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revision of this page, as edited by DGG (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 8 July 2016 (→‎Rich Farmbrough: Motion (sanctions rescinded)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough Motion (orig. case) 22 June 2016
Clarification request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 28 June 2016

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 2
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Termination of remedy


Statement by Rich Farmbrough

In a case brought against me something over four and years ago, it was found that certain community norms had been broken by me, specifically WP:BOTPOL, WP:5P4 and WP:ARBRFUAT.

I note that in the intervening period I have complied with WP:BOTPOL, been civil and collegial with other editors, and been responsive to other editors concerns, as anyone active in the community will know.

In particular I have worked at WP:TEAHOUSE, welcomed new users, attempted to smooth ruffled feathers at WP:GGTF, mainly by focussing discussion on substantive issues, provided assistance to other editors both on and off-wiki (a list could be made available if desired). I have continued to work on other wikis with no issues.

I also continue to perform work high community trust, on protected templates, but more importantly on edit filters where, together with others (notably Dragons Flight) I have overhauled almost every filter to ensure that the whole system continues to work (it was failing) and additional filters can be implemented.

Moreover not only have I been policy compliant, collegial and responsive, I have every intention of continuing indefinitely to be so.

For these reasons in October 2015 I requested (with substantially the wording above) the then Arbitration Committee to terminate Remedy 2. The Committee agreed, partly as a response to significant community support, as a first step to reduce the scope of the remedy, removing restrictions from my user spaces and subpages of Wikipedia:Database reports.

Subsequently, in addition to my regular contributions as outlined above, and other endeavours to help make the way Wikipedia works more public,[1][2] I have been able to add value in other ways.

I have been able to run User:Femto Bot (after the usual, though not strictly necessary for user-page-bot Bot Authorisation Request), to maintain the reports, by county, of UK geolocated articles with no image - and appropriate links to Geograph, a source of suitably licensed images.

I have also implemented the control panel I suggested in 2012 which allows any editor to turn off any bot task.

I have also been able to perform mundane administrative tasks such as checking out systemic naming descriptors, monitoring the migration of RAN drafts, creating lists of missing women scientists, women of Scotland and redlinked FRSs without fear of retribution.

Given the above which indicates the benefits to the project of the previous reduction, the length of time which has elapsed since the original case was brought, and the lack of any subsequent substantive issue, and the apparent support from the community, I would request the Committee to terminate remedy 2 as soon as convenient.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please feel free to raise any issues, or just have a chat, here, on my talk page, by email (though please leave me a note on my talk page) or in person at Wikimania, where I look forward to discussing all metters Wikimedian with colleagues, including Arbitrators. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Callencc: Of course I would rather not have to re-auth the old tasks, but it is a sensible idea, which I cannot really fault. And many of those tasks were one-offs, so they present no problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
One of the BAG mentioned they have reviewed my old bot tasks, and of them all only couple of handfuls are relevant today. It is of course not guaranteed that I will have time to revive these tasks anyway. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: I have already agreed with BAG to re-apply for any old tasks that still need running. So it is a matter of form only whether this clause is included.
I thank those Arbitrators who have already !voted on these proposals, and look forward to a speedy resolution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Xaosflux

As an active member of the bot approvals group I am not opposed to vacating the prior remedy. I suggest that any closing motion include a final reminder to Rich Farmbrough that both the spirit and letter of the bot policy are important to the community. As far as bot tasks that were approved and since suspended prior to the original sanctions (e.g. Fepto Bot tasks 0-6 and any other tasks approved prior to the sanctions listed on other bot accounts) , I recommend that the original approvals are explicitly rescinded, without prejudice for future (re)approval requests. — xaosflux Talk 19:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Yes, will seek consensus from others in WP:BAG. — xaosflux Talk 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Magioladitis

As I BAG member, I am in favour of Rich being able to use semi-automated tools such as HotCat, Twinkle, etc. All old bot requests whether they have been approved or not, they should be considered as expired. This is something I would suggest to anyone who would like to resume a code written 4-5 years ago. Any bot request should go through the normal bot approval process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

For a long time already these sanctions continue to be merely punitive rather than preventative. That is contrary to the spirit (and policy) of Wikipedia. RF is a highly intelligent and mature individual and I see no point in continuing to deprive him of the use of any scripts. After all that has been said and done, including the appalling treatment he received on his bid for re-adminship , I don't perceive any risk whatsoever in lifting the last remaining restrictions and it's time now to fully restore his dignity. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I'm not completely comfortable at the moment with a total removal of sanctions. However I am in favour of a near total relaxation. Specifically I would allow everything except unsupervised edits to content namespaces.

The reason for this is that I don't have confidence that he understands why the community viewed the mistakes as seriously add they did/do. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 19:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda - that will lead to much confusion about whether the community sanctions expire in sixth months with this probation or only when successfully appealed. It also implicitly allows high speed bot and bot-like editing from a non-bot account. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 10:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slakr

As a BAGer, I have no problem with rescinding his blanket prohibition against using all automation tools, as supervised script use can certainly make one more productive and generally less frustrated by many of the shortcomings of the editing experience. That said, I still feel it prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to suspected unsupervised edits that haven't been approved, especially if done in high volumes or at high rates, as Thryduulf alludes to. For example, if, while a large number of clearly similar edits are being made, an editor pings his talk page with a concern related to them—especially if it's an objection—then he should be expected to immediately stop and respond, thereby demonstrating he's likely supervising his edits.

As far as old bot approvals go, I wholeheartedly agree with xaosflux and Magioladitis; all the old bots should be assumed to be unapproved (perhaps something along the lines of any of those approved prior to whenever the latest AE action was?). No prejudice against re-approval. --slakr\ talk / 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235

@Opabinia regalis: Weighing in purely as a matter of principle, the proposed probation terms don't look bad to me. They somewhat resemble probation terms imposed years ago, which commonly stated (something like) "so-and-so may be blocked if, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, so-and-so violates any [principle of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia policy, or whatnot]" or "so-and-so may be banned from any page so-and-so disrupts". The probation usually doesn't prohibit anything that's not already prohibited, it simply provides that administrators have greater available remedies available for breaches of the admonition. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

The case was quite a while ago, and no problems I know off have occurred during the last two years (perhaps longer, I haven't checked; the most recent ones I remeber were with the buggy "redirect creator", but I can't recall the date of those). I don't really see what could change between this appeal and a next one: either Rich Farmbrough has regained enough community (or ArbCom) confidence to give him a new chance at automated editing, and then now is as good a time as any, or else he will never regain that confidence, and then it is rather cruel to let him appeal every six months or so, and the committee should just send a "never" message. I would support a lifting of this restriction, with the need to get renewed bot approval for all tasks he wants to restart (or any new tasks obviously). The advantage of probation seems to be that, should serious problems happen in the probation period, we can go to Arb enforcement instead of ANI or a new ArbCom case? Fram (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing)

I am in favour of removing all these restrictions, with the caveat that all bot tasks be deemed expired, and thus requiring re-approval. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hawkeye7

I don't have much to add to what has been said above. The sanctions on Rich were ridiculously broad, and it is to his credit that he has complied with them. Time for the sanctions to be removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Omni Flames

The sanctions in question were applied over four years ago now. At the time, yes, that was probably necessary to prevent further disruption to the project. However, since that arbitration case, Rich has always fully complied with the sanctions laid upon him, and the remedy has long since been more of a punishment than a preventative measure. I would be fully supportive of a complete removal of these sanctions, assuming that the previous bot approvals are rescinded (as they're most likely outdated or done by other bots now). Omni Flames (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

While reading through this request (and being familiar with previous controversy over the sanctions on Rich), I was working out how to express my opinion, and then I saw that Kudpung has expressed my thoughts perfectly (I wish I knew how he did that). So please consider my recommendation to be exactly the same as his, for exactly the same reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

He's clearly gotten it, and changed. Four+ years is long enough. We should expire ancient sanctions, with much less drama, far more often when it's clear that the editor is question is not some nut-job or patently incompetent. Rich is capable, collaborative, and productive. ArbCom should remove the tattoo it placed on his forehead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WereSpielChequers

Some parts of the restrictions, such as the ban on use of hotcat, always looked punitive rather than precautionary. Other restrictions may have been worthwhile in the past but are now unneeded. Past Arbcoms have made some bad decisions re Rich, I hope this Arbcom will do better. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Rich Farmbrough: Clerk notes

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

Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Given the apparent success of last year's partial lifting of these sanctions and the lack of any ongoing conflict in this area, I'm inclined to end the remaining sanctions as Rich requests. @ArbCom Clerks: please invite the active members of the Bot Approvals Group to comment here if they have any thoughts on this matter. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Kirill on this one. @Xaosflux: Thanks for your thoughts. Not to get all WP:BURO, but I assume you mean BAG would rescind the prior approvals? In the absence of sanctions, bot approvals sound more like your wheelhouse than ours ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeltaQuad, thanks for writing this up. But how are the probation terms different from what anyone else running a bot is expected to do? After the probation is over, he can use edit summaries of "because reasons"? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't object to probation, I guess, but I think it would be much simpler to just get rid of the restrictions rather than fussing with the details of what "probation" means. Providing a hair trigger for the strictest admin who happens to notice a minor problem is a bug, not a feature. I'd rather just say something like "Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. Rich is expected to follow the bot policy for all automated tasks and must consult with BAG regarding tasks for which approval was previously suspended. The applicable community sanctions remain in force." Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree as well. With the caveat suggested above that a new bot approval be required for previously approved tasks; Rich Farmbrough any issues with that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very cautious about this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there are the community sanctions that still are not rescinded either. We also reviewed the sanctions about 6 months ago. I'm thinking that probation would be a best next step, with an auto-expiry clause. Something along the lines of:
Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. In its place, the following remedy is enacted:

Rich Farmbrough is placed on probation for a period of six months. During this six month period, starting from the enactment of this motion, Rich Farmbrough is required to

  1. perform all high-volume and high-speed edits on authorized bot accounts only
  2. provide edit summaries sufficiently identifying their task on authorized bot accounts
  3. disclose on their userpage of the editing user (whether bot or Rich himself) any high-volume or high-speed editing tasks. In the disclosure Rich must give an appropriate description of the task being performed and include any appropriate links to approvals.
  4. comply with the bot policy.

If in the view of any uninvolved administrator Rich violates these sanctions during the 6 month period, they may block or restrict Rich from some or all aspects of bot editing or high-volume high-speed tasks, whatever is appropriate to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. After the 6 month period, this motion is rescinded unless blocks or new restrictions are placed as a result of this motion, which then will require the involvement of the Arbitration Committee at ARCA. It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the committee.

It's only a rough draft I made in about 20 minutes, so feel free to edit for grammar/wording and propose change on issues with it. I feel like it strikes a balence of ensuring a smooth transition and keeps our hands out of areas that aren't ours. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I agree with Kirill and OR. If there is questionable behaviour, I think we will be pinged soon enough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Slakr seems to have raised some valid points. If the probation is no more than what we expect normally, it almost sounds as though after 6 months he can deviate from those expectations. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that normally if someone violated the expectations, we would consider sanctioning them, depending on the severity etc.. ; on probation, a violation would unquestionably immediately cause the previous sanction to be reimposed. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support relaxing restrictions per Kirill and Cas. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support relaxing the restrictions, given the success of the previous changes to the remedies. I would appreciate more input on how the larger community feels about relaxing restrictions to allow fully-automated tasks. I am at least willing to relax restrictions regarding supervised edits; I am tentatively willing to allow fully-automated changes, and I do believe that Rich knows that these can be revoked very quickly and easily if he does not comply with enwiki best practices, and that such a revocation will affect his ability to perform such tasks in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, I would support Amanda's proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Guerillero: Do you mind providing some more comment on your votes? I can see you've said above "I am very cautious about this," and then voted to oppose both motions without explanation. I'd be curious to know in more detail why you're opposing these motions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @GorillaWarfare: I would much rather see a longer tail of these sanctions with a first step for allowing a bot or three and seeing what happens. I am just very cautious about the problems that lead up to the case resuming. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, thanks for explaining. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough: Motions

For these motions there are 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 8
1–2 7
3–4 6

Rich Farmbrough: Motion (probation)

Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. In its place, the following remedy is enacted:

Rich Farmbrough is placed on probation for a period of six months. During this six month period, starting from the enactment of this motion, Rich Farmbrough is required to

  1. perform all high-volume and high-speed edits on authorized bot accounts only
  2. provide edit summaries sufficiently identifying their task on authorized bot accounts
  3. disclose on their userpage of the editing user (whether bot or Rich himself) any high-volume or high-speed editing tasks. In the disclosure Rich must give an appropriate description of the task being performed and include any appropriate links to approvals.
  4. comply with the bot policy.

If in the view of any uninvolved administrator Rich violates these sanctions during the 6 month period, they may block or restrict Rich from some or all aspects of bot editing or high-volume high-speed tasks, whatever is appropriate to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. After the 6 month period, this motion is rescinded unless blocks or new restrictions are placed as a result of this motion, which then will require the involvement of the Arbitration Committee at ARCA. It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.
Support
  1. Second choice, in the better-than-nothing sense. As I said above, I don't think we need to fuss around with defining "probation" or invite hair-trigger reactions to minor problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. This is a completely viable option, but I think that Rich has shown enough willingness to work with us and with the community that we can remove the sanction entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm split equally. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. second choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice, but just. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice . DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Rich Farmbrough: Motion (sanctions rescinded)

The sanctions placed on Rich Farmbrough as part of the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) are rescinded. For clarity this includes remedy 2 which prohibited Rich Farmbrough from using automation and clause B in the June 2012 amendment.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.

It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.
Support
  1. First choice. Though I'm not sure about the second paragraph - we don't need to tell BAG they can handle the existing task approvals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. I am optimistic that this will turn out well; if not, sanctions can be reapplied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm split equally. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ok, with the understanding that if it unfortunately doesn't turn out as hoped he's liable to be sanctioned again. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice, with the same understand as Doug, just above. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Clarification request: American politics 2

Initiated by StAnselm at 05:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by StAnselm

We have previously discussed this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock appeal by User:Stadscykel, but were not able to resolve the disagreement.

Coffee has placed Donald Trump and United States presidential election, 2016 under page restrictions, which includes that violations can be sanctioned without warning. Stadscykel made this edit to Donald Trump, and was blocked without warning by Coffee under discretionary sanctions. Is this a correct block per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? That is, does the page notice alert at Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump count as a DS alert? Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions is unclear at this point. It says that "no editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict". It goes on to define "aware" as (among other things) "given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict". But "alert" is defined as having the standard template message "placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". This would seem to indicate that Stadscykel did not receive the necessary DS warning. Furthermore, if Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions mandates that all editors need to be alerted before they can be sanctioned, is Template:2016 US Election AE (which is on the Donald Trump talk page), allowed to say that editors will be "blocked without warning"? (I note that Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump does not mention being blocked without warning, and there is no indication that Stadscykel ever saw the talk page notice.)

Statement by Coffee

My understanding is that the editnotice does indeed qualify as the required warning. I would definitely be interested if the Committee says otherwise. Such a ruling would have an immediate effect on the GMO RFC that I and The Wordsmith are moderating, as we're using the page restriction format to enforce DS per the previous ARCAs you're aware of.

I am taking some time off to think about everything that happened today, to reevaluate my actions and to calm down some. I would appreciate if you could take that into consideration (i.e. email me if you have an immediate need for me to comment, I'll gladly provide my cell number as well if necessary). I also do not intend to rehash all of my arguments from earlier (there's an obvious sign that I'm missing something here, but I'm not going to discover the answer via those types of discussions), I would just like some guidance from the Committee so I can be that sure I'm properly enforcing your actions.

I apologize to The Wordsmith for leaving him with most of the work on the RFC for a bit, but I feel it's best for me to reset before I move forward. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Signing off... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Callanecc: The whole point of this restriction is to reduce the unnecessary workload faced by editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, and thorough (and in the case of the BLPs, in full compliance of the requisite policies)... I'll refer to such editors as "content editors" henceforth. Having a 0RR restriction would allow "drive-by" editors to place something completely without consensus on the page, and having the 1RR restriction creates an issue wherein a drive-by editor can easily force the same issue when adding content that has not existed in the article before (as long as only one content editor is actively watching the article). So the idea for prohibiting "potentially contentious content without firm consensus" was to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, as long as we can find an acceptable method to reduce the workload of our content editors and ensure that the media is not scrutinizing our behaviour in the process. Do you all have any ideas on how to address this particular issue? Or do you feel it is literally outside of the available restrictions that your discretionary sanctions provide? (I'd also love to hear from Anythingyouwant, one of the most prolific editors on Donald Trump, on their ideas on how to solve this issue.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: Great point. Perhaps something like "if an edit is reverted, you are prohibited from adding the contended edit back until consensus is found for it"? Better wording can be used for the final restriction, but this would seem to be a good idea based on your input. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Waggers, Callanecc: From what I'm seeing, yes. This should completely remove any issues regarding admins blocking users unfamiliar with the area, who are editing in good faith. It would definitely seem to make any editor's intentions quite clear too. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc: I've updated all of the editnotices per your request, (as can be seen in the log), the new wording is now: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.. I hope that the wording is now satisfactory to the Committee. Please inform me if I need to change anything else. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: That's the entire point of changing the wording. I can ensure you that such blocks will not happen in the future, now that the letter of the restriction can be followed without overreaching onto editors without familiarity with the situation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stadscykel

It is obvious that the editnotice does not consitute the required alert. Indeed, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts says clearly that the alerts "only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted".

Besides, I disagree with the content of Template:2016 US Election AE created by User:Coffee and placed by him on the talk pages of the relevant articles, particularly with the section "Further information" and, more precisely, the sentence "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence", as nothing in the current rules regarding the discretionary sanctions suggests that. Meanwhile, I agree that the sentence (from the same template) "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" describes my understanding of the current policy, though I see no way how this could have been applied to me.

I disagree that there is any sufficient reasoning why this edit should be "punished" by a block; the idea that re-stating the fact already presented otherwise in the article can be seen by an editor new to the topic as a "potentially contentious edit" (as the warning from Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump tells us) is ridiculous. Indeed, the logic behind having to issue the official alert is providing the right to learn about the policy which applies to the topic in question, and having the possibility to apply sanctions if the offences continue. Besides, I do not consider this edit as contrary to the objective of the discretionary sanctions on the topic of American politics, even through it is contrary to the style guide (as discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes), as I have neither added nor removed any fact from the article. There is no warning anywhere that the breach of this particular "style guide" (which is not presented to the editors at all), could result in a block without warning, nor is there any evidence suggesting that this type of sanctions is allowed.

My opinion is that Coffee's current application of the discretionary sanctions turns all the topics covered by discretionary sanctions into a minefield for editors not previously informed about any possible consensuses which have possibly been achieved somewhere else. I hope that the Arbitration Committee agrees with me that creating these "minefields" is not the intent of this policy. Stadscykel (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

According to WP:ACDS, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator...Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}})."

That would seem to suggest that the standard Editnotice is a valid method of notification, specifically for page restrictions. While this seems to be at odds with the portion mentioned above, and clarification would be beneficial, the policy clearly states that editors ignoring page restrictions (as listed in the editnotice) may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee's block could have been handled better (though I think it is within policy, discussion would have been preferable), the unblock should have been handled better (anything marked as Arbitration Enforcement probably should not be overturned without permission from Arbcom or a strong consensus, even if you don't think AE applies). SlimVirgin [5], Trusilver [6], Dreadstar [7], and Yngvadottir [8] were desysopped for overturning Arbitration Enforcement blocks out of process, even though they all thought they were bad blocks as well, with Dreadstar even logging in their unblock message "Invalid block".

The Committee needs to clarify the editnotice issue, but they also need to make a strong statement that if something is labeled as AE and properly logged, it can't be overturned out of process even if you think it was a bad block. If an admin is abusing that by labeling regular blocks as AE, that would be grounds for desysopping, but what happened here is clearly a grey area. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, and Doug Weller: Before closing, there is still the issue of whether or not reversing a block carried out under AE (even if questionable or a bad block) is to be allowed. We also need to clarify in WP:ACDS explicitly whether or not editnotices are considered a valid form of notification. Can this be done via motion? Or do we have to go through the excessive referendum process in WP:ARBPOL? The WordsmithTalk to me 14:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: The Presumption of Validity solves that issue, yes. The other is partially rectified, we just need a ruling on whether or not it is valid for an editor who has not been templated to be sanctioned, if they edited on a page with the DS editnotice. Currently two parts of WP:ACDS seem to conflict on this, and that's the whole reason this ARCA request happened. So far, I think Opabinia regalis has the best idea on this, in that it can be a legitimate replacement for the template but only outside of Article-space. I might even go a bit farther and exclude the Talk: namespace as well, since plenty of inexperienced editors end up there. Whereas if they're in Project-space or Template space, etc, they're probably experienced enough to notice it. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I commented on this block and unblock in the AN thread. Those comments are equally relevant here, and if it's all right, I'll simply refer to those comments rather than repeat them all here. If there are any questions I'd be happy to address them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like some of the others commenting below, I am a bit troubled that the focus of the discussion thus far has been on procedural clarification. Obviously, to the extent that there are issues of governance or procedure that people think are unclear, clarifying them is good. But let's not lose sight of the big picture here, which is that this was an extremely troublesome block.

How did we get to the point where a hard-working, dedicated, good-faith administrator, whom I respect, came to make such a block? Precisely by focusing too much on the wording of procedures, and "discretionary sanctions" protocols, and not enough on what is the purpose of blocking.

Blocking is a last resort. It should never become routine where good-faith editors are involved. It should never be used as a substitute for discussion with editors who can be expected to understand when expectations are explained to them. And the fact that a given page or topic-area is under discretionary sanctions, while it may justify the reasonable creation and enforcement of tighter editing rules for those pages, does not change this basic norm.

As I wrote in the AN thread, I personally wrote the requirement of a prior warning into the DS procedures nine years ago (in the Israel-Palestine case). I did so precisely to avoid the situation we have here, in which a good-faith editor new to a page made what he reasonably thought was a routine edit and is suddenly hit, not with information about how the page must be edited, not even with a warning, but with a block coming totally out of left field. There are very few, if any, situations in which such a block is warranted and this was not one of them.

The question presented is not whether the wording of the edit notice was sufficiently clear, although it obviously wasn't. The question presented is not whether an edit notice, without more, is sufficient warning that editors may be blocked for first offenses, although it obviously isn't. The question is whether editors who are acting in good faith and have no idea they are doing anything wrong should, absent extraordinary circumstances, be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule and told how they can comply with it going forward. The answer is that they should not.

I hope never to see another block like this one again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: I agree that the wording you propose is an improvement to the edit notice, but please do not block good-faith editors who have made an isolated edit that they may not have realized was a violation (either because they haven't followed the revert history or they didn't notice the edit notice) without first discussing with them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, and Doug Weller: and other arbs: I think it would be good if you could clarify that this is the expectation. Our experienced administrators can hopefully distinguish people who are aware of the rules and disregard or try to wikilawyer around them, versus situations such as happened here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: plus the arbs: It's also been pointed out to me on my talkpage that the new wording omits the usual exception for edits addressing BLP violations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: plus the arbs: Although I understand the rationale for a namespace-based approach in deciding whether an edit-notice without more is a sufficient DS warning, I fear that there's still too much risk of sanctioning good-faith editors who inadvertently overlook the warning. To me, I'd much rather err on the side of requiring a formal DS notice to an editor before sanctioning him or her. If we want to make exceptions, at most they should cover situations where the edit would have been obviously problematic anyway even apart from the discretionary sanctions. Administrators should be able to distinguish between a case in which an editor has obviously done the wrong thing and is rules-lawyering about the warnings, versus other cases.

In the case of doubt, there will usually be little harm to issuing the warning: Either the warned editor will misbehave just once more, in which case a sanction can follow without dispute over its fairness or legitimacy; or the editor will not misbehave again, in which case the goal has been achieved without a sanction or a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the latest comments, I understand User:Opabinia regalis's point that some editors would prefer to be informed or reminded of DS on a mainspace page rather than receive a personalized notification. Personally I think the avoidance of out-of-the-blue blocks or sanctions is most significant, but this can be achieved in various ways. What is crucial is that administrators are careful to avoid such blocks (e.g. by giving a final warning rather than blocking or sanctioning where an editor's intent is unclear).
As for not further escalating the degree of difficulty of overturning an AE sanction, I agree wholeheartedly with Opabinia regalis. We do not want a cowboy culture in which admins overturn each others' AE actions (or any actions) willy-nilly, but we do not want unjustified blocks lingering for days, either. In this instance, two experienced administrators plus one other editor concurred that the block was bad at the time the editor was unblocked. (When I came upon the AN thread I became the third administrator to opine that it was a very bad block. Post-unblock the thread continued for some days and basically no one, other than the original blocking admin, defended the block.) Significantly, the unblock took place 12 hours after the unblock request was posted; it was only a 48-hour block in the first place, so that having days of discussion would have defeated the entire point of the unblock request; and it was not just a non-consensus block but an awful one, which had the blocked user thinking of quitting the project—and me not blaming him. The unblock under these circumstances was the right call, and in the unfortunately and hopefully unlikely event that these circumstances occurred again, a speedy unblock would again be the right call. Presumptions in favor of upholding AE actions and consensus requirements for overturning them should not be taken to extremes; nor, as I argued in lonely dissent multiple times when I was on the Committee, should inflexibility and automatic actions ever be written into the ArbCom's procedures and norms. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235

It is generally recognized that enforcement of page restrictions validly imposed under discretionary sanctions do not require a prior alert. Obviously, editing a page with a DS editnotice does not mean that anyone editing that page is "alerted" to DS, only that the specific page restriction previously imposed under DS may be enforced. However:

  • Kirill's question regarding the validity of the original page restriction is a good one. My personal view is that viewed in the most restrictive light possible, the restriction requires a consensus before any edit – which seems to be less restrictive than blanket full restriction and, in the alternative, less restrictive than a "prohibition[] on the addition or removal" of any content on the entire page "except when consensus for the edit exists" (WP:ACDS#sanctions.page).
  • In addition, I agree with The Wordsmith that the Committee should make a formal statement – perhaps by motion – that any admin action that purports to be AE, even if there is question as to whether it is valid, should not be lifted without the AE/AN consensus or ArbCom motion. Challenges to whether the action was validly AE should be brought on appeal.

Respectfully submitted, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Reformatted, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made the above (procedural) statement before reading the AN thread. Having read that now, although admins have wide latitude in fashioning an appropriate discretionary sanction, they should be reminded that blocking should not be the first solution that comes up when dealing with good faith editors such as Stadscykel. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid any doubt, DS ≠ AE. All DS actions are AE actions, but AE actions are not necessarily DS actions. Blocks under DS page restrictions, even without DS procedural protections such as alerts, are AE sanctions and are subject to standard modification procedures. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think that page sanctions are not the same as discretionary sanctions imposed under ARBCOM. My thinking is that page sanctions are blocks given out with permission of ARBCOM, but should not be considered an ARBCOM block, so that a regular appeal process can be used. Under the rules, in order for a block to be an ARBCOM block, it must have valid notices, etc. The page sanction is just used to prevent contentious edits, but is not the same as an ARBCOM block.

Statement by DHeyward

It should be plainly obvious that individual notification of what DS for a particular topic are. The page notices are for editors already aware of the topic Discretionary Sanctions and makes clear that the page falls under them. That doesn't mean we should presume that a page notice is sufficient to fully inform editors about the restrictions. AGF requires at least a good faith attempt to individually warn each editor about the sanctions and the topic area associated with them. If we wish to be a welcoming and safe community, admins with the block button shouldn't be the door greeters but rather should be attempting to explain the rules and what they believe is a sanctionable offense before sanctioning. It stands reason on its head to make the most unappealable block/ban also the one with least notice. A block for vandalism generally requires a warning and if it escalates to block, the appeal template can be used. But as used here, a no-warning AE block has a complicated and higher threshold for appeal. It should be more difficult to impose an AE block than than general disruption block precisely because the AE topic is more nuanced, the block more severe. --DHeyward (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for Page Sanction random content restrictions, not less.

@Kirill Lokshin: The problem is that templates for pages subject to AE DS is an overreach of the wording in the decision for pages subject to DS. The template appears to give authority to block for any contentious edit without warning as part of a page restriction, the ArbCom decision does not. --DHeyward (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Okay, you got me. I am not hip enough to know what MEGO is and following the link did not help. What is MEGO and where do they camp? --DHeyward (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

Speaking only to the idea of using edit notices as a replacement for the alert to a user about DS in place on a page, I strongly discourage this as an acceptable replacement. At least for myself, the appearance of a editnotice is like banner ads on other websites, and my own eyes slip right past them unless they are brightly colored, large, or something I am specifically looking for. It is very easy to miss these if you have been editing WP for long enough. On the other hand, a talk page message on the user's page is not likely to be missed, and can be readily treated as a warning directed at that user (even if it is copy-pasted warnings). Once warned about the general topic DS, those editors can continue to edit elsewhere and aware that DS applies to a certain range of topics, they should be informed enough to watch for editheaders to know whether a page falls into the same sanction or not.

Noting the other factor, this GMO RFC, if I were specifically planning to comment on an RFC, it is reasonable that a statement in the header of the RFC (not as a editnotice) is going to have to be read for anyone replying to that RFC, so in such a case, the broad alert about the existing DS can be put there instead of warning every user that replies the first time. That DS warning can be repeated in the editnotice, but I think the RFC header would be reasonable assured to be something that had to be read by all participants. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda

My trust in arbcom is not the highest, as you may know. They can pleasantly surprise me if they manage to send a clear message that an admin should at least look at an editor's contribution before blocking, and - if the victim is obviously a good-faith editor who helps this project by gnomish edits - please talk before a block ("Talk to the user who offended, tell the user how you feel about it, trying to achieve modification or revert."). The editor made three edits in 2016, so missed all discussions about religion in infoboxes, possibly even missed all discussions about infoboxes. Believe it or not: there's life on Wikipedia untouched by noticeboards. It needs preservation, not blocks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re Kirill Lokshin: you emphesize "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content", but the one edit in question did not add content nor removed content, only repeated it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller and others who mentioned "potentially contentious edit": that is so vague a term that every edit can be construed to fall under it. If an edit is contentious, revert it with an explanation in the edit summary, - no need to block. If it happens again - quite likely when a new user doesn't know how to read an edit summary and only sees that their "improvement" disappeared - contact the user's talk, refer to the article talk (another secret for a new user), in other words, assume good faith, - no need to block for the first time, without warning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Not going to comment on the nature of the block as I'm not involved in the topic at all, but I'm curious for clarification since it seems difficult to say this isn't notification from a WP:COMMONSENSE approach. The edit notice clearly states discretionary sanctions are in play, and editors need to go through that notice to edit. That should be the end of that question there. If it were only just something like a 1RR notice only, I might be singing a slightly different tune in regards to awareness of DS, but editors are still expected to follow even that 1RR notice. It shouldn't be any different for awareness of DS.

Basically, if this edit notice is not appropriate for proper awareness simply because it is not listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts, we're dealing with a WP:BUREAU problem because we only need to scroll down a few sections to the page restrictions that say, Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. That wording should invalidate any claims that an admin cannot take action solely because the editor didn't get a talk page template. Not to mention that the user talk page template is not the only indication listed that an editor is aware of DS. The entirety of WP:AC/DS and the wording at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions makes it clear that editors are aware even if it's not explicitly stated in the awareness section.

To cut down on this potential for bureaucracy, I would suggest adding an explicit 4th option under the awareness section that is some variation of:

4. An editor has edited a page with an edit notice explicitly detailing that discretionary sanctions are in effect for the article.

This would be redundant with other wording on the page for the most part, so it's not really adding anything new that would constitute a "new rule" per se. It would however require an explicit mention of the discretionary sanctions as happened in this specific case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm not really commenting on the central matters here, but I want to request that the Arbs be careful, in replying here, not to do any collateral damage to the GMO RfC that is in progress. There are editors who do not like what the community seems to be leaning towards, who are looking for ways to discredit the RfC process, and they will seize upon anything said by Arbs here, that could be construed as reflecting badly on how Coffee and The Wordsmith have utilized DS in carrying out the RfC. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read what Newyorkbrad said to the Committee about prioritizing the good of the project above rigid application of the rules, and I want to agree. Broadly speaking, it is good advice that Arbs sometimes seem to get distracted from in the course of your workload, even if you agreed with it before being elected. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petrarchan47

My comment is only in reference to Tryptofish and his plea to protect the GMO RfC. His statement contradicts the facts as I see them. There are serious concerns with this GMO RfC process, and they were mostly raised (before being quickly silenced by Wordsmith) before the RfC began. To say that concerns raised now (by plural editors?) are only due to RfC comments and their overall direction is pure conspiracy theory and has no place on this noticeboard sans proof.

Statement by Blackmane

I was the one that came across the unblock appeal. Opening up an edit window in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I notice the page restriction box but my eyes slide right past them without reading their substance and I scroll straight down to the editing box. One could easily argue that it is the responsibility of the individual editor to take the time to do due diligence. However, we're in an age where banner ads are viewed as intrusive annoying things and the page restriction box has all the hallmarks of a banner ad and is likely to automatically trigger the same response.

In my view, the edit notice should not qualify as appropriate warning by itself. It should serve as a reminder notice after a DS warning. Consider a speed limit sign; when you first set out learning to drive, you won't know what those white boards with a number surrounded by a red circle means, but once you do every time you see one you are reminded of what it is for. Blackmane (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

There needs to be a limit on what one administrator can impose as a sanction. I understand desperate times and all that, but this is as close to thought crime enforcement as Ive seen here. A blanket ban on "potentially contentious edits" is not a reasonable exercise of authority. Its one thing to restrict specific material, eg no one can add material about some candidate's view of the Birther movement or Black Lives Matter or whatever to the lead, or even to restrict reverts of such material, but to ban an edit to a page on the basis that some other person on the internet finds it objectionable or otherwise contentious? Regardless of whether an edit notice constitutes sufficient notice, there should be some limit on just how far an admins discretion is allowed to go. And I think a subjective open-ended restriction on edits, not even reverts but edits, should be on the other side of that acceptable sanction line. Nableezy 07:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Waggers

I came across the discussion at WP:AN after three users had commented, all of them expressing a view that Stadscykel should not just be unblocked, but unblocked speedily and that Coffee's block as a terrible block. With speed evidently of the essence I reviewed the block and it seemed very clear that Coffee had made a mistake, which I assumed at the time to be an honest mistake. With Coffee not around at the time to consult on the matter I took the decision to reverse the block, with a note at the AN discussion that should consensus emerge that the original block was correct I would have no objection to it being reinstated. I believe I was correct to do so and stand by my actions. It is worth noting that no administrator involved in the discussion, including Coffee, has seen fit to reinstate the block despite my comment that I would not object to that happening.

Essentially that's where my own involvement ends, other than returning to the AN discussion to try and summarise it and move towards closure. All the above was done without taking a firm view on Coffee's block of Stadscykel, but while I'm here I would like to comment on that. The block was clearly wrong; others have explained why in their words and I would like to do so in mine.

It seems a lot hinges on Coffee's assertion: "My understanding is that the editnotice does indeed qualify as the required warning." So let's look at the edit notice; it says users are not allowed to do any one of three things:

  • make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article
  • making any potentially contentious edits without consensus on the talk page of the article (emphasis mine)
  • breach discretionary sanctions on the page

Nobody seems to be suggesting that Stadscykel breached 1RR, and rightly so: the edit in question was the user's only edit to the article. As StAnselm has pointed out a number of times, the notion of adding the subject's religion to the page has indeed been discussed and reached discussion on the talk page of the article[9]. Others have pointed to a Village Pump discussion which they believe somehow trumps [no pun intended] this, but the edit notice makes no mention of the Village Pump - it requires consensus on the article talk page and that requirement is satisfied. That leaves the third matter, of discretionary sanctions. The link in the editnotice only takes editors to a description of what discretionary sanctions are, not a list of sanctions in place on that article - so a new user to the article such as Stadscykel has no easy way of finding out what sanctions exist. But more importantly, WP:ACDS#Awareness_and_alerts is very clear about what constitutes an editor being aware of a sanction and it is equally clear that Stadscykel had not been made aware of any sanction according to that procedure. WaggersTALK 10:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A short addition to the above; apparently the sanction Coffee things Stadscykel breached is a page restriction the article in question. At the DS log, Coffee logged this as "The following pages have had page restrictions applied to them, due to their high visibility" followed by a list of pages. Coffee did not specify which page restrictions were in place either there or in the edit notice. As discussed above, there was a talk page consensus for Stadscykel's edit so did not breach any "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"; nor, as discussed, did it breach any revert restrictions; neither did Stadscykel use some devious means of circumventing any form of protection that was in place on the article in order to make the edit in question. Those are the only types of page restrictions that exist. I would argue that not only was Coffee's blocking of this user incorrect, but that Coffee's logging of the page restrictions in force at WP:AC/DSL is meaningless unless the log entry specifies which page restrictions are supposed to be in place. It is not sufficient to say "there are some page restrictions". WaggersTALK 10:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc and Coffee: Am I right in thinking that under that wording, Stadscykel would not have been blocked, since they didn't add the contended edit back? (They were blocked after their first and only edit to the article). In which case, are you satisfied that it would solve the problem? WaggersTALK 08:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Just to expand on Waggers comment - other than Coffee (who is obviously not impartial) subsequent further discussion by those uninvolved in no way supported Coffee's position. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

While the Arb discussion below is on the literal minutiae of the actual rules (and, I guess, has to be to some extent (added July 7)), there's one thing that's clear to me. When an innocent new editor sees an edit notice that says they can be blocked for doing something "potentially contentious" (with that nebulous term unexplained), makes one good-faith edit on each of two articles with no idea what constitutes "potentially contentious" and considers their edits to be uncontroversial, and then gets blocked for it without any prior explanation of what was "potentially contentious" about their edits... well, that is clearly not the intention behind the way discretionary sanctions are supposed to work! (It can't be, because that would be astoundingly stupid!)

Rules are meant to be used intelligently and not just applied blindly, and just because a rule might say an editor can be blocked, that does not mean they should be blocked. Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide a means to handle contentious topics and quickly deal with troublemakers, and should not be misused to clobber innocent newbies. I'd expect any admin worthy of the role to see that difference, and if they make a mistake, to see the mistake when there's a clear consensus pointing it out to them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that I agree completely with Newyorkbrad in his continuing comments above. It was an obviously bad block (and I've rarely seen one more obviously bad), except for the blocking admin there was an otherwise unanimous consensus to overturn it, and I'm amazed that there are people here suggesting that the unblocking admin was wrong to unblock. Brad's comment that "Presumptions in favor of upholding AE actions and consensus requirements for overturning them should not be taken to extremes; nor, as I argued in lonely dissent multiple times when I was on the Committee, should inflexibility and automatic actions ever be written into the ArbCom's procedures and norms" is so obviously right that I'm shocked that he even needs to say it. And I'm seriously disappointed that the current ArbCom seems to have their heads so seriously buried in the rules that they apparently can't see the bloody obvious even when it's biting them in the bum. I voted for (most of) the current committee because I expected them to be able to offer intelligent and flexible judgment, not to behave like a bunch of rule-reading bots. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

An editnotice or DS banner should be considered sufficient notice for anyone editing the page (they can't miss it). A page-top banner (like those atop the talk pages of most any article subject to DS) should be considered sufficient notice for anyone editing the page in multiple sessions (i.e., they've had plenty of time to notice). Speaking in general, and thinking of an entirely different case: People who are long-time disruptors of, and among the most active editors at, a page with such banner, and obviously fully aware of the DS, have escaped DS enforcement multiple times because their personal user talk page didn't have a {{Ds/alert}} on it in the last 12 months.

It's utterly pointless rule-creep and bureaucracy to let this kind of system-gaming continue by bad-apples ruthlessly wikilawyering the WP:AC/DS wording, or because admins who'd like to issue a sanction aren't certain they can. (And in some cases they end up sanctioning only one side of a dispute, the one that doesn't have personal notice, instead of both when they deserved it; I've seen this end up with AN overturning their action as punitive and uneven-handed, which doesn't look good for the admin.) A further problem here is that we all know by now that actually leaving someone {{Ds/alert}} is uniformly perceived as a threat or WP:JERK move, and simply escalates already tense situations, with the result that fewer editors will leave the alerts, so more bad-actors will escape sanctions. I've been raising these problem for over two years now, and nothing over gets done about it. Please do something about it, finally.

I offer no opinion on whether Coffee's block action was evenhanded or an overreaction to the specific content in question, since I didn't observe it, and I don't want to get involved in inter-personal drama, only address the systematic WP:PROCESS problem of granting people exploitable loopholes to use for sanction-gaming. The point of this ARCA seems to be whether an admin can be punished/admonished for assuming that WP:BUREAU and WP:COMMONSENSE aren't magically inapplicable here and that sanction-gaming must be permitted if any interpretation of WP:AC/DS can seem to be bent to allow for it.

PS: I say that as someone whose comments in the RfC were hatted by Coffee until I revised them (and I didn't like it, and thought about citing WP:IAR for reasons clear from the RfC's talk page), so I'm not showing up as part of some kind of "protect Coffee!" fan club (nor am I all that irritated about it any more).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse – writing a statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My reading of WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts is that an edit notice doesn't meet the procedural warning requirements; as Stadscykel points out, the rules state that an editor is aware if they have "received an alert for the area of conflict", but then go on to define alerts as being valid only if "the standard template message [...] is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". However, I know that past enforcement practices—and some of my colleagues—disagree with me on this point.

    Having said that, I'm actually more interested in the content of the edit notice rather than its form. WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions allows administrators to impose "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content" (emphasis mine). My interpretation of this rule is that a restriction of this sort must define some specific content that cannot be added or removed, in sufficient detail that an editor can determine whether an edit they wish to make would breach the restriction. Consequently, I'm unconvinced that a blanket prohibition of "potentially contentious edits" is an acceptable form of discretionary sanction under this clause. Coffee, could you comment on your interpretation of this requirement and your rationale for imposing this particular sanction? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Gerda Arendt: I'm questioning whether the page restriction is a valid one under the current rules for discretionary sanctions. Whether the edit in question actually violated that restriction is an entirely separate issue. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, first off, I don't expect to be sanctioning anyone as a result of this particular incident. I am squarely in the MEGO camp on editnotices in general (in fact, I use a userscript to hide them), but there is precedent for treating them as sufficient warning; it's clear that there's ambiguity in the DS procedures that needs to be sorted out going forward. On review of this particular implementation I agree with Kirill that "potentially contentious edits" may be too vague to be a workable page restriction. If you've spent months deeply immersed in some particular wiki-problem, it may seem obvious what kinds of edits will fall into that category, but the audience for these notices is much wider than that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) @DHeyward: MEGO = My Eyes Glaze Over. I swear the dab page used to say that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    • It seems that agreement has been reached that the original wording of the editnotice was too vague and it has now been updated, which takes care of the immediate issue; however, there are still some underlying matters unresolved and it would seem awfully bureaucratic to demand a new request to address them (especially considering that the problems lie in procedural bureaucracy :) As Wordsmith says above, the open procedural questions are: 1) is an editnotice sufficient warning for DS sanctions? and 2) should even obviously misguided AE actions prompt desysopping as a consequence for reversal? I'm uncertain on 1 - there are circumstances where it's impractical to individually warn every participant. I'd prefer to allow editnotices to be used as warnings, with the strong expectation that they will be used sparingly - perhaps only outside of articlespace, under the assumption that people participating in complex internal wikiprocesses are generally familiar with the system. Certainly I think NYB is correct to recommend emphasizing that blocks should be a last resort, not an automatic reaction to an evidently good-faith edit that happens to break the rules.
      On the other hand, I'm very certain on 2: it's no secret that I strongly dislike the "AE tripwire" effect and absolutely do not think there is any benefit to trying to double down on it for future similar situations as a consequence of this request. It doesn't work as intended to reduce drama and overreaction or to support the efforts of admins working in difficult areas - compare this slow-moving and generally calm procedural discussion with the hypothetical situation in which a rush of arbs had voted in a Level II desysop. Again, I'm not sure we need a procedural change so much as a change in social expectations: if your AE action gets reverted, do what Coffee wisely did and take a couple of days off and then come to ARCA to work out how to fix whatever the misunderstanding was. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I had an old tab open when I wrote this, and I see Callanecc has made this edit regarding enforcement actions, which I can't contest as a matter of procedural validity - that is indeed an accurate description of what was decided last year - but I strongly disagree with its substance. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • On editnotices: The Wordsmith, that's a good idea about the talk namespace, and article+talk vs projectspace captures most of the intended distinction. Newyorkbrad, I take it that you think a direct personal notification is always preferable to a general notice, but I'm not sure I agree; as far as I can tell most experienced editors hate these things. There's almost no way a template on your talk page, no matter how neutrally and blandly worded, doesn't feel targeted toward you. A general notice risks being overlooked but also avoids annoying people who are already working in a difficult area. If delivering notices for article and talk space edits is chewing up too much scarce admin time, then it sounds like the solution is either to actively solicit more admin help in AE/DS, or to leverage what we have with more effective technical support. (Maybe a bot could deliver the talk-page alerts to those who edit particular pages for the first time and haven't been warned?)
      • On reversal of AE sanctions: After a year of opportunities, this is the set of facts that prompts us to draw a line under AE1, instead of reconsidering that conclusion? OK, this time through the wringer went: Good-faith but undesirable edit, good-faith but undesirable block, quick unblock, everyone heads over to ARCA to sort shit out, compromise reached (though I guess it still needs some wordsmithing). Next time it'll be: Edit, block, unblock, ZOMG AE REVERSAL LEVEL II DEFCON 1!!!!11, desysop, angry ANI thread where someone gets blocked for incivility, edit war over closure of ANI thread, case request, 50+ pissed-off preliminary statements from various partisans, 6-week case, desysopped admin retires, blocked editor says "fuck this" and leaves, case closes, someone posts youtube link to Eric Cartman compilation video in post-decision ACN thread and gets blocked for disrespecting our authoritah copyvio. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree we shouldn't be sanctioning anyone. So far as I'm concerned, practice is that talk page notices and edit notices are sufficient, and if our documentation is confusing or suggests otherwise then we should do something about it. This could be to change practice (but not to suggest that enforcement of such notices in the past was wrong) or to change policy/documentation as appropriate. "Potentially contentious" is a problem and I'd have to be convinced that such wording is useful and enforceable. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Coffee: Looks like we are getting somewhere, hopefully more of my colleagues will be around soon to comment. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation would be that Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator implies that an alert does not need to be left on an editor's talk page and that an editnotice is enough when the admin is enforcing the edit notice. However, in this instance, I tend to agree with Kirill that prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content refers to "some specific content that cannot be added or removed" rather than broad restrictions on "potentially contentious edits". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Coffee: Sounds like full protection, but one that allows anyone to make uncontroversial edits? I don't actually think something like this is covered by the current DS procedure. The issue would be with a sanction like this is that what is and is not "contentious" is ambiguous and subjective so it's difficult to expect editors to know what it is and what isn't. You could impose a different revert restriction which enforces WP:BRD? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Wordsmith: I've clarified the point presumption of validity in the procedure. Talking on arbcom-l about the editnotice one at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=728924349"