| Revision as of 05:23, 8 March 2013 editCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators72,962 edits →Clarification request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: Motion enacted see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Modified by motion← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:23, 9 March 2013 edit undoPenwhale (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,574 edits →Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure: Section archived. Note: An arbitrator has indicated a forthcoming motion will be offered.Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| = {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} = | = {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} = | ||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} | <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} | ||
| == Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> '''at''' 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| *{{admin|Sandstein}} (initiator) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Noetica}} () | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ohconfucius}} () | |||
| *{{userlinks|Neotarf}} () | |||
| *{{userlinks|SMcCandlish}} () | |||
| === Statement by Sandstein === | |||
| Recently I ] by issuing ] to the four experienced editors mentioned above. These warnings have been criticized at great length, notably by one warned user and party to the underlying case, ], who has to appeal the warning. This raises some procedural questions. After ArbCom members did not respond to an informal ], I ask them here to clarify the following: | |||
| #'''Can discretionary sanctions ''warnings'' be meaningfully rescinded or appealed?''' <p>Warnings serve to inform editors about the possibility of discretionary sanctions in the event of later misconduct. Assuming the warning is somehow undone, does the authority to impose sanctions based on that warning also disappear? If yes, this may make the discretionary sanctions system much more prone to obstruction, as it provides an opportunity for extremely lengthy and acrimonious discussions (as in this case) long before any ''actual sanctions'' are even considered. <p>'''Recommendation:''' I recommend to clarify (and codify) that warnings can only be appealed with regard to the question of whether the warner is an uninvolved administrator. This helps others to avoid inadvertently making unactionable arbitration enforcement (AE) requests based on the invalid warning. However, appeals should not be admissible with regard to the reasons given (if any) for the warning, perhaps excepting patent abuse. That's because the warning does not impose any restrictions, but only reminds editors of the conduct standards expected of them in any case. Also, the ] do not seem to even require any misconduct as a reason for a warning, as they require case-specific counseling only "where appropriate". Implicitly, they only require that the warner has ''some'' grounds on which to be concerned about the warned editor's edits. Practice at ] (somewhat dubiously?) is to even allow discretionary sanctions in some cases where the editor has not even been individually warned for ''any'' reason: article-level sanctions, and sanctions against parties to the original case and earlier AE requests. | |||
| #'''In what (if any) venue may such warnings be appealed? Who reviews the appeal, and how is a successful appeal determined?''' <p>Such warnings are AE actions, but how these are appealed is generally unclear: <p>Obviously they can be appealed directly to the Committee. But what, if any, venues for community review exist? ] forbids ''administrators'' (but not others?) to overturn AE actions except "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)." Phrased as a restriction, this does not create a venue of (or right to) appeal, as . <p>] provides that "Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee". This does establish a venue of appeal, but raises more questions: Who makes the appeal decision – uninvolved admins, as is usual at WP:AE, or all uninvolved editors, as per the abovementioned provision? What is the correct forum – WP:AN(/I), as per the first provision, or WP:AE, as per the second provision? Is a ''warning'' a discretionary sanction according to the meaning of the second provision, and therefore appealable? Are there now separate procedures for appealing DS and for appealing other AE actions? The two provisions and their relationship to one another require clarification. <p>'''Recommendation:''' I recommend to either delegate all appeals to a (rotating?) panel of arbitrators, while allowing '']'' review; or to clarify that either only DS are appealable (with decisions made by consensus of uninvolved admins at ]); or that this DS appeals procedure is open to ''all'' AE actions, . <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ====Summary of responses==== | |||
| Thanks for your responses so far. The following attempts to summarize them, updated as of the time in the signature below: | |||
| #'''Can discretionary sanctions warnings be appealed?'''<br>''Yes, and a successful appeal removes the warning's effect:'' Hersfold, SilkTork <br>''Yes, as regards warnings that imply misconduct, but not as regards neutral notifications:'' Carcharoth <br>''No:'' Coren, Timotheus Canens (after amending procedure accordingly), AGK, Salvio giuliano | |||
| #'''Who may issue warnings?''' <br>''Only administrators:'' – <br>''All uninvolved editors:'' Timotheus Canens?, AGK (after amending procedure accordingly), Salvio giuliano | |||
| #'''In which (if any) community forum can AE measures be appealed?''' <br>''WP:AE or WP:AN:'' Coren, AGK <br>''WP:AE:'' Timotheus Canens <br>''WP:AN:'' Salvio giuliano | |||
| #'''Whose views matter in determining consensus about appeals of AE measures to a community forum – those of uninvolved admins, or uninvolved editors, or all editors?''' <br>''Uninvolved administrators:'' AGK (after clarifying procedure accordingly) | |||
| There are 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8. So far no answer has the support of a majority of the Committee. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by NE Ent === | |||
| ] is not coherent -- the top section | |||
| says | |||
| ''4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, '''identify misconduct''' and advise how the editor may mend their ways;'' (emphasis mine) | |||
| but the ] section says | |||
| ''Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.'' | |||
| with no mention of identifying specific misconduct. Going by the top, it ''is'' an enforcement action and should be subject to appeal, but going by the latter it wouldn't be. <small>]</small> 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @AGK " only an administrator can reverse an enforcement action, it must only be the views of uninvolved administrators that are counted towards the determination of consensus. "??? Total non sequitur. Only admins can delete articles, but views of editors are counted towards determination of consensus. Only bureaucrats can reverse a sysop, it must only be the views of uninvolved bureaucrats that are counted ... you get the idea. <small>]</small> 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by The Devil's Advocate === | |||
| I was involved in the ] that led to these warnings and was even threatened with such a warning myself for suggesting that the filing editor was using AE disruptively to illustrate a point because the editor was the subject of an AE discussion at that time and admins were suggesting that a warning be given in that case (in the editor's filing the comment "here is someone you ''can'' warn" was a red flag). To me it seems obvious that warnings can create friction because they are rightly seen as stepping stones to sanctions. In addition, a warning involves an allegation of misconduct and where an editor believes their conduct is within the bounds of policy it is hard to not grasp why an editor would be annoyed with such a warning. Certainly, I was incensed at Sandstein's suggestion to warn me when my comment was perfectly consistent with drawing attention to inappropriate use of AE. Other editors were, in my opinion, also acting within the appropriate bounds of policy. I specifically believe OhConfucius made a reasonable argument, with evidence, that the filer of the AE case had also been disruptive in the topic area. Some of Sandstein's comments on this matter seem incredibly misguided with regards to AE procedure and are not what I would expect from an admin who frequents that area.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @AGK The main issue here would be that the warnings were issued per an official finding of fault at AE. However, improper warnings from regular editors ''are'' subject to scrutiny as it becomes a civility issue. When an "uninvolved" administrator does the same thing it is generally seen as a minor misuse of authority at best. Part of the issue with these warnings is the suggestion that these editors did something that could lead to sanctions. I think the principle should be that if someone is warned outside AE it is a matter of individual conduct by an editor, admin or not. When it is a formal AE finding it should be open to appeal, though logically the notification would stick. Essentially, the result would be that the finding of fault is vacated, but the editor will be considered to have been constructively notified. It would essentially go from a warning about misconduct to a polite notification of discretionary sanctions. The purpose of a notification is partly to insure an editor is aware that there are unique restrictions in a topic area and acts accordingly. It would mean essentially that a repeat instance of similar edits would not be automatically treated as an offense, let alone a repeat offense, and that a minor escalation would not be immediately taken as deserving of sanction even if it rose to the point of an actual violation of policy. Were they to do some serious and obvious policy violations after the vacated warning, however, they would not be able to argue that the rescinded warning means they can't be sanctioned for it as they would still be considered aware of the restrictions. In other words, you can dispute accusations of a repeat offense, but cannot claim ignorance of the discretionary sanctions to get out of an actual serious offense.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by SMcCandlish=== | |||
| *I agree that this needs to be clarified and codified, very much. Please note that people are leaving Misplaced Pages over it. However, I cannot support the notion that it be limited to the sole question of whether the admin who issued the warning is uninvolved or not, but must also permit other bases for appeal, such as (but not necessarily limited to) a) possible factual errors or unsupportable assumptions with regard to the actions of the editor(s) being warned, and b) questionable applicability/scope of the ArbCom case the warning cites to the discussion or other context of the actions being sanctioned by the warning. The logic espoused by both Sandstein and NE Ent that, basically, warnings are just warnings and have no force, and so do not matter, is not actually always going to be applicable. In the instance that brings us here right now, it {{em|isn't}} the case.</p><!-- | |||
| --><p>A warning under ] is a "special" kind of warning, even in Sandstein's own words in our discussions at ]. It effectively constitutes something closely akin to a topic-ban, as after the warning is issued, any admin may block the so-warned user for any perceived transgression of ARBATC without further discussion or warning. The special discretionary sanction remedy warnings available under ARBATC (and other ARBCOM cases I'm less familiar with) can also demonstrably encourage the taking of other punitive, inappropriate actions, such as the recent bogus ] case against me, dependent directly upon Sandstein's ARBATC warning, in which ARBATC is being used to attempt to censor my criticism and questioning of an admin candidate who has proposed very unusual, draconian approaches to the ], as just one example. The bare fact that MOS is mentioned at all is being used as a rationale for grossly over-extending ARBATC's scope to cover both WP:AE and WP:RFA, despite the fact that both are processes in which all discussions are automatically "personalized" already by definition, and in which discussion of MOS/AT matters and their relationship to editor behavior is entirely appropriate when relevant. The point being, {{em|the actual consequences of warnings issued under color of ArbCom/AE authority are considerably more serious and less predicable than those attendant upon some random administrative warning that might be addressable at ]}}. They should really be called something other than "warnings", like "orders", so they're distinguishable.</p><!-- | |||
| --><p>In this particular case, I have shown (at my talk, Sandstein's talk, and at ], as the discussion's been a bit mobile), that Sandstein's accusations with regard to my post at ] for which I was ARBATC-warned were false accusations. I do not say this as a means of antagonizing Sandstein; it's simply a fact, and I've proven it. Furthermore, even under the hard-to-credit assumption that ARBATC can logically apply to user-behavior process pages like AE (and AN, AN/I, RFA, etc.), the AE discussion in question was not even within ARBATC's scope to begin with, as it was not directly related to style or article title matters even "broadly construed", but user behavior matters (stemming from an earlier dispute at ], itself stemming from a ], that {{em|ultimately}} went back to the now-blocked disruptive editor engaging, sometimes, in editwarring and forumshopping over a style issue (and other times sockpuppeteering in energy/power topics); the connection to MOS/AT and thus to ARBATC's scope is extremely tenuous.</p></p>Either of these points, but especially the former (the false accusations matter), should be enough of a basis for an appeal, even if the admin issuing the warning were clearly uninvolved, and I would like to make such an appeal as soon as the avenue is clear to do so. Not because I'm going to have my feelings hurt and cry because I was warned, but because the false accusations have a character-assassinating effect, regardless of Sandstein's intentions, and I should be able to clear my name unequivocally and formally.</p><!-- | |||
| --><p>I cannot impress upon the Arbitration Committee enough how serious a matter this is, as two productive editors, ] and ], have already resigned editing Misplaced Pages over Sandstein's warning for reasons similar to those for which I have been contemplating quitting as well. I refuse to continue volunteering massive amounts of my time to a project in which I can be falsely accused of wrongdoing by random administrators, and put in a "sword of Damocles" position of being blockable with impunity by the first admin to disagree with my approach to any style/titles matter, yet never having been subject to any kind of procedure topic-banning or otherwise restricting me for anything, and, ultimately having no recourse at all. As I use my real name here, the "reputation-bash-ipedia" factor is not in any way trivial to me. It isn't just, and it's not a tenable system of dispute resolution.</p><!-- | |||
| --><p>PS: The fact that admins have a strong collective tendency to reflexively side with other admins any time admin judgement is questioned means that avenues like ] <del>are not</del> <ins>may not be</ins> suitable for this, and a more formal deliberative process <del>is</del> <ins>may be</ins> needed. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)</p> | |||
| *{{strong|The "red flag" that The Devil's Advocate raises is essentially the same one I'm raising.}} There {{em|must}} be an avenue of appeal when a warning like this is issued and its appropriateness and/or accuracy is questionable, because otherwise other editors (including admins) can pile on the warning with a threatening, harassing "Ah {{em|ha}}, now we've got you by the short hairs!" campaign. Precisely this kind of ]/] misuse of ARBATC to just shut me up at all costs and punish me is clearly happening to me right now in WP:AE, spearheaded by an admin (not Sandstein) whom I legitimately questioned in my sole comment in the previous Apteva vs Noetica AE request that Sandstein issued me an ARBATC warning for! It's completely circular reasoning from which there is no clear path of appeal. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{strong|Hans Adler correctly points out below that the problem exists from the outset in the warning itself: "If you continue to misconduct yourself...."}} I have disproved that I did in fact misconduct myself in the first place. (I can reiterate this proof if needed, but that's better saved for an appeal, not discussion of what the avenue of appeal is). The fact that this can constitute a false accusation, a ] violation, is one of several reasons that appealability of this particular type of warning is not "silly" as Hersfold suggests some people dismissively think it is. And it has nothing to do with "undoing a notice", as Salvio suggests, but formally voiding an accusation where the accuser refuses to retract it and there's no or insufficient evidence of actual wrongdoing. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{strong|The evidence presented}} by NE Ent's revision, above, and Iridescent, below, seems to be conclusive. Even if the original idea was informational warnings that aren't stigmatizing, the actual warnings depart radically from this idea. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)</p> | |||
| *{{strong|Re: Carcharoth's commentary}}, below: I agree with your summation of the difference between a general, unappealable notice with regard to a topic area being contentious, vs. a stern surely-must-be-appealable warning, that alleges wrongdoing, like I and three others received. The fact that these are clearly and importantly different is why we're here talking about this. I also agree with your side point (which is tangential to this particular WP:ARCA request, but pertinent to the underlying issues that led to it), namely that MOS/AT "specialization" is problematic. It's something I don't actually do, and the stability and consistency of MOS is more important to me than it's exact particulars. Most of what I do on WP is ] cleanup, and when I focus on long-haul topical editing it is usually with regard to cats and billiards, not style. I've left MOS alone entirely for months at a time before, and most of my editing with regard to it is answering talk page queries about its applicability. No one agrees with every single thing in MOS (MOS necessarily only addresses style matters on which people are likely to disagree). It's genuinely problematic when people go on tendentious, system-gaming, forum-shopping anti-MOS campaigns over trivial crap like wanting to replace dashes with hyphens. People who try to uphold the hard-won consensuses at MOS from such nonsense should not be receiving the threatening, disruption-alleging type of ARBATC warnings we received, especially given that the accusations of wrongdoing behind them (i.e. the casting of broad, vague, irrelevant aspersions without evidence simply to personalize the debate) are demonstrably false. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)<p>PS: Whether someone feels that being falsely accused by an admin, among other problems, is reason enough to leave a project they volunteer for out of the goodness of their own hearts, is a personal decision that doesn't really seem to lend itself to gratuitous "over-reaction...(and that's putting it mildly)" judgments from ArbCom members or anyone else. Leaving WP on principle when confronted with what the editor feels is administrative abuse for which there's no clear recourse, is not the same as threatening in a tantrum to leave WP, with no intention to actually do so, in order to "win" a content dispute and shut other editors up – an ] tactic. At first I actually mistook Noetica's decision for ] behavior myself, but retracted my characterization of it as such about a week ago, as I better understand where it's coming from. I'm curious on what basis you would renew such an "overreaction" aspersion this late in the discussion? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)</p> | |||
| *{{strong|@Enric Naval}}: Virtually everyone else here is recognizing the distinction between "just a warning" and the actual wording and intent of the not-just-a-warning that Sandstein used. This entire long discussion is mostly about these distinctions. Please read more of this until the distinction is clear to you. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{strong|@Cailil}}: ] the phrase "effective bans". I have suggested throughout the discussion, from user talk to here, that there is effectively no real difference between a topic ban the community imposes by consensus, violation of which can result in an immediate block after further discussion e.g. at WP:ANI, and a wrongdoing-alleging "special warning" under ARBATC, violation of which can result in an immediate block without any further discussion at all, other than that the latter simply throws ] and ] in the trash can in two different ways. I hope that is clearer. {{em|Sandstein's warning, if left unappealed and unappealable, {{em|does}} pretty much amount to a weird, "consensus-free" form of topic ban by individual fiat.}} It cannot be what the ArbCom intended. And even if a block under ARBATC discretionary sanctions would actually require a discussion at WP:AE first (I doubt it, but the thick legalistic nitpicking that hovers around ArbCom/AE like a fog is largely impenetrable to me), there's {{em|still}} no effective difference (the community topic-bans then ANI enforces, vs. an "]" admin warns then AE enforces), other than the lack of consensus process to arrive at a topical restriction for that particular editor to begin with. (Note also that SarekOfVulcan almost {{em|immediately}} sought to have me sanctioned further (probably blocked) at AE (in a request no one is taking seriously), for my comments at RfA, using Sandstein's warning as his sole basis. He then did the same thing at AN against Neotarf, for comments at the same RfA. My concerns here are based not on idle speculation or unreasonable "terriblizing" anxieties, but on very recent actual administrative behaviors stemming directly from the Sandstein warning.</p><!-- | |||
| --><p>It is important that Neotarf also interpreted Sandstein's warning this way. I'm not just coming up with "crazy shit" as SarekOfVulcan put it yesterday at AE Neotarf indicated, at the same RFA I commented on, a reluctance to speak his/her actual concerns about the candidate's controversial MOS-related proposals, mentioning both Sandstein's warning and SarekOfVulcan's bogus AE against me for comments in my vote at this RFA. Then (guess who?) SarekOfVulcan deleted Neotarf's comments, and went to WP:AN about it. If this isn't clear indication of some serious problems with regard to both the ARBATC warning/threat/accusation that's under discussion in this ARCA, and admin behavior outlined here, I'm not sure what is. I also honestly feel unable to state what the latter problems might be any more specifically than I already have without being accused yet again of "personalizing the debate" in a ARBATC-violating way despite the fact that style/title matters are only tenuously connected to this discussion, just like they were at the AE filing I got censured for commenting on by Sandstein. If anyone can't make out the patterns I'm outlining here and why they're actual issues that need resolution, I don't know what else to say. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ====Now what?==== | |||
| {{strong|At this juncture, I am wondering whether I should formally request at ] an appeal of Sandstein's accusation}}, given the general though not unanimous pattern of agreement I'm seeing below among Arbs that this sort of warning (i.e. one that indicates an alleged finding of wrongdoing) must necessarily be appealable. I don't want to rock the boat or be seen as squeaking just to get grease, but I want our names cleared on that issue (especially in my case because I use my real name here). Also, at the frivolous new WP:AE report SarekOfVulcan made against me the other day with regard to my opposition to a candidate at RfA, Sandstein used the fact that I have not filed such an RFARB request yet as if it were a salient fact when formulating his "uninvolved" response. I feel I'm left with little choice but to proceed to RFARB, even if this ARCA discussion is still lingering. But if there's a way to resolve the matter without that step, I'm all for it. (It seems to me that the most obvious would be for Sandstein to simply retract the warnings as having been based on a misunderstanding of what our posts in that Apteva vs. Noetica WP:AE case meant and referred to – namely already-concluded, specific and relevant determinations of disruptive editing at WP:AN, not vague antagonistic "aspersions" – because he wasn't aware of that background.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{strong|Update}}: Things are getting worse, not better. Sandstein has announced, at a patently vexatious ] request, his intent to personally ban me from any and all MOS-related discussions. I feel I have no choice to but renew my claim that Sandstein, SarekOfVulcan and several others are engaged in active campaign of ] against me. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 13:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''@AGK''': Re: "I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues" – Any progress on that? I'm basically just in a holding pattern on what to do here. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 09:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Hans Adler === | |||
| All editors are responsible for all statements they make on-wiki. This includes statements in warning templates which they leave on other editors' talk pages. The discretionary sanctions template which Sandstein put on four editors' talk pages contains the following sentence: | |||
| :"If you ''continue'' to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban." | |||
| This was followed by free text containing the following indirect accusation: | |||
| :"Please take care, in future disputes concerning the issues mentioned above, not to misuse the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or other fora) to cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, as directed by the Arbitration Committee's reminder." | |||
| The additional text prevents the interpretation of the incorrect sentence in the template as a harmless mistake. This was not just a neutral warning that the sanctions in question exist. It was an accusation that these four editors had broken the ruling and would have been subject to sanctions had they been warned earlier. That may or may not be the case (I have not fully researched this as it would take a lot of effort), but Sandstein has subsequently made it quite clear that he was not in a position to know if it was the case and that he is not willing to prove that it was. | |||
| From ]: | |||
| :"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." | |||
| Sandstein did not link to any page that actually is under the arbitration sanctions in question, or mention any. Instead, he linked to ], where he unconvincingly claims that problematic behaviour occurred. | |||
| An arbitration sanctions warning that comes with an accusation of sanctionable behaviour that did not actually occur is a veiled threat of sanctioning the target in similar situations in the future, whether they are actually sanctionable or not. This does not just exacerbate Sandstein's personal attack against four editors, it is also a concerning abuse of power. | |||
| With the principle that arbitration sanctions cannot be undone by other admins, Arbcom has created a potential playground for admins on a power trip. It is its duty to police it. If it fails to do this, this will have bad consequences for the retention of content editors. ] 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ;Re non-admin sanctions warnings: | |||
| There was a time when I gave such non-judgemental warnings myself w.r.t. homeopathy. Then at some point I think I was told that only admins can do it. And in fact, non-admins seemed to have stopped doing it. | |||
| The change may have happened with the switch from the earlier evolving sanctions language ("Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if, despite being warned, that editor ." ]) to the new standard formulation that I believe came with the new irreversible sanctions and was implemented retroactively with an omnibus motion in October 2011 ("Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." ]). | |||
| At least for me, the new formulation did carry a slightly stronger suggestion that only uninvolved administrators can warn, though the language was ambiguous in both cases. I am surprised that the principle of admin-only warning seems to have been reversed in the meantime. | |||
| While researching this, I learned that also in October 2011, Will Beback discovered the persistent inconsistency in the rules for arbitration sanctions warnings which is complicating this case. (Warning only after misbehaviour or as pure information?) It appears that he was ignored at the time. ] 01:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ;Re Coren: | |||
| The current text says: "after an initial warning". That seems to imply that the first time an editor breaks an arbitration ruling, they get this initial warning instead of the sanction. This is also why only admins can warn nowadays. The previous text ("despite being warned") is closer to the spirit of what you say. I suspect the switch was made to soften the move to irreversible arbitration sanctions. ] 14:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ;Re Salvio Giuliano | |||
| Thanks for the link. That happened during my long break, so I missed it. But it appears that this 'clarification' was not flanked by complete implementation. A great number of cases still has the text that strongly suggests otherwise, and even ] still says: | |||
| :"2. Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning;" | |||
| Clearly this refers to warnings given by admins only. In connection with | |||
| :"4. Warnings should identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;" | |||
| it appears that that was meant seriously. Also further down: | |||
| :"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning" | |||
| This also strongly suggests the same thing. Then far down the page we find guidance that doesn't merely contradict what came before but is even self-contradictory: | |||
| :"A warning need not be issued by an administrator; see the template's documentation for further details." | |||
| This should be clear enough, except it isn't because it's hidden in a section titled "For administrators", where nobody would be looking for it! To make matters worse, due to the semicolon (which I guess should be a full stop), the second part of the sentence must be read as potentially modifying the first. However, the guidance as to who can warn is only implicit in the documentation for setting the parameter ''admin=no'', which is easy to miss. Especially for an editor who stopped reading after the default text of the template: | |||
| :"This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision" | |||
| This mess of contradictory information is an example for Arbcom's communication problem. I can understand how it can happen, especially with the amount of work that you have to do. But with more effective communication you might ultimately have less work to do. ] 15:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Quick comment by Iridescent === | |||
| With no opinion on this particular case—I have no desire to read through the history of what looks at first glance to be yet another border skirmish of the Great Em-dash War—warnings, particularly official-looking AE warnings that those unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's byzantine internal processes will assume are Arbcom-mandated, do have a scarlet letter effect, . (It's exactly the same issue as incorrect blocks remaining in a block log, leading to subsequent "look at the length of the block log!" comments.) Given this, there ought to be some mechanism for getting a formal "you should not have received this warning" notice that the editor in question can point to later on should it be necessary. Whether it's a discussion on ANI, an Arbcom motion, or a formal vote at a ] page (which would be a valuable resource, as it would keep all the people who are interested in that kind of meta crap arguing with each other rather than wasting everyone else's time), there ought to be some mechanism for this, and Arbcom are the only people mandated to set this kind of process up. ("Consensus" won't be a goer, as the squabbling about what form the process should take will run on for three years and go nowhere—''cf'' every policy debate in the history of Misplaced Pages.) – ] 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :@Coren & Hersfold—] is '''explicitly only to be used if an editor has breached sanctions''', and is explicitly not "a demonstrable notification of the existence of sanctions in a topic area", and the statement "a warning does not necessarily imply that there was any misconduct" is flat-out untrue. The exact wording (on the template page, so presumably anyone using the template can't claim to be unaware of it) is ''" is intentionally worded to apply only after an editor begins to misbehave; preemptive warnings are considered hostile"''. – ] 00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ErikHaugen === | |||
| @Coren and @Salvio—Normally, what you're saying makes sense: a warning is just providing information and there is therefore nothing to appeal. eg. "Hey just reminding you about 3rr regarding your edits at such-and-such article." — There's no stigma, no judgment, etc there. Fine. But the warnings in question here seem to carry a sense of judgment: "it has been officially determined that you did something bad." Please see Hans Adler's detailed description, I won't repeat it here. Simply stating that there's nothing to appeal doesn't quite fit with these warnings. If an admin closes a discussion regarding misconduct and gives me an official looking notice with the phrase "If you continue to misconduct" then I want a way to appeal it. Or something. ] (]) 23:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @AGK: {{tq|I do not consider warnings to be appealable.}} — Please see what I've written here and above. These "warnings" are written as if to say "it has been officially determined that you are naughty"; how can there be no appeal? ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Dicklyon === | |||
| It's really sad that Sandstein's prior involvement with Noetica (]) was to try to muzzle him, at a time that turned out be just a few months before Noetica led the 60-editor discussion that converged on the new MOS dash guidelines, which settled the disputes and were then stable for over a year, until Apteva came along and started stirring up trouble again. So Noetica got "warned" after Apteva's disruptive accusations against him! Makes no sense. Sandstein has been clueless about what's going on, and has caused us a disaster by driving away this very thoughtful and professional editor. Surely there's a way this can be undone. | |||
| === Statement by Neotarf === | |||
| I am flattered to find my name on a list of "experienced editors", but the fact is I am a relatively new editor, with barely a thousand edits and a year of editing. | |||
| Since September some of us have been trying to deal with the disruptions of User: Apteva, who has been given every consideration, every explanation possible. There have been repeated patient discussions on the talk page. A lengthy . Then , AN, and AE, complete with all proper notifications and step by step instructions for appeals. | |||
| At the same time we have four editors who are effectively banned from WP by the actions of one admin, and , without diffs, without notifications, without discussion, without consensus. | |||
| I have absolutely no clue of what I am accused of doing, or where. I seriously doubt that I have done anything irregular; my recent comments have been mundane, and filled with boring diffs and policy references. | |||
| But there is no doubt that some admins consider the "warnings" to be useful. Once this template has been placed on an editor's talk page, some admins believe themselves justified in trying to get an editor blocked for ], or for . | |||
| @Gatoclass: You seem to regard Sandstein as "uninvolved", however see Dicklyon's link. —] (]) 13:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @SMcCandlish: Yes, those of us who received these "warnings" did nothing more than defend Noetica against Apteva's accusations. I would note that all four of us were also among the 28 editors . —] (]) 08:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @Carcharoth: Interesting questions raised about notifications, specialization, and leaving Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately RL is quite busy for me at the moment; if I can, I will try to shed some light on these later. —] (]) 07:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @Further comments on the specialization question raised by Carcharoth: | |||
| :A stable MOS is necessary for all the invisible people and bot operators working behind the scenes who improve WP in subtle ways to make it look polished and readable. There is no need for "editors work harmoniously together following a manual of style" any more than there is a need for car drivers to work together to follow an automobile repair manual. Anyone can get behind the wheel and drive; anyone can edit WP. No one has ever been blocked for using a comma in the wrong place, and no one has ever been arrested for not changing the oil every 3000 miles. The style manual is used mostly by bots and ] to polish articles, as justification for the repetitive edits that would be too time consuming to do manually, but it also prevents arguments over format from breaking out in every single article. When I write an article, I do not always have the time to look up every style detail, so I appreciate it when someone comes along to polish and add non-breaking spaces and date formatting and such that improve the readability of what I have written. | |||
| :I too have seen the disdainful comments about editing in WP space as opposed to editing in article space. The fact is that most, if not all MOS editors are also content editors. Not everyone has the same temperament and the same skills. Some people who are no good at creating content may be very good with bots, templates, or disambiguation pages, or even arbing. There is also that it is the newer editors who create new content, while the more experienced editors tweak and format old content. The trick with Misplaced Pages is to find what you are good at and do that. | |||
| :Likewise I have a hard time understanding objections to people with specialized knowledge who contribute to MOS. I would think that previous experience with publication would be an advantage to the Project. MOS seems to be unique in its broad participation of individuals who have no prior knowledge of the subject. Can you imagine someone going to a section of WP dealing with internal combustion engines, demanding to have the concept of "carburetor" explained, and complaining bitterly that the presence and comments of engineers and car mechanics prevented ordinary people from participating in the discussion? Unfortunately there are a number of people who want to insert partially remembered grammar advice from their third grade teacher, a badly written book from their football coach, or an original and bizarre theory, and explaining things to these people quickly becomes a full time job for several editors. | |||
| :In the year that I have been following MOS, the discussions have been dominated by three difficult individuals: one a sock of a banned user, one who was warned about disruption in an Arbcom decision, and a third who has been disrupting MOS since September and was recently topic banned from MOS and TITLE. It is these three individuals, and not those with specialized knowledge, who have made it difficult to engage meaningfully in the topic and have exhausted the patience of those who have been trying to contribute to MOS in good faith. | |||
| :If some editors are too competent to participate in MOS, this should not decided by one admin as a proxy for community discussion and consensus. | |||
| —] (]) 04:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @SMcCandlish: not so sure about your statement that "Sandstein, SarekOfVulcan and several others are engaged in active campaign of harassment/hounding against me." If is any indication, the original target of the capitalization case was Noetica. —] (]) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement Cailil === | |||
| I just want to make a quick submission as an AE admin on the general process of warnings, and not the case in point. <br>As Coren notes it ''has'' long been the accepted understanding that if someone has contributed to an area under sanctions and has participated at AE or other discussions asking for others to be sanctioned that their awareness of the probation/sanctions and the ruling is sufficient notice prior to being sanctioned themselves. <br>Thus there is an inconsistency between the wording of ], the sanctions templates AND actual practice. <br>Furthermore another inconsistency exists in the divergence of approach of ] (which states that "this isn't a warning or an accusation of misconduct") and ] (which carries an explicit accusation of misconduct); this difference is strange considering that both warnings are required ''before'' administrative action can be taken against a particular user. Perhaps the question the committee needs to ask is: "''does a notification of AC/DS need to be so strongly worded or would something along the lines of ] be more constructive?''" <br>Also, I see no reason that these formal warnings of AC/DS cannot be rescinded by AE. As it stands the wording at WP:AC/DS makes these warnings analogous to a ] or a ]. There's no reason why AE can't rescind this, as it can other formal actions by admins relating to the RFAR's enforcement. <br>However it should be noted that a number of statements above have over-stated the function of such warnings as "effective bans" this is thoroughly inaccurate--] <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :@SMcC: Both you and Neotarf inferred that Sandstein's warnings were tantamount to bans. You state above: that the warning "effectively constitutes something closely akin to a topic-ban", and Neotarf says in reference to that same warning that "four editors who are effectively banned from WP by the actions of one admin". Also SMC both I and Lord Roem asked you to reduce the length of your posts and I will reiterate that again--] <sup>]</sup> 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Gatoclass === | |||
| This is a problem that has been brewing for some time, and which obviously was not fully addressed in the previous case. While it is some time since I have participated at ], my initial thoughts on this matter at this time are as follows: | |||
| 1/ Firstly, any user should be able to issue a ''notification'' to any other user in a contentious topic area. The notification should be in the form of a standard template, written in neutral language, which simply informs the recipient that special sanctions exist in the topic area. There should probably be a separate page someplace for logging of such notifications, so that anyone can check quickly who has and hasn't been notified in the past. There should be no assumption of wrongdoing on the part of a recipient; rather, the notification will just fulfill the requirement for users to be notified of special sanctions before any such sanction can be applied. A notification is not appealable because it does not imply wrongdoing. | |||
| 2/ At the same time, uninvolved administrators have always had the prerogative to issue a ''warning'' as a result of an AE case, for any reason as they see fit. In the case of users who have not previously been informed of sanctions in a given topic area, a ''warning'' should be regarded both as a notification about AE sanctions as in 1/ above, and as an offical sanction for misconduct. Because such a warning is indeed a form of sanction, it should be appealable. Warnings should be logged both as a notification on the notification page, and as a warning on the original case page. | |||
| I might add that in the Noetica case, there was never any requirement for a notification since that requirement had already been fulfilled in the previous case. Sandstein appears to have issued a ''warning'' rather than a notification, which is his right as an uninvolved adjudicating admin, but since such a warning is clearly a stain on the reputation of the recipient, it should obviously be appealable in my view, just as for any other kind of discretionary sanction applied at AE. ] (]) 09:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Enric Naval === | |||
| Best not to restrict warnings to uninvolved admins. We already made that back in the days of ]. It caused lots of problems and opportunities for wikilawyering. The main problem: we made requests for uninvolved admins in ANI, but no admin wanted to get involved in complex disputes. Discretionary sanctions are supposed to make enforcement easier and quicker, this would be a step backwards. | |||
| A warning is just a warning. It only makes people aware that they are editing in an area where sanctions are easer to come by. Editors can no longer claim that they are unaware of discretionary sanctions. The current wording of {{tl|uw-sanctions}} is ''way'' too harsh, and it assumes that the editor has misbehaved. I prefer the older wording: "This is to inform you about that decision.". --] (]) 19:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Penwhale === | |||
| Personal preference: New editors who first edit in areas where DS is in affect can have a ''notification'' illustrating the fact that the area is under higher scrutiny. This notification should be served as neutral as possible - not really "appeal-able" yet. If the editor starts tenuous editing in this area, then serve a warning to them, citing the original RFAR case. This warning can be appealed if the editor believes it shouldn't have been served. Short version: One notification should just be a courtesy note, the actual warning re: DS can be appealed. - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 09:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Apteva === | |||
| I agree with AGK that warnings are not appealable and are irrevocable. Blocks yes, bans yes, but warnings no. I also note that I have been inappropriately mentioned by three editors here. It is only by accident that I saw this, not because of being notified that I was mentioned. At least a hundred times I would estimate I have reminded editors to say I think, not you said, or someone said, without naming them, and thus personalizing the discussion. Am I mistaken, or wasn't that what two of them were warned about? Anyone think it would be worth warning whoever else did this? | |||
| Right now there is a lengthy discussion going on about enforcing incivility. I will only note that at ] we use a four level warning system for vandalism. Pretty much by definition anyone who is topic banned, such as from using automated edits, is considered to be an otherwise valuable editor, and I would like to note that a similar four level warning system for topic bans should be automatic, instead of an AN/AE discussion leading to a lengthy block for something that may or may not have even been a violation. Doing that would eliminate a lot of the drama. ] (]) 03:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| TLDR summary of some of the above with some corrections. This is not about the purpose of the MOS or a list of who is welcome there, but a discussion on the purpose of warnings and whether they can be appealed. The topic banned user though characterized as "difficult" made almost no edits at MOS through their alternate account (the sock that lead to a one year block, which has now expired), and is other than one other, the editor who has made the most edits to the MOS. I am not as indicated topic banned from AT or MOS, but not likely welcomed by those who are not very civil at MOS either, nor can I be called difficult for having an honest desire to fix something. Tenacious, yes, but tendentious, no. Tenacious is a good quality, tendentious is a bad quality. That anyone who edits the MOS or MOS talk page would be uncivil is a huge problem. ] (]) 05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Per the proposed edit, I would support a change to "If you fail to conduct yourself". I would also comment that a real life standard warning is "I am not saying that you did anything wrong but I am warning you that such and such is not tolerated, etc." When what is really meant is I saw you do that, I know you did that, but I am just going to warn you this time, so you got off lucky this time. The advice about not overwarning is fine, but our warnings serve a technical function – for almost everything we require a formal warning first (everything but the more serious offenses). ] (]) 04:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ohconfucius === | |||
| I'm in agreement with The Devil's Advocate, who has correctly nuanced the issue at hand between a third party notification, an involved editor's warning, an "friendly" official reminder (without any implied misconduct) and an official warning for implied misconduct. When Sandstein floated the initial idea that I amongst others should be warned for 'casting aspersions on a fellow editor', I didn't take it seriously for I never thought that a seasoned AE admin for whom I hold in utmost respect would actually seriously consider doing that based on his legal training – certainly for what I (specifically) and the others (incidentally) had written, otherwise I would have objected there and then. I mean, my comments were factual and only personal to the degree that was strictly necessary to state the case. I stated, with evidence, that the plaintiff had a history of disruption, had had disagreements with the defendant, and that the complaint was vexatious because the allegations were spurious. Of course I don't believe you could "unwarn" somebody, and I would have had no issue with a neutrally-worded 'warning' or notification, but Sandstein's wording was anything but neutral, as it implied improper conduct. Thus I believe Arbcom must be open to appealing or repealing such an official rap on the knuckles for the stigma that may cause, and the undoubted use to which such a warning be put by anyone seeking "dirt" to exploit against the "warned" editors in their own disputes and disagreements. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 01:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *On reflection, Sandstein's coming to Arbcom was a despicable cop-out. This compounded a lack of sincerity with his failure to acknowledge that he made a mistake. He obviously wanted Arbcom to back him, but it's now clear that Arbcom is split on the issue. Sandstein has gone down in my estimation, showing himself to be a technocrat who is too welded to procedure and has lost touch with his sense of justice. He might still salvage some credibility if he were to put his morals, his legal training, and his diplomatic skills into together into an suitably amended statement to replace the original "warning" with wording similar to what Killerchihuahua proposes below. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *@Stanton: isn't vexatious, nor is Sandstein the instigator. Based on the lack of consensus even among sysops as to blocking/banning you, it would certainly be unwise of Sandstein to action his "threat". He doesn't need any encouragement, for it was one lone comment that got him "warning" us four. But if he ''does'' block you for the aforementioned, that will confirm for me beyond doubt that Sandstein's judgement is impaired. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 10:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*I said the {{em|request}} is vexatious (which it clearly is; its filer is someone I very recently tried to have Apteva's topic-ban extended to cover at WP:AN for MOS-related disruption, and who has frequently been at loggerheads with me, Noetica, et al., on various style issues he never gains consensus for), and I said that Sandstein had announced an intention to see me banned; I did not say the vexatious request was Sandstein's. I haven't done anything new and different Sandstein can magically ban/block me for. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Suggestion by Killerchihuahua=== | |||
| Why not just change the verbiage on uw-sanctions from ''"If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic"'' to ''"If you fail to conduct yourself appropriately on pages relating to this topic"'' and move forward? This whole thing seems to be about the "continue to" verbiage, which as noted above was not the earlier phrasing. (although it was added in May 2008 so it isn't exactly new, either.) | |||
| I'm seriously thinking of being '''bold''' and just doing it, but I suppose some Arbs might be irritated if I take that upon myself while this is underway. ]] 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Heim=== | |||
| So, now we've got an appeal of a DS sanction at AE, and I don't know if we can process it there because the committee seems to actively disagree on this, but is doing jack squat to actually resolve it. Any chance we could at least get a clarification if we can do anything on that request? ] ] 12:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by other user === | |||
| <!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements --> | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| : ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrator views and discussion === | |||
| * It is my view that warnings cannot be meaningfully appealed (nor, indeed, is there something to appeal ''from''), even if the admin giving the warning was involved. The ''point'' of a warning isn't one of giving a "first strike", nor does it allege misbehaviour; it simply provides a demonstrable notification of the existence of sanctions in a topic area. It is not a sanction in any meaning of the term.<p>That said, giving a warning of the sort should be seen like using any other templated notice: habitually misusing them is likely to be viewed as disruptive or ], especially if it is done in a retributive or retaliatory manner. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * On the second point (and without going into its applicability to warnings): I would opine that an AE sanction can be appealed in general either (a) to the committee, (b) to the admin actually applying the sanction or (c) to a suitable venue where a consensus ''at least'' as reliable as that where it was imposed can be garnered. In practice, the latter means AE or AN, but I would think that AE itself is the "natural" first venue, even in cases where the remedy does not otherwise specify a specific venue of appeal. The restriction you mention does indeed clearly applies to any editor – it used "administrator" in its wording because, at the time it was written, AE mostly only issued ''blocks'' which only and administrator would have been capable of lifting. The point being that no AE-derived sanction can be lifted without a consensus in a suitable venue. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I've not reviewed the AE request this pertains to, although I am vaguely familiar with it. Regarding appealing warnings, the simple fact of the matter is that if an warning was successfully appealed, nothing has really changed, except that (per the wording of discretionary sanctions) the user must be warned again before any sanctions can be applied. This seems on its face somewhat silly, as one can't simply forget that they were warned<s>, and a warning does not necessarily imply that there was any misconduct</s>. However, <s>I cannot imagine why a warning would need to be issued except where</s> ''the issuance of a warning implies'' there ''was'' misconduct; the way discretionary sanctions are set up, The Devil's Advocate is correct in that warnings are essentially the "stepping stone" to actual sanctions. I can certainly see where a warning would have a chilling effect on a user when they genuinely feel they have done no wrong and were "falsely accused." Going back to the first hand, though, an inability to acknowledge one's faults in the face of clear evidence is a red flag that sanctions will be required at some point. Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think the point is that while appealing a simple warning may appear to be moot, there is both a practical and a psychological reason for doing so. As such, I think appeals of warnings should be permitted; as to how appeals can be conducted, I agree with Coren's comments on the subject. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **@ Iridescent: Interesting, thanks for that. I was actually going off the wording of ], which doesn't explicitly say any misconduct must exist, however I suppose the "should be counseled to improve his or her editing" bit could imply that. Anyway, I'll rephrase my comments above accordingly. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 05:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *As usual, a couple of random thoughts. First of all, I believe that all editors are allowed to issue the warning that a given topic area is under discretionary sanctions and not only admins {{endash}} if memory serves me correctly, this has already been clarified by ArbCom in the past. Since warnings are meant to protect editors from unpleasant surprises, by making them aware of the fact that their behaviour may lead to sanctions, I see no reason to restrict the ability in any way. Also, because, technically, warnings are not sanctions, I don't believe they can be appealed {{endash}} their only function is to make users aware of the discretionary sanctions currently in place and it's not possible to "unmake someone aware of something". Finally, as far as I'm concerned all sanctions and restrictions imposed by an administrator must be appealable, first to the community (the policy reads ''following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved '''editors''' at a community discussion noticeboard'', after all) and, so, this means AN and not AE, in my opinion, and, then, if said appeal is unsuccessful, to ArbCom. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 23:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **@Hans. {{xt|This is also why only admins can warn nowadays.}} This is a common misconception: all editors may issue warnings (cf. ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***@Hans. I agree with you that we should reword the template and its documentation so that it's clearer. This request is the perfect opportunity to do so! <p>@The Devil's Advocate. I oppose the process you propose as it would be nothing but byzantine bureaucracy; the end result would be that nothing has really changed, as the editor would still be warned and there is no requirement that a user must have misbehaved repeatedly to be sanctioned. So, in essence, this would be a waste of the community's (or ArbCom's) time which would lead to no appreciable difference. Misplaced Pages is not moot court.<p>@Sandstein. I have probably been as clear as mud (again, sigh...) but you got my position wrong... In my opinion, warnings cannot be appealed and all users can issue them... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 13:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Our procedures governing warnings lack coherency and needs to be fixed. Either warnings are simply to notify editors that an area is under discretionary sanctions, and can therefore be issued without a finding of misconduct; or a warning is supposed to tell someone who behaved badly "don't do it again or we'll sanction you", and therefore requires an antecedent finding of misconduct. To muddy the waters further, I also recall an earlier clarification request in which it was said that warnings can be made by anyone, and not just uninvolved administrators, and AE has long taken the view that a warning is not appealable.<p>Now, if warnings mean "you did something bad, don't do it again or you'll be sanctioned", then they should be appealable in principle, and should be limited to uninvolved administrators, who are the only one who can actually make a finding of misconduct, but that is a big departure from current practice, and would likely multiply the workload of AE admins. The last thing we want is for someone to argue "but I did nothing wrong when I got this warning 3 months ago and it was by an involved editor, so the warning is ineffective and you can't sanction me now!" in an AE thread. <p>My view is that we should strike "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways" from point 4 in the top section of ], ], and ], and "or giving a warning" from ], and rename that principle "Rationales in sanction notices". {{tlx|uw-sanctions}} should be reworded accordingly. <p>I'll need to think more about the second issue, but I do want to say that I strongly disagree with any suggestion that AE sanctions cannot be appealed at AE. I also think that AE is a rather awkward fit under the current page structure, and it is a good idea to move it back to its previous location as a subpage of AN. ] (]) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *This settles on the question of what a warning actually is. If you're driving down the interstate, is a warning more akin to your passenger pointing out a speed limit sign, or is it a cop pulling you over, running your license, and writing you a warning "this time"? If it is the former, then there's really no need for an appeal system; if it is the latter, then there should be, because the clear undertone has to be that you've done something wrong, and that you're on notice for a substantive sanction of some form 'next time'. Sadly, I think the perception is the latter case, and this isn't really ideal. There has to be a way to not make it so confrontational of an encounter, and not a mere prerequisite for sanctions, but I've shoveled far too much snow today to have any grand ideas tonight. ] 07:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **That's actually an interesting analogy to use; the cop would be well within his authority to issue a full ticket rather than a warning if he wanted to; however, if he does issue you a warning, then you've no excuse the next time you get pulled over and the warning shows up in the second cop's system. As such, I think the way discretionary sanctions are set up IS the latter case in practice as well as perception. The warning must be officially "on record" rather than simply noticing the sign as you drive past (or see it at the top of a talk page). As to how to improve this, we've little options, because as noted above not everyone will notice a thing on a talk page, and new users won't have been around when the case in question was held, and so can't be expected to simply "know." Perhaps one option could be adding a generic template warning to the edit notice of all affected pages to the effect of "This page, part of a number on the subject of BLAH, is subject to ]. Please be warned that any disruptive conduct on or relating to this page may result in sanctions up to and including blah blah blah..." It doesn't have to be terribly detailed or even very forceful, it just has to be noticeable enough that anyone editing the page has no excuse to say they didn't know. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 05:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *As the warnings are being used as part of a formal sanction process, and the implication is that some form of misconduct has taken place, then appealing against a warning using the appeal procedures as outlined on ] seems appropriate and necessary. A sanction cannot be applied without a formal warning, so tagging someone with a formal warning puts them a step closer to being blocked. They can appeal the block itself, but not the warning (even if incorrectly placed), that allowed the block to take place. If on review it is felt that there was insufficient misconduct for a formal warning, then the warning should be rescinded, and should not be taken into account when dealing with any future potential misconduct by that user. I trust the AE admins to make the appropriate on-the-spot decisions, but anyone can make a mistake, and it's right and fair that if an action is questioned, that it can be looked into and reversed if necessary. If the decision was appropriate, then the warning is kept in place, and the user who was warned has had confirmation that their actions were problematic. ''']''' ''']''' 09:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **That never was the intent of the warnings, SilkTork, and if they are understood this way then we need to clarify the matter. The point of the warning is to avoid anyone getting sanctions while not knowing there was DS in place – not any sort of "formal warning" system. Indeed, we have previously ruled in the past that, because someone ''clearly'' knew of the sanction (for instance, by having been a party to the case and been notified of its results) then the warning was unnecessary for AE to enforce the sanction.<p>The prerequisite to sanction is "the editor knows that the topic is under DS"; a warning is just the most straightforward way of making sure an editor demonstrably knew. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***] makes it clear that the warnings are a formal part of the process - "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning", "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning". Actual misconduct is built into the process, on the sanctions page it says: "Warnings should ... identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways", and the warning template uses the phrase "If you continue to misconduct". This makes sense. Why would anyone want to warn someone with a formal template when they were editing appropriately in a sanctioned area? There would need to be a ''reason'' for a warning. In the AE discussion in question, there were 14 people involved, four of whom were selected for a warning. If there is no reason for a warning, then a warning should not be given - and I assume there was a reason for warning those four editors in particular, otherwise all 14 editors would have been reminded that DS was applicable. ''']''' ''']''' 15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Under the present system of discretionary sanctions, "warning or notice" of discretionary sanctions can be given by ''any'' editor—not merely by an uninvolved editor or administrator. While we are here, I would be minded to amend the standard discretionary sanctions procedure so that it requires any admissible notices or warnings to be given by an editor who is ''not'' involved in the subject area. (I see no reason to restrict the ability to give warnings to only uninvolved sysops; so long as the editor giving the advice and warning is not involved in the dispute, whether he or she is a sysop is irrelevant.) I am so minded because it seems utterly bone-headed to expect one disputant to make a serious attempt at educating another disputant as to how his or her conduct can be improved; such an system is a non-starter. I would also prefer that we avoid having these warnings turn into another arrow in the disputants' quiver—though I have been out of the enforcement game for over a year, so I would welcome comment as to whether this is a serious ongoing issue or merely a potential problem. Hans Adler gives good examples of where the language in our sanctions concerning "non-admin" warnings is ambiguous.<p>As for Sandstein's questions: I do not consider warnings to be appealable. Therefore, in my view, once {{tlx|uw-sanctions}} has been placed on an editor's talk page (with the appropriate parameter used so that a link to the final decision is included), the warning is irrevocably given and no appeal of it can be made. The notion that one could appeal a mere "notice" of discretionary sanctions—as though the warning and advice it gives can be "unlearned"—defies logic. ] ]] 22:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :* To various: Even if these notices (as has been argued) damage an editor's perceived reputation, I do not think our creating a bureaucratic process of appealing the notice would be an effective solution to any case where such reputation damage has been wreaked. And even if these notices (as has been argued) constitute a finding of guilt, placing an editor "on notice" is tantamount to giving them advice; advising is not sanctioning—so these notices cannot be appealed as though they were an enforcement action or sanction. I'm not persuaded by any of the counter-arguments that have been offered in the statements above, and therefore I maintain my position.<p>Those rebuttals aside, I make two further observations. First, the vast majority of notices, in my experience, are warranted; I think, as a community, we are mature enough to informally dismiss those few cases where a notice is given unjustly. Second, it would fly in the face of the spirit and purpose of the discretionary sanctions system for these notices to be appealable; they are supposed to be a courtesy notice to editors who are new to problematic topic areas, not a formal prerequisite to the giving of sanctions. Discretionary Sanctions is designed so that misconduct can be sanctioned efficiently and effectively; I am therefore vehemently opposed to any attempt to make it ''more'' difficult to sanction editors who are misconducting themselves.<p>To Sandstein: in reply to your third question, I would answer both WP:AE and WP:AN. In reply to your fourth, I think the views of all uninvolved editors should be welcomed in appeals; but, as only an administrator can reverse an enforcement action, it must only be the views of uninvolved administrators that are counted towards the determination of consensus. This last point is ambiguous and would therefore need clarification by motion from this committee. I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues. ] ]] 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *''Placeholder''. I have limited time or access (partly because of the storm) until Monday. I'll post some comments on Monday or Tuesday. ] (]) 02:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - In general I agree with the view that neutral notifications to editors possibly unaware of the fractiousness of an area (not the case here, as all those affected were well aware of the tensions in the topic area) should be used liberally and widely, not seen as warnings and should not be able to be appealed, but just seen as polite notifications. i.e. the 'older wording' referred to in some places above. I agree that stern warnings are something else altogether, and should be firmly linked to a diff of the conduct that provoked the warning, and should be able to be appealed, though leaving Misplaced Pages altogether seems an over-reaction to me (and that's putting it mildly). My general view, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard what I've said on the subject before (I once engaged Noetica on their talk page in a discussion about this), is that over-specialisation in article titles and manual of style issues isn't really the greatest idea. It can work up to a point, but the peculiar tensions of an environment that anyone can edit means that certain ideals just aren't attainable and you can't get to the point where editors can work harmoniously together following a manual of style the right way (which means not following it all the time), and at the same time resist the temptation to argue over the manual of style or article titles instead (in real-world editing environments, people do argue over style, but if they are professional about it, they don't let those arguments affect their actual editing, and they keep the focus on the editing rather than what sometimes happens on Misplaced Pages where people get drawn more into the arguments about style than the editing work that really needs doing). ] (]) 21:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Revision as of 14:23, 9 March 2013
Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
- Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
- In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
- Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
- Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
- Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
- Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using
~~~~). - Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
- Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
- Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
- Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
- Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
- Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
- Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
- WP:ARCA
- WP:ARA
- WP:A/R/C&A
- WP:A/R/CL
- WP:A/R/A
- WP:A/R/CA
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment
| Clarification and Amendment archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||