This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 2 August 2013 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: clearer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ARCA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

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!)

1. 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.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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-llists.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

Amendment request: Argentine History

Initiated by MarshalN20 | at 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Basalisk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Basalisk

Information about amendment request

• You should this yourselves...()
• Allow me to work on Falkland Islands history-related sections under the supervision of Basalisk (administrator, Falklands contributor).

Statement by your MarshalN20

I have been working on an improvement for the Falkland Islands article (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4).

1. I asked User:NuclearWarfare about what steps to take in order to clean my name. He told me to pick a controversial article, so I went with the Falkland Islands article.
2. During this month, I have managed to improve and re-structure the article to a high quality. I only need to work on the history sections (I consider the "sovereignty dispute" section also as history-related).
3. Now I would like to have an amendment that allows me to work on history-related sections on the Falklands article.

Pretty simple. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Brad, although I wholeheartedly appreciate the consideration, I am saddened that you are still seeing the perspective of a blatantly vengeful editor (Lecen) whose edit history exemplifies his own statement ("these kind of editors won't change their behavior").

For example, what purpose does Lecen's statement have other than to prevent me from demonstrating (through actions) that I am not the devil he painted me out to be in the Arbcomm case?

Also, how can my appeal reflect an understanding of the "arbitrators' concerns" if the only arbitrator who was kind enough to sincerely communicate with me was User:NuclearWarfare? And even NuclearWarfare was concerned about saying too much because he did not want his statements to reflect what the rest of you thought (which remains a complete mystery to me).

What I understood from NuclearWarfare is that, believing Lecen's assertions, you concluded that I was a POV-editor with an agenda. I assume that the topic ban was broad ("Latin American history") because you believed his assertions that I somehow have been a nuisance at articles such as Falklands War (where you can't even find me on the first page of contributors: ), War of the Pacific (which I haven't bothered to focus on in months), War of the Triple Alliance (where I really only edited the talk page), and Juan Manuel de Rosas (despite I only copy-edited the article; I never edited a single source into that article).

If that is the case, then the "arbitrators' concerns" are all based on falsehoods. I only regret that all of you keep refusing to see the facts and, instead, continue believing what is stated by Lecen.--MarshalN20 | 23:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Lecen, could you please show a single diff where I (not Cambalachero) knowingly add a "fascist source" to any article? Otherwise, your statement breaks the "casting aspersions" principle from the Arbcomm case (see ) and the "proposed remedy" warning made to you (see ). I kindly request arbitrators to take action on this matter.--MarshalN20 | 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@David, given enough rope, the Incas made pretty good bridges. --MarshalN20 | 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Basalisk

I just wanted to point out that in response to Marshal's proposal, I merely agreed in principle to act as the "supervisor" suggested by NuclearWarfare. I don't have anything to say on whether or not the committee should make an amendment or not. Basalisk ⁄_berate 17:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lecen

I'd like to remind you all that neither MarshalN20 nor Cambalachero have expressed any regret for their actions. In fact, both have shown that they do not believe that they did anything wrong and that the ArbCom was unfair to them. "What bothers me the most is that you also received the punishment for no other reason than having a different point of view from the other editor. It's completely ludicrous" See User talk:Cambalachero#Re: Hello, as well as User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 6#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed ("Despite never being uncivil (an arbitrator even used the funny term "Civil POV-pusher" to describe me), and merely deserving of a WP:TROUT, I was topic banned from Latin American history for a year.") And most important of all, see the entire Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision.

If you're willing to allow two editors who never demonstrated any regret to edit controversial articles, or even to narrow the topic ban, be sure of what you're doing because experience tells that these kind of editors won't change their behavior. --Lecen (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Do you really expect to see two editors who used unreliable sources written by Fascists with the purpose of political propaganda to "bringing about high-quality, unbiased editing"? Even more when these editors never showed any regret nor acknowledgement of their wrong actions? --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero

I would like to point that MarshalN20 has requested a controversial article because NuclearWarfare suggested him to do so. See User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 38#MarshalN20. There's no need to guess in advance if he would do a good or bad work in it: that article has been edited by 2073 different editors, and the talk page by 519 different editors. If he tries to do something wrong, or to introduce bias in either direction, he would be noticed immediately. If he has no hidden agenda, then the many editors that watch that article will be watching him and won't find anything wrong, and his edit history would proceed without problems. As for Lecen, he should drop the stick: he has never been interested in editing the articles of the Falkland Islands. If that article becomes good or featured with this trial period for MarshalN20, then it would be something positive for everybody.

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When we voted on the original case, my personal view (not shared by most of my colleagues) was that the topic-ban might be a bit overbroad. The point here is to channel MarshallN20's contributions away from the areas in which he had difficulty in the past, in areas where he will use high-quality sources and avoid any form of tendentious editing. It is my experience that geographical areas of disputed sovereignty (Falkland Islands/Malvinas, Gibraltar, Liancourt Rocks, etc.) bring out the worst rather than the best in some editors, and so it might not be the first area to which I would point someone looking for a non-contentious piece of Latin American history to edit about. But given that the topic-area is circumscribed, the request bears consideration. Awaiting any further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand Lecen's point, but at the end of the day, our focus is on bringing about high-quality, unbiased editing, not on editors' internal assent to the merits of our decisions. It would have been better if these appeals had reflected some understanding of the concerns that led to our decision, but I do not consider it indispensable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to support such an amendment, with the understanding that the supervisor may reimpose the full topic ban, without having to seize ArbCom. We have two possible outcomes here: either MarshallN20 behaves and so the encyclopaedia is improved, or he doesn't, in which case blocks (and restrictions) are cheap. Salvio 23:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• My sentiments mirror Salvio's almost exactly. The expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" seems a bit harsh, but I think when applied to Misplaced Pages it generally encourages people to assume good faith and give people a chance to prove themselves, rather than hoping they will fail. Also agree with the point that a reblock will not require arbs to intervene. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Argentine history

Initiated by Cambalachero (talk) at 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Cambalachero

In the case Argentine history I have been topic banned from all pages related to the history of Latin America. I also edit articles on modern politics, and I want to know how much back in time can I go before politics turn into history. I asked it to NuclearWarfare (here, he told me that the last 15 years would be acceptable, but advised as well to clarify this, to avoid misunderstandings. My idea would be to work with the presidency of Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-today), and the events that took place in them. More or less, the last decade.

I may also work with articles that are clearly not historical, but may need to mention a small detail about history. For example, when I wrote about the actor Roberto Carnaghi (which I wrote before the ban), I mentioned a historical period and something that was going on by then, without much detail, to describe his character in a telenovela. If I work with articles on heavy metal bands, I may need to point the censorship they received during the military government, or their problems during the 1989 or 2001 economic crisis. In those cases, if the description is kept short and to the point, only the basic info needed for the non-historical article, would it be acceptable?

By the way, contrary to the misplaced comments of another user, I'm not requesting any amendment to the ban, just a clarification on the actual extension of the current ban. Cambalachero (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As for dates, the usual turning points in contemporary Argentine history are 1983 (end of military regime and return of democracy), 1989 (hyperinflation, fall of Alfonsín, and begin of Menemism) and 2001 (new economic and political crisis, fall of De la Rúa); sometimes 2001 is mentioned in conjuction with 2003 (begin of Kirchnerism). Those are the natural turning points, easier to work with than if we set a random date from out of the blue. I once organized Argentine history by periods and used the 1983-present period as the last one (see {{ARGhistperiodFooter}} and Category:History of Argentina by period), nobody ever complained about it.

I rarely work with the modern politics of other South American countries, only when there's some event in the current news that is so important that it becomes eligible for the "in the news" section of the main page (such as the death of Hugo Chávez, or the impeachment of Fernando Lugo), and my interest goes away once the news become yesterday's news. If the limit is set simply on the bilateral relations of Argentina at whatever administrations are acceptable to work with, that would be fine for me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Raúl Alfonsín began his mandate as president on December 10, 1983. That day the National Reorganization Process ended. When we say "1983" in this discussion, we are saying that date, December 10 of 1983. I hope this precision helps. Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20

This is a much-discussed topic in the field. However, colleagues and professors alike often consider anything starting from 1980 (or 1985) to be "contemporary history". I would suggest the arbitrators to not only clarify this but also amend the case with a statement that exempts contemporary history from the topic ban. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I am completely uninvolved with this topic area, but I agree that a clarification is needed. The history of most countries and regions is divided into conventinal eras. If there is a consensus among reliable sources on such conventional eras then the cutoff should be set at one of those. If there is not, then based solely on the present state of the History of South America and History of Argentina articles it would seem that the latest reasonable cut-off date would be 1998 (election of Hugo Chávez). Looking specifically at Argentina, 1983 (end of the military dictatorship) would seem logical and workable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions for Cambalachero

1. Do you have any date(s) in mind (to any degree of specificity)?
2. I can see two possible opions, a cut-off date that is the same across the continent even that might not be logical in a given country or individual dates for each country that would be more complex to remember and administer. Do you have a preference? If so how strong (i.e. you wouldn't accept your non-preferred choice for $reason)?
3. 1983 for Argentina, and no later than 1998 for the entire continent were my initial thoughts (see immediately above). Do you have comments on those dates?
4. Do you see dates specified just as years (implied as 1 January that year) as working, or do you think an actual date needs noting?

To the arbs: If/when you decide on a date, please be clear whether that date is inclusive or exclusive of the range covered by the ban. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur. Awaiting any further statements containing reasoned suggestions as to when that would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Based on the statements above, a ≥1983 stipulation seems workable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. As far as Argentina goes, everything after 1983 (with 1983 being included) should be fair game. Salvio 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Scientology

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Drg55 (talk · contribs), currently blocked (notification)
• Peter cohen (talk · contribs) (notification)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) (Notification. For the purpose of editing this section, the restriction this user is subject to is vacated to the extent it applies, provided that they do not reveal any identifying information about the user whose privacy is at issue here.  Sandstein  22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC))
• Prioryman (talk · contribs) (notification)
• Editors participating in the ongoing discussion at WP:ANI#Abuse of admin powers and Violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Sandstein (notified there)

Statement by Sandstein

Recent actions I undertook to enforce the decision in the case WP:ARBSCI (the Scientology case) have given rise to an extended discussion at the ANI thread indicated above. I identify three key questions related to the case that are controversial in good faith among at least some participants to that thread:

1. Is the alleged full real name of the editor sanctioned in remedy 17 of the Scientology case private information, such that it is a violation of WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment to publish it on-wiki?
2. Is it permitted to use discretionary sanctions to prohibit users from discussing certain matters related to private information on-wiki, if the purpose of that prohibition is to reduce the risk of the unwarranted on-wiki publication of that private information?
3. Does the Committee expect that discretionary sanctions are used only in particular situations, as an exceptional measure, or as a last resort if other admin or community tools would not help, or subject to other restrictions (if yes, please codify these expectations at WP:AC/DS), or may they be used just like other admin tools whenever the policy requirements for their use per are met?

For my views on what I understand the answers to be based on my interpretation of current policies, please refer to my ANI statement. In short: 1. yes, 2. yes, 3. no.

A response by the Committee would help to mitigate the drama and (in my view) ongoing privacy breaches generated by that thread, and would also help me and others bring their conduct more in line with the Committee's expectations, to the extent necessary. As an administrator regularly working at WP:AE, I at least would appreciate being able to review and modify any current or future sanctions by me depending on this feedback.

And while you're at it, could you please indicate when (if ever) the in-progress revision of WP:AC/DS, particularly the clarification of the appeals procedure, will be forthcoming? Thanks,  Sandstein  22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for preventative measures

Considering that the two arbitrators who have commented so far share my view that publishing private identifying information about the editor at issue constitutes outing or harassment (except under special circumstances not present here), I recommend directing a clerk or other functionary to take measures the Committee deems appropriate (such as redaction, courtesy blanking, oversight, warnings or restrictions) to suppress such breaches of privacy as have already occurred in the course of the ongoing ANI thread (as I intended to prevent with my warnings and sanction), and to prevent further breaches of privacy from occurring while the Committee considers this request for clarification. In view of some of the more surprising arguments put forth at ANI, I also recommend considering to amend the case page such that the names used in it may not be used to erroneously justify future breaches of privacy.  Sandstein  06:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary conclusion

I'd like to thank the five arbitrators who have commented, and all those who have offered constructive criticism here and at ANI. Attempting to summarize the arbitrators' views with respect to what I consider the salient issues:

• Concerning question 1, arbitrators are mostly, though not all, of the view that the use of the alleged real name is likely not outing, but they agree (though to varying degrees of intensity) that the use of the real name, against Prioryman's express desire for privacy (now repeated to me by e-mail) may constitute harassment. It's not clear whether there is agreement about whether the earlier username is private, but that is of less concern in my view.

  I broadly agree with this assessment: I have now been pointed to a 2009 edit by Prioryman where they acknowledge their real name by providing a diff in which, they say, they edited a citation to their own works, and where the diff leads to a reference with the name at issue. This excludes outing in the narrow sense defined at WP:OUTING, because that policy excepts situations where "that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages". But, as arbitrators have emphasized, posting the name against the editor's will except where clearly justified (in COI discussions: WP:OUTING, par. 2, third sentence), is sanctionable harassment under most circumstances in my view.

• Concerning questions 2 and 3, the views offered by Roger Davies, Salvio giuliano, Risker and Nuclear Warfare are not in agreement, so I can't conclude anything yet. I'd appreciate hearing the opinion of other arbitrators as well.

As to what to do now: The sanction I imposed on The Devil's Advocate does not strike me as useful or advisable any more. This is principally because it has failed to achieve its goal to prevent continued undue attention from being focused on private information. But I must also take into consideration that two arbitrators as well as relatively many apparently uninvolved editors at ANI (even after discounting those apparently motivated only by grudges unrelated to this issue) have expressed concerns about the approach taken by the sanction. For these reasons I intend to vacate this sanction.

But, in the light of the foregoing, Prioryman's expressed desire for administratively enforced protection from privacy-breaching harassment in the Scientology context still appears worthy of protection. Therefore I intend to impose a discretionary sanction prohibiting onwiki publication of alleged real names of Prioryman, except by or with permission of arbitrators, or (for the purpose of COI discussions) by or with permission of uninvolved administrators. All users who contributed to this or the ANI thread would be informed about this sanction, which would of course be appealable as usual. If there are any objections by arbitrators to this way of moving forward with this issue, I'd of course appreciate hearing them.  Sandstein  23:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano:: In my view, a reason to treat this particular editor differently vis-à-vis all the others who have disclosed their identity onwiki is that, unlike all these other editors, this editor has been, as far as I can tell, the subject of continued efforts at on- and offwiki harassment because of longtime feuds involving Scientology and Gibraltar, another DS topic. (He may well share part or all of the blame for these disputes – I don't know anything about them – but that does not change that he, like any other editor, is entitled to edit Misplaced Pages without being harassed.) However, if you and other arbitrators believe this proposed sanction is not proportionate, then a way to implement the case-by-case approach you envision would be to issue further discretionary sanctions warnings to the individuals whose recent conduct leads me to believe may be among those who might engage in harassing conduct in the future; this would allow targeted ex post facto discretionary sanctions.

Jayen466 (who, the Committee has found, has previously engaged in edit-warring to advance a Scientology-related agenda, and has been subject to a Committee topic ban) is mistaken to consider, below, that the information that the editor at issue may years ago have indirectly identified himself invalidates the block of Drg55, or my other admin actions. Outing is only a specialized form of harassment. The block of Drg55 and my warning and sanction remain valid for (actual or possible) harassment, whether or not it was or would also be outing in the technical sense. Additionally, any alleged conflict of interest situation does not excuse the conduct of Drg55, because Drg55 engaged in harassment in the context of an appeal of his own topic ban for his own misconduct. This is not a situation in which any conflict of interest of another editor with respect to some other article requires any discussion at all. Furthermore, what triggered this clarification request is my sanction against The Devil's Advocate, which is not a result of Drg55's actions, but of those by The Devil's Advocate.  Sandstein  15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The underlying problem is that my offense was not that I at any point disclosed Prioryman's real name. Oversighters are free to look for themselves to confirm that my comments to Sandstein only noted Prioryman's previous account, which is identified plainly on a WP:ARBSCI section I linked to in my comment, and that Prioryman had used the previous account to restore self-published information, which is backed with public diffs on the WP:ARBSCI finding I linked to in my comment. Furthermore I linked to a community noticeboard discussion from October where it was decided that mentioning Prioryman's first and last name did not constitute outing due to numerous public disclosures on-wiki. He warned me for that initial post and apparently sanctioned me just for noting Prioryman's previous account in my response to said warning. If I had noted Prioryman's last name on either occasion then I might understand his actions, even though they would still be in error, but I find it hard to accept that I can be sanctioned just for repeating what is noted at the public arbitration page being used to support the sanction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

My statements at ANI speak for themselves and I suggest reading that entire thread. My concern isn't Prioryman, but the threat of Arb sanctions on unsuspecting editors. It seems to me that threatening a user with Arb sanctions should be the exception, used only when it is the best or only option, not a regular or "ordinary" course of action simply out of convenience. Since discretionary sanctions are a "fast track" exception to standard community policies, as defined by the Arbitration Committee, and not a community determined policy, they must be treated as such. There exists a high potential for abuse due to the limited avenues of review, which is why it seems they were designed to be used sparingly when there is a clear need, and with a higher standard of accountability. Because they are an exception to actual policies, they should be narrow in scope and used cautiously.

When an editor is threated to be blocked via an Arb sanction, and knows that no admin can review or overturn that block, and only the admin making the threat or the Arbitration Committee can review it, this is a big deal. There is nothing "ordinary" about it. Of course, that is the purpose, to deal with the worse problems where policy falls short. When this is done in a situation and it is clearly unneeded and overkill, it is brutal to editor retention and morale. It flatly comes across as admin bullying, even if that is not the intent. Arb sanction blocks do not have the same checks and balances that a regular block has, and most people know little of Arb, except that it is something to be avoided. Without comment on this particular case, I maintain that using the threat of an Arb sanctioned block when it is clearly not needed would be a textbook case of abuse of admin tools, as only admin can issue these warnings.

Sandstein has clearly indicated that he believes that these sanctions can and should be used any time that their use isn't a direct policy violation. I believe this is turning the system upside down. Community policy comes first, and Arb sanctions are for when regular policy is insufficient. The standard should be (or is) that Arb sanctions are somewhat narrow in scope and should only be used when less aggressive methods are not likely to be effective, or have been tried and failed. Not necessarily the last resort, but certainly not the first resort. These aren't emergency situations, and if they were, the block button is the right tool. His interpretation is a recipe for abuse, as it would allow some admin to use them liberally to simply prevent review of his blocks, thus dominate an area, while greatly limiting the scrutiny in each block. The threat of an Arb sanction is simply too powerful a tool to be used so casually. Clarity is requested. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Arbs I trust Sandstein acted in good faith, but I think the tags were overkill here and they may be getting used too often. My concern is moving forward that we understand that threatening an Arb sanction is not as trivial as a TW template, and it requires a higher threshold than using a TW template, due to the reasons and risks I've outlined. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Drawing to your attention my comment at as it deals with your privacy jurisdiction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

NYB: COI editing is a terrible scourge that reduces, in appearance and fact, the value of the Pedia, agreed. However, such concerns give way under the demands of CIV and the check of NPOV. Both these pillars working together provide the shield, crucible, and veil necessary to focus on the edits (which is what really matters to the Pedia) and to countermand the POV pusher. Yes, on occasion we have to delve into COI, to understand what is going on but the Pillars still, as that instruction quote notes, says where the balance lies, because COI itself does not necessarily actualize in edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter cohen: A mens rea for negligence? Criminal mind? That is the type rhetoric that is so over-the-top that it leads to disruption and discredit upon the proponent of it. Which is in part what appears to bring us to this pass. That comment continues the pattern, which was the pattern found against the blocked user, to so gratuitously waive around the name, that you bludgeon the discussion with it. It appears your rhetoric wants to make it about the person, but Wiki policies for good reason resist such personalization. And it's one factor why reasonable minds think that warning about such use, after the block of the other user, is within reason, and thus within discretion. Reasonable minds may differ, of course, but, in the end, you may not intend your rhetoric to be personally harassing, yet it looks like that to plenty of others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter cohen: 1) conduct is about conduct, it is not about the person, it is about certain acts the person has taken within a given context; 2) being rebuffed in criticism comes as no surprise to anyone, nor is it a license for continuing an apparent pattern of harassment of another user; 3) the "name" and personal harassment that I referred to above is the name of the person that you identify as the person you "have had previous disagreements with Prioryman" about on-wiki and off wiki things; 4) Whether or not you believe it was legitimate for the admin to act to protect Prioryman, and thus the functioning of appropriate and policy compliant discussions of other people on the Pedia, that is the apparent reason for all of the Admins actions at issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Jayen466: This comment proves too much. Indeed, its shows why the discretion was warranted. Note they all say it could be harassing, which is the rasion de etre for the Outing policy. More importantly, the fact that reasonable minds disagree shows that the Admin acted within reasoned discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

My position is similar to TDA's above.

I made two posts to Sandstein's talk page querying his actions. These are visible in the last section of this version of his talk page. In those posts I linked to User:ChrisO, (which is and was a redirect to User:Prioryman,) but did not explicitly state any of the user's more recent account names. I also linked to the archived ANI discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive773#Repeated_violation_of_RfC_restrictions_-_site_ban_proposed_for_Youreallycan and referred to User:Qwyrxian's closing summary. I pointed out that Sandstein had gone against the community's consensus or near consensus that naming Prioryman is not outing. In accordance with the spirit of the conclusion I did not give Prioryman's real name even though I think that it has become a secret as open as that of the identity of the author of Waverley at the time that Bertrand Russell wrote "On_Denoting". I then said I would take Sandstein to AN for going against the community consensus or near consensus previously expressed at ANI id the issue of Prioryman's name was the substance of his actions against TDA and Drg55. Sandstein's response was to issue me with an Arbitration warning under the Scientology case. To the best of my recollection I have never edited any articles related to Scientology and have not concerned myself with that dispute.

I therefore ask the committee:

1) When a previously uninvolved editor questions an admin and asks them to account for the use of their admin powers, is it legitimate for the admin to immediately use their admin powers against the editor who has just challenged them? If so, what are the circumstances under which this is legitimate? My view is that Sandstein has violated at least the spirit of WP:Involved by taking the actions he did against TDA and myself. He has also gone against policy and guidelines regarding admin accountability through using his powers to intimidate those who have questioned him

2) When an admin is using his powers to enforce opinions which have been demonstrated at ANI or similar locations not to have the consensus of the community, has he got the right to persist in going against that consensus and to use his admin powers against those who have pointed it out? My view is that only Arbcom, Jimbo or WMF employees taking staff actions should be allowed to be anything like as cavalier about over-ruling the community's judgment as Sandstein has been.

3) When an editor has a long history of being uninvolved in a topic area and does not say anything related to that subject, is it legitimate to use sanctions related only to that content area? My opinion is no. I have had previous disagreements with Prioryman but these have been related to the Fae case and to Gibraltarpedia and, more generally, differences of opinion over Wikipediocracy and the running of WMUK. If my conduct was problematic, and I consider that it was not, then it should only be sanctions applicable in those areas that should have been used.

I ask Arbcom to undo the actions that Sandstein has taken against me. Also, on the evidence I can see, I think that the actions against TDA should also be reversed. I have not looked at Drg55's history but I ask Arbcom to do so and consider whether at the least the grounds for various admin actions need tweaking. I also ask Arbcom to consider recent criticism in assorted places on Misplaced Pages of Sandstein's conduct and consider whether some guidance and advice would be of value.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that consideration is being given to protecting Prioryman's name from association with the Arbcom case. I ask that consideration be given to disassociating mine? Even though I cannot be unnotified, Sandstein's poor judgment has resulted in my name being recorded on the same page as Prioryman's website is linked and being associated with Scientology.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I should like to draw attention to various aspects of policy and Arbcom rules and procedures that Sandstein has ignored

• WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

By issuing warnings against myself and TDA and by issuing a sanction against TDA Sandstein failed to respond civilly to queries that are clearly within the bounds of civility and reasonable good faith and that were not personal attacks. He aggravated his breach of admin accountability by attempting to intimidate me from taking his poor use of his powers to ANI, one of the standard methods for appealing against the abuse of admin powers.

• WP:AC/DS "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;"

Given that both TDA and I had pointed out that many editors had expressed the view in the previous ANI discussion to which Sandstein's attention had been drawn that it was not outing to name Prioryman, then Sandstein willfully ignored the fact that many reasonable uninvolved editors would question the sanction.

• WP:INVOLVED "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

Both TDA and I were in current disputes with Sandstein as we had both questioned his judgment with regards to the WP:OUTING. Especially as I had mentioned my intention to take him to ANI, Sandstein had a clear conflict of interest in imposing the warning on me as he hoped that it would prevent me from taking him to ANI.

• "WP:ADMINABUSE If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Dispute resolution process further). For more possibilities, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents and Requests for comment: Use of administrator privileges. Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or e-mail the Arbitration Committee directly."

ANI is explicitly mentioned as a legitimate channel for complaining about improper actions by Sandstein. He sought to prevent it being used.

• Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith There is too much here to quote but Sandstein has clearly failed to accept that anyone can question his judgment in good faith. He immediately assumed that there must be some malice behind what TDA an I did and went looking for what he considered the most likely bad faith justification.
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except... following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)."

Here ANI has been identified as a legitimate location for discussing and overturning enforcement actions. Sandstein has tried to prevent his decisions from being the subject of community discussion even though he knew from the archived thread to which both TDA and I had drawn his attention that most participants in that previous discussion at ANI disagreed with his interpretation of WP:OUTING.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that Sandstein has only come to the committee because he has lost control of the situation and the community has become involved despite his best efforts to prevent in being allowed to express its views on this matter. His actions against me and TDA show that he lacks the ability to consider the possibility that he might be wrong. Misplaced Pages is littered with posts such as

Question for Heim, Salvio and anyone else who thinks warnings are not reversible

Would you still maintain this opinion if a) an admin party to an Arbcom case who thought that they were about to be de-sysopped went and issued assorted warnings against the Arbcoms members they blamed for their impending de-sysopping; or b) an admin who had become disillusioned with WP issued warnings against various people listed at Misplaced Pages:Famous_Wikipedians, picking and choosing subjects that would be particularly likely to be sensitive to the targets?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Information to clarify Arbcom's focus

Here is a section of the to which TDA and I drew Sandstein#s attention

Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

These quotes are not from far down the thread in question.

The reference to any potential rudeness in referring to User:ChrisO is therefore a red herring. Prioryman has stated that it is not a problem within the last none months. Perhaps he has changed his mind since October, but for someone to have the mens rea to be harassing him by referring to the ChrisO identity, that person needs to be aware that Prioryman has changed his mind. As far as I know he has not, which also means that I doubt that TDA would be aware of any such hypothetical change. Therefore Sandstein's claiming that TDA was outing Prioryman by mentioning the "ChrisO account is spurious and therefore the sanction is unjustified. Further Sandstein's failure to read even as much as the first couple of screens of the ANI discussion to which two users have drawn his attention in order to find that the reference to "ChrisO" has been declared not to be problematic by the man himself shows that Sandstein has the mens rea for culpable neglect or willful negligence in his exercise of his Admin powers. He either could not be bothered to perform his duties (culpable neglect) or was so arrogant in his conviction that he is always right and that mere ordinary users did not have the right to challenge him that he did not look (willful negligence).

In either case the discussion of whether it is harassment to mention the previous userid of Prioryman is a red herring except as evidence that the people who have been mentioning it up to now haven't yet done their homework.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker You have failed to notice that Sandstein made it about the person from the moment he chose not to assume good faith and not to abide by rules of admin accountability by using his against the individuals who questioned his previous use of them. By issuing warnings and by using discretionary sanctions he made this matter an issue of user conduct and not one of discussing the applicability of certain powers to a situation. Once he chose to make user conduct part of the issue, then his own conduct could not be excluded from this affair. He only sought advice from Arbcom on this matter after a substantial number of users condemned his actions at ANI.

You also ignore basic human psychology. When someone has a legitimate complaint and they are rebuffed, then the normal reaction to such behavior is to shout louder. Just look through some recent newspapers and I am sure you will find people saying about hospitals or police or other public institutions that it was not financial compensation that they wanted, rather all they wanted to do is have their complaint listened to fairly. It is the action of the authorities trying to silence the complaint that then creates all the drama that ends in the court cases and newspaper reports and hearings in parliament. It is the behavior of people like Sandstein and of people like you who back him as a reflex action that is the root cause of Wikidrama, not that of people who have been the victims of admin abuse. The Wikipedian way you praise is what has resulted in umpteen content creators walking out, in Wikipediocracy thriving and gaining press coverage of malfeasance on this site because it ignores how anger and hurt are the feelings generated in ordinary human beings who are maltreated by officialdom and that it is perfectly normal to express those feelings of anger and hurt by complaining about the abusive officials. Telling people that they have no right to express the anger and hurt just creates more anger and hurt and increases the expression of it. Dennis Brown, however, has modeled behavior that reduces drama through asking questions to clarify his understanding of what has been going on and by waiting to hear from Sandstein before reaching his conclusions about the matter. If more people at ANI followed his lead, then there would be an awful lot less drama.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@AlanScottwalker "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Whether or not Sandstein's motivation was good, he paved this particular highway to Hell with his arrogance and self-righteousness. An accountable admin who assumed good faith would have read the thread that TDA and I referred him to and would have come back and said "Okay the community does not support my view that it is outing to indicate what the "O" stands for but the closing admin did highlight that the use of the surname could be intended to harass Prioryman. In my view the intention was to harass. I will go and change the block grounds to one of harassment, not of outing." That is the non-drama-mongering way in which he could have handled it. However, Sandstein has a history of not being to accept disagreement, hence the comment about him from the bureaucrat board that I quote above. He does not listen to people who point out his errors of judgment or even have simple disagreements with him. It is his failure to accept that people can disagree with him in good faith and his insistence on using his admin powers against people who have merely disagreed that have led to his being taken to AN/I. Unless he shows signs here of being able to accept that his conduct has been hugely sub-optimal, then he is not fit to be an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Sandstein's proposed new sanction

I don't see how this is needed. As indicated above Prioryman has not too long ago replied to an explicit question that his old id being mentioned is not an issue. No one has produced evidence that TDA and Prioryman have an intense ongoing dispute. In fact, in a recent AN thread concerning Gibraltarpedia, TDA supported Prioryman's assertion about some Gibraltarian being notable. All TDA has done to trigger Sandstein's ire is to point to evidence contrary to Sandstein's interpretation of the fact. Sandstein chose to ignore policy on admin accountability and started slapping around warnings and enforcement restrictions. If he felt that the discussion should not be on Misplaced Pages, Sandstein had the option of emailing TDA and carrying on the conversation offline. Sandstein rejected the civil options and decided to go all Terminator instead. There is no need for any ongoing restriction.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking some questions again

I asked the following in my original statement and don't see much response from the Arbs. I ask them again in the hope that they might be noticed this time.

1) When a previously uninvolved editor questions an admin and asks them to account for the use of their admin powers, is it legitimate for the admin to immediately use their admin powers against the editor who has just challenged them? If so, what are the circumstances under which this is legitimate? My view is that Sandstein has violated at least the spirit of WP:Involved by taking the actions he did against TDA and myself. He has also gone against policy and guidelines regarding admin accountability through using his powers to intimidate those who have questioned him

2) When an admin is using his powers to enforce opinions which have been demonstrated at ANI or similar locations not to have the consensus of the community, has he got the right to persist in going against that consensus and to use his admin powers against those who have pointed it out? My view is that only Arbcom, Jimbo or WMF employees taking staff actions should be allowed to be anything like as cavalier about over-ruling the community's judgment as Sandstein has been.

3) When an editor has a long history of being uninvolved in a topic area and does not say anything related to that subject, is it legitimate to use sanctions related only to that content area? My opinion is no. I have had previous disagreements with Prioryman but these have been related to the Fae case and to Gibraltarpedia and, more generally, differences of opinion over Wikipediocracy and the running of WMUK. If my conduct was problematic, and I consider that it was not, then it should only be sanctions applicable in those areas that should have been used.

--Peter cohen (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

Leaving other issues behind, I just want to say please, please, please listen to Sandstein's last sentence, for the love of Pete. People are asking for warnings to be rescinded. I still don't believe warnings can be rescinded, as I view them as mere notifications, but since the committee has never clarified this, I cannot prove this, nor can those who believe warnings are a first step to sanctions. We asked for clarification on this months ago (I can't even remember how many). It's not right that we've had to wait this long. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Salvio, as you can see, I totally agree with you on the non-rescindability of warnings, but I have no good documentation for that. As has been pointed out, our documentations is contadictory, and some of it supports the notion held by others, including (I believe) Sandstein, which is that a warning is a formal step toward sanctions issued only by admins and in the case of conduct violations in the area, like when the cops give you a warning for speeding it goes on your record. In such a case, it would make sense that they would be rescindable. That's why we still need clarification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Warnings are logged here for future reference by other admins (who may directly apply sanctions as a next step). If the warnings were inappropriate, of course you can rescind them. You just delete them from the log, or strike them. What's so difficult? Andreas JN466 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: In practice, a logged warning means that any other admin can block or ban the user without further notice. It's a target painted on the user's back. This is not theory: it's what happened to The Devil's Advocate here. If the warning was inappropriate (and it was, in both cases), it should be rescinded, simple as that, to "reset" these editors' status to the same status everyone else enjoys.

We now have two (possibly three, given that there was a COI issue in that article) arbitrators saying that even Drg55's original mention of the editor's surname was not outing, which is the official reason given for the block given in Drg55's block log. So half the arbitrators commenting here are saying that Sandstein's block rationale was invalid. This is all The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen said. As things stand, Roger and Salvio are permitted to say it wasn't outing, without finding their names logged on the ARBSCI page by Sandstein, while The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen stand warned and sanctioned for saying the same thing. This is not right. Please remove their warnings from the log, and rescind The Devil's Advocate's sanction. --Andreas JN466 23:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I think we are all in agreement that Drg55 should remain topic-banned. But your trying to demonstrate that Drg55 is a wicked scoundrel is beside the point. For, to quote a man I am fond of, "it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all" (Mencken). Censoring arbcom pages years after the fact to make something that happened in plain sight of the community unhappen is Stalinist rubbish.

The right thing to do is to sanction Drg55 for what s/he did. The wrong thing to do is to change the truth for them and everyone else just so that you can use a bigger ban hammer on them. Andreas JN466 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I agree that Drg55's editing was disruptive, and said as much at AE. Drg55 would need to learn a bit more about sourcing policies and come to a better understanding of what sources are and are not considered okay to cite; as it was, s/he did not respond well to entirely germane criticism of his/her sources. In light of that, declining the appeal against the topic ban seemed perfectly reasonable. Andreas JN466 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein's statement at AN/I

Sandstein has now posted the following at AN/I:

This has been up for some 12 days now, even though discussion has stalled and I think it's pretty clear by now that this will not result in administrative action. Additionally, the discussion among arbitrators at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Scientology has broadly supported my view that the naming of the editor at issue against their expressed will constitutes (at least) harassment, except perhaps under certain circumstances not present here. The presence of certain parts of this thread in this public space may contribute to this harassment. For these reasons, I request that an uninvolved administrator close and archive this discussion.

If people disagree with my AE actions, I am always ready to discuss them, but – particularly if they relate to private information – I ask any who disagree to pursue the formal appeals and/or dispute resolution process, rather than to just make noise and assumptions of bad faith in public fora, which (as shown here) accomplishes little. As discussed in the clarification request, as soon as that request is closed, I intend to replace the sanction relating to The Devil's Advocate (which has failed to accomplish its purpose) with a sanction intended to prevent the continuation of the harassment at issue here more generally. Sandstein 15:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not encouraging. Sandstein's view that this was outing has not been supported here: Sandstein would have to warn and sanction several arbitrators for telling him the precise thing that Peter cohen and The Devil's Advocate told him. (Both said it was not outing, without repeating the name, which is precisely what several arbitrators did below.) In addition, Sandstein elides the fact that there was a very significant conflict-of-interest issue in the article at question, which is at best ignorant, and at worst disingenuous, given that the very question of whether the mere mention of the name itself is even harassment hinges on whether there is a conflict of interest or not. Furthermore, Sandstein promises that he will take unspecified further action on his own, bypassing the committee. This is nothing but a power grab by someone who dearly wanted to be an arbitrator, but has never managed to garner enough of the community's trust to actually become one, and for good reasons. Andreas JN466 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

I object to Sandstein's reference to an "alleged" name of the editor in question. The editor in question, the former ChrisO, identified himself by name in his edits, voluntarily, and linked his old account to his new one, voluntarily. Bells can not be unrung, nor virginity restored. Once an editor identifies by name on WP, that editor is identified by name on WP. For example, I can't tomorrow start to squawk about "outing" and ask that all references to my real life name, Tim Davenport, be stricken from WP and any future reference to it result in sanctions. That's just the way it is. Sandstein is expressing an extreme view of this situation, one with plenty of precedent on Wiki to discount his position. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

To contrast with what Dennis is saying; warning about "Arb sanctions on unsuspecting editors" is precisely what one should do where sanctions are in force. Articles are under discretionary sanctions precisely because a "fast track" exception to standard community policies is what is needed in those topics areas covered by them, and editors in that topic area should know. These warnings should not be treated as something handed out with great deliberation and controversy, or else they lose the entire point of their existence; trying to deal with particularly problematic areas.

There is a process for getting an AE decision overturned; that a single admin can't just simply overturn it is irrelevant. Discretionary sanctions are here because they are a necessary mechanism in those topics areas. From experience, one also gets a damn sight more due process at AE than at ANI. The contrast with AE is a lynchmob. What's the alternative? Look at the ANI thread about Sandstein, where those with an axe to grind come out of the wood work and don't declare their involvement.

Sanctions, meanwhile are almost universally defined as being broad in scope across a topic area, they are not narrowly defined (I don't know of any such case of narrowly defined DS scope), and its uninvolved admins that look at the case. The checks and balances are stronger for AE than ANI, and there is a clearly defined process.

.. and it's not just admins that can warn about DS, the guidelines were ambiguous last time I checked and non-admins have given warnings, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

@Salvio: If there is one area on Misplaced Pages in which a "legalistic" approach is appropriate, it is surely the area of discretionary sanctions, which are only promulgated for subject areas in which the normal Misplaced Pages approach has broken down, and, in some cases, descended into near chaos. It is necessary in those areas to be less forgiving of behavioral eccentricities and more "legalistic" in order to implement ArbCom decisions, which are, after all, "legalistic" in form and content.

Already we have a situation where there are very few admins who are willing to patrol AE and discretionary-sanctioned subject areas, and the Committee should be extremely careful in their comments and actions in this case, since the result could be that even fewer admins will be willing to police it, which will leave a gaping hole in the enforcement of ArbCom decisions. Unless the Committee is prepared to take personal responsibility for the enforcement of all its decisions, it needs admins such as Sandstein, whose work ought to be praised and not denigrated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

There seems to be a lot differing opinions about whether notifying/warning an editor about discretionary sanctions is really a warning or just a simple notification. Some editors believe that it's simply a notification. Other editors believe that it is a warning after some alleged misconduct. IIRC, I've been told by at least one admin that a warning/notification (whichever it is) is best given by an uninvolved admin who patrols the topic space. I don't know what the correct answers to these questions to these questions are, but I do know that different editors/admins answer them in different ways. It would be nice, and probably best done separately from the current dispute here, for us to reach consensus on these questions. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

According to WP:AC/DS,

This is an exact quote according to WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.

Can the Committee please confirm (or reject):

1. That such warnings/notifications are in fact, not notifications, but actual warnings (per the wording of WP:AC/DS)?
2. That such warnings (assuming that the answer to question #1 is a warning) should identify the actual misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways?
3. That such warnings (assuming that the answer to question #1 is a warning and assuming the answer to question #2 is yes), do warnings that do not identify misconduct and/or do not identify how the editor may amend their ways still count?

Also, can the committee clarify who should make such warnings/notifications? Can only admins do this? Or can regular editors do this? Does it matter whether the admin or the editor is involved or uninvolved in the dispute?

There seems to be many differing opinions on each of these questions. Can the Committee please provide clarification? If the Committee would prefer that such clarifications be separate from the current request, I can file a separate Request for Clarification. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I probably am misunderstanding your last comment (so I apologize in advance) but did you just say that you - a sitting member of ArbCom - don't have WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment on your watch list? Seriously? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

The original enforcement request concerning Drg55 was lodged by Prioryman. One of the recent diffs presented there questioned whether, like MartinPoulter, Prioryman was, "an unreconstructed neo fascist participant from alt.religion.scientology". Drg55 further stated, "our critics are generally insane" and "I personally exposed quite a few attackers of Scientology with weapon of truth, and truth does defeat lies." It was on the basis of edits like that that Drg55 was indefinitely topic banned from all edits relating to Scientology or religion in general. Drg55's appeal was rejected, because of the non-neutral nature of his edits, as EdJohnston commented. During that appeal Drg55 again made comments discussing Prioryman's activities off-wikipedia. He did so repeatedly even after receiving warnings, the first of which was from Future Perfect at Sunrise. That resulted in Sandstein's indefinite block. The objections to the block did not address in any way the problems with Drg55's editing. Instead there were wikilawyering edits suggesting that the identification could be deduced from "join-the-dots" sleuthing on wiki. However, Drg55's comments about both MartinPoulter and Prioryman were unambiguously attacks on and harassment of both editors. The wikilawyering about outing on public noticeboards has had the unfortunate and probably unintentional effect of continuing possible harassment. The two logged notifications of WP:ARBSCI seem fairly standard in the circumstances. Effectively that advice was ignored and the disruption initiated by Drg55 has continued. The extensive catalogue of criticisms of Sandstein by Peter cohen on this page seems completely disproportionate to the logged notification or warning. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jayen466: My reading of the situation is that Drg55's editing was disruptive; and in various ways, hence the very broad topic ban. During the appeal it became more so, even after warnings. Previously in June there was indeed an edit summary where Drg55 mentioned the possibility of wikipedia being sued. Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Someone not using his real name

It seems that most arbitrators commenting below have missed the fact that whereas Peter Cohen was "only" warned, in the The Devil's Advocate case, the warning was followed by an actual sanction imposed. I think that there is only an academic distinction between an admin officially AE-warning an editor not to do something and officially AE-sanctioning him with a ban prohibiting said editor from doing said something. Sandstein's warnings were not mere notifications of the existence of some Arbitration case. Both editors warned were already aware of that, and Sandstein was aware that they were aware. The two editors were in fact sanctioned for being too aware of some content of that Arbitration. Downplaying the obvious stifling intent with which Sandstein placed the two warnings and the one topic ban he subsequently issued to TDA as a mere notification shows the vast chasm between how this is perceived by the editor-peons and the lofty admins/arbs on this page and at ANI. And people wonder why most editors see admins as an unaccountable Old Boys' club... By the way, Arbcom has yet to address Sandstein's subsequent "Request for preventative measures" made on this very page, in which he asks that the Scientology Arbitration case be redacted so that certain editors may be no longer be "outed" by linking to it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TransporterMan

I would like to second A Quest for Knowledge's request for clarification for when and how DS notices/warnings are to be given, and express hope that will be in the policy that Salvio refers to below. As presently stated, step number 4 of the DS process states, "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". That formulation is unclear as to whether actual misconduct is needed before the warning can be given or whether it is possible to give it (a) merely because an editor is either merely editing in the area to which DS apply or (b) because the editor is engaging in conduct which is questionable, but which is not clearly misconduct (e.g. a very slow motion edit war consisting of clearly revert–y edits stretched over days or weeks or conduct which is viciously curt and abrupt but short of being clear incivility). I fall on the side that they ought to be able to be given merely as notices. If these areas are important enough to establish DS's for, then these warnings ought to be no more than statements that, in effect, "We're not saying that you're doing anything wrong for sure, but your behavior has caught our eye and we want you to know what you have at stake." The alternative would be to establish that a notice must be given first, perhaps by templating the article talk page (as far as I know, the talk page templates currently have no actionable effect), then make the current individual-editor templates last-chance type warnings per se once that notice has been in place for a period of time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Following RegentsPark's analysis, below, and to make clear that I consider the alternative I describe above to be the poorer choice:

1. Any uninvolved editor should be able to give the notices, but the rule should also say that a notice given by an involved editor is not invalid but is only incivil.

2. Giving the notice should not require prior misconduct, merely participating in a DS area should be enough. The rule should say that if misconduct or questionable conduct has occurred it should be pointed out, but that failure to do so should neither invalidate the notice nor require another warning prior to the imposition of DS if the conduct or questionable conduct continues.

3. In light of how and why — I think — DS came to be, i.e. to reduce drama, individualized notices probably ought to be required, but since I'm not sure of that provenance, my opinion on this point is weak.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark

Though this is not directly relevant to the Scientology case, I concur with TransporterMan above that we need some sort of clarity on the process of notifying an editor about discretionary sanctions in a topic area. In particular, arbs need to clarify:

1. Who can issue these notifications - any editor, any uninvolved editor, admins only, uninvolved admins only?
2. Are these notifications merely informational or should they follow some sort of wrongdoing?
3. Are editors subject to action under discretionary sanctions only after notification or at anytime (assuming article talk pages are clearly templated with a DS notice)?

My personal inclination is to treat these notifications as purely informational in nature and editors who edit in a sanctioned area should be notified of the existence of these sanctions by any editor. That way, it is clear to an uninvolved admin that an editor knows about the sanctions and we won't need to get into extended discussions of the sort we're seeing here - i.e., when someone's behavior is wrong enough for sanctions to be issued. Clear and unequivocal guidance from arbitrators is, I think, essential. --regentspark (comment) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf

In terms of making people aware of discretionary sanctions, I think there needs to be a distinction made between "notice", "general (or friendly) warning" and "specific (or formal) warning".

• Notices are a heads-up to editors working in the affected area making them aware that discretionary sanctions exist for the topic area they are working in. They imply no wrong doing or cause for concern, and should be worded to make this clear. They may be left by anyone.They cannot be revoked or withdrawn as once you are aware of something you cannot be made unaware of it.
• General warnings are for making editors aware both that discretionary sanctions exist for the topic area they are working and that there is potential cause for concern with their editing, and that although there is no specific problem they are sailing close to the wind, or that there could be problems if they go much further than they have already - be careful. The tone should be friendly and contain no threats of specific action while making it clear that sanctions could be imposed if the warning is not heeded. These warnings may be left by anyone, although preferably by someone not directly involved and definitely not someone with any history of interpersonal conflict with the recipient. They cannot be withdrawn/revoked as it is just making people aware that there are concerns, and you can't be made unaware of that.
• Specific warnings are for use where there are specific problems with an editor's actions, such that their edits are actually disrupting the topic area or attempts to resolve the dispute, etc. These should explicitly indicate specifically the problems, ideally with linked examples, and make it clear that continuing will lead to sanctions without warning. The tone must be formal and precise, and the specific warning may also include a more general warning regarding other parts of the same topic area. These warnings may not be left by anyone directly involved with the dispute or an interpersonal history with the recipient. Ideally the should almost never by be left someone involved at all, but if they are they must make this clear. References to specific actions as harmful or problematic may be withdrawn, but awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions and that their editing is potentially problematic can not.

Sanctions must be preceded by one or more of the above or other evidence of awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions (e.g. active participation in the arbcom case or community discussion that authorised them, leaving a warning for another user, etc), except in the case of gross or wilful disruption.
What level of notice/warning has been left before, how long ago it was and the nature of the disruption should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to sanction or futher warn. If a user has only received one notice, it was a long time ago and they haven;t been active in the topic area recently another notice would probably be appropriate for minor issues. However for gross disruption very shortly after receiving a notice sanctions without further warning are probably justified. Users should not get more than one specific warning about the same actions/specific area unless they are separated by at least several months with no sanctions and little to no editing in the topic area between - the warning hasn't worked and sanctions are needed. Similarly a user shouldn't normally be getting more than two or three at absolute most general warnings before sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by DGG

I almost never comment on these matters. But it seems the trend of some views expressed here are so contrary to what I regard as a community-based way of doing things that I must say something.

• As for outing, I think NYV's discussion below is pretty definitive. Once the name has been widely revealed it is not outing. Using it against the preference of the user is in most situations discourteous. Whether it was or not discourteous in this case I am not commenting, but it is not outing and does not justify the application of penalties as if it were. Mentioning a widely known former user name against the preference of the user is not in the least outing, and can be discourteous when not germane to the discussion. It is a much lesser problem as compared to a similar use of a real name, let alone to outing.
  
• As for the broadness of discretionary sanctions, they're a very strong and direct sanction difficult to appeal, and should be used cautiously. I can't rule out that a use in an indirect violation or in a manner not literally specified might not be sometimes required. I do have an opinion that Sandstein's action was excessive and not justified by the situation. And, as is often the case, if the purpose of DS is to immediately stop something from escalating, it was certainly counterproductive. I hope such unjustified use of power will always be noticed, so we admins will learn not to do it. Whether it is sufficiently unjustified in this case to call for action against the admin would depend on many factors, such as whether such overreaching is a one time event or habitual, and I am not now giving any opinion.
  
• DS are not ordinary sanctions. They're the invocation of arbitrary action based on the decision of a single individual, that requires action of many individuals to undo. Such measures should be used only when unquestionably necessary. The opinion expressed that it's no harsher than ordinary blocks is unrealistic--they are so much more powerful that I personally would never feel sure enough of myself to use one. I find it highly alarming that arb com routinely resorts to them to make decisions that affect the actual resolution of a dispute, one that they often hesitate to make themselves. Arb com is, as it should be, deliberately set up in such a way as to provide for extensive prior discussion and joint consensus among the members of the committee. DS are the exact reverse of that, and to rely on any of the wide diversity of individual admins doing them right is alien to the spirit of a cooperative group of people. It produces such anomalies as the present one. Admins sometimes need to take emergency action, which is then subject to community review. I accept that with particularly difficult articles situations for more permanent immediate action may arise, but if so they should be construed as narrowly as possible and used with the greatest possible amount of consideration and judgment. Drastic action left to the discretion of any one of hundreds of individuals is dangerous, because someone among the hundreds will always be found who take an unreasonably alarmist view of a situation. DS encourages such extremism.
  

I think I am in all this essentially agreeing with Dennis, though I may be stating it even more strongly than he would endorse. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mangoe

I am largely in agreement with DGG's analysis of the situation, but I wish to add one note. Well, two notes actually.

Admins are not supposed to be exalted users beyond the judgement of more mortal editors, but that's the crux of what happened here: two ordinary editors were threatened for questioning Sandstein's judgement in an issue. It's one thing to refuse to reconsider, though I think that to do so as a matter of course demonstrates an unbecoming and disruptive arrogance. But be that as it may, neither response outed anyone, whether or not one thinks that Prioryman's identity is public knowledge. It's abundantly clear that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to that last issue, so it's hard for me to take seriously the need for discipline in raising it as an issue. But it is quite clear to me that the function of ARBSCI in this is abusive, perhaps inadvertently so, but nonetheless disruptive. It seems that Prioryman has become a protected person because it is alleged somewhere that he has some connection to public critique/defense of Scientology, and therefore any discussion of him can be slapped down with AE even if Scientology itself doesn't figure in the dispute at hand; and furthermore, if anyone complains about how some admin has handled such a dispute, the complainants can be summarily disciplined by that admin. Heck, if I wanted to cultivate the same protection, I could publish some anti-Scientology tracts off-wiki, let slip that I authored them (without even really revealing my true name), and then cultivate some admin to defend me.

And in the end I feel that I shouldn't have to go through this elaborate an analysis. Allowing admins to discipline people simply for disagreeing with them has such an obvious potential for abuse that it should be forbidden absolutely. ARBSCI has nothing to do with that. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

An additional point on outing: Years ago when I authored Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is in the real world, one of my points was that the genie of identity cannot in reality be stuffed back in the bottle once it has been let out. It seems to me that if people want to reclaim anonymity here, they must make a clean break from their old identity and leave no trail back to it. It's absurd to insist that people pretend that they don't know, particularly when off-wiki there's no need for such a pretense. There seems to be some dispute in this case as to how well-identified the old account was, but no real attempt at a clean break was made, so it's unreasonable to insist that people pretend otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comments:

At this point I will address Sandstein's question whether it is permissible for an editor to mention Prioryman's real name; I may return to the other questions raised later.

Our policies permit editors to choose whether to associate their real-world identity with their Misplaced Pages identity. Putting aside editors who simply use their real name as their username, as to whom this issue does not arise, editors have a range of options in this regard. One can imagine a continuum, with editors who make no secret of who they are at all (such as by mentioning their names on their userpages), at one end and editors who make no reference at all to their real-world identity on-wiki or in any Wikimedia-related forum on the other.

Prioryman falls somewhere between the two extremes I have described; I don't think it's necessary to resolve precisely where he falls on the continuum between total openness of identity, on the one hand, and total separation of one's RL identity from the wikiworld on the other. At a minimum, it is clear that at this time, Prioryman does not want his RL name mentioned on-wiki. That preference, like any editor's, should be respected to the fullest extent possible.

As this Committee has observed several times, there is an unresolved tension between the project's policies against "outing" and our guidelines governing conflicts of interest, because it is sometimes impossible to diagnose or meaningfully discuss a COI without acknowledging who someone is. One can imagine conceivable scenarios in which it would become necessary, after careful deliberation and for a very good reason, to mention a (formerly) anonymous editor's name on-wiki. The example that has quickly become canonical is: "What if Qworty hadn't posted his name on his page before he was banned? Would we be unable to talk about his behavior, even as the rest of the world does so?" Our policy does not really deal with that kind of scenario.

But short of some sort of very serious COI problem or the like, there is simply no reason to mention Prioryman's (or anyone else's) real name on-wiki, especially if one knows that he prefers that it not be done. I don't see a lot of value in discussing whether this behavior should formally be classed as "outing". It is sufficient to say that "doing something that one knows annoys another editor, without any corresponding benefit" is a classic example of what one might call harassment, or at least unhelpful behavior. So in my mind, the starting point for the discussion should not be "are we allowed to mention Prioryman's real name?" but "why is it desirable to even think about doing so?"

A similar question has been raised concerning whether one may refer to Prioryman's former account name. In general, an editor is entitled to be referred to by his or her current username and not a previous one. In my view, it is permissible to refer to Prioryman's prior username where there is a specific and meaningful reason to do so, but not to do so gratuitously or unnecessarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Following up on the above, it bears emphasis that the project's current COI guideline and COI noticeboard instructions assert that the desire to avoid COI problems yields to the policy against "outing," i.e. revealing the identity of editors against their wishes, when the two are in conflict. See Misplaced Pages:COI#Avoid_outing. Whether that goal is realistically attainable in every case is partly a practical question and partly a policy question, and the extent to which an editors' name being disclosed elsewhere online or being widely known bears on the issue is something on which policy is less than clear. I realize that this is not exactly helpful, actionable guidance, and will try to formulate something that is sharper, but the project as a whole has been grappling with the tension between the COI-discouragement and the non-identification ideals for at least seven years without being able to resolve them, so I can't promise an access of insight overnight. One thing that I can say is that the reaction to an editor who mentions someone's name in good faith in a COI discussion should be very different from the reaction to one who does it for the purpose of annoying or harassing, so as with any other violation of policy, an appropriately tailored caution or warning will often (not always) be the proper response to a good-faith first offense (not saying that is what happened here, just speaking generally). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Turning to another question, whether warnings or notices can be retracted and whether they are appealable. If an editor has edited problematically in a given area subject to DS, even borderline problematically, letting him or her know that there are DS available in the topic-area and at least one administrator perceives he or she may be getting close to incurring one, is generally a service for everyone. Such notices are not necessarily meant to be seen as scarlet letters, and entertaining appeals of "I didn't deserved to be warned" on the same basis as "I didn't deserve to be 1RR'd" or "I didn't deserve to be topic-banned" isn't likely to be a good use of everyone's time. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to rule out the idea that such notifications are appealable ever. If an administrator, for example, started issuing notifications/warnings to editors who did not even arguably do anything wrong, I'd be hard-pressed to say that they must automatically stand without reexamination. So my own take, which may not be the Committee's, is that a warning may be brought up for review but only where it was clearly undeserved and inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I will also respond to Sandstein's first question while contemplating the other two. As far as I know (and I've had plenty of reason to review this over the years), the editor in question has never published his full name onwiki, and has made it very clear that he considers any on-wiki publication of his full name (or anything that could be construed to be his full name) to be outing and/or harassment. As such, Drg55's repeated insertion of that information constitutes at least an intentional effort to harass the user and link him to an off-wiki identity. This outing took place in direct relation to a topic that Drg55 knew was under Arbcom and discretionary sanctions, as he was appealing a sanction that had been applied to him. Therefore, the removal and warning to Drg55 from Future Perfect at Sunrise and the subsequent block by Sandstein on Drg55 under the discretionary sanctions of the Scientology arbitration case are appropriate and I see no cause to lift these sanctions. Risker (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The clarification regarding the policy on discretionary sanctions is almost ready and will be posted on wiki for discussion and voting soon, I believe. I'm sorry it took this long, but it was a complicated effort and there are still disagreements among the committee as to certain details. That said, I agree with Heimstern Läufer that warnings cannot be rescinded, as they are merely notices; and when a person has been made aware of them, there is no way he may "be made unaware" again.

  Furthermore, Sandstein, in my opinion, your approach to discretionary sanctions is way too legalistic. Our decisions are not legal documents and cannot be interpreted using the same construction rules a lawyer would use to interpret an act of Parliament: as far as I'm concerned, I expect people to interpret and enforce our decisions using commonsense, never forgetting that IAR is one of the five pillars. Not to mention that discretionary sanctions are always "authorised" and never made compulsory, which means that an administrator should use his discretion to determine whether the imposition of restrictions is the best way to stop the disruption an editor is causing; if not, then nobody is obliged or expected to impose a discretionary sanction.

  Also, I believe that the sanction you imposed on The Devil's Advocate was not warranted and, what's more, I'm not sure it was validly imposed (I'm not sure questioning a sanction you've imposed can be considered making edits about a topic, not even using a very broad construction of the clause).

  Finally, and I know I disagree with my colleagues here, since the link between Prioryman and ChrisO has been disclosed many times on wiki, including by ArbCom, to say that the two accounts are the same person is not outing. Moreover, *in my opinion*, not even saying what the "O" stands for is outing because it was indirectly acknowledged by the subject and was the basis of an ArbCom's finding of fact. Again only in my opinion, WP:OUTING only protects those who try to protect their identity: no policy on Misplaced Pages demands that editors play dumb... Referring to Prioryman's name may be harassment, when done maliciously, with the sole intent of causing him distress, but that's the exception, not the other way around. Salvio 09:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  • @Peter cohen: I think that warnings are merely a way to insure that a user editing in a contentious area does not get sanctioned out of the blue; the way I see them, so, warnings are a way to protect editors from unpleasant surprises. Which means that, no matter the reason, once someone has been notified that DS have been authorised for a given topic area, there is no way for that person to be un-notified. If there is a good reason, I have no objections to removing a warning from the log, but that does not invalidate the notification.

    @Newyorkbrad: which may not be the Committee's, is that a warning may be brought up for review but only where it was clearly undeserved and inappropriate., almost every warned editor thinks the warning was clearly undeserved; your limit would be pretty much useless and would require us to waste our time all the same, even if only to make sure that the warning in question was appropriate and deserved. I don't think that's a productive use of our limited resources. Salvio 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    • @Beyond My Ken: there is a difference between criticising and denigrating and I'm surprised that someone here is confusing what I consider constructive criticism with belittlement.

      @A Quest For Knowledge: & @TransporterMan: yes, those aspects (and others) will be clarified hoperfully soon. Salvio 09:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

    • @Sandstein: I don't really like the new restriction you proposed: you're, basically, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This problem requires a nuanced solution, one that deals with every use of Prioryman's name on a case-by-case basis. As I've said, using his name is not outing and may be harassment, depending on the circumstances; furthermore, I don't see any real reasons to treat this particular editor differently vis-à-vis all the others who have disclosed their identity onwiki. There can, of course, be an ex-post evalutation of whether a given mention of his name was warranted, but not a blanket ban. (Clearly, this is nothing but the opinion of this one arb.) In my opinion, the best course of action would be for Sandstein to lift TDA's restriction and then walk away, forgetting about this episode. Salvio 14:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Responding to Sandstein's questions and using his numbering;

  1. Back in the day, the editor's real life identity was common knowledge within the Scientology topic. He regularly linked to sites mentioning it and acquiesced when it was used on-wiki. At that time though, the applicable policies were not as they are today and current policies acknowledge an individual's wish for a degree of personal privacy. It follows, therefore, that while referring to him by his real name is not outing, such references may well be intended to have a chilling effect or to cause discomfort.

  2. In my view, it's overreach to use discretionary sanctions for matters which are only coincidentally related to the topic and which can be dealt with satisfactorily underr existing policy. I haven't looked at this situation closely enough to see whether that is the case here.

  3. Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide fast track remedies to contain disruption arising from dysfunctional conduct in relation to the topic. They do this by sidestepping the usual community dispute resolution processes. Because they give administrators greater powers, and limit appeal options, they should be applied conservatively.

  Otherwise, I agree entirely with Salvio's point. Someone can no more be unnotified than they can take back a sneeze. Roger Davies 17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Couple of quick points in response to Sandstein. I haven't had the time, nor likely will I be able, to read all of the background.

1. It's pretty clear at this time which account Prioryman used to use. It is also clear that Prioryman at the time did not object to the use of his real name in general discourse: I see now-banned editors and then-administrators alike using it in the archives. However, Prioryman now longer wishes other editors to refer to him by his real name; accordingly, the only appropriate reason to use the name of his old account is "for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums" (Misplaced Pages:Harassment). I don't think it matters what things were in the past; there is really no legitimate reason to continue using it. BASC is hearing Drg55's block now; that is a separate process and we can handle it as per usual.
2. It's a stretch of the discretionary sanctions procedure, but in my view that's an appropriate use of both discretionary sanctions and the standard administrators' toolkit. It may have not been warranted in this case ultimately, but that's a separate matter.
3. Discretionary sanctions absolutely do not need to be used in narrow cases only. An individual administrator can adopt that approach, but it is not required.

• And I really really apologize for previously promising and failing to follow through, but we really are working on an updated discretionary sanctions procedure that should moot the current ambiguousness about both warning prerequisites and rescindability. NW (Talk) 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have not researched into the background of this request so am unsure of the reason for the questions. I will simply respond off-cuff to the questions as asked, and if prodded on my talkpage will look deeper if needed.

1 Is the alleged private information, such that it is a violation of WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment to publish it on-wiki?

Yes. If a user has not revealed or acknowledged their real name on Misplaced Pages it is considered WP:OUTING to mention it. If the name has previously been revealed or acknowledged, but the user has expressed a wish to currently suppress it, then continuing to use it would be anti-social at the very least, and very likely to be WP:Harassment. That a user has been involved in an ArbCom case does not impact on the situation. It is no greater or lesser WP:OUTING/WP:Harassment. A user is not afforded protection because they have been part of an ArbCom case, nor are they a legitimate target. All users are covered by the same general guidelines unless explicitly stated otherwise.

2 Is it permitted to use discretionary sanctions to prohibit users from discussing certain matters related to private information on-wiki...?

No. A user is not afforded special ArbCom protection because they have been part of an ArbCom case (but nor are they a legitimate target for harassment or mistreatment). All users are covered by the same Misplaced Pages general guidelines and procedures unless explicitly stated otherwise by ArbCom.

3 Does the Committee expect that discretionary sanctions are used only in particular situations...?

Yes. DS are only to be used as described on WP:AC/DS. If a user editing in a topic area under DS published on the talkpage of an article under DS the real name of any user which violated WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment then DS would apply. But if a user published elsewhere on Misplaced Pages the real name of a user which violated WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment, then standard guidelines would apply, even if the user outed/harassed had been a party to an ArbCom case. Unless ArbCom specified that DS applied to an individual user, DS only applies to editing within a topic area. But it does mean that any repeated or serious violations of Misplaced Pages norms, such as harassment, on pages within DS, are liable to DS.

I am not watchlisting this page (and I don't have my name enabled on the new notifications software), so please ping me if a follow up is required on any aspect of what I have said. SilkTork 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Sandstein's questions are based on the assumption that DS has been authorized for the relevant area. T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I was attempting to answer the questions asked. If the questions were more direct: such as "Was the block of Drg55 appropriate?" and "Were the subsequent AE warnings appropriate?" then a different set of answers would apply. I think the lack of clarity of Committee members' responses is to do with the wording of the questions. SilkTork 21:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge. I use {{ArbComOpenTasks}} to alert me to this page. I will come back now and again to see what is happening on an open issue - the amount I check back will depend on the circumstances; but, no, I don't watchlist the page, so I may sometimes let people know that if they want a response from me personally (such as clearing up issues in a statement I make) it would be quicker to ping me. SilkTork 09:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the first question, I have little more to add to NYB's comment, with which I completely agree. As to the second question, I think the answer is yes, as long as the incident that leads to the sanction is connected to a topic area for which discretionary sanctions has been authorized. For the third question, I think the answer must be no; provided that discretionary sanctions have been authorized in the topic area, there's no great need to strive to avoid employing them. Otherwise there's little need for them; a "normal" block would prevent any disruption that could be prevented by a discretionary sanction on an editor. Rather, administrators should aim to employ the least restrictive sanction that is likely to be effective in preventing disruption; in some cases it may be a warning, in others it may be a "normal" admin action, and in still other cases it may be a discretionary sanction. T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)