| Revision as of 13:32, 11 November 2014 editThargor Orlando (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,066 edits →Statement by {yet another user}: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:25, 11 November 2014 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,183 edits hey, here's another amendment request, just because arbs like formal procedures so muchNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions == | |||
| <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| = {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} = | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} | |||
| == Amendment request: Tea Party movement == | |||
| <!-- As well as above, please also replace "CASE/DECISION" in the Arbitrators' section below, then remove this message. --> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Tea Party movement}} | |||
| ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested | ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested | ||
| # ] | |||
| # Remedy 7.1 (topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed) | |||
| # Remedy 7.2 (prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect anywhere on Misplaced Pages) | |||
| === Statement by Fut.Perf. === | |||
| ; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment | |||
| * {{userlinks|Xenophrenic}} (initiator) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Collect}}<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. | |||
| Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed, | |||
| immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. | |||
| The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. | |||
| --> | |||
| Just noticed this trivial clerical oversight in the wording of the current DS rules. In the "]" section, there is the the rule that old warnings are grandfathered in until "twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure" – but nowhere on the page does it say when that date actually was (3 May 2014, apparently), nor is there an actual link to the decision anywhere, and it took me ages just now to dig that bloody link out . Just add a reference to that date there, and a link to decision in the refs section at the bottom, because it will remain important for admins in figuring out the "alert" status of editors for the next half year to come. | |||
| ; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request | |||
| * (diff of notification of this thread on Collect's talk page) | |||
| Of course, if Arbcom pages weren't such a ridiculous jungle of bureaucracy, I could just go ahead and make this simple, uncontroversial clerical correction myself (heck, per IAR, I guess I'll just do it anyway ), but since on prior attempts arbitrators have ever so gracefully insisted on the untouchableness of their little home-made bureaucratic fiefdom , you asked for ridiculous procedure for procedure's sake, you get ridiculous procedure for procedure's sake. Have fun voting on this. ] ] 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ; Information about amendment request | |||
| === Statement by {other user} === | |||
| * ] | |||
| * Request for the lifting of Arbitration remedies 7.1 and 7.2 as no longer necessary. | |||
| === Statement by Xenophrenic === | |||
| The Arbitration Committee imposed upon me a topic ban and a one-way interaction ban on 5 September 2013, with instructions that I may appeal to ArbCom after 6 months. Now that 14 months have passed, I am requesting that the bans be lifted as no longer necessary, and an undue burden. The "]" about me indicates the Arbs perceived some problems with my Talk page interaction with other Misplaced Pages editors. I "personalized" the discussions by stubbornly demanding that editors substantiate certain negative personal comments about me, even to the point of "edit warring over comments that negatively portray" me, and "thereby further increasing tension" as I repeatedly deleted those comments and replaced them with <nowiki>{{rpa}}</nowiki> templates. I agree that my conduct was substandard. I have since grown thicker skin and changed the way I respond to those situations -- with the best response often being for me to just ignore it and get back to collaborative editing. I apologize to the Arbs, the clerks and the community for their wasted time and energy due to my part in this matter, and extend my assurance that I won't repeat that conduct. With regard to User:Collect, I "engaged in unnecessary mockery" of his use of ''Cheers'' by responding with '']''. I've ceased that response as well, but more to the larger point, I have and will continue to refrain from unnecessary mockery of editors. And Collect: Please accept my apology. | |||
| In addition to being no longer necessary, these two remedies are becoming increasingly burdensome. I frequently find myself having to play ] whenever I see the words 'Tea' and 'Party' somewhere in an article I wish to edit or discuss. (Example: while typing a question to Newyorkbrad in response to his , I discovered he was talking about a lawsuit drafted by a Tea Party activist, so I had to hold my tongue, lest someone twist that into a topic ban violation.) See ] for an example of how reasonable people can completely disagree on what is "related to" the Tea Party; there are . It is cumbersome to "not interact with" an editor after they and on those very edits, while still trying to communicate on the Talk page. More examples upon request. | |||
| I'm up against the word-limit now, but if there are any reservations about lifting the sanctions, I can strengthen my request by providing details on: | |||
| * (Good behavior) -how every editor sanctioned in this ArbCom case 14 months ago, except me (and Snowded), has since received additional Blocks, Bans, ArbCom sanctions, or violated existing sanctions | |||
| * (Topic relevance) -how the FoF evidence for me described an editor-interaction problem not specifically related to the TPm "topic" or subject matter, unlike many of the other FoFs describing problems related to topic content, sources and POV | |||
| Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I'll leave you with these wise words on I-BANs, with which I happen to agree. Regards, ] (]) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small></small> | |||
| === Statement by Collect === | |||
| I would be fully unaffected by this amendment, as I have no sanctions extant under the Tea Party Movement case. My appeal to {{U|Jimbo}} has met with absolutely no response, but we are well past the six month mark making this amendment request totally moot. The one way interaction ban should be carefully weighed - I have not interacted with Xenophrenic at any point, and would just as soon have him ''continued'' to be constrained. ] (]) 11:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am, moreover, aghast that the common use in infoboxes to include degrees received is what his major complaint appears to be. There was, in fact, a discussion on the template page, as I trust he is aware, and he appeared to be in full accord with the solution, so I do not know what his issue with me is here. ] (]) 12:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. | {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. | ||
| Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} | Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} | ||
| === Statement by Thargor Orlando=== | |||
| I brought up the initial clarification before, so I'm commenting to note that, while I haven't had any further encounters with Xenophrenic since then, others certainly have and probably didn't notice that he was under sanction, given that even in the last few months he has edits to sanction-related articles like ] , ] , ] , ] , and ] (and this is using a fairly narrow standard of "broadly construed." If the topic ban is about keeping him from engaging in incivility on these pages, I'm unaware of any evidence that he's continued that behavior. If the topic ban, however, was to keep him away from Tea Party-related articles, he has very clearly not done so. I have no interest in stalking his edits to keep him in line, but the result of this appeal should really be about the intent of the topic ban, especially as his edits, at first glance, do not appear to be problematic the way other editors' edits were. ] (]) 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {yet another user} === | === Statement by {yet another user} === | ||
| Line 58: | Line 20: | ||
| : ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | : ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | ||
| === |
=== CASENAME: Arbitrator views and discussion === | ||
| * | * | ||
| ---- | |||
| == Clarification request: Banning Policy == | |||
| <!-- As well as above, please also replace "CASE/DECISION" in the Arbitrators' section below, then remove this message. --> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ''']''' '''at''' 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ;Case or decision affected: | |||
| :] | |||
| :Link to relevant decision | |||
| ] | |||
| 1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions. | |||
| Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (29 days ago) (UTC−7) | |||
| <!-- If seeking clarification related to a case replace "Example" with the case name. If seeking clarification related to a decision (such as a motion) include the link or specific decision. If none of these apply delete this and preceding lines. --> | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Konveyor Belt}} (initiator) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Tarc}} Tarc notified: | |||
| <!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. | |||
| Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed, | |||
| immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. | |||
| The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. | |||
| --> | |||
| === Statement by Konveyor Belt === | |||
| Tarc created a thread about ] here: . Immediately others called for him to be blocked, based on the ruling above. So the request is thus: Does the "normal exceptions" in the remedy above include commenting and posting on subjects that Tarc is '''directly involved''' in? ''']''' 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Note ] has taken it upon himself to state Tarc will not edit admin noticeboards hereafter: . ''']''' 19:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Tarc === | |||
| I was under the impression that "normal exceptions" covered situations such as being invoked by another party ANI, or if I was in need of admin assistance for a situation in which I was already involved. An example of the former would be ], in which I was obliged to defend myself. The latter is a case involving ]; I have been involved there for months, and we have an intractable situation where editors are blatantly abusing ], and we as regular editors cannot solve it by edit-warring, and discussion has gone on for over a month. | |||
| I'd find it hard to imaging that y'all sought to prohibit me from seeking redress for situations where I am extensively involved....my understanding was that you wanted me out of admin board-related discussions in which I had no prior hand in to avoid animosity and entanglement and such. Pursuant to that, I declined an invitation (]) to participate in a Gamergate AN thread...even though I'm involved in the topic in general, that particular tangent did not involve me. I also decided to stay away from the Gender gap case, even though I had some early involvement in that. Hell, ANI is off the watchlist entirely. | |||
| If y'all want to prohibit even the filing of ANI reports when assistance is necessary, then that's your call I guess, but like I said, I honestly did not see that interpretation of the finding at the time. As far as the current ANI goes, obviously I disagree with TParis' restrictive interpretation of the Arbcom finding, but I will refrain from posting further there while this is being discussed here. The important thing is that the subject matter of the filing itself was allowed to continue. ] (]) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|TParis}}, it's a fine line, here; I don't agree with the finding that my initiating an ANI discussion violates the Arbcom ruling, but at the same time I do not fault you for hatting the Tutleary-fueled hysterics in the middle and allowing the topic itself to continue. | |||
| I do need a clarification here though, as it seems obvious that there are differing interpretations as to what Arbcom said. ] (]) 22:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| No, despite that Arbcom talk page thread that meandered nowhere, you never actually clarified anything...until now, apparently. Remember what we're talking about here; a ban from something that had NOTHING TO DO with the actual Arbcom case, so it kinda follows that when something follows from nothing, there will be a distinct lack of clarity on the parameters. If this is what you wish to declare going forward, whatever, but to suggest that your intent was clear beforehand is divorced from reality. ] (]) 13:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by TParis === | |||
| @Tarc: I consider it to be a reasonable compromise. You avoid a block and your thread gets discussed. Works in your favor.--v/r - ]] 21:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Carrite=== | |||
| It strikes me as ridiculous that starting a dramatic new thread at AN/I and then commenting on it is a "normal exception" to a topic ban from posting to AN/I. A "normal exception" would be, logically, one having the ability to respond to a thread started ''about the topic-banned individual'' at the prohibited page. It is no surprise that the limits of ArbCom's lamentably fuzzy language are being probed after less than a month. ] (]) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Hell in a Bucket} === | |||
| Unless an admin thinks Tarc was pushing or testing his ban's limits not in good faith I suggest no action. ] (]) 13:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements --> | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| : ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Banning Policy: Arbitrator views and discussion === | |||
| *] during the case. The point of the remedy is to remove Tarc from areas where he is not a positive influence. The ] apply to the topic ban, i.e. appealing or clarifying the topic ban. Other usage of administrative noticeboards is not currently available to Tarc. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with Worm; this was a rather clear-cut violation of the restriction. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Clarification request and appeal: Discretionary sanctions alerts == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> '''at''' 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ;Case or decision affected: | |||
| :] | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| *{{admin|Sandstein}} (initiator) | |||
| *{{admin|John Vandenberg}} () | |||
| *{{userlinks|41.223.50.67}} () | |||
| === Statement by Sandstein === | |||
| Today, John Vandenberg, an administrator, about the discretionary sanctions applying to the Eastern Europe topic area, and as a "notification" on the case page, which he to a "warning". Judging by , he did so to register his disapproval of my speedy deletion of an article created by a sock of a banned user. After I removed the alert after having read it, it was immediately by an anonymous user, 41.223.50.67. | |||
| Per ] the purpose of such alerts is to advise an editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I am and have been active as an administrator by issuing discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and am therefore perfectly aware of the existence of these sanctions, as John Vandenberg . The alert therefore served no procedure-based purpose. This also applies to the unneeded logging on the case page: Unlike earlier notifications, alerts are not logged on a case page because they can be searched for with an edit filter. John Vandenberg knew this because he used the correct alert template as provided for in ]. | |||
| It therefore appears that John Vandenberg used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that he misused the alerts procedure to mark his disapproval of a deletion I made and to deter me from making further admin actions in this area with which he disagrees. That is disruptive because this is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. It is also disruptive because it has had the effect, whether intended or not, to create the in another administrator that I am disqualified from acting as an admin in this topic area because I received this alert. | |||
| To the extent the now-"warning" is meant as a sanction in and of itself, it is meritless and disruptive: The I made was compliant with ], and does not conflict with the ] because the ban evasion issue was not considered there. Any concerns about this deletion should have been discussed at deletion review. | |||
| Per ], "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". Nobody other than the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue such sanctions. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify that alerts should not be used for any other than their intended purpose, and to take such actions (e.g., issuing a warning) as it deems appropriate to ensure that John Vandenberg will not continue to issue alerts disruptively. By way of appeal of discretionary sanctions, I also ask the Committee to remove the "warning" from the log as being without merit. | |||
| Prior to making this request, I with John Vandenberg, but we failed to reach an understanding, and he to submit this matter to this forum for review. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I cannot understand John Vandenberg's contention that I used admin tools while involved. I have never interacted with "Polandball" or related pages or users editorially, but only in an administrative capacity. Per ], such continued administrative activity does not speak to bias (even if others may not agree with the admin actions), but is instead merely part of an admin's job. John Vandenberg's casting of unfounded aspersions of misusing admin tools and of "battleground mentality" is also disruptive. As I , I did fail to take into consideration that my alerting the user who filed a DRV request concerning an AfD I closed might be perceived as an improperly adversarial action, even though an alert is not supposed to be one and I didn't oppose the restoration of the article proposed at DRV. I'll keep this in mind in a similar future situation. Nonetheless, because alerts may be issued by anyone, including involved users, the alert raises no question of involvement. <p>As concerns the "warning", either it is meant as a discretionary sanction for misconduct (as the warning by me he cites was) and in this case is appealed here as meritless and disruptive, or it is not and has therefore no place in a log under the new procedures. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::John Vandenberg: Alerts are not admin actions because they neither require advanced permissions nor are they restricted to administrators. But neither are they editorial actions that speak to bias and would disqualify an admin that issues them, because they are intended to be neutral and informative in nature. Are you seriously contending that merely issuing an alert makes me involved and unable to act as an administrator, and on ''that'' basis you alerted and warned me? It should be obvious that this can't be the case, if only because by that logic your own warning would be inadmissible because it was preceded by your alert which would have disqualified you from acting further. <p>This episode indicates, to me, that this whole alerts system is unworkably cludgy and may need to be scrapped if even former arbitrators can't understand it, and that perhaps general clarification is needed that discretionary sanctions and alerts are, shall we we say, not the ideal way to respond to concerns about ''admin'' actions - such concerns are normally a matter for the Committee alone. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by John Vandenberg === | |||
| To my mind, Sandstein is obviously ']' in the current DRV about Polandball, however not surprisingly he claims to be uninvolved. To quickly recap, he is the admin who deleted the article at DRV; when notified of the DRV, he decided to issue a DS alert to the person who initiated the DRV, and speedy delete another related article which had survived an AFD and was mentioned on the current DRV. When ] undid the speedy deletion, Sandstein also demanded that Nick redelete it. IMO, this is fairly clear battleground mentality, only including the use of admin buttons for good measure. All quite unnecessary, as a sizable chunk of the community would participate in the DRV, so his voice there would be heard. It is very strange logic that Sandstein felt he had to alert ] about discretionary sanctions, but objects to me feeling the same way about his own editing/admining in this topical area. He claims his alert to ] was not an admin action (otherwise he would surely run afoul of ']'), but then cant see he is participating as a normal contributor. Maybe he considers a DS alert to be a friendly chat, when he gives one to someone else ... | |||
| Anyway, the nature of this clarification is the use of alerts and the logging of them on case pages. Obviously some serious saber rattling would have quickly occurred had I sanctioned Sandstein, so I went with an alert only with a stern message with the hope he could see how others were viewing it. He didnt; he continued to post aggressively. When I found the right DS alert template and posted it, the edit filter notice reminded me to check if he had been notified any time in the last 12 months, and press Save again if I was sure it had not occurred. As I didnt find any prior notices (in edit filter log or on talk page archives), I proceeded to save the alert. I then went to the relevant arbcase to log it as is the usual procedure. I knew DS had been standardised earlier this year, and was pleasantly surprised by the edit filter logging, but it didnt occur to me that alerts would not be logged. The arbcase log for the EE case had all the signs of logging being part of the standard procedure. | |||
| Since Sandstein objected to the logging, I went and had a look at other cases and found quite a few examples of the log including notifications and warnings; I did offer to give Sandstein examples of such notices and warnings, but we are here now. Here are the ones that I've quickly found in arbcom case logs since April 2014. | |||
| * by ] - April | |||
| * by ] - May 2014 | |||
| * & - ] - June 2014 | |||
| * by .. Sandstein .. - July 2014 | |||
| * by ] - August 2014 | |||
| * by ] - September 2014 | |||
| * by ] - September 2014 | |||
| If it is no longer appropriate to log alerts/notices/warnings on the arbcom case, an edit filter should be added to ensure admins are aware of this change. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@Sandstein, when you put a notice on ], were you doing that as an admin or as a normal user? If it was the ''"editor Sandstein"'' who popped that friendly note on ], and not the ''"admin Sandstein"'', can't you see that you've become INVOLVED? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@Sandstein, so you issued a DS alert to ] with your ''"editor Sandstein"'' hat on, and you want admins to be exempt from discretionary sanctions? Thanks. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Nick === | |||
| I've nothing to add to the clarification and amendment section, but I will state, as I have repeatedly said, I'm really getting fed up watching good content be deleted and destroyed as a result of battleground mentality. It genuinely makes me sad watching material that people have put their heart and soul into, being deleted because it was written by this week's bogeyman. ] (]) 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : @Future Perfect at Sunrise. The CSD-G5 criteria cannot be used on any page that has survived a deletion discussion (AfD). The CSD-G5 deletion by Sandstein was out of process. Please refer to ] for further information. Regards, ] (]) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Olive=== | |||
| If the DS alert is going to be used without a sting it has to be used for everyone all the time. Its common for editors to know an article is under DS, but this isn't something one can assume. Of course, the use of the alert can been abused and can be seen as threatening. Use that is universal will over time render the warning as commonplace and standard, will de sting. Whether it was used in this instance as an implied threat, I don't know or care. Behind many of the actions I've seen against editors over the years are threats, some so complex as to be almost invisible. I know how that feels, so am not condoning anything that threatens but unless we deal with the surface level of an action and ignore assumption we will never get to supportive editing situations.(] (]) 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| *DS alerts may be placed by any editor.(] (]) 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| ===Comment by A Quest for Knowledge=== | |||
| One of the goals of the recent reforms which turned "warnings" to "alerts" was to remove the ''stigma'' of the warning/alert. Apparently, that stigma is alive and well. ] (]) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Alanscottwalker=== | |||
| Giving a "warning" is an administrative function. Its only purpose is administration of the website. No, a User does not have to have privileges to do much of administration on Misplaced Pages. The idea is anathema to the community, which expects good users to administer, even to requiring such at RfAdmin, moreover, the website would not function, if users did not step up. So no, giving a warning does not mean one is INVOLVED. ] (]) 01:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Fut.Perf.=== | |||
| John Vandenberg's actions in this case are wrong on so many levels at once it's hard to know where to start. About his technical misunderstanding of the nature of alerts and the non-logging of "warnings", I think all has been said. More importantly, his warning was wrong on its merits. As for the speedying of ] (the only issue he actually mentioned in the warning), Sandstein was processing a valid G5 speedy; the fact that there had been an earlier "keep" AfD is obviously irrelevant as long as the facts justifying the speedy weren't known and discussed during the AfD. As for Sandstein's actions in the ] issue, which seems to be what John Vandenberg is really more concerned about, the claim that he was showing an inadmissable battleground attitude is utter nonsense when you look at his actual, very measured and balanced, comments in that ]. Finally, the "warning", whether logged or not, was also out of process. A "warning" under DS means that I, an administrator, will hand out a block or topic ban to you, the person I am warning, if you repeat the behaviour I am warning you over. Does John Vandenberg seriously believe he would be entitled to ''block'' Sandstein if he did a G5 speedy like this again in the future? That beggars belief. Even if John Vandenberg had legitimate reasons to be concerned over Sandstein's actions, then his recourse would be not to impose "sanctions" on him, but to ask Arbcom to review Sandstein's actions; that, however, is not in any way inside the scope of what the DS are about, and therefore also doesn't belong in the DS logs. ] ] 09:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Neotarf === | |||
| This request is eerily similar to made some time ago, where four editors were given "civility warnings" by Sandstein, apparently at random. The result of the clarification request was a delinking of the four names in ]. If any action other than delinking is recommended for the current situation, it would only be reasonable to revisit the other situation as well. —] (]) 02:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| : ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Discretionary sanctions alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion === | |||
| *When I get back from a trip on Monday, I will wade into the technicalities here. For now, I will simply note that Russavia is surely laughing his ass off at the drama he is causing here without even trying. Let's all try not to give him more reason to do so. ] (]) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **I spent the past half hour or so reading over the back-story to this request, and perhaps I am in the advanced stages of serving out my last term as an arbitrator, but I really wish I hadn't. Let's back up a step. "The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality encyclopedia, in an environment of collaboration and community among the contributors." The entire administrative apparatus, including "discretionary sanctions" and the arbitration process and the other WP: pages where some of us spend too much of our wikitime, is ''ancillary'' to the objectives of Misplaced Pages that brought us all here. Debating the rules of these administrative processes should not become, in intent or in effect, an end in itself. Put differently, if the bickering about the rule-sets governing administrative processes on Misplaced Pages has become more complicated than some of the real-world rule-sets that I interpret every day as a litigation attorney, something is wrong. The dispute, or set of disputes, crystalized in this request is so many levels removed from the purpose and objectives of Misplaced Pages that it is sad. Beyond that, I will leave sorting out the fine points here to my colleagues who were more active in the DS recodification project. ] (]) 03:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***What? I do not think it fair to say that anyone in this request is requesting clarification with non-constructive motives. These editors have a legitimate need of a ruling here, and you cannot legitimately refuse to be understanding of that and still expect the project's administrators to do their job. ] ]] 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * There is an alarming failure here to grasp the distinction between the two relevant procedural entities. Cautions or warnings are sanctions and need logged; alerts (previously known as notices) are not sanctions and carry no implicit accusation of guilt. These two used to be more or less the same thing. In the recent update of procedures, they were split off and it is wrong to interchange them. John Vandenberg needs to decide whether he wanted to caution and sanction Sandstein (it appears he did) or alert him. If it is the former, he should issue Sandstein with a hand-written caution (and delete the alert template, which he may not use for that purpose). If it is the latter, Sandstein is already aware ] and he must not attempt to 're-alert' him. I accept JV's claim that he was not aware of the changes in procedure, but I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes. If you do not, you can be sanctioned by the committee, and given that this process is hardly in its infancy you are likely to find the committee exercises this right.<p>On the complaint of JV about Sandstein, my position is that it cannot be heard in this venue. With the procedural confusion clarified (not that there should have been any in the first place), I suggest JV take this complaint up, perhaps with a handful of other administrators, directly with Sandstein. Neither party appears to have made an adequate effort to resolve this together, despite, as administrators, being obliged to do so. Should those attempts prove futile, a proper case request should then be filed. ] ]] 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I essentially agree with AGK. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I also agree with AGK. ] (]) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * As do I. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 17:25, 11 November 2014
Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions
Initiated by Fut.Perf. at 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
Statement by Fut.Perf.
Just noticed this trivial clerical oversight in the wording of the current DS rules. In the "WP:AC/DS#Continuity" section, there is the the rule that old warnings are grandfathered in until "twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure" – but nowhere on the page does it say when that date actually was (3 May 2014, apparently), nor is there an actual link to the decision anywhere, and it took me ages just now to dig that bloody link out . Just add a reference to that date there, and a link to decision in the refs section at the bottom, because it will remain important for admins in figuring out the "alert" status of editors for the next half year to come.
Of course, if Arbcom pages weren't such a ridiculous jungle of bureaucracy, I could just go ahead and make this simple, uncontroversial clerical correction myself (heck, per IAR, I guess I'll just do it anyway ), but since on prior attempts arbitrators have ever so gracefully insisted on the untouchableness of their little home-made bureaucratic fiefdom , you asked for ridiculous procedure for procedure's sake, you get ridiculous procedure for procedure's sake. Have fun voting on this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Statement by {yet another user}
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).