believe the committee should, in some cases, move to restore an administrator's status. That said, although I have never interacted with him directly, my one memory of seeing Hawkeye on the encyclopedia outside the original case gave me a dim impression of him. On balance, I am undecided about this appeal. Although I disagree with the shift towards non-motion adminship restoration, I am also not minded to grant the petition for this particular user. I will continue considering and will read further statements with interest. AGK [•] 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf says, "serious proposals for the way forward being an alternative process" – RFA is unfit for purpose, as the entire project accepts, and it is therefore an unsuitable recipient of the committee's delegation of powers. AGK [•] 20:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be minded to at least consider such a request. As AGK says, we all well know the current incarnation of modern RfA has its issues, to put it mildly. However, I would want to see the request, rather than say "I've done great things on articles and it's been a while since the issue," directly and specifically address the issues that led to both the initial admonishment and later desysop, and explain how Hawkeye7 intends to ensure that a third such incident will never happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FOF was accurate and the consequent remedy was appropriate. In light of this, I think we should not vacate the relevant part of our decision. And, although I agree that the RFA system is broken and that it's far too difficult for good users to become administrators, I recognise that the principle so far has always been that the community grants the tools and ArbCom may review their use. ArbCom's remit is very limited and does not include the power to interfere in how the community appoints administrators, even if we were to consider it dysfunctional.

    I can see us regranting adminiship when we made a mistake, or when new evidence comes to light which should have been taken into consideration but wasn't or other, similar, and exceptional cases. This, in my opinion, is not one of them and I don't see why we should treat Hawkeye any differently from any other editor who wished to become a sysop simply because he already was one before being desysopped for cause. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I most definitely did not wheel war and I'll thank you for removing your unfounded accusation. Being one of the case clerks, I unblocked Eric for the sole purpose of allowing him to participate in the arbitration case about him, as was (and is) customary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Salvio on this matter. I don't see the original FoF and remedy to be incorrect. As such, Hawkeye can reapply for adminship via an RfA at any time, but I don't see where it's acceptable for us to return it by fiat at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused as to why you're asking for the verdict to be vacated. You said above that you're not looking to have your admin status returned. You also say that ArbCom has the right to overturn the result of your potential RfA, but I don't agree that that's included anywhere in the remedy. The only reasons you seem to mention are so you can stand for election to the Arbitration Committee, or pursue re-adminship, neither of which is prevented in the remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Newyorkbrad that 'more than two and one-half years away from adminship would be a sufficient sanction for the misconduct'. I also agree with Hawkeye7 when he says 'I find it very difficult to believe that the remedy ArbCom adopted was the best possible under the circumstances.' It would be better for ArbCom to recognise that a new RFA is difficult to near-impossible for desysopped admins, and to leave open a pathway for reinstatement of tools in some cases. However, given the resistance to that expressed by arbitrators here, what I would suggest Hawkeye7 do is the following: (i) make a list of all the times when the tools would have helped you in your routine activities around Wikipedia; (ii) At some suitable point, make a request for adminship and point to that list (if necessary, pledging not to use the blocking component of the tools); (iii) if the request for adminship fails or narrowly fails, then continue to make a list of the times when it would have helped you to have the tools, and continue to make your case to the community and/or ArbCom that someone needs to reform things so that we aren't in the silly position where routine use of the non-controversial components of the admin toolset are denied to long-term contributors who are clearly here to work on building the encyclopedia. (The same applies to any other editor who might struggle to pass RFA, but clearly would benefit from being able to use parts of the toolset). Incidentally, does anyone here know when the last time was that a desysopped admin made a request at RFA (both successful and unsuccessful)? Or even a complete list of such cases. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to Thryduulf and Hawkeye7 for the examples. There are some other examples I am aware of where an administrator resigned the tools under a cloud (to be complete, those examples should be included as well) and didn't manage a successful return through RFA (the example I remember because I participated in the second RfA is Sam Blacketer 2). I agree entirely with what Newyorkbrad said in his 15:07, 9 December 2014 comments. Hawkeye7 is wrong to say that there is an assumption that desysopped admins will leave. The default should be that they stay and carry on building the encyclopedia (as Hawkeye7 has done), regain their good standing through their own efforts (as Hawkeye7 has done, IMO), and at some future point submit an RfA again if they wish to do so (this appears to be the sticking point). That is how it should work in theory. I think it can work in practice as well. RfA is not so broken that it rejects those who demonstrate a clear need for the tools and allow enough time to pass. I didn't participate as an arbitrator in the case where Hawkeye7 was desysopped (I wasn't on the committee), but I would likely participate in and support a future RfA if Hawkeye7 chose to file one, purely on the basis that granting the tools should not be such a big deal. The admin tools should be able to be taken away easily and returned easily, not built up to be something difficult to obtain and difficult to take away. Finally, if such an RfA passed, ArbCom would not be able to step in and overturn the result without justifying such an action (and from what I've seen, there would be nothing to justify such an action). ArbCom have not retained jurisdiction in this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that RfA is not fit for purpose - RfA is a place where you have to show the community that you're good enough to be an admin. There may well be better processes, but we don't have them yet - and RfA keeps the right people out and lets most of the right people through. Secondly, I do not approve of Arbcom reinstating the tools. The community absolutely needs a proper voice in such matters, and RfA is the right place to go. I would be willing to support a "statement" that sufficient time has passed that Hawkeye7 should be allowed to run through an RfA (which is not required, but may help), but I would not support vacating the Arbcom remedy. WormTT(talk) 12:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request and appeal: Discretionary sanctions alerts

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:

Statement by Sandstein

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]

Statement by John Vandenberg

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.

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]

Statement by Nick

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]

Statement by Olive

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]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

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]

Comment by Alanscottwalker

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]

Comment by Fut.Perf.

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]

Comment by Neotarf

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]

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Perhaps AGK needs to take a step back and reconsider what it is that is being said rather than apparently typing rash replies. I am sure it would not be difficult to demonstrate how involved they have been in this "DS" rewrite project (on or off wiki), and maybe that is why he is naturally inclined to be defensive of it (even bordering what people term as ownership mentality - eg "I have spent hours editing this....").

I recall he previously said in relation to this topic (but on a separate matter) 'I will not have it said that any issue relating to DS has been rashly dismissed, particularly after an exhausting, year-long consultation. I'm sorry to have to point out that you are not coming in at the eleventh hour, but a year and a half late.' But the simple fact is, there is genuine concern or criticism regarding how convoluted and time-consuming the DS system is to the vast majority of users, and even if it is now two years later, I am sorry to say his replies below do seem to me to rashly dismiss those concerns ([1][2]) and are not consistent with what is expected here.

It is so patently obvious that a number of editors, administrators, and for that matter, former arbitrators and current arbitrators have in fact needed to take quite a bit of time to go through this 'system', and that it is by no means 'simple', 'easy to use', or 'working' by extension. Now that this reality is finally noted, I would suggest at least the rest of Committee rectifies the issue. It would be good if that happened. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too would repeat this comment by A Quest For Knowledge. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • 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. WormTT(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'm not sure there's much useful left to add at this point. I'll ask the clerks to archive it,  Roger Davies talk 11:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=637472002"