Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 100

---

Initiated by DHeyward at 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons 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:

• DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification TonyBallioni
• diff of notification Sandstein

On 2 December 2017 I was topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed, by admin TonyBallioni. TonyBallioni had placed an article under 1RR using discretionary sanctions authorized under the BLP arbcom (note: not AP2). It was determined I violated a 1RR restriction.
I return to editing and I see an article I created in September, Kris Paronto, was prodded. He is not a politician. I fill in references, etc, etc. It was then put up for AfD. On 9 December 2017 TonyBallioni files an enforcement request for a "topic ban violation" for [1] "creation of article about Mr. Paronto, including overall Benghazi attack template [2] directly adding information related to criticism of the Obama administration by Mr. Paronto, See all other edits to Kris Paronto" He hadn't edited the article or otherwise engaged in the deletion discussion when filed as a party. The first allegation of creation was obviously in error.
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is the only administrator to comment with "I think that this is technically not a violation. The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded."

Later that same day, TonyBallioni IAR'd and withdrew the request noting "Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal." [3]. He apologizes on my talk page with similar language [[4]] adding "If that wasn't clear to others, then I worded it poorly and that mistake is on me."

Nobody changes or clarifies the TBAN (or even whether it is an ABAN which I raised Dec 9) so a reasonable person would conclude that the actions were not a violation.

Fast forward to January 4. The sanction is expired. An editor brings a violation for editing Erica Garner [5].

Another editor combs through my edits and finds I edited Joe Scarborough about on Dec 30[6] about 30 days into the 1 month topic ban and lists it as a "blatant violation." My edit was to restore long-standing consensus that mentioning the death of an aide is a BLP violation and I removed it because the Washington Post said it's bullshit[7]. I had linked that article to the Scarborough talk page in November, before the TBAN, to head off the aspersions that surely would follow[8]. Sure enough, people came to readd it[9]. It's like someone adding the Vince Foster suicide to Hillary Clinton - it's a BLP violation to try and link the deaths of these people into biographies of living people, at least in my mind and I've been battling the people adding it for 10 years (see Lori Klausutis and the AfDs if you have any need to see what depths people sank to to keep the smear alive).

Scarborough is no longer a politician and has not run or held office in 17 years. But back to AE: Now, there are tons of admins weighing in. Sandstein and TonyBallioni don't mention the Dec 9 filing and outcome. They both are aware by edit with the problems of clarity and confusion. There is no debate regarding whether my edits advanced the purpose of Wikipedia. No one is aware of the history of Scarborough and the eath of his aide 20 years ago, just that Trump smeared him.

No mention the Dec 9 closing where Sandstein said it was confusing and Tony blamed himself[10] so everyone is operating on their own fresh reading of the ban. TonyBallioni then decides the topic ban should be extended and changed to an AP2 topic ban to avoid confusion. My edit at Scarborough stands as of now and violated nothing. If anything it reinforced both the AP2 and BLP findings by ArbCom. The actual filer of the Jan 4 complaint that lengthened my TBAN was admonished because his complaint was baseless.

My request for clarification is: when an admin acknowledges confusion in interpretation, files and withdraws complaints that acknowledges it's on him but in the end ignores all that, creates a new TBAN under a different ArbCom remedy even though I didn't violate an AP2 remedies, how is it possible for an editor to keep up with these shifting sands? If an admin realizes there is a clarity issue, shouldn't they have a duty to clarify it before sanctioning? --DHeyward (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Fyddlestix the article ban policy says The word "article" usually refers only to mainspace pages. If any other related pages (such as the page's talk page) are to be covered it will usually be stated explicitly. and that was stated by Sandstein on Dec 9. --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Fyddlestix Again, Dec 9th, Sandstein said articles that aren't about politicians can be edited even when the edits were about politicians. Erica Garner was/is not a politician. The only edit comes down to whether we should mention the death of a former employee on Scarboroughs article. Reasonable people may conclude that A) he is no longer a politician just as he now longer is a lawyer or college student and B) references to Klausutis have been removed for years for obvious BLP reasons. it's why my "violating" edit still stands. --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni you're correct that the fast pace of AE is frustrating and Masem made a blatant error on the dates of Scarborough edit. It was also discouraging to note that you did not bring up your own filing and unclear sanction. It's impossible to keep up with the noise and ignorance, let alone the lack of accountability when a sanction. I asked for clarification when you filed as a party and you didn't clarify. When you filed as a party on Dec 9, you didn't recuse later per admin accountabilty but instead ignored your own admission of vagueness and implemented a new ban under a different arncom remedy. Shit, I don't even know when it expires because it's new but you keep saying it's an extension. What you should have done is to come out and say "I fucked up, the TBAN is expired. All the edits were productive." Only the last statement is true, though - "All the edits were productive." That makes you "THAT admin." --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

tony here's all my Scarborough edits. [11] I realize this might be your first go round with it but come on. A trump tweet followed by WaPo calling it BS doesn't mean we add it. Ted Cruz didn't assassinate Kennedy and Clinton didn't kill Vince Foster. Trump Tweeted all three and WaPo called bullshit on all three and your assertion that it might be okay only in Scarborough is awful interpretation of BLP policy. A good question to ask yourself in these decisions is : "Will the WaPo include this information in the obit?" Answer: no. The fact that you don't see that it could be a BLP and the he might not be considered a politician is a huge AGF problem solved by a talk page comment. It's lunacy to think the same edit 3 days later is okay. --DHeyward (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Just a few comments as I've read some of the statements.

1. I don't edit Wikipedia to "test boundaries." I edit to improve and expand the encyclopedia as I hope we all do. This I also see a history of trying to get around sanctions in this area, both with the original TBAN AE thread, the actions that led to this AE, and the various actions afterwards is baseless. In particular, I wasn't under any sanctions when this second AE was filed and the only action prior that he cited was his aborted Dec 9 AE complaint that he blamed himself. I'm extremely disappointed that TonyBalloni took the blame for his poorly defined sanction but then still tries to blame me for it here to justify a brand new sanction. It is true that I was frustrated by this behavior and I could have acted better. But describing an edit on my talk page as nefarious "canvassing" when every single AE action starts with a notice on a users talk page about the AE discussion, lacks intellectual rigor. I notified Tony about this discussion on his talk page which I'm sure others saw and followed.
2. Tony then doubles down with one of my last edits to Brian Krzanich. Davidson and Tony seems to think my edits violate AP2. Read the edits: [12][13][14]. I didn't give those edits a second thought nor cared about his politics. He was in the news regarding the security of microchips with speculative execution of branching instructions that access kernel memory locations using the hardware page table but then flush the instruction pipe without clearing table entry (not necessary for execution but leaving it can lead to side channel attack). The edits weren't controversial and fixed language around his stock sales. They aren't disruptive edits. I could defend them but there is no reward to doing so and I have better things to do than jump when busybodies should just move on (re-read the detail above to get an idea of what I was thinking when Tony ascribed to as an "edge case."). Heck, the only "edge case" where I thought it may have been on the boundary, I self-reverted. My revert was undone because it was a good edit with sources (my edits[15] my self revert [16] and restored by another editor[17]. Someone even commented that my revert description that undid every edit I made wasn't clear enough. I'll get right on that.
3. I do have pointy elbows sometimes as Katie mentioned. I try to avoid a lot of discussions that have heated participants. I slipped on dec 2 on the 1RR. I'll note as Kingsindian did how TonyBalloni objected to Volunteer Mareks 24 hour topic ban for the same type of 1RR/no consensus violation handed out by Coffee. And I'll point out that Tony doesn't think BLPONUS applies to my edit that only removed material from Scarborough or that the lead states he is a former politician. In light of all that, there is no joy in participating where my time is being eaten up in these spaces defending edits that the community finds acceptable. I have no intention of violating 1RR, no intention of violating any discretionary sanction. I don't wish to be involved in any more disputes with TonyBallioni. There's no point in participating, though, if edits like the ones I made to Brian Krzanich are called out on noticeboards. After the comment about Humpty Dumpty below, I wouldn't be surprised if an edit to Alice in Wonderland is now an edge case. God forbid I edit Kevin Bacon. --DHeyward (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Joe Scarborough is unambiguously an American politician: he is a former member of congress. That was a bright line that was clearly crossed over. The other cases were edge cases, but there were enough of them that I felt, as did the other admins at AE, that combined with the clear violation at Scarborough, the topic ban should be reset. Two other administrators suggested making the ban broader since there might have been some confusion: I agreed that was wise given the previous sanction. Regardless, Scarborough was a bright line, and it was not an obvious BLP violation as required by WP:BANEX, and the text removed was substantially different than previous versions removed on BLP grounds to the point where classifying them as the same topic is even a stretch: it was about Trump advancing a conspiracy theory and was cited to the Washington Post, and specifically called the incident unfounded conspiracy theories. This is substantially different than previous versions reverted: [18], [19]. A reasonable editor could have made an argument for it's inclusion on the talk page, and have argued that there were a change in circumstances. That means that it is not covered by WP:BANEX.
  I will note that my sanction here was the unanimous consensus of all admins commenting on the AE thread, and that there was no consensus at AN to overturn the appeal. I have no issue with the committee reviewing my actions here, and I have admitted and realized the topic ban could have been worded better to begin with: that does not affect DHeyward's sanction in this case however, as there was a clear and blatant TBAN violation and there were several others that were on the edges here.
  I also think that the committee should take into account DHeyward's conduct on his talk page, where he edit warred to redirect it to AE: [20], [21], [22] at AE, where he edit warred to restore commentary in the middle of another editor's comments: [23], [24],[25] and at AN, where he bludgeoned the conversation by pasting the same statement to multiple editors who endorsed this sanction: [26], [27], [28] (and I think there are more, but it would likely be easier to see by reading the thread). This all is disruptive editing that makes both the AE process and the appeals more difficult for uninvolved editors to review, and has the potential to have a chilling effect on those that disagree with him. Despite this, there was no consensus at AN to overturn the sanction, and the consensus of administrators at AE was to reset the topic ban. I am fine with whatever the committee decides to do, but I see no way to get around the fact that a former member of congress who is also a prominent political commentator is well within this topic ban on living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed., even without getting to the edge cases that also factored into the AE consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• I will also note that Andrew Davidson was not admonished for a baseless complaint, he was warned not to use hyperbole because of statements like tags Erica Garner, suggesting that her life did not matter, which is a derogatory implication given her role in Black Lives Matter and This is the first of several edits which seek to disrupt and destroy this article. I, as well as other admins, did consider these edits presented by Andrew as part of a pattern of editing around the edge, but the Scarborough edit was the bright line violation in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• DHeyward: the last day of your current topic ban is 4 February 2018. You may begin editing in the topic area again on 5 February 2018 unless ArbCom lifts the sanction earlier. I hope that is clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Just noting for the committee that Volunteer Marek has filed a new AE request based on this sanction against DHeyward. See: this section. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Since I have been asked: no, I will not be removing my sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Newyorkbrad, I agree, in general, with your observations, but of course with the difference that I thought it was worth sanctioning. There are two factors that I think you and ArbCom should also consider here: the pattern of behavior that occurred both before and after this new topic ban which is now being discussed at AE, and the behavior of DHeyward during the AE thread itself. On the first case, from my reading of the AE thread, and the previous AE action where DHeyward had 4 reverts on a 1RR article, followed by a self-revert to his preferred version, he had a pattern of pushing the limits on what was acceptable in a sanctions, claiming BLP exemptions that are not obvious (as required by WP:3RRNO and WP:BANEX), and then attempting to WikiLawyer around them. At some point when there is a pattern of continually approaching the line and stepping up to it, an individual crosses it, and I felt, as did the other AE admins, that DHeyward's behavior here, especially on the Scarborough article, reached that point. This pattern can also be seen with the new AE thread: if he had made that post while his appeal wasn't being considered at ARCA, it would have been an unquestionable topic ban violation, but because Jimmy Wales still in theory has the right of appeal from ArbCom (which he never exercises), it is a grey area that admins are put in an impossible place of enforcing: his commentary was more on the state of American politics on Wikipedia than anything else, but he discussed my comment at this ARCA as a part of it, so it was grey.
  Finally, I do want to address DHeyward's behavior at AE, which I linked to in diff's above. I did consider Mr. Ernie's suggestion on DHeyward's talk page that I let it off with a warning: it would have been the easiest way out. At the same time, DHeyward had violated TPO on AE, and edit warred to reinsert those violations. He'd also just redirected his own talk page to AE, effectively canvassing his watchers there, and had edit warred to keep the redirect. Both of these behaviors are disruptive, especially to a high intensity process that attracts partisans from every angle to defend their friend or attack their opponent. I felt that the behavior in the thread, combined with what I saw as a bright line violation at Scarborough, and edge cases elsewhere, meant that DHeyward was likely to continue to be disruptive in areas where discretionary sanctions were active, as he had previously when hitting 4 reverts on a 1RR article.
  There was a consensus at AE that the topic ban should be reset, and that it should be made AP2, and I had reason to believe that he would likely continue disruption in the topic area since he was demonstrating the same behavior that led to a topic ban (edit warring) during the AE process. Given these circumstances, and the fact that the AN appeal did not achieve consensus to overturn, I think I was within my discretion to act upon the consensus of AE admins, and that I could reasonably expect that the TBAN would be preventative rather than punishment. I'm sorry to the arbs for my long comment, but this is a complex situation, and I felt that I should explain as clear as possible the reasoning given some of the questions Newyorkbrad raised. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • KrakatoaKatie, yes, I agree looking back, the sanction should have been an AP2 sanction. Oddly enough, I was trying to prevent WikiLawyering when I placed the article under the BLP page level restrictions at the time. I did not clarify after the 9 December AE, because I thought at the time it was clear that politicians were covered, and he should take a wide breadth from them. I had already been accused of being on a vendetta against him (which I wasn't), and I felt that increasing the sanctions for AP2 at that time he might view as vindictive rather than a clarification, but I also felt that the ban shouldn't be removed, because 4 reverts on 1RR is a lot of disruption.
    In terms of this specific appeal, and your question regarding politicians, I will push back a bit. While you can argue whether or not the city councilman is an American politician here, when the article at the time it was edited has as the first thing in it's infobox his political service as a Member of Congress, and he is included in both Category:21st-century American politicians and Category:20th-century American politicians, and when you consider that he is probably the most high profile news media personality to be in conflict with the President of the United States, I think he falls squarely within the sanction, just by looking at the article itself. I also see a history of trying to get around sanctions in this area, both with the original TBAN AE thread, the actions that led to this AE, and the various actions afterwards.
    Finally, in the context of the appeal above, I think it would be a bad idea for the committee to overturn this. Above, Sandstein is being critiqued for acting independently of other admins when there was no clear consensus at AE. Here, I acted with the unanimous consensus of all AE admins, and the appeal was not overturned at AN. While the committee is of course free to do as it chooses, criticizing one administrator for his actions not working with other admins in AE above, while also overturning a sanction that was unanimously deemed to be merited by other administrators at AE makes the forum very difficult to work in, and raises the question of whether an administrator should unilaterally close an AE filing without sanctions, when there is a clear agreement amongst administrators that sanctions should occur. I'm willing to admit my mistakes in the original TBAN wording, and while I can see why others might not have sanctioned, given the information that I was faced with at the time, the disruption that had been actively occuring on AE, and the consensus of administrators there, I think that I acted within discretion and in a procedurally correct manner. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Kingsindian: to your question of why TBAN him: because he has consistently shown over the last month that he is an editor who simply doesn't care what the behavioral norms are of Wikipedia or what sanctions are in place so long as he thinks he is right. That indicates a strong likelihood that he will continue to be disruptive in the topic area. His edits here might be done in good faith (he thinks he is right, that he is being wronged, etc.) but they are still disruptive. That's how he got in this situation to begin with: 4 reverts on a 1RR article. It is a serious behavioral problem that needs to be addressed, and skirting the topic ban around the edges, and then crossing the on an article he should have at least thought to asks demonstrates that he could use some more time off from this area to hopefully cool down and get used to editing in less contentious areas where there is less feuding between people from different POVs. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• DHeyward, I think the most concerning thing about your actions to me is that you haven’t once admitted that others might reasonably disagree with you, and that you insist that you were 100% in the right. Every admin at AE thought you violated your topic ban, and you kept insisting that there was no way you could have: when many reasonable people tell you that they view something differently than you, it is normally a sign that they may be seeing something you aren’t. I was strongly considering letting this off with a warning, but the edit warring on your own talk page and at AE were huge mistakes that suggested to me that you needed a longer break from this contentious area, especially when combined with what seemed to me and other admins to be pushing the limits on sanctions. I see how you might see these as BLP violations: I disagree that they were ban exempt, but I recognize your point of view. My largest concern is that if you go back into the area you will continue edit warring when you think you are right, even if reasonable people disagree and it should be discussed on the talk page. I think these concerns are warranted, and are the main reason that looking at the totality of the picture, I am still uncomfortable lifting sanctions, especially considering that I feel you have misrepresented a lot of what I have said here and haven’t recognized that much of your behavior as a part of the AE process has been disruptive. I would be willing to consider changing the sanction to 0RR in AP2 as a sign of good faith given your last post, but I would not be comfortable at this time completely lifting sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• I've removed the sanction. I have no desire to extend the discussion here, and I respect Katie, DGG, Rick and NYB enough that I'm fine with removing this. I've only ever acted in this manner with regards to consensus, which was in favour of reseting the TBAN at AE. I stand by my recent comments above: I think DHeyward acted very disruptively throughout this process, but if the committee thinks that a sanction should not happen because the wording was vague enough that good faith should be assumed, I will respect their judgement. Having a forum other than AE and AN to look at this is important, and I appreciate their review. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My involvement in this is superficial and of an administrative nature. I declined to take action in an enforcement request of 9 December 2017 against DHeyward because, for the reasons cited by DHeyward, I did not think that DHeyward's actions as reported there violated their topic ban. As concerns the enforcement request of 4 January 2018 at issue here, I closed DHeyward's appeal at WP:AN against the ban imposed by TonyBallioni, finding that there was not the required clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors to overturn the ban.

I have not formed a opinion of my own about the merits of the ban, and I don't think that I need to, because I think that this appeal should be rejected on procedural grounds. Although follow-up appeals to ARCA from AN or AE are allowed, I believe that, to avoid forum shopping, ArbCom should not review such appeals de novo, but focus on any important procedural errors with the sanction or the appeal below. To the extent I understand this somewhat confusing appeal, such errors are not being alleged here. Sandstein 07:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Enforcement case
• Appeal and decline

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Come on. This was already appealed at AN and the appeal was declined. Do we really want everyone who is unhappy with their AE sanction appealing to both AN and to ARCA going forward? You can interpret the topic ban as narrowly as you want, it was still clearly and obviously violated. The wikilayering here is ridiculous and should not be tolerated. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In reply to some of the comments since I posted this: I'm happy to defer to admins and arbs and accept that the appeal is within established process - I'm not sure I was really arguing otherwise: my point was more simply that DHeyward has used every possible means to challenge these sanctions every step of the way. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you believe - as I do - that the tban violation was clear cut then it does seem disruptive. Also, if the 2 appeals currently under consideration here end with the sanction being overturned you should probably all be prepared to spend a lot more time reading arca appeals of ae sanctions going forward.

As for the violation itself, I'm a bit flummoxed to see so many admins and others argue that Scarborough is not a politician. Someone who has been a member of Congress definitely deserves that label, and I would push back against the assertion that they stop being a politician the moment the stop serving. Joe Scarborough is, after all, in Category:20th-century American politicians, and you only need look at articles like Nick Galifianakis (politician) (to pick just one random example out of many) to see that members of Congress are frequently referred to as "politicians" - even long after they're dead or have left office. Our BLP articles obviously detail what people did throughout their lives not just what they are doing right now, it seems absurd to me that a biography of someone who served in Congress should not be considered a biography of a politician. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No matter how many times TonyBallioni says "Scarborough is unambiguously a politician" doesn't make it so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the ban should be rescinded and a huge trout to TonyBalioni for without him, we would not be in this position we are in now. He wrote a horrible TBAN, DHeyward followed the TBAN, got an AE action against him a while back and it was closed as no violation, and DHeyward used that and then a new TBAN is given to DHeyward for following the rules and precedent. Is it any wonder people have problems? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The irony here is that THIS ARCA belies claims made in the ARCA right above it. Specifically:

In the AP2 ARCA right above SlimVirgin says: "What can be done about this situation at AE, which seems to have been going on forever, that Sandstein can simply ignore the views of other uninvolved admins? ". Note she does not offer any diffs or any other evidence for this claim aside from the fact that she doesn't like how the MONGO report was closed.

In this ARCA we actually see clear evidence that her claim is false: " I declined to take action in an enforcement request of 9 December 2017 against DHeyward because, for the reasons cited by DHeyward, I did not think that DHeyward's actions as reported there violated their topic ban"

So apparently Sandstein DOES NOT in fact "ignore the views of other uninvolved admins". Gee, perhaps the consensus in the MONGO case was actually leaning towards the way that Sandstein closed it?

As for DHeyward, this is what, the fourth FORUM he's brought up this in? Maybe just the third. What Fyddlestix said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Dheyward has already made an appeal and it was rejected, so it's not clear what the purpose of this is, except as a thinly disguised "appeal of an appeal of an appeal a sanction".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So... how about we get an actual clarification here. If you get a DS, through WP:AE otherwise, exactly where and how many times can you appeal? It seems like the appeal procedure is: 1) on the sanctioning admin's talk page, then 2) at WP:AN, then 3) here then 4) Jimbo I guess. Is it possible to squeeze in WP:AE or WP:AN/I in there too? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, in his latest comment [29] Dheyward claims that " I wasn't under any sanctions when this second AE was filed". This is false. A sanction is in effect until it is successfully appealed. Just because you are busy WP:FORUMSHOPPING your appeal (because it was already rejected elsewhere) doesn't mean the sanction is suspended.

It is also clear from DHeyward's statement that he blames everyone but himself for the consequences of his actions (no idea what "intellectual rigor" has to do with following Wikipedia policies). Likewise claiming that "I slipped on dec 2 on 1RR" is a bit disingenous seeing as this "slip" consisted of FOUR reverts (which would've been a vio even absent 1RR) [30]. And instead of acknowledging that DHeyward instead made excuses and tried to get other editors sanctions under various false pretexts. Tony and the AE admins actually went easy on him. Too easy apparently since he then proceeded to violate the limited sanction that was imposed. And here we are.

I also want to echo something others have said - this is like the third or fourth venue that DHeyward has "appealed" to. The actual appeal - the one that follows policy - was soundly rejected at WP:AN. If you over turn the sanction then you are not only over ruling admins at WP:AE, you are also over ruling the broader community at WP:AN. I can see over ruling one or the other, but both? You will also be incentivizing forum shopping, topic ban envelope pushing and other disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note the original timeline. The topic ban was first placed on 2 Dec while DHeyward started editing Erica Garner on 31 Dec, which is within the same calendar month. My view was that this clearly violated the topic ban as the Garner topic was related to multiple US politicians, when "broadly construed", as the ban stated. Myself, I have no particular axe to grind about US politics as I'm British and had only started the article in response to a request at the Women in Red Project. The subject was getting a lot of traffic and was posted on the main page in ITN. I was therefore concerned that the article should not be improperly tagged while it was getting such exposure. I have been previously told by an OTRS admin (RexxS iirc) that such tags can often cause offense when they suggest that the subject is not notable. The subject was covered by the policy BDP and so the matter seemed reasonably serious. Maybe I didn't explain this well but the AE submission form is quite complex and it was quite late at night when I was working through its intricate requirements for diffs and detail. Some latitude should please be allowed for editors who are trying to use the process in good faith but find it difficult.

On 4 Jan, the topic ban was then restated as "DHeyward is banned for one month from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed." On 6 Jan, DHeyward made several edits to the article about Brian Krzanich, e.g. this. That article recounts "Krzanich's involvement in politics" and repeatedly details Krzanich's interaction with Trump and the policies of his administration. Editing this article therefore seems to be a fresh violation of the topic ban.

Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni's original topic ban placed on DHeyward was not a well formed sanction. Tony himself didn't even seem to understand what it covered, as seen by the AE request he brought and then retracted. If the sanctioning admin can't understand a sanction they create, how can we expect an editor to? Additionally, DHeyward's offending edit was removing a borderline BLP error. I will assume good faith and believe DHeyward when he says he didn't think Scarborough qualified as a politician AND that he was enforcing BLP. What caused more disruption to the project? The offending edit was a clear improvement to the article. The resulting attempts to punish DHeyward for running afoul of a poorly worded sanction and subsequent appeals have taken us to AN, Jimbo's page, AE (trips for DHeyward, MONGO, and The Rambling Man), and now ARCA. Tony continues to support his sanction, claiming the consensus from fellow admins at AE is on his side - but of course it is. Admin's rarely choose to side with editors when potential admin mistakes are involved, especially editors who have committed the cardinal sin of having a block log.

Tony, would you consider removing the current topic ban on DHeyward? His behavior will certainly be closely watched. We've already had one editor retire as a direct result of your administrative actions, and it appears we'll soon have another one retire (if he isn't blocked first). Mr Ernie (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

GoldenRing if we can all accept, as you say, that it was a badly-constructed ban, then it seems to me the natural course of action is to either clarify the ban or remove it, not insist that it be enforced. TonyBallioni chose the latter course of action, and it is hard to see how that benefited anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If I understand the arb comments, Newyorkbrad and KrakatoaKatie have said they would not have extended the sanction, but are awaiting more comments before deciding what to do, and DGG has stated his first choice would be to remove the sanction. How can/should we move forward here so we can wrap this up? Are there still any arbs who would like to comment or should we work based on those who have commented so far? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

While I'm here: I agree with Mr Ernie. It doesn't make sense to enforce a sanction that was unclear to everyone, admittedly so by its author, who didn't get around to clarifying it. Especially when a) it was about to expire anyway, b) the edits were actually productive and made in good faith, and c) whether the article in question even qualifies is questionable. A friend of mine who died of cancer last year, and who was a Unix system administrator and a book author, and might conceivably be notable, also ran for local public office one time, about 30 years ago. Does that make him a politician?

This does seem to me to be of-a-piece with the Tony1 wrongful block situation, and the AE report by SarahSV above. Some sanctions-related bolt has come loose and needs to be re-tightened, firmly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking about this appeal, I do not think that any AE administrator acted outside the limits of their discretion, and therefore I do not see any reason to overturn the decisions on WP:AE and the discussion by WP community on WP:AN. Did AE admins demonstrate good judgement? I think they definitely did. I do not really know the user, but his behavior, i.e. multiple appeals (on 3 noticeboards) with a simultaneous violation of their topic ban and the "retirement" looks to me as disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think reforming the system of discretionary sanctions (as suggested by DGG) could be reasonable. Two suggestions are obvious:

1. These sanctions can be simply removed in many subject areas, although US politics is probably not one of them.
2. Arbcom could define a limited "toolbox" of specific types of restrictions that could be used by admins in such areas. For example, making 1RR restriction for a page would be allowed, but highly complicated restrictions (such as "consensus required" by Coffee) would not be included in the toolbox. That would help a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that the matter has been clarified, this is moot. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While I opposed both the sanction and opposed it in the appeal at AN, I agree with Sandstein and think this request should be closed because this is simply forum-shopping. AE sanctions can be appealed somewhere (either AN or ARCA or AE itself). The former was chosen and it failed, so the matter should be allowed to rest. My condolences to DHeyward, but that's how it is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC) An addendum: if ArbCom does end up considering the merits of the ban in this venue, I'll be happy to provide my views on how the sanction was bad. In particular, some things I'll say about TonyBallioni will not be flattering. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC) @BU Rob13: To clarify, when I said the above, I meant that I thought the purpose of ARCA would be to look at procedural matters (for instance, was the AN request closed correctly? I think it was.) If ArbCom is ready to hear the entire case from the beginning, let me me know and I'll comment accordingly. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll provide a summary of the events as I see them. There are three main acts:

1. Volunteer Marek brings an AE request against DHeyward for edit-warring. TonyBallioni TBAN-ed DHeyward on 2 December 2017 for edit-warring on the article Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, which he had placed under 1RR and consensus required provision. Please note the latter point, because it is important and I'll come back to it. TonyBallioni is a fervent defender of the "consensus required" provision in numerous venues (and I am a fervent opponent; however, the latter fact is not relevant here because I did not take any admin actions here). According to TonyBallioni "consensus required" is a good provision intended to enforce WP:ONUS, namely the requirement that the person who inserts the text has to prove consensus, not the person who removes it. The wording of the TBAN is articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed
2. TonyBallioni brings an AE request against DHeyward for violation of the TBAN. Sandstein determines that the TBAN hasn't been violated because While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. TonyBallioni acknowledged that the wording was poor, and withdrew the request.
3. Andrew Davidson brought an AE request against DHeyward. It is 100% certain that based on the diffs provided by Andrew Davidson, DHeyward wouldn't have been sanctioned at all; indeed, Andrew Davidson was admonished in the closing statement for their "hyperbole". However, Volunteer Marek brought forward other diffs in the AE request, which were also investigated, first by Zero0000 and later by others. The decisive edit (agreed to by all people involved) was DHeyward's edit on Joe Scarborough. I am using the word "decisive" properly: without the Scarborough edit, it is very unlikely that DHeyward would have been sanctioned.

Now we come to the Scarborough edit.

• Scarborough is described in the lead of his article as an American cable news and talk radio host. He has not been a politician for 17 years. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that "past politicians" is covered in the TBAN. So the only way in which DHeyward's edit would be allowed is if it was removing a BLP violation. I come to this very point.
• Some history of the text at issue. I have already given a full account in the WP:AN request; please also see TonyBallioni's responses to me. Here, I give a capsule summary of the important points. The text in question was inserted by a throwaway sock/troll account called The-internminator (the woman who died was an intern). They also likely used socks/IPs for this purpose (see this, this and this, for example). Trump had tweeted about this matter, which WaPo (among others) deemed as a conspiracy theory without any basis in fact. Please see the talk page discussion here, where no consensus was found for any inclusion of text, of whatever phrasing.
• WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is an integral part of BLP policy. Since no consensus for any text was found, edit-warring against consensus by the IP/sock/troll was illegitimate and a BLP violation. This is what happened initially: eventually the person (ScottSteiner) who was edit-warring with the IP/troll rewrote the passage into something closer to neutrality, which seemed to satisfy the IP/troll/sock. Again, the crucial point is that there was no consensus for this phrasing either.
• DHeyward had removed this text (or something like it) many times over many years; see this for an example. It is well-known that such things in political areas are litigated over and over, often for years. This particular edit has been fought over since at least 2004.
• This is not really important, but Volunteer Marek himself was the target of reverts by a sock/troll of some smears he claimed to be a BLP violation, on Andrew McCabe. See this AN request. This kind of stuff is routine in political areas.

Now, I come to the punchline. There is a good-faith determination that DHeyward thought that he was removing a BLP violation and did not intend to violate his topic ban. His edit was completely proper (in fact, required under WP:BLP), and it has stood undisturbed since he made it. TonyBallioni's professed concern about WP:ONUS and "consensus required" also points to this outcome. Nobody claims that DHeyward's edits were disruptive or harmed the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni's ban was poorly worded and confusing to even himself.

So why was DHeyward TBANned? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: As I've said privately to TonyBallioni, I can't see how the topic scope "living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed" is any different to "post-1932 American politics," since anything political is necessarily "related" to politicians. I certainly can't see how it could be construed as narrower than a standard AP2 TBAN; it might be arguably broader, since politicians might have other non-political interests which would fall under "related topics, broadly construed." The wording appears at first glance to be narrower than an AP2 TBAN but actually isn't and I think everyone accepts that it was a badly-constructed ban. The only respect in which it is clearly narrower than an AP2 ban is that it only applies in article space (and perhaps with respect to people involved in post-1932 politics but who are long deceased, but that question doesn't come up here).

Given that scope, the question is not whether Erica Garner or Joe Scarborough are living or recently deceased politicians, but whether they are topics broadly related to politicians, which they clearly are. That would make DHeyward's edits unambiguously violations of the topic ban.

The only remaining questions in my mind are whether he reasonably relied on Sandstein's interpretation of the ban to be significantly narrower than its bare wording (you accept that he did, if I understand you correctly, and I think I agree, though his subsequent poking at the limits of his subsequent ban should perhaps give us pause for thought) and then whether that reliance is sufficient to overturn the sanction, on which I don't have an opinion. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Brad, As you know, I endorsed the AE in the AN appeal, and I still do because, it's well within reasonable discretion to find the topics related. We are called upon to review the consensus discretion of other people, not Sandstein, and those people are endowed with their own reasoned discretion, so I again say, endorse. --`Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Welcome and good luck. I don't get your suggestion that you need a definition of politician -- it's ordinary English, right? - and really, if you accept you need such definition, every sanction will read like a phone book -- and I extend the observation of ordinary English to 'topics related to'. Whatever, theoretical cases may arise (or otherstuff that arose): this former congressmen/political commentator and this political activist/who prominently interacted with presidential candidates and city political leaders, fall within reasonable construction of these ordinary English phrases. (As an aside, Erica Gardner was created on the 29th[31], so no one was going to edit it till then and the editing occurred in December) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel bad for DHeyward because he keeps finding himself in situations where he is sanctioned, re-sanctioned and reported for violations of the re-sanctions. On the other hand, I don't think that Arbcom should second guess AE admins unless there is strong evidence that they have failed to comply with WP:AC/DS or established project norms. I concur with TonyBallioni's very patient and detailed explanation. Sandstein's statement about procedure is also on point, while I also acknowledge and respect that many Wikipedians see things much differently. Newyorkbrad's somewhat wordy ;) analysis shows that he understands the circumstances well.

The question is: should Arbcom members vote to lift sanctions that they personal would not have imposed if they were admining at AE? Think about that carefully. There is a very real risk of establishing a precedent that is going to make you jobs very, very busy and potentially generate a lot of future drama.- MrX 17:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

DGG, with all due respect, AE is the about the only thing preventing this place from blowing up. Reform would be beneficial, but eliminating it would be a huge step backwards.- MrX 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes has made some good suggestions regarding DGG's musing on AE reform. I'd like to add more transparency and, to impose a sanction, the enforcing admin must state specifically what action the sanctioned editor performed with at least one dif. If someone else has to be punished for something, then the admin has to go on record that they believe they did it and that they believe it's bad. And "disruption" is a result, not an action. Say what they did. If AE sanctions are truly intended to be anti-disruptive and not punitive, then identifying the disruptive action is the single most valuable thing to do. Even if you think the sanctioned editor is too stupid to understand, say it for the benefit of other editors reading the public, transparent thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If I was better person, I wouldn't find myself ironically amused (and somewhat saddened) by the way wiki-volunteers disregard Wikipedia mainspace in the Wikipedia space: According to us, Joe Scarborough "is an American cable news and talk radio host. ... Scarborough was previously a lawyer and a politician" (emphasis mine). And Wikipedia defines Politician thus: "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government." So ya'll work so hard to maintain the editorial integrity of an encyclopedia which is then disregarded in favor of WP:SYNTHESIS during dispute resolution ...

I'll add -- likely pointlessly in the face of Tradition!^[1] -- that the phrase broadly construed really should be struck from the wiki lexicon, due to it's frequent Alice in Wonderland usage: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” In other words, if ya'll are going to do topic based restrictions, precise definition during drafting, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor in the gray areas, would reduce the necessity for some much post-edit haggling over whether an edit was or wasn't a violation.

Long AE threads are bad enough. By the time there's been even one appeal, the purpose and intended functioning of Discretionary Sanctions has been thoroughly subverted. We didn't need DS to go through all the drama, including a brief retirement. The initial sanction was well-considered and valid both on process and on substance. And DHeyward has a nasty well-documented history of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

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

• Recuse GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Awaiting further statements, and will review tomorrow. Note that we'll look at the related AE and AN threads in reviewing this, so that while anyone may comment here, it's not necessary to repeat every point that's already been made there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been reviewing this and the other new AE-related thread today, interspersed with some offline activities, and had reached a tentative conclusion subject to double-checking some things and finalizing my review. I'll be finishing up and posting tonight (Eastern US time). In the meantime, I see that DHeyward has posted a retirement notice, which I am sure is not an outcome that anyone was hoping for. Since many retirements are non-permanent and the appeal hasn't been withdrawn, I'll be concluding my review regardless of it; the retirement announcement will not affect my analysis or conclusions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I was planning to post on this tonight, but my comments on the previous ARCA request took me much longer than I'd anticipated, so it'll have to be tomorrow. My apologies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • My thoughts:

First, the appeal is procedurally proper. The policy provides for it, and the right to appeal an AE outcome to ArbCom is an important safety valve, even though we respect the AE admins' judgment in most cases, and grant appeals only rarely.

On December 2, DHeyward was topic-banned for one month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. On December 9, addressing another complaint against DHeyward, one of our most experienced AE administrators observed that the specific topic-ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits and that edits where the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician were not prohibited. DHeyward says he relied on this construction in interpreting the topic-ban for the rest of the month, and I believe that.

There were no further complaints about DHeyward's compliance until a January 4 AE filing about edits to Erica Garner; during the thread, another editor cited edits to Joe Scarborough. (Some other edits were cited, but those were the main focus.) The outcome was a one-month extension of a broader "American politics" topic ban.

DHeyward argues that he believed that his edits were permissible. He emphasizes, repetitiously but plausibly, that he would not knowingly have violated the topic-ban so close to its expiration. He also points out that the sanction as imposed was ambiguous. (Clarity in sanctioning is good, but no rule can ever be totally unambiguous even in theory, see here, so common sense must be used.)

The question in the new AE thread was whether DHeyward's edits were to articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. This raised sub-issues, including: (1) whether the topic-ban included talk pages (I'm surprised that could still be unclear at this late date); (2) whether Erica Garner was a "politician" (debatable, but understandable to think not); (3) whether Joe Scarborough is a "politician" (he isn't today, though he used to be, but perhaps his is a "related article, broadly construed"); (4) whether removing a reference to a Donald Trump tweet referencing a blatantly false accusation against Scarborough constituted BLP enforcement (another instance of the Allegations Problem, which is one of the most difficult areas of BLP line-drawing, as I've discussed here).

If I had been one of the administrators who worked on this AE thread, I would have found that while he sometimes came close to the line, DHeyward appeared to have a good-faith, rational belief that he had stayed onside each time. I would have opined against sanctioning him, though I would also have observed—and I observe here—that the best way to avoid having to discern the parameters of a topic-ban from the inside is to avoid being topic-banned in the first place.

The AE admins' consensus was that violations took place, with a one-month reset as the remedy. DHeyward appealed to AN, where by my count 15 editors endorsed the sanction and 11 opposed it. The AN discussion was not the very model of a modern noticeboard debate, though in fairness so few of them are. I note in passing that it might have been better if someone else had closed the AN thread (though the "no consensus" outcome was likely inevitable), and I note with strong disapproval how many people's opinions lined up along predictable partisan lines.

That brings us here. I think DHeyward probably believed, more reasonably in some instances than in others but not beyond the bounds of AGF, that his edits were compliant. DHeyward might be well-advised to refine his editing style if (as I hope) he soon returns to editing, but I would not have voted to extend this topic-ban.

But the question here is not just whether I personally disagree with the AE decision, but whether ArbCom should go so far as to overturn it. Before I reach that question, I'd welcome others' opinions on the views I've expressed so far. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: As TonyBallioni has now lifted the topic-ban extension (see above), this matter is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Recuse from this specific topic ban/clarification request, although not from future discussions on BLP sanctions in general. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Recuse from this specific request as with PMC above. I do want to comment broadly though on the topic of appeals to ARCA. Appealing to AN/AE and then ARCA is perfectly fine. In fact, it's what we'd expect. ARCA is the final venue of appeal, and it's typical to appeal at AE/AN before ARCA. See, for instance, arb comments at the Pseudoscience appeal above. Ignoring the specifics of this appeal, I am completely unconvinced by the arguments of forum-shopping. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kingsindian: My comment was more in reply to Fyddlestix. I'm recused on this specific appeal, so I'll let other arbs comment on how they plan to proceed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that the appeal is proper. If we're going to have steps in an appeal process, and if those steps are outlined, then an editor has the right to avail him/herself of each of those steps. I'm a newbie here, but I can at least piece together that much.

We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if the initial sanction had been clear. Setting aside for just a moment DHeyward's claims of removing BLP violations, the BLP policy defines living or recently deceased persons as within its remit. If this had been a simple BLP sanction about living or recently deceased persons, or even an AP2 sanction, DHeyward's edits would have been violations. That was not the sanction, though – the sanction was topic-banned for one month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed.

So, who is and isn't an American politician? Does 'politician' include everyone who has ever held elective office at any level, no matter how long ago or for how long? Does it include everyone who ever campaigned for elective office? Does it include everyone who ever made a speech on a political topic? Does it include activists? Does it include people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and wrote a book about their experience? Does it include former military who have written books? The sanction is unworkable without that definition, in my view, even with the broadly construed clause.

When Sandstein declined the AE thread over edits to Kris Paronto, DHeyward says he used the guidance given there, about articles vs. edits, to frame his editing for the duration of the sanction. I see nothing that leads me to conclude that this is not true. I'm very puzzled why the sanction was not removed or at least clarified at this point, but it wasn't, so there you go.

Sanction expires, DHeyward edits Erica Garner – adding a section to the talk page, and proposing a merger to Death of Eric Garner – and an AE thread is started about it requesting a sanction under WP:NEWBLPBAN, not under the topic ban or even under AP2. (January 4 is unquestionably more than a month after December 2, and I have to wonder if NEWBLPBAN wasn't used as an excuse here.) That discussion veers off into AP2 territory quickly, with DHeyward's removal of a section of Joe Scarborough just before the sanction expired taking center stage. DHeyward is adamant that a) this is a BANEX in that he was removing a BLP violation, and b) Scarborough is not an American politician. He also says he would not have violated the sanction so close to its expiration date.

DHeyward has strong views on BLP enforcement, and again, I have no reason to question his motives or his statements here. Could he have behaved better at the AE thread? Absolutely. Is his style abrasive to some? Undoubtedly. He should really think about how he approaches editing in these areas if and when he returns, but I think he reasonably believed he was within the bounds of his editing restriction with the Scarborough/Montell/BLM edits. The topic ban is reset, however, this time explicitly under AP2. DHeyward appeals to AN, where there's no consensus to overturn it. As a participant in the AE threads, Sandstein should probably have let someone else close the AN thread, but he didn't, so there you go again.

And here we are. How do I put all that together for myself? Like Brad, I would not have come down on the side of resetting this restriction. Andrew Davidson's rationale for the AE thread was shrill at best and over-the-top hyper-partisanship at worst. Whether we should overturn it is another matter, and I want to hear other opinions first as well. Katie^talk 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• As for procedure, i think that: an appeal to arb com is proper. So is the admin removing the sanction themselves. So would be community consensus here or at ANB. The basic rule for procedure is NOT BURO. As for the merits: my first choice is removing the sanction without conditions. Future problems can be dealt with as they occur, preferably without using AE. I also will not oppose any other proposal for removing it, even if it adds a restriction I think unnecessary.

More generally, if we can get into such a convoluted discussion about an AE sanction, it's time to replace AE. The attempt to have a AE as a procedure that would stick has ended up in a total mess of glue. I've earlier said the only reason I would support continuing AE is my inability to think of a satisfactory replacement, but at this point, the first step is to see if we need it at all. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: Was this comment meant for this thread, or for the MONGO thread above? (Or both?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've adjusted it, so it applies to both. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• The issue I, as I see it, is that the sanction was vague in its terminology. As Katie stated above, just who is an "American politician"? Is it someone who ran for public office, and failed and never ran again? Is it someone who served a term 15-20 years ago and since has been in the private sector? That wording is left wide to interpretation and led to somne of this issue.

Did DHeyward come close to toeing over the line of his topic ban? Yes, he was close, but WHERE was the line drawn? The effect of the language, timing, and everything else snowballed into what we have now. The appeal is fine to arbcom, and I stand in agreement with in that the sanction should be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Initiated by Seraphim System at 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

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

• Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [32]

Does the awareness requirement need to be fulfilled before discretionary sanctions are applied?

When User:EdJohnston sanctioned me for a 1RR article in a topic area I was new to WP:ARBAA2, I was very surprised. I had not known that it was a DS topic area. I only later found out about the awareness requirements. When I asked him about he said "I believe I have correctly described the current practice regarding 1RR violations." - I am requesting clarification.

Here is the link to my discussion with the EdJohnston: User_talk:EdJohnston#Edit_Warring_block

I am requesting clarification of the DS procedure. I understand that there is no requirement to warn of individual editing restrictions, but I had not received any notice of discretionary sanctions in the topic area. I am requesting clarification of the following: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict.

My understanding is that awareness under the formal criteria is required for the topic area before any discretionary sanctions are applied, but that notice of the individual restrictions on specific articles is not required by the decision. If User:EdJohnston's reading is correct, then I believe the summary of the Arbitration Decision at Awareness and alerts should be modified so editors are aware of this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Without going into too much detail, there was no long-term edit warring, I restored an NPOV template that was properly justified and needed to be in the article. I added a refimprove template after my citation needed tags were removed. This is what is being called "long term edit warring". If the block was for "long term edit warring" that would be extraordinary and even less justifiable, but this would not be the place to discuss it.

I understood this as a hasty and passing remark by an admin, who was sanctioning for a clear 1RR violation, but EdJohnston can say more about it. EdJohnston clearly stated that there was a 1RR violation, I understood it to be a 1RR violation and he continues to defend it as a 1RR violation. I thought what happened here was a good faith mistake that needed clarification, so admins and editors would know what was expected in the future.

Long story short, it is especially important in difficult topic areas that blocks are preventative and not punitive. Part of that is editor's awareness of the discretionary sanctions, because intentionally violating 1RR is fairly construed as an intent to continue editing disruptively. If I had been aware of the restrictions, I would have certainly respected them. Admins should not unilaterally modify what has been decided by an Arbitration decision, since most editors will not be aware of their unilateral standards, as I was not in this case. Certainly, the decision as stated should say what it means, and the admins trusted with enforcing it should respect that. But before proposing any modification, I would like to see if there is community consensus about its meaning.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: My argument is exactly as you said - 1RR is part of discretionary sanctions. See this for example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Wiking - formal notice is required for 1RR. Even in cases where there are informal warnings. It has been discussed by the community and amended to clarify that formal notice is required. Can you explain what kinds of cases you think the DS warning template is for? AFAIK, AE has declined to sanction in 1RR cases like this.

(Where is the 1RR restriction logged btw? I can't find it here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2)

Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ed has said he sanctioned for 1RR and has refused to even explain what "long term edit warring" is when I asked him under ADMINACCT so let's focus on 1RR - an editor didn't have notice, it wasn't logged as AE, and admins/arbs can't even agree on whether it is AE or not. What a mess for an editor to get caught up in. Please get this sorted out. A few points:

• The practical distinction between general sanctions and discretionary sanctions is that the rules are different. You would not want to punish editors who generally follow the rules because they did not know different rules were in effect for a particular page, right? That is what the notice requirement protects editors from.

• I see a lot of comments assuming that I deliberately violated a DS that I knew about, I did not. If you review the complaint at WP:ANS, I even comment on it the first time I see it and offer to self-revert if someone points out the edit. There was no prior discussion or anything, so please stop trying to pretend Ed's actions were routine here. To this day I don't understand how my edits were "long term edit warring" even though I asked for an explanation under ADMINACCT. Not following WP:BRD is not sanctionable. I understand that I violated 1RR, but I did not know the restriction was in effect on this article. These notice rules are in place to prevent abuses.

• I have a different color scheme on my browser, and I think my font was mint green at the time. The box looks green, so probably I did not see the notice. There could be a million reasons why an editor would not see this. If you rely on the editing notices alone, experienced editors are the most likely to get caught up in it. (Bad for Wikipedia.) I already know the rules, so I don't read the fine print on every article and it is not reasonable to expect this. That is why the formal notice requirement is important. (Because in controversial areas like this where discussion sometimes breaks down, the community has put in place extra precautions and procedures in place to prevent abuses.)

I think it does create some unfairness in areas where an editor has previously been active, but the amendment is clear that currently informal notice is not sufficient. Judging from the comments, there may be some will for modification.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I didn't see it. Please compare it to the notices at ARBPIA with all the important stuff emphasized - I think there should be a template at the top of the talk page and the article page, and they should be in a consistent style. It doesn't benefit editors for the look/color of the templates to change from one conflict area to the other. All the DS notices should look the same. It is unhelpful when the same notices have different appearances on different articles. Experienced editors should not have to slow down to read different versions of the same notice they have read 50 times already. Most likely these issues have all come up in the past and ARBCOM decided that a formal warning for the topic area at a minimum was fair.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to also add that it is frustrating to be accused of lying, for no reason. I have managed to go all this time without a single 1RR sanction in ARBPIA. Most of my edits are constructive, including maintenance, vandalism patrol, pending changes review, AFC backlog, GA reviews, as well as just regular content creation. A 48 hour block for these edits?: [33] [34] - even if I had known, I would not have thought it was a 1RR violation, because of the near unanimous consensus among admins at AE that editing long-standing content does not count as a revert.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I can comment that I think even the topic area would be enough, but that it should be given before any DS are applied, including 1RR. The formal templates serve the purpose of making these types of problems less likely and keeping editors cool when working on difficult articles. Editors understandably get upset, some have quit, etc. When I know an area is under discretionary sanctions, I am more careful - I look around to see if there are templates or special notices, I edit more slowly. Generally, we want editors to slow down and edit more carefully in these topic areas, and the formal warnings topic area warnings are usually enough to achieve this. There are a lot of DS topic areas, I don't know all of them, and I don't want to live in fear that I may accidentally edit an article on GMO for example, and get hit with a DS with no warning and no discussion. I do think the font being larger, and the article restrictions being clearly stated, and the individual pages being more consistently templated in some of the less active areas would also help. But the warning comes first, editors should know they are editing in a topic area where pages may have special restrictions.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: The block absolutely was not reasonable, and you almost lost an editor for it, but if I had been asking for you opinion on the block I would have filed a desysop request. There seems to be consensus that the current rules did require a formal warning for at least the topic area. It sounds like you support modifying the current warning system - I don't support it and that was not my intention filing this. I would only support making the protections for editors stronger, I do not support weakening them. I wanted clarification on the current system - it seems patently clear, as the discussion has turned to modifying the awareness requirement, instead of clarifying it, there was an awareness requirement and what Ed told me under ADMINACCT was incorrect.
• If you have not please read my comment to User:BU Rob13 above on why the awareness requirement is important. No editor has asked for it to be modified and I don't think the proposal will receive community support. If a modification is going to be proposed, this should be discussed with the community in a formal proposal, not as a side matter in a clarification request.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• To summarize my position, I think that the current awareness requirement would have been enough to avoid the issue that arose in this case. I have never missed an editing notice when I have been aware of DS in a topic area. I don't think increased page-level notification is necessary and I am not asking for it. A topic area warning would have been sufficient to avoid this block. I'm not persuaded of the wisdom of trying to fix something that isn't broken. That wasn't my intent asking for clarification, I only want to know that I can rely on receiving proper notification of DS when I am editing in a new topic area, so I am aware that I should edit more cautiously if I edit about "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" or the "Shakespeare authorship question" for example. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Most articles are under WP:3RR enforcement, but a few have been placed under WP:1RR as mentioned in the WP:Edit warring policy. This kind of a restriction is attached to a page and applies to all editors of the page. 1RR can be imposed either (a) directly by Arbcom as in WP:ARBPIA3, (b) by individual administrators under WP:AC/DS or (c) by the community as in WP:GS/ISIL. The type (b) restrictions are described in WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions. Under the argument of User:Seraphim System, nobody could be blocked for a 1RR violation for type (b) article restrictions unless they had previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions under whatever decision was used originally to place the 1RR on the page. I take it he assumes he is only under WP:3RR until he gets this notice. This is a novel idea but I'm pretty sure there is no written-down policy that backs it up. I have never alerted Seraphim System to the ARBAA2 decision and I also believe I've never imposed a discretionary sanction on him. I did issue a block per WP:AN3 for violation of the existing 1RR at Armenian Genocide that was imposed by User:Moreschi on 27 January, 2008, as well as for a pattern of long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to Seraphim System's question about logging, here is where Moreschi logged the 2008 1RR on Armenian Genocide. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Checking Seraphim System's block log, he was blocked for violating 1RR on the Armenian Genocide page. When somebody edits that page, the following attention grabbing and clearly visible notice appears: {{Editnotices/Page/Armenian_Genocide}} It is therefore close to impossible that anyone would be able to edit that page without realising it's covered by DS and 1RR. Failing to read such a massive attention grabbing notice would indicate competency issues. In my opinion the issue here is this: The Rules require that anyone hit by a DS sanction receive an individual notification beforehand. The rule exists for reasons of fairness. People shouldnt be sanctioned under rules they dont realise exist. But the above edit notice makes it practically impossible for a competent editor to be unaware that page sanctions exist. In such circumstances letting someone off the hook because they didn't receive a DS notice would be letting them off on a technicality. Brustopher (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet another example of why DS is malfunctional. We were promised another review of DS and how it works/should work over two years ago (and haven't had one since 2013). This "notice" system is deeply broken. While I've recently commented [35] on the WP:GAMING problems inherent in it (people damned well aware of the DS and deeply involved in the topic can escape sanctions for gross disruption simply on the technicality of not having received a notice or their notice having expired), this request raises an equal-but-opposite concern, that gibberish notices someone assumes were understood or even seen may not be by editors new to the topic. This whole thing needs to be scrapped in favor of actual discretion: is the user someone who just now wandered into the topic and did a business-as-usual WP:BRD revert, or is this someone with a long pattern of being an asshat across a swath of related pages?

For an in-depth analysis of issues raised in the last DS review, see User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions 2013–2018 review. Over three years after the original November 2015 draft of it, nothing has changed [except that section 12 in it (DS applied to policy formation) has been partially resolved by an ARCA enacted on 11 February 2017 [36] (permalink to full discussion) which made most of WP:ARBATC moot and unenforceable].
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:58, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)

I fully support the idea of a bot notifying editors after they've substantively edited a page covered by DS. This would solve a lot of problems. See some recent previous discussion of this idea and how to go about getting it voted on (ping: JoJo Eumerus).

This should probably be done in an "after X number of edits totaling at least Y bytes of changes within Z amount of time" manner, to prevent typo-fixing gnomes and the like getting DS notices about virtually every DS-affected topic as they go about their cleanup work. (And don't "advertise" the algorithm, just leave it buried in code somewhere, per WP:BEANS and WP:GAMING, or bad-acting parties will just time their edits to skirt it. Maybe even change its timing periodically.) Sufficient substantive edits

Any edits should, however, trigger the bot regardless whether they were made to the article or its talk page, since way more than half the DS-applicable disruption happens on talk pages rather than through direct in-article editwarring.

Also, the {{Ds/alert}} template needs an overhaul to be less menacing and in plainer English. Right now it looks like a dire warning/threat (which is why people react to it as one about 99% of the time), and it makes no sense to anyone but ArbCom policy wonks. Maybe open a page for redesigning it and invite people from Teahouse, and other "editor retention" and "welcoming committee" pages, and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, for some consultation on this. It's not like this is the first time we've needed to get a message across without scaring or angering people.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Redaction. I've struck an idea above after thinking on it longer, for reasons explained at the related AE thread in this post. (Also pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus.) The short version: ArbCom and AE have unwaveringly maintained that {{Ds/alert}} is nothing but an awareness notice. No harm can come from simply being made aware that a page one might edit again is covered by DS. If you edit the page, you get the notice, period. Simple, no room for doubt or error, and we'll become so used to them so quickly any perception of them as menacing will go away.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: This is the typical reaction to even going out of one's way to explain that one does not like the DS template one is leaving and doesn't like that ArbCom requires them. Twice I've had people attempt to WP:ANI or WP:AE me simply for leaving them a {{Ds/alert}} at all. The only viable solution other than the bot proposal – or (as I've suggested many times) scrapping this farcical system completely – is to create a page for requesting delivery of {{Ds/alerts}} by uninvolved admins, at which the requests will be carried out in a timely manner and on good-faith assumption – pretty much exactly like how WP:RM/TR works. There is no harm – that's the central premise, anyway – in simply being made aware of something. If people freak out when regular editors make them aware of DS, then either an artificial or an administrative party needs to do it without any interest in the underlying dispute or who the parties are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the first two arb comments below, is there a reason why we're distinguishing between the processes of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions? WP:GS/SCW&ISIL reads "In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that average inexperienced editor has no idea what is the difference between discretionary and general sanctions. I doubt most experienced editors do, either. If awareness of restrictions before sanctions are imposed is considered to be a "fairness" issue, I strongly suggest Arbcom/the community synchronize the requirements for both types of sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is ArbCom policy that page restrictions do not require a talk-page warning, as the editnotice warning does the job. As these edits were not done on a mobile device, the user who opened this is fully aware of that. As can be verified by clicking edit on the article. I wouldn't think Arbitrators were unaware of this, considering they wrote it (sanctions.page) to state:

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. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}).

If it has been found sufficient in all the previous ARCA's I can recall about this, I imagine Arbs wouldn't change this rule suddenly for administrators now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: @Callanecc: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, since you've already commented below (seemingly without the realization that ArbCom wrote the policy to be used exactly as Ed used it here). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Then why was this not stipulated at the last ARCA I'm clearly referring to? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Perhaps a motion to add something to the effect of "if an editnotice is used to alert editors of active page restrictions, and the editor has not been previously warned (in the required time frame), administrators should allow the editor at least 5-20 minutes [Committee should decide what time] to undo their offending edit(s) prior to being blocked or otherwise sanctioned" to the alerts section of WP:AC/DS? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I rather like that one too... would definitely clear this up finally. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I refuse to sanction editors who are shown to be using the mobile or visual editors (this is always tagged in the history). Can we not make this an official policy until the devs fix that issue with warnings? Something to the order of: "if the offending edit is tagged as a mobile or Visual edit, administrators should not block for more than 24 hours unless the editor's knowledge of the page restrictions is clearly established"? Or would it be better to wait on the developers to have the notice more prominent in those two GUIs? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My biggest concern obviously is that putting it into written form makes it rather easier to game the DS system. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I will note I disagree with the use of green for any ArbCom editnotice. I was under the impression we could only use {{ds/editnotice}} anyways, is that not correct Doug Weller, Callanecc, Krakatoa Katie? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, until WP:AC/DS is changed, he had to be notified of the topic level sanctions before being sanctioned. Second of all, a talk page notice is definitely not enough, especially if not in standard color. They are there for lots of reasons - many BLP articles have notices that unsourced statements must be removed immediately etc, so I mostly ignore them. Third of all, any concerns about gaming can be resolved by quickly alerting users who edit the area. @Brustopher, editing Taylor Swift has a similar sort of notice, except it is for explaining BLP policy. I think a topic level notice should be enough to enforce page level restrictions, as it alerts that one must read edit notices in that area carefully. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding bot could place a notice on an editor's talk page after their first edit to a page under discretionary sanctions seems like a decent idea, if possible. My thinking is that the more alerts are placed, the more they become like they're supposed to be - neutral alerts, not alerts to be placed after a violation has occurred. This could be also manually done, using a script to see if someone has been alerted before and for what, so that people, when they notice someone doing a few edits in an area, can easily see if an alert is needed to be placed and do it. As an aside, definitely need to up the size of the "this does not mean anything bad" portion of the ds/alert template by like 5 times, otherwise there'll be loads of complaints if a bot is done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Makes sense. @Opabinia regalis: may just want to make it "semi-automated" - using script to make it a lot easier and a lot more common to put alerts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

While I don't know Seraphim specifically, it is absolutely possible to scroll right past a notice of discretionary sanctions on a project talk page and have no idea that it's there, especially if you were working on that talk page before it was placed and already in the habit of scrolling past the top to read new threads. This might be a separate problem, but even after reading the page on discretionary sanctions, it's still not clear what they are, how they work or what the editors are supposed to do about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, AE actions are intended to stop longterm abuse. The project shouldn't collapse due to the time it takes for an AE warning. This isn't vandalism. Nor does it require immediate action. If it did, there are other rules in place to get immediate action. Secondly, if a warning achieves its goal of stopping long-term abuse, then it has done its job and is much preferred to arguing over a sanction and whether a notice was given. The rush to apply a sanction is misguided and a form of "gotcha" abuse when it's very clear that any AE sanction can afford to wait until individual notice is given. No admin should invoke an AE sanction without being able to provide a diff of the listed methods of notification listed in the standard AE/DS procedure (no, an article talk page banner is not one of the notifications allowed). There is much confusion about who can place talk page notices and what they mean. It is simply not sufficient or necessary to rely on them. Asking admins to provide the notification diff is part of the heavy lifting necessary to implement a virtually irreversible long-term sanction. If they can't or won't, then it's not worth invoking an AE sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#aware.aware lists the precise number of ways an editor can be informed of discretionary sanctions. An edit page notice is not one of the listed methods. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#aware.alert specifies the precise method to be used to alert an editor. isaacl (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed some discussion below about wanting more input re: alerts and such (e.g., from @BU Rob13:). Typically I've interpreted ACDS and alerting, particularly when it comes to edit warring as it pops up on WP:AN3, as follows:

• If a page already has an ACDS sanction attached to it (e.g., a standard 1RR), I look first to see if there's an edit notice to that effect. If it's only on the talk page or absent entirely, I assume (in absense of anything else) someone might not be aware of it, so if they breach it without any other form of notification or evidence of awareness of the sanction, I typically just add an edit notice myself, send any incidental {{Alert}}s, and wait to see what happens. If there already is an edit notice (and it's been there since whatever breach happened), I've assumed that's fair game for blocking anyone breaching it, regardless of whether they've ever received an Alert in the topic area—though I don't apply any additional editor-level sanctions. For example, if someone violates a 1RR page-level restriction and they clearly should have seen the edit notice but haven't otherwise gotten an ACDS alert, nothing other than a relatively short-term block might come of it, but they'll still get an {{Alert}} from me as part of the package in case they decide to continue the dispute on other subject-area articles.
• If a person doesn't have an ACDS {{Alert}} in the past year and they're involved in an edit war (for example) on an ACDS-able page, regardless of whether the page has active sanctions or not, I typically add an {{Alert}} to the user and wait to see what happens. Therefore, if they edit war on a page that doesn't have an explicit ACDS restriction, is within the topic area, and they HAVE been Alerted, they might get a topic-wide 1RR restriction (but might not even get blocked).
• Regardless of ACDS applicability, if someone's obviously edit warring despite usual, non-ACDS warnings, they get blocked regularly (as a non-AE action).

So the general idea is that edit notices and user-talk-page {{Alert}}s, if "not seen" by someone, are assume-bad-faith within their respective domains (i.e., edit notice for page-level sanctions and page-level enforcement of those sanctions; user Alert template for user-level sanctions/topic-wide sanctions applied to a user). Someone doesn't need both an edit notice on the page AND an alert; it's just too difficult, in my opinion, for people to "accidentally ignore" either the obvious "you have messages" or the "stop! there's an active sanction" edit notices, while it's entirely possible for someone who's even been Alerted to not see the talk-page notice of "hey, there are sanctions for the page attached to this talk page." Thus, a single-page-level sanction (and enforcement action taken in response) are presumed "notified," most reliably, through that page's edit notice, while broad, topic-wide, user-level sanctions (and actions taken in response) are presumed "notified," most reliably, through prior Alert templating and/or recent participation in AE-type discussions in the topic area.

Hopefully that helps? If I'm screwing it up, please let me know whatever you guys decide. :P

--slakr^\ talk / 23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Naturally I kinda like the idea of a bot re: automatically alerting, too, but there are a couple of hitches I can imagine off-hand (i.e., things I'd raise to an operator before trialling a WP:BRFA):

• It can be a a little complicated to figure out when/if the person truly got alerted previously (or if they meet the "participated in an AE on the topic" portion). There's an edit filter to tag the alert, but if an alert already exists on the page (even if over a year old or in a different topic), the filter might not catch it, plus someone might later clear their talk page, etc.... That said, going forward, if everyone was okay with that minor dumbness in the bot to begin with (e.g., someone possibly getting 2 alerts within a year or something), it might not be as big of an issue in the long run. There's just the appearance of a bright-line with a lot of arb topics, and the Alert template's edit notice (sorry; confusing; "the edit notice alert that pops up when you try to use the Alert template to notify a user") has the perception that "you'll be doing a bad thing" if you over-alert, which is understandable, but also causes like me reviewing a bot to get much stricter with someone wanting to run one.
• Page-level restrictions might be complex and aren't necessarily reference-able by a bot in a unified manner, except perhaps in edit notices. {{Ds/editnotice}} can be used, but then there are also atypical ones like {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} and {{Editnotice GMO 1RR}} and others that might be out in the wild (I believe Callanecc might have felt my pain with dealing with some of these a while back. :P) Case-by-case exceptions could be made for the broad topics, but it might get awkward on the non-standard/free-form sanctions (e.g., 1RR in the context of specific content). Plus, there have been cases where an admin adds a sanction just as a new section on the talk page(!) and you have to play hide-and-seek in the archives to find it (or not find it if one never existed and someone just slipped in the template in the talk header). Either way, in my opinion, an edit notice should be the standard go-to for where a sanction lives, even moreso if a bot's going to be parsing through them.
• Changes to the sanctions on the page might(?) need to prompt subsequent bot messages for the user. For example, say a page starts with a "1RR over content pertaining to his birthday" but then moves to "1RR across the page," would the broader one need implicit followup alerts? The bot would need to track or be aware of that.
• Bots aren't always reliable, and reliance on them for critical notifications may be problematic.
• Bot notification can sometimes be seen as bitey or annoying in general. Even with SineBot people have complained about {{tilde}} or {{unsigned}}, and thankfully I can just say sofixit or "discuss on the talk page," but arb templates are more locked down.

For active page-level sanctions it still makes sense to me to have and standardize around an obvious edit notice, and if someone disables their edit notices, it still seems the onus should still be on them (I mean, if you close your eyes, you still have to stop at the stop sign, even if you don't see it). That said, if edit notices aren't being shown in different UIs to begin with, I feel that's a major problem anyway that should be addressed as a loss of functionality (might need to open a ticket if it's not in our hands to modify it locally).

Apart from the bot thing, though, I've noticed that even people involved in disputes on a page that's clearly under an ACDS topic frequently don't, themselves, use the {{Alert}} (et al) templates, quite possibly because they're otherwise obscure and buried deep within policy pages, and the ACDS topics themselves require a level of conscious searching and discovery + familiarity. Plus, most disputes seem to erupt over simple text issues instead of technical features or templates (once more, the audience isn't necessarily template, policy, or community savvy; doubly so with the mass-popularity topics like American Politics and BLP). So it usually take someone with a lot of experience who's ALSO conscious of what all the active DS topics are AND how to act on them to actually break out the alerts equally and without inflaming the situation, by which point a lot of anger, frustration, and disruption may have already taken place. In that sense, the more automated (or more passive but still unmissable) the alerting process could be, likely the better.

So I dunno. I still think it's a relatively safe/sane balance to have two domains of alerts (e.g., page-level = passive edit notice before taking action, topic-wide = actively {{Alert}} before taking action), but I'm pretty sure someone would be able to make a bot if that route wants to be tried, too.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I know that there are talk page templates which add a form of warning box to the edit box. Someone doing a vandalism revert wouldn't see that of course, but might we rig up some template to add some form of 1RR warning to a contested article, and, maybe, also rig it to give a warning on a revert? John Carter (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as Opabinia has wondered about using bots for sending out alerts, there is a mini-conversational thread on WT:AE involving me, SMcCandlish and Thryduulf regarding this; the main counterpoint raised is that having a bot alert everyone making a typofix or something similarly minor may be problematic. I am too sleepy to post the "pro" arguments here, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: The problem is that when delivered to people who aren't actually editing the content (fixing typos, rescuing dead links, template parameter errors, etc, etc) such alerts will either be seen as meaningless spam (and spamming people is never a good thing) or scare new editors away, and anyone who gets an alert while copyediting and later edits content in the area will be formally aware (they've received an alert) but not actually aware as they will likely have ignored the (then) irrelevant message. I encourage you to read and contribute to the linked discussion (and look at previous discussions too) as there are very good reasons why bot delivery to everybody has been rejected previously, and until we get AI-level bots that can accurately distinguish someone engaging with the content from someone copyediting from someone fixing templates from someone engaging in subject-irrelevant vandalism then we need humans to determine who alerts are relevant to and who they aren't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with those who say editors should be notified of individual page restrictions before being sanctioned, because the result of such a rule is perverse. DS authorise admins to take any action they consider necessary for the smooth running of the project up to and including a 1 year block, so long as the editor is formally aware of the DS in place. So an editor who makes two disruptive reverts in a day can be sanctioned by an admin... unless there is a page-level 1RR restriction in place, in which case an extra notification is needed? As I say, that seems a perverse outcome. GoldenRing (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not have much comment on most aspects of this request, but I can give my own experience: I basically never notice edit notices. I have edited for a long time in ARBPIA and my mind just filters them out. I think EdJohnston's block was reasonable, but not blocking would also have been reasonable. In discretionary sanctions areas, unfortunately everyone (including admins) tend to become cynical. If Seraphim System says that they didn't see the notice, it would have been easy enough to warn them for their first offence.

My feeling is that the warning system doesn't really need to be changed (this case was a bit unusual). But I don't have any strong opinions either way. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Rob, just a brief statement on the motion regarding awareness. While you’re at it, it might make sense to remove the bit about not being aware of sanctions if you have successfully appealed a sanction: that’s pretty counterintuitive. Anyone who has gone through the dramah that is a DS appeal is more than aware that sanctions exist. If the last line contradicts it by saying they’re aware if they’ve appealed all there sanctions, it also seems like unnecessary extra verbiage. Not really related to the general part of this thread, but since your amending it, you might as well consider another simplification at the same time. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding point three of the proposed motion (In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict). Must an alert be the formal templated notice left on a editor Talk page, or can it also be a note on an editor's Talk page saying something like, "there are discretionary sanctions on HotButtonTopic page so be careful when editing there" enough? Thanks, Ca2james (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Premeditated Chaos. It's good to know that "alert" is defined and not nebulous. Ca2james (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My experience with DS relates only to American Politics and BLP. The DS system is not working. Admins are not able/willing to enforce it either by exercising their delegated authority or through the AE process. Admins at AE are gun-shy and unable/unwilling to judge the facts of reported incidents. There's a structural dysfunction in that the editors who are reported at AE complaints are among the most energetic, motivated, and disruptive editors on WP. It's their only way of pursuing their POV's. They're at AE because they've failed to gain consensus through normal editing process and have resorted to various forms of disruption. There are objective reasons why Admins may feel unable to function within this environment.

If DS is intended to be discretionary, then reversals on appeal should be rare and uncontroversial. But what's happened instead is that most DS get appealed, either through jawboning and lobbying the sanctioning Admin or through extensive drama threads on at AN or AE. So AE has degenerated into ANI, but with more Admin time wasted than in the ordinary ANI.

So we have a sick elephant and this amendment request is like doing plastic surgery to straighten its tail. I suggest Arbcom start with a clear statement of the purpose of DS, what is needed beyond normal resolution processes, a clear definition of the DS process and how it is intended to function, and then a set of standards and procedures.

Instead what this request is addressing is a single one of those procedures, which can only be sensibly designed after all the other issues are considered and resolved. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks for the clarification. With respect to the question of notification: If the initial sanction against any editor is small, it serves as a warning and should not cause much concern. It's a mild rebuke. It doesn't matter much if some number of the editors who receive a first such sanction are surprised. In the majority of cases, another editor or Admin goes to the user's talk page to convey the concern prior to a block or an AE filing. In case there's good reason why that does not occur, an innocuous initial block -- which could routinely be 24 hours of contemplation, or similar -- has serves the purpose of preventing future lapses. If the problem continues, then the mandated "escalating blocks" are warranted and will not have come without warning/awareness. I don't think it's worth worrying about the small minority of editors who do something disruptive enough to be blocked without knowing their behavior was a problem and without another editor or an Admin warning them. They get a minimal first sanction and will be more aware in the future. It's just more efficient and the cost of the rare false positives is minimal. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

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

• Looking at your block log and the WP:AELOG, Ed's block wasn't an arbitration enforcement action enforcing 1RR but a normal admin block for edit warring. In fact in his comment on AN3 he says that you had engaged in long-term edit warring.

  Having said that, it's probably worth having a discussion on whether editors need to/should be individually notified about page-level sanctions before being sanctioned. If memory serves, I think (and this is testing my memory) that the original intention was that editors would not be sanctioned without previous notice.^ However, in practice, this hasn't been the case with admins sanctioning editors who breach page-level sanctions without prior notice (this is particularly the case for 1RR). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

^ In the original version (1) of the 'new' system, edit notices alone were going to be considered enough to make an editor sufficiently "aware" of page-level restrictions. However, in consultation discussions about it, this was rejected and removed in the second version of the draft (see (this summary). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• There are a lot of comments here about what decisions have been made in the past and contradictory decisions at that. I'd suggest to all those who are commenting that evidence of these past decisions (links) is needed, nor vague recollections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• @NeilN: Regarding a difference between those specific general sanctions and discretionary sanctions in general. The SCW&ISIL general sanctions were modelled on WP:ARBPIA3 which specifically included language about 1RR applying and that, in that topic area, editors could be blocked for 1RR vios without prior notice. That is, in both circumstances, blocking without notice was specifically approved by the Committee or community. Another difference is that under the discretionary sanctions system an alert expires after a year, whereas with the SCW&ISIL general sanction the notification doesn't expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Coffee: Nothing in the bit of WP:AC/DS you quoted says that the requirements of the Awareness and alerts section does not apply to the enforcement of page-level restrictions. In fact, neither the section on individual sanctions nor the section on page-level restrictions state that an editor is required to be "aware" because the Awareness section says No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Only that I didn't think of it then, I was actually looking at the 2013 review page earlier this year for something else so the memories of a previous discussion about edit notices it was relatively fresh. Looking back at threads on arbcom-l from the the AP2 ARCA it looks like the committee was discussing amending AC/DS to make it clear that editors could be sanctioned without being "aware" if there was an edit notice, but that either there wasn't enough of a consensus to do it, or that something else happened and we got distracted. Given the time of year, this might be a motion which the new ArbCom will need to consider. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think anything so specific is going to work. I'm not a big fan of giving editors a specific time limit to do something, as it can com across as an aggressive ultimatum, plus we're volunteers and there's no deadline. Consider a situation where a user makes an edit which they didn't know was violating, goes to sleep, wakes up and goes to work, then logs in to find themselves blocked). Plus any sort of time limit (IMHO) pushes it a little towards punitive rather than preventative. I'm thinking more along the lines the following as a new paragraph in either the awareness or page restrictions sections (not sure which would be best yet, though I'm leaning towards §awareness:

Uninvolved administrators may use their discretion to issue #sanctions (such as blocks or page/topic bans) of no more than one week in duration to editors who breach page restrictions but are not #aware of discretionary sanctions as prescribed above if the page in question includes an edit notice, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), which specifies the page-level restriction in force. This does not prevent administrators using the full range of #Sanctions against editors who do meet the #awareness criteria.

It needs a little wordsmithing. Note that # = link to the section on ACDS. This way, we're giving admins an ability to enforce page-level restrictions without an individual editor needing to be have been alerted (or otherwise aware) but not allowing them to impose any sanction without the editor being properly made aware. Otherwise, we're effectively creating a loop hole where any discretionary sanction can be imposed on an editor without them meeting the awareness criteria as soon as they breach a page-level restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: There isn't really a problem with you commenting in this section. It's really only formal decisions (e.g. motions, declining request) where there's an issue.
  I'm a little conflicted on that, I think it's important for editors to be aware of restrictions before they are sanctioned. However, even if an editor recessive an alert it's still very likely that they won't be aware of specific page-level restrictions as the notice they receive on their talk page doesn't tell them that. So, given that, the only way to ensure that they are aware is to give them an alert and tell them about page-specific restrictions in place. That's not really a sustainable approach both in terms of logging and administrative hoops to jump through, but it is my preference from a editor point of view.
  From an administrator and as someone who was very active with AE my preference would be that if the article has an edit notice the editor can be sanctioned (regardless of whether they've received a notice). The problem with that approach is that it's easily missed using VisualEditor and edit notices don't appear at all in the mobile version.
  So, I'm still on the fence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• To add (re BU Rob13), my preference is that an editor would both be aware of the discretionary sanction in the topic area (through an alert or otherwise) and that the page in question had an edit notice (plus, given the technical limitations, weren't using a mobile device). That, to me, seems to be best way to ensure that an editor is aware of the restrictions which are in place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I too cannot see how it is reasonable to apply page-level DS without individual warning. Our system for DS is sufficiently complicated that at the very least fairness require full notice. . DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

since I was asked for my general view. I personally consider the system of AE inherently unfair, unreasonable, and erratic. I have never participated in it as an admin, and I would advise other admins to use it only when there is no other solution. Unfortunately I cannot find an alternative, so all we can do at the moment is try to minimize harm. At least we can require explicit notice. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I've modified my position based on the convoluted nature of discussions on this page in the last 2 weeks. I no longer support the use at AE at all. The system is too complicated, unclear, and inflexible. Though I still have no suggestion for a replacement, the first thing to try is to see if we can do without it entirely. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG that the entire discretionary sanctions and general sanctions systems is a mess. We should take a hard look at their wording and implementation, because I believe it is inherently unfair to sanction an editor if that editor is unaware of a possible penalty. The burden is on us as administrators to make sure an editor is aware, as unwieldy and burdensome as that is, and we need to make it as simple as possible in order for the system to work. I'm no coder, and I don't know if this is possible, but maybe a bot could place a notice on an editor's talk page after their first edit to a page under discretionary sanctions. Or perhaps an 'are you sure?' box like the one that comes up when we try to give the DS alert on a user talk page.

In terms of the specifics here, Seraphim System made fifteen edits to the page in question in just over 48 hours. It strains credulity that he didn't see the 1RR edit notice with that many edits. I could possibly believe it if this were three edits, but fifteen? It's even got a hidden comment that appears directly under the places where he added his maintenance tags. Does he need bright flashing lights and sirens? Katie^talk 11:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Coffee: It is my understanding that the DS notice is required to be posted as it is in the template, and that color modification (or any modification other than the topic area) is not allowed. Katie^talk 03:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• The block seems reasonable. I see the problem with VE and mobile devices, but I still think that an edit notice should be sufficient. I'm sure we can improve the system but my experience is that DS in general is avoiding a lot of problems we'd have without the system. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the comment by Seraphim System about the color scheme perhaps it could have been missed, so I’ll have to reconsider my comment. Doug Weller talk 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I think we should consider Callanecc's suggested wording. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • [[User:Darkfrog24}} makes a good point. I try to always start a new section with a clear heading stating that DS has been applied. Maybe this should be required. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• @DGG and Callanecc: Could you clarify whether you think just notification of discretionary sanctions in the topic area is necessary before sanction or notification of the specific page-level sanctions on each individual page? How does this opinion interact with the prominent edit notices typically used on articles under sanction? Would a notification of topic area sanctions in addition to an edit notice about the page-level sanctions be considered sufficient notification? Note I'm asking about what you think should be, not what you think is current practice/policy. Opinions from any other editors would also be appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As a procedural note, the Committee has no authority to modify general sanctions, which derive solely from the community. If we decide to alter the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions, the most we can do is encourage the community to adopt the same changes. Having said that, I think we need to seriously think about what the right standard of awareness is. Should an editor have to be actually aware of a page-level restriction to be sanctioned, or should they only need to have been in a position such that a reasonable editor of limited experience would be aware? For instance, if a particularly oblivious editor misses a massive edit notice with giant font saying "This article is under 1RR" (with appropriate wikilinks to explain), should they be sanctioned if they violate that restriction? As for the technical issues (mobile browsers, mostly), that is something we can presumably refer to the WMF to develop a fix. It would be technically doable to display edit notices in mobile browsers on a page prior to the edit window. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's my take on current policy and practice, for what it's worth. WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts makes clear that at least a topic area-level notice must be issued before sanctioning under discretionary sanctions. A page restriction derived from discretionary sanctions can only be enforced via discretionary sanctions, so this same awareness requirement exists before sanctioning someone for violating a page restriction. Currently, there is no requirement (in policy or in practice) requiring an additional notice of a page restriction before sanctioning an editor for violating it. There's no policy requirement for edit notices, etc., but in practice, we do expect administrators to place them. The conversation on changes to this policy should probably take place at a different venue with community feedback. As for this particular block, Seraphim System hadn't been notified of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, so he should not have been sanctioned. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Since it should be possible technically to place individual notices, there is no reason not to do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• If there's a legitimate doubt that an editor was aware that a restriction was in place, then better practice is to warn rather than block for a violation of that restriction—unless the edit was such as to be independently blockable in any case. We have had instances (I'm not opining on whether this is one) in which an editor was blocked and sincerely had no idea why; it is important that that should not happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Focusing for a second on the original question, are we all agreed that at a minimum an editor cannot be sanctioned under page restrictions deriving from discretionary sanctions unless they've met the awareness criteria for that DS topic area? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am, but I'd like to add (by motion) that there also needs to be an edit notice on the article (with a footnote that admins should consider that the footnote doesn't appear when using a mobile device). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I've started working on a draft at User:Callanecc/sandbox2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• OK, I've caught up on all the other ARCAs except this one, so I guess I can't avoid it anymore. This is thinking-out-loud as I'm catching up on the background reading; read it if you like arbs showing their work and skip it if you don't like long-ass posts ;)
  • My first reaction to all of this follows DGG and Katie's reactions that AE/DS is kind of a mess, and not only because it's unpredictable from editors' perspective but also because it must be seriously tiresome to be an admin on the receiving end of all the wikilaywering. This is not the only recent issue that centers on someone objecting to a short block and one way to manage that problem is to just deescalate the perceived significance of blocks. I'm perfectly happy to get blocked some more if necessary ;)
  • Slakr is definitely on the right track in not expecting that talk-page banners are sufficient to alert editors of the actual article. But in terms of editnotices on the article itself... I hate editnotices. Hate. For a long time I used a userscript to automatically hide them because there are so many and they're so bloated and they take up so much space on my little 11" laptop screen. (Obviously, I did not obey the one on this page that says "be succinct" ;) While I'm sure every incremental addition to every editnotice on the project seemed important and useful at the time, cumulative banner blindness is a real problem. There's also the issue Callanecc points out - editnotices are formatted differently, and often hard to read, and sometimes may not appear at all for editors using the Visual Editor or the 2017 source editor, and they're unavailable on the mobile site (and the mobile app?). Also, the edit tags indicating which editor someone used aren't perfectly reliable either, so not really a good way to judge whether someone "should" have seen a notice. In general, editnotices are not reliable methods for communicating information to editors. I was under the impression we'd already decided this once, but when I went back to look at the incident I was thinking of, the conclusion was almost the opposite of what I thought I remembered. (And for my own part, I see I was more concerned with a different aspect of AE/DS enforcement I consider problematic. I was unaware at the time of the "consultation discussion" Callanecc linked above.)
  • That being said, it is also obviously impractical for some editors on an article to be under the impression that they are working in a 3RR environment, and others to be subject to 1RR (because they've received the appropriate individual DS alerts, rather than because they personally are under an editing restriction). The best solution I can think of is a bot sending out automated alerts to the talk pages of editors to an article subject to a 1RR restriction, but I had the impression that had been considered before and decided against (either because no one wants to write the bot, or because of practical limitations that aren't immediately coming to mind).
  • Overall I think Callanecc's sandbox version is better than what we have now, but more broadly, I think the current mechanisms aren't effective in communicating restrictions to editors and are asking admins to do a lot of manual checking before sanctioning someone under those restrictions. Unless I'm missing an obvious drawback, I think we should revisit the bot-notification method. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks. I actually think that's a feature, not a bug :) When the existing alerts come from specific other editors, people tend to react to them as if they're aggressive acts or personal affronts. If everybody and their mother gets one, and they come from DSBot, they're less personal. (I assume the bot could deliver just one notice per topic.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the follow-ups - this is a bit of a side point, since a change of that scale would be better discussed somewhere other than the middle of an ARCA, but I'll go read the other discussion in the meantime. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Ca2james, what qualifies as an "alert" is spelled out Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts here and isn't being modified AFAIK. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Correct, we are not modifying that at all in this motion. I'm going to refactor the motion to underline the changes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• @SPECIFICO: I largely agree with your comments. I think there is appetite both within the Committee and among the broader editing community to overhaul how discretionary sanctions operate. This discussion is not about that, but separately, discussions about discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement in general are happening. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Thanks for proposing this Rob. Obviously support since I wrote it and my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Okay, because it makes it clearer, but we really need to look at the whole discretionary sanctions thing and make it work better. Katie^talk 23:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Support, but I agree with Katie that this system is Byzantine at best. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Agree with Katie. Thanks to Rob for proposing. Alex Shih (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
6. This is a good start to hopefully clearing up DS once and for all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Been mulling over this, but it does seem a general good step. Worm^TT(talk) 08:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Agree with KrakatoaKatie. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
9. As an improvement over current wording. -- with no implication it deals with all necessary improvements. DGG ( talk ) 11:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Ok, I'm not entirely sure but it's better than the old version, and maybe baby steps are the way to do this. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
11. Per most of the other supporters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Inactive

1. Opabinia regalis
2. DeltaQuad
3. Mkdw

Discussion by arbitrators

• Posting this with slight edits from User:Callanecc/sandbox2. This motion serves to add edit notices as a requirement before sanctioning for a page restriction. It also makes clearer that editors must be aware of discretionary sanctions in a topic area before being sanctioned under a page restriction. The last line in the proposed page restrictions section will probably be reformatted as a note if this passes, but it's easiest to display without a note here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why successfully appealing all their sanctions makes an editor unaware of the sanctions. I know that has to be over 12 months earlier, but as suggested above, isn't it pretty certain that an editor who has had to appeal a sanction would remember it? Doug Weller talk 12:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Doug Weller: I think the logic behind having the 12 month timer at all is because editors with no sanctions/heavy involvement in the area are unlikely to follow whether discretionary sanctions have been rescinded or not. Having said that, I agree we should simplify the awareness requirements and plan to start a discussion about simplifying discretionary sanctions in general soon-ish. For now, this proposal doesn't change anything about the usual awareness requirements, and I think it's best to avoid trying to conflate this simple change with a broader overhaul of DS. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Changes are now underlined while removed text is struck. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan at 16:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Doncram arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban

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

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Doncram notified

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban

• Request to lift the ban

I just avoided agreeing with Doncram in an AfD because of the IBAN. It's been in place for almost 5 years, we've done a good job avoiding each other, and I'd like to not have this hanging over our heads any more. (Previous request here)

Mendaliv, I would find that an acceptable alternative. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webb Mountain Park. I noticed that C. W. Gilmore had edited it, and I wondered what was up. For the most part, I haven't come across Doncram's edits at all. In my editing, I come across Doncram very rarely.(Rephrased for clarity. For example, I can think of one large noticeboard discussion I edited after he did.) While I still have a strong interest in historic buildings, he doesn't typically edit the ones I'm looking at.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why the request? They are not explaining. I am in fact a victim of long-term harassment by this editor, and I resent being dragged back into any discussion about it at all. I certainly don't need or want the editor's help in AFDs, one of two areas in which I participate frequently. I probably would avoid any AFD where they had commented, and in 5 years I recall coming across such cases only one or two times. For a number of years they followed me to new NRHP articles which I had just started and repeatedly interrupted with partial deletions or opening AFDs or ANI incidents. They opened the arbitration case against me which led to me being blocked from partipating in the NRHP area (and i have only been active there again during the last year or two, after accepting the block), and then they did not themselves participate in the NRHP area for all the years since. I would not welcome their following me to NRHP topics and AFDs in the future. --Doncram (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of indefinite sanctions simply because they create an artificial status quo which often turns permanent. Especially interaction bans. The basic question you wind up asking in these cases is why the requestor wants the IBAN lifted, which inevitably turns into concerns that the requestor intends to interact with the other party in a disruptive way; after all, if the requestor didn't want to interact with the other party, why would he or she make the request? Well, I think that logic needs to go away. It leads to indefinite sanctions becoming permanent, and imposing an additional unnecessary burden on editors when doing basically anything on-wiki. That is, every time you contribute anything from then on out, you have to think, "Could this be seen as an IBAN violation?" I think that's unfair, particularly after a period of years.

That said, I think rather than a straightforward removal, the Committee might do what it did in the November 2016 motion in this same case: Rescind for six months and allow any admin to reinstate during that period, and if the six months lapse without incident, the IBAN lapses entirely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I would add, somewhat in response to BURob 13's comment, that my hope would be that the eventual outcome would be to kick future issues (should they occur) to the community rather than this remaining under Committee supervision forever. I'm thinking along the lines of the way courts disfavor mandatory injunctions because of the supervision burdens involved. Though I know this is a prohibitory remedy we're talking about, I think the same principles ought to be observed, and at some point we should expect the vast majority of sanctioned editors to fully exit the arbitration remedy system.

My point is that I think the full lifting of the IBAN in this case ought to be understood to terminate the Committee's jurisdiction over that aspect of the matter. Honestly, not having to deal with AE or Committee procedure whenever a dispute comes up is, for most editors, going to be the real goal of getting a remedy lifted. On a Wikipedia where many view process as bureaucracy, the possibility of having to deal with AE or the Committee itself can itself be burdensome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

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

• To both editors: Do the two of you still edit in the same topic areas? Do you often come across each others' work? Specifically to SarekOfVulcan, what was the AfD in question and how did you come across it? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Given what Sarek said about the frequency he encounters Doncram these days, I'm inclined to lift this sanction. Since they supposedly don't encounter each other much these days, we have a very easy litmus test for whether either editor is acting disruptively after the sanction is lifted. If one of the two suddenly starts initiating contact regularly or appearing on the same pages with great frequency, it's easy enough to re-impose the sanction (or a different one, if only one side is acting problematically). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support lifting it the same way as we did in the November motion Mendaliv mentions. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support what Mendaliv said: Rescind for six months and allow any admin to reinstate during that period, and if the six months lapse without incident, the IBAN lapses entirely -- Euryalus (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Support

1. Proposing in line with above comments. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Agreed, this is the right way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Euryalus (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Katie^talk 14:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Happy this no longer needs to be a formal arrangement. Worm^TT(talk) 15:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Sarek should be mindful that Doncram still has concerns, and should continue to steer clear, but I agree that five years should be long enough for the formal remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
8. What NYB said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Slightly belated support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I have to echo Callanecc and highlight the comment of NYB. With a party concerned about an end to a sanction, we should be looking at potential alternatives, yet not promising anything if we resort to this. Blindly walking a sanction out because it's old doesn't mean it doesn't still have use. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

1. When one of the parties to an interaction ban has concerns about it being lifted, I'd rather it not be modified. However, given that the sanction has been in place for 5 years and that a suspension (rather than outright removal) is being proposed I'm here rather than opposing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

---

---

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hijiri88: 1RR

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

• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Hijiri88: 1RR

• Suspend restriction for six months, during which time it can be reinstated by an uninvolved administrator, and if it is not reinstated will lapse after the six months are up

I would like to appeal this restriction. I have not edit-warred since the original Arbitration case, and have not felt the "urge" to edit war, so this has not actually been a very "restrictive" restriction, but I've encountered some minor problems from time to time where not being subject to 1RR would give me a bit more piece of mind (and mean I wouldn't have to come here or to WT:EW to clarify every time). I'll describe the most recent.

Recently (as in within the last two hours) an IP showed up on a page on my watchlist and made a good-faith but clumsy addition in adding a bibliographical entry to the space between "Cited works" and "Further reading" (it was on the line of the "Further reading" heading and broke the wiki-markup). Since they hadn't cited it in the article, I moved it to "Further reading" for them. They apparently misunderstood my edit, though, as they added the entry to "Cited works" again even though it was already in "Further reading"; I reverted this edit outright, as a good-faith mistake. Then they finally got around to citing the work in the article text, but they had botched moving the work from "Further reading" into "Cited works". (Or at least I thought they had.) I did it for them, but at the same time they were doing it themselves (and making another mess of it). Since we were editing different sections (I think), I didn't see the edit conflict screen even though their edit had been saved while I was making mine, and only noticed their edit after I had saved my own. I then reverted their edit as another good-faith mistake that my edit had already done right.

Both times, I made two consecutive edits which, taken together, constituted "fixing" their edit rather than reverts for 1RR purposes, but I did technically revert them twice on the same article in the space of twenty minutes.

Not sure if diffs are required for a self-reported non-incident that only serves as background for an appeal, but the whole affair is located here.

I don't think anyone would block me for myself making a mistake while trying to fix someone else's good-faith mistakes, but I'd still rather just not have to worry about this kind of thing, which is why I'm appealing.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Oh, I know that much. The problem is that when one is subject to a formal 1RR restriction, even not edit-warring can technically violate it (per the above fairly convoluted scenario), and I'd rather just not have that on my plate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just voicing my general support, here. Hijiri has always been a content-focused, competent editor and any sanction that interferes with his ability to edit is best set aside. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I support this for reasons I've stated before in other motion proceedings relating to editing restrictions that tend to get enforced in a hard-and-fast manner (i.e., interaction bans). I am writing, however, to comment on the strange procedural posture of this case. Namely, in September, Remedy 4 was suspended for 6 months; in January, Remedy 3 was suspended for 6 months. If this motion passes, as I believe it should, Remedy 5 will be suspended for 6 months. So, for most of the month of February and March, there will be three simultaneous probationary periods (and thereafter, until sometime in June, there will be two simultaneous probationary periods).The use of probationary periods, as has become Committee practice (which is a good practice), presumes there is a concern that some aspect of the remedies of a case have become unnecessary and we could try giving the petitioner a little more freedom experimentally to see what happens. What troubles me about having multiple simultaneous probationary periods is that it would seem to defeat any experiment: Should Hijiri88 get into trouble, could we say which remedy should have been left in place? Moreover, the granting of subsequent requests strikes me as an endorsement that the probationary period put in place by the first request has succeeded.I hope what I'm saying makes some sense. As I've said I'm not calling for opposition to this request. Rather, I think the granting of the successive requests within the others' probationary periods can and frankly should be viewed as endorsing a successful completion of the prior probationary periods. Or, alternatively, extending the prior probationary periods. Or something like that. Again, this comment isn't about the specific request here, but the implications of the practice of successive requests for amendment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

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

• Seems sensible on the face of it, with a note that edit-warring without violating 3RR can still result in blocks even without a formal 1RR restriction. I don't expect Hijiri to go back to edit-warring, though, as they've had no conduct issues I'm aware of related to the sanctions we've already suspended. I'll propose a motion in 24 hours barring any unexpected negative community comments. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mendaliv: It's worth noting that each of the "triggers" that allows an admin to re-enact the sanctions during the suspension period are different. This one requires edit-warring or disruptive editing. The topic ban one required failure to abide by conduct expectations in the specific topic area. So I don't think any particular issue automatically results in all three being re-applied. I do understand your general concerns; this is a bit of an unusual situation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Support

1. Similar to what we've done with the previous two motions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
2. Sounds good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
3. Based on the overall record, including the apparent lack of recent edit-warring problems, and the fact that the edit-warring that the restriction was based upon, wasn't that recent even at the time of the original case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
4. Mkdw ^talk 23:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 02:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
7. Sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
8. Euryalus (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
9. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
10. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Alex Shih (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

• @Mendaliv: I understand your point, but there aren't too many editors whom we've placed under multiple separate restrictions, so I don't think it is a major issue as a practical matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Magioladitis 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2/Proposed_decision#AWB_prohibition

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

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

Information about amendment request

Original decision

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2/Proposed_decision#AWB_prohibition

Proposed amendment

• Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia. This prohibition does not apply to bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks. For clarity, he may discuss AWB and similar tools (notwithstanding his other sanctions), but may not make edits using them (or a derivative) on the English Wikipedia. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.

I request that my ban on using WPCleaner is lifted. CHECKWIKI page now has a very specific list of which error fixed are considered "cosmetic" and which are not. Copied from previous request to clarify the statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WPCleaner is able to fix specific CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI list of errors was reviewed by the community. I request that my ban on using WPCleaner is lifted as a start. I could use WPCleaner to fix errors that are not marked as cosmetic in the WP:CHECKWIKI list of errors. The current remedy prohibits me from making normal syntax fixes which are considered OK by the community. I want to be able to fix CHECKWIKI errors that are considered non-"cosmetic" and that in many cases need manual attention. The number of pages with CHECKWIKI errors has increased significantly over the last months.

After the comments of Iridescent, I think we are done here. the number of CHECKWIKI errors is increasing. I could help but since it's not needed I am OK.

@Headbomb: I am using the BRFA anyway. And my bot has the most CWERRORS assigned. Some errors in the list need manual attention. I am OK if we whitelist them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sidenote: Just for your information obsession is a mental disorder and I am not sure if this is OK to be used in online discussions. Per Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks the comment over obsession may be considred personal attack. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@wbm1058: I have proposed similar solutions in the past. If VE was fixing their errors on their own there won't be any need for the CHECKWIKI project. Moreover, if we enoucrgae new editors to use VE instead of the old source code editing then we would minimise the user introduced errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sladen I am requesting the following: To be able to use WPCleaner to fix certain errors from the CHECKWIKI list. This is because:

• The community has a list of errors that are 100% considered non-"cosmetic", a list I am OK wi it.
• We have a tool that fixes certain errors (in contrary to AWB that this check controls do not exist), so it's easy to see if I violated the rules
• The problem with me is the "cosmetic" errors area and the community wants to keep me out of this area but still allow me to edit.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I do not consider not making "cosmetic" edit problematic per se. As long as the community formulates a strategy of how to perform these edits in addition to other edits or it decides that we do not need to fix these errors and simply remove them from the CHECKWIKI list. Moreover, the fact that, for more than a year, 10+ CHECKWIKI errors remain unclear whether the community considers them as "cosmetic" or not, against the claims that the defiition is 10% clear, puzzles me. Still, we are not discussing this here and I respect the majority's desicion as it was formulated via lengthy discussions. I am requesting to be able to use WPCleaner for edits that are both considered "non-cosmetic" and still need manual attention. Otherwise, I already have bot approval to perform them by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34 approval for error 61 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 56 approval for erro 17. Also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54 approval for error 16. A full list of approved tasks can be found at: User:Yobot#Approved_tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok the difference between my proposal and BU Rob13's is that I ask permission to fix the errors marked as "cosmetic=no" from my main account using WPCleaner (and not AWB) without any further BRFA approval. For instance, errors 70-73 that can' be done by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn I withdraw my request. I'll go by editing the manual editing using my bot account after BRFA as suggested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to (1) what Magioladitis is wanting changed from the original remedy (2) what Magioladitis wants to do that an automated tool would be needed for and (3) any sign that Magioladitis knows why he was given the sanction in the first place so that they can avoid the problems that led to the imposition of the remedy. I'm sure that I have other questions, but those three would seem to be a necessity to know before I can even begin to opine on this request.

Okay, so #1 is answered. Still not seeing #2 or #3 addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to grant this without some sort of acknowledgement of what caused the initial arbcom remedy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I"m going to highlight these two sentences "I am requesting to be able to use WPCleaner for edits that are both considered "non-cosmetic" and still need manual attention. Otherwise, I already have bot approval to perform them by bot." I'm a bit concerned about that second sentence - I'd like to see an actual approved bot request showing this approval. And if that can't happen - I'm very concerned that Magioladitis thought they did. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Magioladitis, please try to amend/clarify precisely what is being requested: "WPCleaner is able to fix specific CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI lis of errors was reviewed by the community." is a bit unclear, and so hard for other editors to know what they are being asked to consider. —Sladen (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Automated editing modes available to Magioladitis

Permission/wording	Initiate	Validate	Execute	Involvement
Rest of Wikipedia				0/3
discuss AWB and similar tools	Magio			1/3
		Magio		1/3
bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks		BRFA team	Magio	1/3
	Magio	BRFA team	Magio	2/3
Manual editing in en.wiki	Magio		Magio	2/3, supervised (manual)
Being requested here	Magio	Magio	Magio	3/3, unsupervised (bot)
	Magio	BRFA team	Magio	2/3, supervised (meatbot)

Magioladitis, is this correct? —Sladen (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Magioladitis. Regarding Special:Diff/826368680. "For instance, errors 70-73 that can' be done by bot.". From reading the feedback of others here: Everything seemingly revolves around having external oversight: Two options present themselves: (a) define and make four specific BRFA applications for each of 70—73. Gain BRFA acceptance + execute by hand on the bot account, performing only that precise task, verifying each result, and following all the normal bot rules like single stepping a (computer) program in a debugger. (b) leave these tasks to other people. Neither of these solutions requires additional permissions or exceptions. —Sladen (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've edited the proposed amendment above to show clearly what is proposed for changes from the original text. I'll have comments later today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

xaosflux belows summarizes my position on the issue, so unless that changes, I have nothing to add. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Obsession is different thing than OCD. And if you insist on throwing those red herrings, rather than address the substance of the opposition, we really are done here. I don't see the grounds for lifting the AWB-like semi-automation ban, even partially. The WP:CWERRORS cosmetic column has been there since April 2017, and despite my hopes that it'd give you guidance on what was acceptable and what wasn't, it didn't. You've got one venue left for these things, and that's WP:BRFA, where you can propose bots that gets vetted by the community first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: "The problem with me is the "cosmetic" errors area and the community wants to keep me out of this area but still allow me to edit." You might consider not being able to make cosmetic edits a problem, but the community considers that to be a solution. Your semi-automated editing was problematic as well, hence the restrictions on all such semi-automated editing. If you want to make bots that use WP:WPCLEANER, make a WP:BRFA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is too broad of a change, the original restriction is on the AWB automation tool specifically, and anything "similar"; the proposed change is removing the "similiar" restriction entirely. There is not a ban on "WPCleaner" per se, only as an example of an entire class of things prohibited. If this is a request to allow just this ONE specific application as an exception, it should be carved out as an exception. And why is the clarification section being proposed to remove the instruction of what is allowed to be discussed? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Magioladitis, explain in your own words (e.g., not by just cut-and-pasting from the RFAR) why you're banned from using any semi-automated tools. From every comment I've seen from you before, during and after the case you give the impression that you feel you've been banned on a technicality and that if you can game the letter of the law, you can go back to everything you were doing before. I'm not in the least convinced that you understand why the sanction in question was imposed, and if you don't understand that your obsession with making multiple trivial edits is disruptive, I strongly believe that if any part of your automation restriction is lifted you'll immediately go back to doing it. If this list of supposed "errors" is genuinely so important, why does it need to be you that fixes them? ‑ Iridescent 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Magioladitis, the fact that you've had to pipe [[Obsessive–compulsive disorder|obsession]] implies to me that you know that "obsession" and "obsessive–compulsive disorder" are two different concepts and are intentionally trying to shit-stir and deflect by making false accusations. Do you really want to be playing a stupid game like that on a page where you know the entire arbitration committee are watching? ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I have absolutely no confidence in Magioladitis' ability to use any automated or semi-automated tool and not muck things up and cause problems. This was the case for quite a long time before things finally came to a head in the arbitration case, and I see no reason why that wouldn't continue if M. was allowed this amendment. Frankly, I don't think M. really understands what he did wrong and why the sanctions were imposed, or why his behavior annoyed the community, and, that being the case, it is more than likely that he will fall back into his previous patterns once again. In my opinion, If M. wants to improve Wikipedia, he should do so as the majority of editors do, by manually editing it. He cannot be trusted with tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I never got the feeling that he accepted there was a problem to begin with, and this request doesn't address that. The tban is still fairly fresh, and honestly, I'm not in love with the idea of him using any automated tools at this point. Basically, I agree with what BMK is saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Given that Mag demonstrated over a significant period of time that they neither understood or cared about the communities attitude to automated cosmetic edits, I strongly oppose allowing them to return to automated editing based on a list of minor errors which even now lists clearly cosmetic issues as not cosmetic. A list almost entirely populated by a single low population wiki project. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI is just another (semi)-automated tool like AWB. Both are capable of fixing Check Wikipedia errors; each has a learning curve. I just spent some time getting familiar with CHECKWIKI; I already am familiar with much of the capabilities of AWB. When I loaded up all the errors (listed on the WMF Labs site) I found that the easiest errors to fix are considered to be cosmetic. The tool easily fixed three pages for me, without requiring any special setup. One was a Category duplication (diff) – ID #17 – there are currently 1631 pages with this issue, which is rated low priority. There's a footnote on error list that says it's technically cosmetic, however this is either deemed too much of a bad practice, or prevents future issues deemed egregious enough to warrant a deviation from WP:COSMETICBOT – whatever that means.

The other two I fixed were both "Link equal to linktext" ID#64 – (example diff). This is really frustrating to me because the previous edit was responsible for the issue. Note the edit summary: (Tag: 2017 source edit) – I believe that means the edit was made with VisualEditor. Note the reason column for #64 in the error list: A Visual Editor bug causes wikilinks with italics or bold to be done incorrectly, usually some text outside the wikilink will also be bold or italized. Moreover, WP:NOPIPEDLINK. So we have a work queue to make cosmetic edits to fix issues introduced by WMF tools for which the developers undoubtedly have a "won't fix" attitude. VisualEditor should be making all of these fixes to mitigate the need for cosmetic editing. Sigh.

When I tried to find other items that we might give Magioladitis permission to fix, I found that most of them were not as trivial to set up. The system needs me to set up a translation file configuration that may include white-lists of false positives for these types of errors, etc. The devil is probably in the details; one needs to ensure that the fix is set up properly before ramping up the editing rate.

We should probably get a better idea of which specific Check Wikipedia error IDs Magioladitis requests permission to fix, and what the whitelisting configuration and other needed setup for those fixes will be.

Magioladitis could use WPCleaner right now for specific fixes if he filed a BRFA and got a supervised task approved for his bot account. This was an intended exception to the restriction. Oversight was needed, and ArbCom implemented it through the BAG. To be clear, that includes manual or semi-automated edits from the bot account.

When the second arbitration case was filed, I said that it was terribly sad that, after ten years of productive editing, Magioladitis is no longer the editor and bot operator that he was ten or five years ago, and that this seemed to be a case of declining competence for whatever reason. Declining competence is terribly sad and painful in a family or in a workplace. In a family or a workplace, there is more information on the age and health of the person than there is in an electronic workplace. Unfortunately, I have no reason to think that Magioladitis is capable of doing what he once was capable of doing, or that he is capable of understanding what his limits are. There is no reason to return any of the advanced permissions that he previously had. He previously was capable of using advanced permissions. Now he isn't. He doesn't seem to be the editor and bot operator that he once was. It is sad, but we must decline this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

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

• Recuse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Per Ealdgyth, would be good to get greater clarity on what is being asked for here. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I have no idea what we are being asked to do. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that I do, waiting for community comment. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Magioladitis has demonstrated a persistent failure to understand the problems with their editing and I don't see anything in this request which indicates that has changed. Sanctions imposed on an editor should not be appealed for a reasonable period, that is, enough time must have passed to indicate that the problematic edits will not reoccur. In the past 12 months, Magioladitis has been the subject of two arbitration cases, two community sanctions (and blocked for breaching one of them), and many other community discussions. I would recommend that a reasonable period for any sanctions in the case would be at least another 12 months of good, problem-free editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Callanecc puts it better than I would have. I don't see any indication that granting this request right now would be a net benefit for the encyclopedia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues. This should be declined with no further appeals for at least another 12 months of issue-free editing. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• After reading Iridescent and Headbomb's response toward this edit, I am also unconvinced that any sanctions for this case should be lifted at this time, not for another 12 months of non-problematic editing as indicated by other members above. Alex Shih (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• I have to agree with BMK, Dennis, and the comments of several of my fellow Arbitrators. The case did not go well and I never had confidence Magioladitis fully understood the problems with their action and behaviour. "Obsession" is an everyday noun used to describe people who do not suffer from OCD. In this case, I think obsession is an accurate description of Magioladitis' fixation on semi-automated and fully-automated editing. Mkdw ^talk 03:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• I have to agree that this doesn't seem like a good way forward. A better idea, which needs no amendments, would be to file a BRFA for the errors you want to fix. If you want to demonstrate in the future that these restrictions can be relaxed, the best way to do that is to have a record over time of successful BRFA requests followed by a long period of unproblematic editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Callanecc. Katie^talk 14:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per other arbs above. Also, Magioladitis's recent edits on WT:NPA and especially AN suggest he is taking the feedback he's received here in an unhelpful direction, which he should step back from. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues and fellow editors. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per everyone above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

---