Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Not "enforcement" but a definition issue 'Wikipedia:ARBPIAINTRO'	none	none	8 March 2017
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2)	none	(orig. case)	10 February 2017
Clarification request: The Rambling Man	none	(orig. case)	6 March 2017

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Not "enforcement" but a definition issue 'Wikipedia:ARBPIAINTRO'

Where can I raise the question of a misuse of this ruling? In this case, Wikipedia:ARBPIAINTRO

Its use to block new editors would seem to be being applied to a far wider scope of topics than originally entitled or defined.

I have read that biographies of living people require more careful handling.

I went to remove a deliberately defamatory claim from a topic which had nothing to do with "Arab-Israeli conflicts" (it was about an Israeli-born Jazz musician). The section I edited did not relate to "Arab-Israeli conflicts". The subject is clearly not Arab.

What I removed was a clearly false misquotation that had been deliberately exaggerated by a blockquote. It also did not refer to "Arab-Israeli conflicts" in anyway. If anything it would at most be defined as an "Israeli-American" or "Israeli-Zionist conflict" (it related to a Jewish-Israeli born author-musican Gilad Atzmon who also writes on Jewish identity politics being criticised by a notoriously biased Jewish-American).

It would appear that some editors are using this ruling to block new editors from editing on, say, just "anything related to Jewishness", "anything related to Zionism" or, perhaps, "anything related to Israel".

I joked that if that were true, then even a topic on Falafel would be subject to such a ban, and the joke turned out to be it was!

This is beyond ridiculous. It's obvious how such a broad and ill-defined ruling could be abused to promote or defend various interests and, I would argue, is damaging to the site as far as discouraging new editors and have a "chilling effect".

What underlines this even more is that one of the editors involved in threatening me, RolandR, has even had some kind of public spat with the topic's subject that was featured in the author-musician's own website. Therefore, one can assume has a slightly less than "neutral" point of view on the matter.

I have no idea, nor involvement, in what the original conflict was about but if you want to limit contributions from anyone but the chosen people on "anything related to Jewishness", "anything related to Zionism" or, perhaps, "anything related to Israel", then I think you should say that outright instead instead of tolerating this pretence.

I am sorry I don't know how or where else to raise this issue. If this is not the right place, then place point me to it.

Thank you. --Crissedcrossed (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1) Shouldn't I have been informed that I am being discussed here?
• 2) As it happens, I have not been editing the article in question; but I do not believe that I am precluded from doing so in a neutral manner.
• 3) I am very disturbed by this editor's reference above to "the chosen people". I urge him/her to strike this gratuitous racist comment, and warn them that racism and personal attacks can lead to sanctions, up to and including a complete site ban. RolandR (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I see someone, pressumably in a response to this question being raised, has now tagged the page with an even bigger assertion this it is a "Arab-Israeli conflict related page".

I still cannot see how and I still assert that the policy decision is being spread far too far so as to, along with the revertion of edits and censorship of discussion, to be evident of other intentions. There's no discussion of conflict with Arabs. Indeed, the artist positively draws on Arabic music and culture. --Crissedcrossed (talk)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2)

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• SoWhy

Statement by BU Rob13

See the conversation surrounding Regularization Bill here. Multiple administrators have interpreted the most recent change to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 to mean that extended confirmed protection should only be used on articles in the topic area if edits by new editors or IPs come from multiple sources, are frequent, and are sustained (as we would do for normal disruption). Having been around for the last ARCA, this was plainly not the intent. As Guerillero said last time around "The ban is not optional." Please clarify that the first method of enforcement should be ECP, with other alternatives more suitable to instances where an editor is editing across many articles or where ECP is otherwise not effective or sufficient. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just noting the last (and most recent) discussion posted below by NeilN closed with consensus to protect pages as soon as the restriction is violated, but not before. That's all I'm asking for clarification in favor here - that the pages should be protected if the restriction is violated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: The wording states that those secondary options are to be used when ECP is not feasible, not when the secondary options are feasible. Could you clarify why ECP wouldn't have prevented the disruption/wasn't feasible? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree, Kevin. There's a sharp difference between declining to action something and declining a request so that no other admin actions it, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: Can you clarify whether the restriction is mandatory or not? If it is, can you clarify what valid edit is omitted by ECP protecting an article? I really struggle to understand the logic in blocking an editor when protection would suffice and the protection has zero false positives by construction. ARBPIA#500/30 places ECP protection in the form of a behavioral restriction (rather than a technical restriction) on all ARBPIA articles. Regardless of intent, failing to protect an article in response to disruption weakens the restriction and allows editors not allowed to edit in the topic area to edit that article in the future. Again, no-one is saying we hold a gun to an admin's head and force them to protect. We're just saying they shouldn't take an admin action and actually decline protection when it would act as a simple enforcement of the ArbCom remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The effect of this decision is that ARBPIA3#500/30 is fully optional and up to admin discretion. The typical protection policy already allows that. If a decision will not be enforced, you should rescind it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: But this remedy doesn't say protect articles to prevent disruption (which is covered by the protection policy) or jump up some levels via discretion (which is covered by active discretionary sanctions). It's a prohibition, full stop. Zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors are allowed in this topic area. If we really just intend to allow discretion, which I'm not against, then drop this remedy and rely on DS. We shouldn't have an unenforced prohibition on the books, though. Its confusing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It just falls back on admin discretion, which is covered by DS. I agree limiting disruption is the goal, but if we want to back away from the heavy-handed prohibition to allow discretion, we should rescind the prohibition and make that clear. Saying "We're prohibiting this but not really" isn't good policy writing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Can any arbitrator explain to me how "We have a prohibition, but admins don't have to enforce it and can actively decline requests to enforce it." is any different than "We have discretionary sanctions, which allow discretionary ECP protection, and admins are encouraged to make liberal use of it."? The latter is certainly more clear. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for editors in the ARBPIA area to make their requests for page protection at AE instead of RFPP? One of the issues here, as I see it, is admins applying the typical "protection policy" mentality to this remedy, whereas this remedy is wholly distinct from our protection policy. Perhaps moving such requests to AE would be wise. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Whether or not it's noted as a change to remedy, the mentality toward ARBPIA3#500/30 shown here is a change. The restriction has worked because it's been enforced whenever an IP editor/new editor has edited an article within the topic area with indefinite ECP. That has been the practice from Day 1 that ECP was implemented until now, and I believe there's been subtantially less disruption in the topic area since the advent of ECP than under the restriction before that, which is quite a good differential to see what effect indefinite ECP has had. This new interpretation of the remedy is the change you seek to avoid making in the absence of a rationale for doing so. This is the first time ever that I've seen an administrator decline this type of protection, and if other admins follow suit in enforcing the remedy only in cases of sustained and severe disruption, we can expect the "minor" disruption to get through. If we're already changing the interpretation of the remedy and how its enforced, we might as well change the wording as well to make things clear. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, as an excellent illustration of what happens when we don't extended confirmed protect articles in this topic area, Regulation Law (the article whose protection request started this) was edited by a block evading editor. I've now enforced the restriction with indefinite ECP. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Opabinia regalis: Whether we should ECP protect articles that IPs edit in a topic area where they're prohibited from editing isn't a corner case. It's the entire set of cases. I'm still not 100% clear on why the Committee is resistant to handling this whole issue here (...should I open an ARCA about modifying the restriction directly below at the same time? how is it helpful to split discussion?). You're describing discretionary sanctions but continuing to preserve a prohibition. I'll continue enforcing the remedy as written until it's changed, because it's unfair to new editors to have unwritten rules and exceptions that they're unaware of and can't hope to understand. It's better to say "Clear this bar and you can edit in this area" than "Clear this bar and you won't be harassed by other editors, but until then, we may or may not bother you regardless of the quality of your edits. Good luck." ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

The current wording of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is

“ All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. ” — WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 (emphasis added)

Neither this wording nor the two previous ones (which explicitly used "may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters") contains a rule that ECP has to be used to enforce the prohibition, just that it's preferred. In this case there was only one editor who could have been dealt with individually, without the need to lock down the page.

That said, I have no particular opinion on the topic itself and I'd be fine if WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was clarified to read "has to be enforced". Regards SoWhy 18:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: The current consensus (cf. the links NeilN provided and also at the recent AN/I thread) seems to be that ECP should be used "liberally but not automatically" (to borrow Airplaneman's phrase) when it comes to this particular topic ban, i. e. iff there has been a disruption. At the time of the protection request, the article in question was newly created by a relatively new user and then stubyfied without a disruption in sight. The new user in this case didn't know about the ArbCom ruling and edited in good faith as far I can tell, so it was not a violation and thus no need to apply ECP. If the Committee believes this particular motion should apply to all articles, even before disruption happened, then yes, clarification is required since the current wording allows the interpretation we have seen become consensus (and which I based my decision on). And if your strict interpretation is to be the correct one, ArbCom should just protect all such pages preemptively and be done with it. But since they haven't done so in the past, it was a reasonable assumption by myself (and many others) that ArbCom didn't want to demolish the third pillar before disruption actually occurs. Regards SoWhy 21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Kevin: So basically what you are saying is "admins are not robots but in such cases they have to behave like robots"? So why not make it easier? Let's just create a subpage that anyone with extendedconfirmed userrights can edit and where people can list articles that should be protected and an adminbot will just apply EC protection to all entries on that list. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• As for the comments that there is a difference between declining and not doing something, please keep in mind that any admin patrolling WP:RFPP only decides based on the page as it presents itself at this time. It's not wheel-warring if another admin protects a page later on when later edits justify it. Thus declining to take action when a single good-faith editor without knowledge of the restrictions creates an article does not mean that the page cannot be protected later on if disruption occurs.
  That said, I personally think the Committee should reconsider the prohibition altogether and I agree with DeltaQuad that it would work much better as a discretionary sanction. I understand the need to limit participation from certain high-conflict articles but the blanket ban currently in effect violates our fundamental principles, i. e. that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that any restrictions should only be enforced if no alternative represents itself. Plus, as DQ points out, a DS would be more useful in keeping track of the disruptive patterns. Regards SoWhy 07:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Opabinia regalis: I disagree that the discussion about the validity of this restriction should need a new ARCA request. DeltaQuad has already pointed out, quite eloquently, that there have already been far too many ARCAs concerning this topic, so why force a new discussion? Evidently the current restriction is problematic and de facto unnecessary since an extended DS would serve the same purpose with the additional benefit, as DQ points out, of changing the venue to WP:AE which is where such requests actually should be decided anyway. Even if the Committee declines to take such action at this time, it should at least consider the last point, i.e. changing the venue to WP:AE for all such requests since WP:RFPP does not log actions and the log at WP:AN is only showing the newest protections (and not just those relating to this restriction). Regards SoWhy 13:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I can only agree with MusikAnimal's comments. I think when the restriction was created and reworded, the fundamental principle of "anyone can edit" was essentially abandoned by those who interpret it quite literally. Kirill Lokshin wrote in his comment that "the committee's position is that, in general, enhanced protection should be the first line of defense" in these cases. I think it's important to emphasize the "defense" part. Yes, 30/500 can be used to defend an article against those who wish to corrupt it with their POV-pushing, vandalism or other discouraged behavior. But it should not be used preemptively when nothing has actually happened and especially not to punish those new or seldom editing users who follow all the rules.

I myself have deleted over 8000 pages and protected nearly 800 (probably handling thrice as many requests at RFPP), so I'm certainly not someone who believes that "anyone can edit" means "do what you want". But it does look like this restriction has been misused as a tool by some established editors to lock down as many articles as possible so that new editors can't edit them. And since only very few will take the time to become extended confirmed after the treatment MusikAnimal describes, it means that the pool of editors working on those articles will shrink constantly, thus hurting the whole project. Regards SoWhy 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

Past admin discussions:

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_8#WP:ARBPIA3_and_protection
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_9#AE_protection_requests
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#Mass_request_on_pages_related_to_Arab-Israeli_conflict.28s.29

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to use their best judgement when enforcing various policies, guidelines, and rulings and I don't see why this should be an exception. 500/30 is a means to an end, and not the actual goal. Repeating the wording here, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." So let's say we have a BLP of an author who, along with other works, has written a controversial book on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Every so often IP editors come in and disrupt the section of the BLP that covers the book and its reception. Can the page be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Yes. But why should we immediately use the sledgehammer of 500/30 when semi or PC could suffice, allowing new/IP editors to constructively update the BLP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To address the concerns above perhaps change

• This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

to

• This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not optimal, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

Generally, admins are supposed to use the least-restrictive form of protection feasible to start with. 500/30 allows us to skip a few levels in certain topic areas. For example, if Palestine Liberation Organization was unprotected we can immediately apply 500/30, skipping over PC and semi, as that's the optimal solution. For other pages, 500/30 may not be optimal. Admins can apply it without enduring a barrage of criticism but can choose a lesser form of protection if that will stop current and anticipated future disruption just as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors in this topic area is not the goal; it is the preferred method to stop the disruption in this topic area (which is the actual goal). The current (or my proposed) wording makes it clear that 500/30 (i.e., zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors) is the preferred method to use to achieve that goal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BU Rob13 that this isn't a corner case. However I think Arbcom's intent was to clean up editing in this area by making it easier for admins to skip a few steps ordinarily mandated by protection policy. If you don't want admins to use their judgement about when to skip these steps then I could see ECP easily spreading to articles like the BLP example I proposed above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by L235

Admins ≠ page protection robots. The restriction is mandatory to follow, and anyone may enforce it, but no one is required to – in the same way that, for example, WP:V is policy and mandatory, but no individual editor is required to enforce it by finding sources for any article they happen to notice bad sourcing on. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

A decline per ARBPIA3 makes no sense there. If yall want to say that this is like WP:V in which it is mandatory but nobody is required to enforce it then fine, but then dont also specifically get in the way of somebody else enforcing it. A good faith page protection request should be enough to trigger the protection. It means that the sanction has been violated on that specific page and that ECP would prevent further violations. Declining it on the basis of a decision that says it is the preferable method to deal with violations makes zero sense. If an admin would rather not protect the page then fine, dont, but dont also decline the request, just ignore it and allow somebody willing to deal with it to do so. nableezy - 04:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

If the whole article can be reasonably construed to be under ARBPIA, then ECP should be applied when asked. After all, ECP protection would only mean that those who can't edit, won't edit. If the article is not under ARBPIA and only sections of it are, then that is where the individual edit can be reverted, etc. I don't get the declining protection on a page when the page is clearly part of ARBPIA and ECP blocked people can't edit regardless. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

I seem to have been pinged about this. I don't have any strong feeling about this rememdy except for some remorse for being the open who opened Pandora's Box. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MusikAnimal

I have very strong feelings about this, so let me first apologize for my tone. My sentiments are not targeted at any admins or the Arbitration Committee. We all want what's best for the project, so let me share what I think is best.

It is in my opinion preposterous and irresponsible to preemptively protect articles that have experienced little or no disruption, in direct conflict with the protection policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be open. Sure we get vandalism and POV pushers, but that's a natural consequence of a wiki and we can deal with it on a case by case basis. Any sort of blanket editing "prohibition" is contrary to the entire point of Wikipedia. What's worse about ARBPIA is we protect indefinitely. The idea is to use the shortest effective duration and lowest effective protection level, yet we for some reason are ignoring that philosophy entirely. I'm sorry but this infuriates me.

Let's assume there was no disruption at all on a given article, and in fact constructive editing from new users – do you then actually feel accomplished in applying indefinite protection, limiting editing to experienced editors? Do you really feel like you were doing the right thing by shutting out users who were helping? Are you OK with the idea that those editors may give up on the project? Think about that. Also, what if a new user creates a well-written article that falls under ARBPIA – We're going to immediately protect it? Are we meant to delete it? How do you think the editor feels about that? How would you feel if that happened to you? What if you were someone who simply is a big fan of Israel in general, and you find you can't edit most of the articles you want to edit? What would be your opinion of Wikipedia? Would you still want to be a part of the community?

Of course sometimes 30/500 does make sense, but that doesn't seem to be the case with most ARBPIA requests I see at RFPP. What's wrong with a brief semi if it does the job just as well? Use your judgement, ignore the rules... put the encyclopedia and the free knowledge movement first.

Maybe we should do some analysis and see how many constructive edit requests there are to these preemptively protected pages. It may shed some idea on the collateral damage we are causing. However I'm sure most newbies won't add edit requests, but simply give up.

Overall I'm going to have to be very stubborn about this. If others want to play the blanket "you can't edit this page" game, I'm not going to fight them, and I won't decline any RFPP requests, but I for one refuse to protect pages or rollback constructive edits merely because other related topics had at some point in the past experienced considerable disruption. No thanks, WP:IAR all day long for me. All articles deserve the same fair chance at openness. It's one thing to do the one-revert rule, impose discretionary sanctions, etc., but you should use caution and sane judgement with admin actions that affect innocent editors. The point of protection is to prevent disruption, not prevent progress... — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to also point out that on these ARBPIA articles that aren't protected, some people are reverting edits by users who are not extended confirmed – even if it was constructive. It is very difficult for me to sit back and watch this, and I can't fathom why you would think this is OK. If you wouldn't normally revert it then please, don't. Just don't. This is arguably worse than preemptive protection. With protection the editor never had a chance to try to edit constructively. Here the editor volunteered their time and effort, and you're knowingly removing their work. Take away the ARBPIA stuff and this can be blockable behaviour. Why is it all of a sudden acceptable? Surely you understand why it is unfair? These are not banned editors... their contributions carry the same weight as the next guy. I'm not necessarily saying the entire ARBPIA 30/500 restriction should be lifted, but if not doing so means we continue to punish innocent editors then yes, it should be lifted. The issue it seems is that people are looking at this ArbCom ruling and taking it literally, reverting any non-ECP editor. How is this is not a problem? My feelings here regarding edits differ from the protection in that I would have to feel inclined to intervene if it makes sense to do so. If I see you've reverted a clear improvement, merely because they don't meet the 30/500 threshold, barring an edit war I will have to kindly restore the content. I don't need policy or ArbCom rulings to tell me not to, and the same goes for page protection. The revision history tells you if protection is needed, just like the diff of an edit tells you whether or not it should be reverted. Right? Again, I apologize for being so stubborn, but surely you see why I would favour WP:5P3, WP:5P4 and especially WP:5P5. We should not be attempting to override or undermine the very fundamental principles that have made Wikipedia a success... — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: The ruling advocating for 30/500 happened before it was implemented. And sure, many of these articles need ECP, without question. However as I said, this doesn't seem usually be the case at RFPP. What here suggests semi won't work? It will require some digging, but you'll find good edits from non-EC users. What about here? Note the now blocked extended-confirmed sock that was undoing those good anon edits. This one still isn't protected, and hasn't received one bad edit. Or here? I see lots of good and very little bad over the article's 12-year history. I just don't think we should feel like "automatic" protection should be a thing when it clearly is not only unhelpful but detrimental. I'm not that familiar with ArbCom process but doesn't a "clarification and amendment" mean it can be amended? At the very least perhaps we could ask editors not unconditionally undo good edits just because they think the article falls under ARBPIA. Instead, report to RFPP and let an admin decide. Good edits should stay, regardless of who made them. A "clause" saying this will go a long way, methinks. It's easy for us to impose a blanket "can't edit" restriction but we're not newbies, whom we teach to be bold and follow the fundamental five pillars. They're left hanging scratching their heads, wondering what this is all about when they thought they were helping. Then we link them WP:ARBPIA3 and expect them to read it? I'm all about protecting articles when the need is there, whatever we have to do to stop disruption, but don't go against our core philosophy and knowingly put a stop to good contributions when there is zero evidence to the contrary — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mifter

While I'm in the neighborhood stating my position in regards to other cases I thought I would add my perspective (noting that this discussion appears to be on its way to closure). I considered and decided against adding it earlier however after reflection I believe it cannot hurt to add what I have observed. I agree fully with MusikAnimal above that the current implementation of blanket ECP on articles in this topic seems to go against the general spirit and mission of Wikipedia as well as the protection policy itself. I further agree that clarifying the decision to read something along the lines that "ECP is fully authorized, and should be preferred whenever an issue arises in this topic that has not quickly and effectively been resolved by lesser steps" (addressing the concerned raised by NeilN above that we might want to jump to a higher standard of protection in this area) may be be prudent. In general after taking a fairly long wikibreak where I was semi-active and for portions completely inactive, coming back I have seen what I believe to be a startling shift towards a more closed encyclopedia. I recently raised a concern at AN that we are now blocking IPs without any or just a level 1 warning for extended duration, years in some instances, primarily due to conduct that occurred years ago. That is not the issue here, however it does inform what I believe to be a general shift in a worrisome direction. Further, having patrolled RFPP regularly since coming back the number of requests that simply state in essence that "anons never contribute positively" or are "only disruptive" accompanying requests for indefinite semi-protection is also alarming. We wonder why our community grows continually smaller and we struggle to retain new editors. To me, this is but one symptom of a larger issue. Clearly, this topic is an area where we have seen extraordinary levels of disruption and where a strong inclination towards using ECP where disruption is occurring/has occurred/is likely to occur is more than justified. However, I agree that a blanket position to prevent all unregistered and new editors from editing anywhere in this area runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and for articles on the fringe of the topic which have no history of disruption and in all honestly are unlikely to become areas of concern preemptively locking the articles causes more harm than good, freezes existing issues in place (whatever they may be), and only further reinforces the perception that Wikipedia for as open as we claim it to be is a closed system where you either fit in or get out. Mifter (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse for this clarification request only. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• No individual administrator is required to enforce a particular arbitration decision, whether or not that decision provides for administrative discretion as regards the specific means of enforcement. In this case, we've deliberately left the choice of how to enforce the 500/30 editing restriction up to the enforcing administrators' discretion; while the committee's position is that, in general, enhanced protection should be the first line of defense here, we're not going to second-guess administrators who choose to utilize one of the other enforcement mechanisms absent some credible evidence that those administrators are doing so to deliberately undermine our decision. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with NeilN and Kirill on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Kirill said it well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Kirill Lokshin. Mkdw ^talk 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  Quite a few editors have come forward with new information since I made my last comment. I will re-review this request this week. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Me too. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Can an Arbitrator please clarify to me what the Wikipedia definition of prohibition is? It's not matching the English language definition of the word. I agree with NeilN's view on what the intended effect SHOULD be, but we are purposefully undermining ourselves saying these edits are prohibited, but you don't have to enforce it. What then is a point of a prohibition? We could just take a page out of our history books from Prohibition in the United States#Weak Enforcement.

Right now what I am hearing is that arbitrators do not want full prohibition. Fine, lets not make it that then, but lets make some sense. Without a full prohibition, this is honestly a very strong extended DS. This would work a lot better as an extended DS too as it actually gets logged so we can figure out where the disruption is coming from and better react to requests to change our enforcement methods on this.

Anything short of a change, and administrators are in violation of the remedy by not applying 500/30, especially after an IP has edited a page. To be clear, I wouldn't enact any sanction on such an administrator, but why make it an issue in the first place?

When this remedy was first in place, we did not have the 500/30 protection available to us, and an arbitrator called it something along the lines of an effective semi-protection over the pages. Now that we have 500/30 protection available which can be used as a discretionary sanction, is there a point to even continue having this restriction in place? This still affects a large amount of contributors who have good faith intent in the topic area. We are up to this now being the 11th ARCA on the matter, and 3rd potential motion. We need to fix this to something that makes some sense. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, I see the prohibition in this case as similar to the old practice of criminal outlawry: participation by a non-500/30 editor on the affected topic is effectively deemed "illegal", and anyone may prevent or undo it using any means at their disposal—but, short of actually assisting the editor in evading the restriction (which is prohibited), no individual is required to act against them, or to act against them in any particular way. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a reasonable way of describing it, but I think the point being raised is a little bit different: if declining a public request for ECP is an "admin action", then that's different than simply not taking action because it puts a barrier in the way of other admins who might want to act. To continue the analogy, you can ignore the outlaw, or arrest him, but in this case the action is more like standing in the town square saying "I am not arresting that outlaw". Publicly declining a request for admin action is more-or-less an admin action, under the AE principle, and someone else coming along to take the action that's just been declined puts themselves at risk of wheel-warring accusations. (I'd say speeding is a better analogy, and letting someone off with a warning instead of a ticket doesn't actually mean there's suddenly no speed limits anymore.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Yeah, I don't mean to suggest that decisions made later after a change of circumstances would be "wheel-warring". I don't really even mean to legitimize the possible accusations of it for "overturning" a non-action without any change of circumstances. I'm just trying to describe the pitfalls of responding to this request with "well, nobody's required to act". Proposing that the restriction be lifted should go in a separate request IMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• This seems like a bit of a "missing the forest for the trees" issue. The purpose of the restriction was to cut down on disruption in this topic area caused by socks, POV-pushers, and good-faith but inexperienced editors who need time to become acquainted with the project before diving into such a difficult subject. As far as I can tell, it's working fairly well for that purpose. At least, we've seen very few issues reach the arbcom level that were actually about disruptive editing. However, we're now seeing many many questions about the logistics of managing the restriction. In this instance, I don't see that the last clarification lacks, um, clarity ;) It's "preferably" enforced by ECP, but different admins may have different preferences in different situations. It is entirely normal that enforcement of a restriction might not be 100% perfectly consistent every time and yet retain its intended effect. I think the best solution is to worry less about the corner cases unless they've clearly caused problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13 and SoWhy: "Why ask for a new discussion" is mostly just organizational, so a consideration of loosening the restriction gets filed under its own header, gets noticed by watchers and attracts comments specifically on that topic, etc. (To be honest I hate the way ARCA is organized and archived, and I find archived ones hard to read when there's a lot of topic drift.) As for the AE thing, I don't really see the advantage - AE is structured to be a slower and more commentary-based venue. Are people looking specifically for a log of PIA-related ECPs?
    As far as I can tell, what we're doing now is working. It's more important that the remedy be effective than that it be perfect. If it works 99% of the time, then cleaning up the edge cases to catch the last 1% isn't really worth the investment. My preference is to do nothing unless there's empirical evidence that changes are needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @MusikAnimal and SoWhy: As I understand it - not having been on the committee at the time - the problem was that the topic area had become so clogged with socks and POV-pushers that it was no longer possible to get much real editing done because of all the time and effort and goodwill being soaked up by behavior issues. The benefit of the restriction is that it is no longer necessary to invest time in evaluating each individual "new" editor's contributions to judge whether they're socking or block-evading or well-meaning but clueless. It is also arguably less bitey to tell a well-intentioned new editor "that topic area is restricted, but if you get some experience elsewhere, you can edit there later" than to greet them with suspicions and possibly outright accusations of socking, and similarly better to revert their newbish edits because of a general restriction than because they've been judged low-quality. There may be an argument for modifying the restriction - and MusikAnimal, real data is always great - but this ARCA isn't an argument about modifying it; it's about best practice in the mechanism of enforcement in a corner case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't pay attention to this for a few days and figured I'd come back to it with fresh eyes later, since a bunch of very sensible people have said they think there's a problem to be solved here. However, I'm still not seeing one. Maybe this is an example of the upside of arbcom not getting involved in its own enforcement (because it's easier that way to take the 50,000-foot view) or maybe it's the downside (because we get out of touch with common practice). But I still don't see a reason we should be second-guessing individual instances in which an admin exercises the relatively limited discretion they have by the existing wording of the restriction.
    The original 30/500 decision was implemented in late 2015, and ECP was rolled out last spring, so we have enough experience now to judge if any changes need to be made, if someone were interested in gathering data. I still think that should be its own filing, not a side issue arising from an old thread about a related topic that nobody but the participants is reading anymore :) Changing the restriction would have a sufficiently broad scope that IMO an ARCA request specifically on that topic would benefit from wider exposure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: The Rambling Man

Initiated by Sandstein at 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Bishonen notified, 17:31, 6 March 2017

Statement by Sandstein

Yesterday I blocked The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) in response to an AE request and then protected their user talk page, as provided for in the decision: "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." Bishonen subsequently reverted that protection without any attempt at discussion with me. She has also declined to act on my request to undo her unprotection.

I initially considered this to be a disallowed unilateral reversion of an AE action, but there is a nuance that gives me pause, which is why I am filing this as a clarification request and not as a request for sanctions against Bishonen:

I did mark the talk page protection as an AE action, but it does not appear to be a "sanction" as this term is commonly understood, which is why I did not initially log it. But the Committee's procedures tell us that "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator", without indicating whether AE actions such as talk page protections count as sanctions. Moreover, the rules about appeals, etc. "apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature." This seems to leave ambiguous the status of AE actions like page protections that are, as here, neither discretionary sanctions nor blocks, nor functionary actions. On the other hand, Bishonen's comment about being about to be desysopped indicates that she herself understood her reversal to be prohibited.

My main question is therefore: What, if any, prohibitions exist against unilateral reversion of AE talk page protections (or user rights removals, or other non-block AE admin actions) outside the regime of discretionary sanctions, and should the procedures be amended to remove this uncertainty?

There are also two additional questions that have come up in the, er, rambling AN thread about this matter: Does the Committee expect that there be a certain period of time in which an AE thread is left open for comment by others after the editor at which the request is directed has responded (or declined to do so); and is it problematic if the same admin who decides to act on an AE request also closes the thread? My impression is that the answer in both cases is "no" (after all, admins can take AE actions without even a request, let alone a formal closure), but perhaps I am mistaken.

I do not intend to address the merits of the block or the talk page protection here, unless asked to by an arbitrator, because I think that ought only to be discussed in response to a proper appeal (if any) by The Rambling Man at WP:AE.  Sandstein  17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen: You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now.  Sandstein  18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies: I did not mention the protection in my original closure because I decided on it after The Rambling Man's reaction to the block in which they continued the prohibited conduct. I assumed the protection provision was in the remedy to allow for such eventualities. If it was intended for other situations such as grave-dancing then this is not apparent from the remedy's wording. I chose it instead of talk page access removal because this action was specifically provided for in the remedy, and because it would also prevent disruption by others in addition to The Rambling Man, which given the circumstances seemed a possibility. I ask this question now because I want to know to which extent I must anticipate disruption of AE actions in the future, and whether this Committee is interested in preventing such disruption and therefore allowing for the orderly operation of AE.  Sandstein  00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with you and Bishonen that a waiting period at AE would be a mistake. I am sorry that you feel a "I've spoken, and the rest of you are beneath me and not deserving of any consideration" attitude from me. That's not what I am intending to project. I completely agree that as an admin I should respond to good-faith questions by other editors regarding my actions. My concern is that in situations like this that apparently involve a WP:UNBLOCKABLE editor and excite a lot of people, I do not want to discuss my actions in a zillion places at once (my talk page, the other editor's talk page, other admin's talk pages, AN, AE, ARCA, etc.). I simply do not have the time for that. I want to discuss them in one forum where focused, structured discussion is possible. And that is, in my view, an appeal discussion such as the one that is now underway at AE. This is why I decline to discuss the merits of the sanctions elsewhere.  Sandstein  11:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee: I intend to be open to good-faith questions. Bishonen's unilateral actions, however, indicate that she is not really interested in my reasons at all, or she would have consulted with me before lifting the protection, as admins are supposed to. This is why I consider her asking for them now to be a bad-faith attempt at distraction from her own actions.  Sandstein  11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee: I have no problem with discussing individual admin actions with individual editors. However, in situations such as here where the blocked editor apparently has a lot of friends, and noticeboard threads and accusations of ADMIN ABUSE!!! are flying left and right, I think I am justified to wait until there is an actual appeal discussion in which an actually affected party raises specific issues that I can address all at once. I don't know about you, but I do not have the time to follow multiple noticeboard threads 24/7 repeatedly justifying myself at great length over and over again to random, often involved editors. Accountability does not mean that I have to reply to each and every question by each and every editor, but to the community as a whole in the context of a sensible process.  Sandstein  13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller: You raise issues regarding the usefulness and policy-compliance of the talk page protection. These are valid questions, but above my pay grade as an enforcement admin. If ArbCom tells me in a remedy that I can do something at my discretion to stop a problem for Wikipedia, I do it and assume ArbCom has done the serious thinking about any policies that may apply. If you conclude that talk page protection isn't so good an idea after all, you should change the remedy.  Sandstein  11:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Several editors suggest that AE admins such as myself should use particular caution when dealing with "longstanding editors" or those with a "controversial reputation". I will not do so. I think this attitude is exactly why some editors have effectively become WP:UNBLOCKABLE. If an editor has been restricted by ArbCom, they have already been found to be a problem to Wikipedia. I will continue to attempt to apply sanctions as they are written and intended, without regard to reputation, contributions, or any particular editorial or social context (and it helps that I am normally quite ignorant of most of these factors). But, I must say, this episode reminds me why I took a long break from AE some time ago: if ArbCom is not willing to pull the ban or block trigger on problem editors themselves, delegates this to random admins, and then fails to back them up when they take heat for it, why should anybody continue to help ArbCom enforcing their decisions?  Sandstein  18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

You "do not intend to address the merits of the block or the talk page protection here", Sandstein? Discussing the block may be best kept for a response to a block appeal, OK, but why are you bundling the protection in with it? You should address the merits of the protection here, in view of the questions you're asking about my unprotection. You ought to explain why you thought protection was the right thing to do, especially as compared to the alternative of revoking talkpage access. You haven't explained that anywhere AFAICS — not on TRM's page, or my page, or the AN discussion. Now's your chance. It's ridiculous IMO to discuss the formalities you describe above without even addressing what the protection was for. I don't intend to take part in such a discussion. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

@Euryalus: you ask for my hefty support for a minimum waiting period for AE complaints. (No, User:Bishzilla is the hefty one.) Sorry, I don't support it, as I have already said at AN.[1] It's called discretionary sanctions for a reason: admins can place sanctions, including topic bans, at their own discretion in certain contentious areas, that the committee has placed under discretionary sanctions. And we do. I placed a number of topic bans in 2016, off my own bat, without reference to the page WP:AE. What's WP:AE for, then? It's for users to be able to draw the attention of uninvolved admins to supposed disruption in one of those contentious areas. If I'm reading you rightly, you're suggesting that once a complaint is at WP:AE, the quick, simple, single admin discretion no longer applies? Remember the committee came up with this system in order to make it simpler to admin these difficult areas, not to add a layer of bureaucracy. It seems unreasonable that I should be able to topic ban a user without further ado as long as it's not on AE, but once it is, I wouldn't be able to. Example here: just as I was typing up a one-month topic ban for a user for disruption at Donald Trump, another user took that disruption to WP:AE. I hesitated; should I hold my fire? But it seemed quite paradoxical to let the AE report prevent me from the simple adminning of the area that the discretionary sanctions system is supposed to encourage, so I went ahead. I reported fait accompli at WP:AE, some hours before any other administrator had commented, indeed while America was still asleep. America came by later; I want to draw your attention especially to Seraphimblade's comment right at the end. If you think my action there should in the future be classed as wrong, then surely it would also become wrong for us place discretionary sanctions on our own discretion at all. And if we can't do that, they will no longer be discretionary and should be renamed. "Special bureaucratic sanctions for contentious areas"..? Hmm, no... but I think I need to digress a little.

It must be baffling to many users that we bother referring to discretionary sanctions at all, which is a pretty bureaucratic thing even when done without WP:AE: the alerts, the special templates, the logs. Don't admins have a lot of discretion in all areas in any case, being as they are trusted users? Yes; they can block users, up to indefinite, in all areas, at the drop of a hat: no alerts etc etc. Sandstein could have blocked TRM in that way, i.e. not per AE, and I would have, if it was me. The only thing is, we can't topic ban other than per discretionary sanctions. The discussion at your talkpage doesn't seem very interested in this difference (it speaks mainly about blocks which needn't go, and normally don't go, via discretionary sanctions at all), but I think it's vital. That we can't topic ban in all areas has its own paradox: compare an indefinite block, which can be just slapped on, and a one-month topic ban, which requires a song and a dance. (In non-ds areas, topic bans have to be done via community consensus on AN or ANI.) All right, I'm getting to my conclusion: if you want, say, a 24-hour waiting period for AE complaints, then we surely can't also have the single admin topic banning per discretionary sanctions without involving WP:AE. We can't have such a double system. The savvy complainer would soon realize that they'd better avoid WP:AE, and speak directly to an admin they trust. And it doesn't make sense that if I'm about to topic ban somebody, and they unluckily just get taken to WP:AE, that prevents me from going ahead. So: a 24-hour, or whatever, waiting period would be OK, provided that WP:AE becomes compulsory for topic bans, and the double system of "WP:AE and lone rover admins" goes. Admittedly it would bring more bureaucracy instead of less, and the word "discretionary" would have to go. Rename them "topic sanctions", and rename WP:AE to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Topic bans, for example.

I'm sorry, I guess I digressed a lot and not a little. I'm trying to make the point that a waiting period for WP:AE would defeat the purpose of the discretionary sanctions, which was to simplify; would encumber them, bog them down. I don't really want them to be renamed, I want them to remain discretionary, and that's why I don't support a waiting period. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC).

• Belatedly, @Sandstein: I didn't intend to respond to your pissy reply above to my question why you protected TRM's talkpage: "Bishonen: You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now."[2] But I will, after all, because I've just noticed some relevant discussion on the AE talkpage.[3] Two people there asked politely if the talkpage protection was necessary, and you explicitly refused to lift or shorten it, and refused to discuss it further: "I do not think that we should devote a lot of our limited time to fine-tune sanctions applying to problem editors, and therefore I do not intend to amend the protection duration. This concludes my discussion of this sanction, except in the case of an appeal by the sanctioned editor themself."[4] That was just 50 minutes before I lifted the protection. When I did, I didn't know then that you had just refused to discuss. But you knew it. With what face do you show temper here on this board about me not asking you first? Why did you want me to ask you? Purely to have the pleasure of rebuffing me like you did those people? "This concludes my discussion of this sanction". I realize I've now asked another "why" question, and you don't like those. There's no need to tell me at this time that the rules say I must ask you first, which I already know. That would not be an answer to "Why did you want me to ask you?"

For my money, taking those procedural issues to ARCA was the real waste of "a lot of our limited time". Replying to questions in a timely manner would have saved time. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

Statement by Sir Joseph

This is a simple request. Was the protection of the page an AE action, or was it a general administrative action. If it was an AE action, then Bishonen acted outside the scope of administrative privilege; if it was a general sanction, then Bishonen acted appropriately. I don't think there needs to be any other discussion as that will get too messy and is irrelevant to the actions and procedures of arbritration. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

Points:

• If an admin is going to be a stickler for process, then they should expect others to act in a like way; they should expect consistency. If an enforcement is not logged as an AE enforcement it cannot fall under AE; it is not an AE enforcement. Therefore an unblock is also not an AE Enforcement violation
• Bishonen's edit summary is clearly irony and refers to how some might view her action rather than how she views her action. It seems disingenuous for Sandstein to use that statement as an admission of some kind of guilt.
• As for closing AE's so quickly, while it might be possible for an admin to judge and close an AE in 40 minutes, the question is, is it wise to not include the input of one's colleagues. Unilateral actions by a single admin can often lead to decisions based on opinion rather a gathering of facts. If AE is to be revised or updated it would be humane to include in an AE enforcement request, the time for input and the thoughts of more than just one person. As a general observation:Unilateral actions on Wikipedia can be non- neutral as actions from admins as well as from non-admins. I would like to see admins with less ability to carry out actions unilaterally especially in the light of the present size of the encyclopedia and given that size and complexity, the inability for anyone to know all of the facts in any case. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC))

• • Laser brain. AE is not easy, but that fact and condition cannot allow contested actions to be ignored. As well, disagreement can be a necessary part of growth and is not the same as undermining. I assume Sandstein wanted discussion or he wouldn't have posted here. I certainly don't want to undermine anyone, but I also think there is reason for disagreement and clarifications and in the case of AE in general some fixing might be in order, too.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC))

AE vs discretionary sanctions and the letter of the law, and power:

• • I'm not sure where this could be discussed further. I agree with Bishonen that there is a conflict between posting an AE and the implied or even explicit usefulness of a discretionary sanction. I understand that admins are overworked, that AE is often a quagmire. I'd like to add a note for the editor who is not the admin. Are admins always right, always fair, always neutral, always without bias, always acting without the input of backroom politics and never corrupted by their own power over individuals. Let's say for a minute that despite the mostly good admins acting within the best of their abilities as fairly as they can, and I always want to assume this is true of all admins, that some of these more human-based concerns - that a lack of neutrality in some cases is merely human, that fairness is subjective- can lead to decisions that are unfair. Sandstein was acting within the rule of the law when he closed an AE he had judged. My concern, and this now is not about Sandstein but is more general, is not that admins act within the rule of law, but that the rule of law both at AE and with DS gives too much power, to much ability to damage, because it allows and supports fast-acting, unilateral actions. There are answers if a community is willing to discuss them, but I don't think the answer is to fall back on what is in place which supports unilateral power. I see very little in our RfA process that suggests our selected new admins have the ability to act above and beyond their own human ness, to be good judges of other human beings. Acting within Wikipedia's boundaries placed to protect both the encylopedia and collaboration may take more than acting within the law, more than unilateral decision making and the beginning of that might be more time rather than less and more input which tempers the individuality of any admin. Disrupting the encyclopedia does not just mean removing someone who is deemed to not be acting with in the best interests of WP but also of working with editors so we don't lose them and yes, as on Wikipedian said, we are bleeding editors. Much of the discussion on this page assumes at the base, a punitive model. How do we change that?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC))

@Alanscottwalker:I wasn't going to comment because Rexx's comments are clear and precise and true... and above all so obvious to anyone with WP experience at all. And to repeat, this is a false dichotomy, "You are ridiculously arguing that every uninvolved admin acts as a proxy for a complainant and that somehow makes them INVOVLED." No he didn't say all he said some and some it is, some does not equal all. For anyone who has any WP experience at all, yes, any admin can take a case to AE and ask a like minded buddy in private to "take the case". Do all admins do this, no. Some do. End of obvious story. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)) @Alanscottwalker: You said no one agreed with Rexx. That's not true and I said so.

@Sandstein:. Its very true that AE is a difficult job, and its true that ArbCom has to support those like you who have spent so much time there. What I see is not a lack of support but that in a big community there are nuances rather than strict letters of the law. AE could be revamped so that weight does not fall on any one or a very few editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC))

Statement by Andrew D.

In considering this issue of access to the talk page, please note TRM's behaviour while blocked. He is creating daily lists of action items which ping other editors, directing them to make edits. This seems contrary to WP:BLOCKEVASION, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor". Multiple pings might also be considered vexatious in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• As there is some debate about this matter, a point which may require clarification is the clause "and they have independent reasons for making such edits". In some cases, we see a dialogue between TRM and the proxy editor on the talk page or a specific attribution such as "Posted here on behalf of The Rambling Man" Does this mean that they are not acting independently? If there's a lot of this, it might cause disputes or make a farce of the block. Isn't the point of a block to suspend an editor's activities, whatever their merits? Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I think there are issues here that go beyond this specific request for clarification, and I'd like to beg the Committee's indulgence to outline them here.

Here is the time line:

• 21:01, 5 March 2017 The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who by his own admission has had disputes with The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (TRM) files a request for AE enforcement against TRM.
• 21:37, 5 March 2017 Iridescent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) makes this comment at the discussion section Given that the most recent diff of TRM being "belittling" was in reply to someone else saying "fuck you" to him, I think you can probably cut him some slack for that one.
• 21:42, 5 March 2017 Sandstein posts his decision to block TRM and then closes the AE thread and logs the block at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man #Enforcement log.
• 21:48, 5 March 2017 Having been informed of his month-long block, TRM vents his feelings in a sarcastic reply to Sandstein, culminating with what looks like a "rage-quit": Cheers Wikipedia and all those I worked with, it was awesome while it lasted. The shit admins won!
• Over the next 20 minutes, TRM actually posts notes to other users, suggesting needed edits to upcoming main page content, as well as an almost chummy grumble to Floquenbeam about how other admins swore at him but were not sanctioned.
• 22:08, 5 March 2017‎ Sandstein picks up on TRM's reply and fully-protects TRM's talk page giving as a reason in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins", but does not log the action as AE enforcement.
• 23:57, 5 March 2017‎ Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removed the talk-page protection with the edit summary: "must be some mistake. If you want to stop the user himself from editing the page (not that I see much reason for that, either), then revoke tpa, please."
• 01:42, 6 March 2017 Following a note from EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on Bishonen's talk page, I explained that the full protection had not been logged, so could not qualify as an AE sanction.
• 06:14, 6 March 2017‎ Sandstein states that he did not log it because it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction.
• 06:23, 6 March 2017 Sandstein mistakenly claims the remedy does not permit revoking talk page access, even though Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man #The Rambling Man prohibited specifically states Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
• After I pointed out to him that only sanctions placed under AE enjoy exemption from normal admin discretion to overturn them, Sandstein changes his mind.
• 11:09, 6 March 2017 Sandstein retrospectively logs the full talk page protection, some 11 hours after it had already been removed.

Now I have multiple concerns about Sandstein's judgement in the choice of block length (going right to the maximum allowed); his closure of the Discussion at AE only 40 minutes after the request; his lack of understanding of the most appropriate measure in response to TRM's venting; and his shenanigans with the Enforcement log, but all of that is expressed by others much better that I can at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard #TRM.

Nevertheless the current state of AE – which I accept is designed to cut through the phenomenon of WP:UNBLOCKABLE editors – now has the potential to be used to do an end-run around the WP:INVOLVED policy. The situation now is that an involved admin can simply post a request for action against an adversary who is subject to an AE warning, and – even if 100 admins opine against action – a single admin can still super-vote and take action. That leads to the situation where an involved admin can still be virtually certain of being able to indirectly take action, if the other party has an AE remedy hanging over them. Not only that, but the action now carries a "seal-of-approval" (no matter how ill-judged it was) that prevents other admins who disagree from overturning it (no matter how reasonable that might be). The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and I'm asking ArbCom to consider carefully whether in non-urgent cases there should be (1) a mandatory minimum period during which an AE request should remain open for discussion? (2) whether when contention is apparent, but some sort of consensus is emerging, that consensus should be respected? (3) whether it is desirable for the admin who takes action to be able to stifle discussion of their action by closing the request? --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: I'm sorry you, in particular, didn't understand the point I am making. INVOLVED does indeed say that editors should not act as admins in cases where they are involved. It is to prevent one side of a dispute having "weapons" that the other side does not. But what we have here – and this is pertinent to Alanscottwalker's misunderstanding as well – is a situation where an involved admin can use those "weapons" by proxy, simply by making a request at AE, with a near-certainty that the request will be carried out, because one admin who acts overrules all the others who don't believe action is the right course. That's even worse than asking another admin to apply a sanction for you (as that could be simply overturned on the judgement of a third admin), and it's precisely what the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:INVOLVED should prevent. If admins taking issues to AE really don't know how it actually works there at present, then the problem is even worse than I feared. --RexxS (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: No, the point of a block is purely to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. The dialogues on TRM's talk page are certainly not disruption. Perhaps you're thinking about a site-ban, where it is considered best to revert ban-evading contributions, even if they are constructive? --RexxS (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: you state the talkpage protection was an arbitration enforcement action and shouldn't have been unilaterally overturned. If you want all AE actions to be protected from overturning, then you'd better change the policy that explicitly only states sanctions to say what you intend it to mean. You'll also need to change the logging policy to include "all actions", rather than just the laundry list of "block, restriction, ban, or sanction" that appears at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man #Enforcement log, as even an experienced admin like Sandstein managed to get himself confused over that. --RexxS (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I'm sorry that you don't seem able to grasp the point. Try it this way: an admin wants to place a sanction on an editor with whom they have a dispute; they can't do it themselves because of INVOLVED, but the other editor is subject to an AE warning; so all the involved admin needs do is request AE because it's certain that at least one other admin will agree, place the sanction and close the case, no matter how many others might disagree. That's what happened in this case, and we might as well have just let Ed17 place the sanction in the first place. If you don't see what's wrong with that, then you don't understand that exercise of effectively unfettered power is anathema to a collaborative project and that appropriate checks and balances are required. Those checks and balances have been sadly lacking here, and I don't accept that the enforcing admin should act as judge, jury and executioner, and then be able tell the community that they refuse to answer reasonable questions about their actions. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Nonsense. You're just wikilwayering the word "uninvolved". If you have an argument with an editor who is subject to AE, and want them sanctioned, you know as well as the rest of us that there's bound to be at least one other admin who will act on an AE request for you. That doesn't make them involved: it makes them your proxy, and it removes the protection that WP:INVOLVED is supposed to provide for anyone in dispute with an admin. It's just like the bad old days when involved admins were able to do an end-run around policy by asking one of their chums on IRC to do their dirty work for them. As far as anyone subject to an ArbCom prohibition is concerned, there might as well not be an INVOLVED policy. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Come off it – you're not talking to someone born yesterday. You think I haven't heard the fallacy of the excluded middle before? "Rexx suggests that some admins proxy for others; it would be ridiculous if every admin action were a proxy for another admin; therefore Rexx's suggestion is ridiculous." "Some" ≠ "every". The only thing ridiculous is expecting anybody else to buy into your transparent defence of the indefensible. --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker: Your refusal to face facts is astonishing. I would have preferred not to personalise what is a general problem, but if you can't see the issue without specifics, here they are: Sandstein takes AE action over the objections of other admins, and this is not the first instance of that happening. Do you deny that? Sandstein imposed the maximum penalty allowed without consideration of any extenuation. Do you deny that? Sandstein misunderstands ArbCom remedies and misuses sanctions like pre-emptive full protection? Do you deny that? Sandstein closed an AE request that he has decided and refuseed to allow further comments. Do you deny that? Sandstein refuses to answer reasonable queries about his actions per WP:ADMINACCOUNT. Do you deny that? If you don't think that creates any room for misuse of the system, then I really have no more time for you. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: Which admins? Ones who can't tell the difference between "admins" and "involved admins" certainly shouldn't. Tell me: (1) when you filed the complaint, did you expect another admin to sanction TRM or not? (2) Was the block length of 1 month appropriate or not? (3) In the circumstances, was full protection of the talk page better than removing talk page access, or not? --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain

As someone who works WP:AE regularly, I'm interested in seeing some answers here. Sandstein acted in accordance with the remedies in TRM's case. The block and the talk page protection were allowed (And if I had to guess why it's protection and not revoking talk page access, it's because of the circus that normally ensues on TRM's talk page when action is taken against him). The remedy states also that the block can only be appealed at WP:AE. So now we have Sandstein facing criticism for the manner in which these actions where taken when they were taken within the bounds of the remedy (leaving aside discussion of the merits of the block) and another admin reversing an AE action without discussion.

If it's a badly written remedy, it should be amended. But we have to support our admins who work in this area and not allow them to be undermined when they act in accordance with the remedy. --Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I agree with the concerns RexxS has expressed. I would also appreciate confirmation from ArbCom that all actions by administrators, including enforcement of sanction via the WP:AE process, are subject to review by the community at WP:AN in the ordinary way - and can be overruled should a consensus to do so form. AE actions are already privileged through the threat to desysop those who reverse them without consensus, it would be quite another thing to give admins who make AE actions immunity from the scrutiny of their peers for the actions they take in the event that they prove to be contrary to a clear community consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I worry about the way the process has played out here. A WP:AE appeal can only be made by the sanctioned user. If the community has a problem with the manner an administrator is undertaking AE enforcement actions, can we - absent an appeal by the user - review and modify what the administrator has done? In this case for example, there is clearly zero community support for the talk page protection and a fairly strong consensus that, even if the block was OK, it should have been 1 week or less, not 1 month. But would both these actions have had to stand if: (i) Bishonen hadn't acted boldly to revert the protection (apparently risking her tools in doing so); and (ii) TRM had not appealed at AE? One of the biggest concerns about overzealous WP:AE enforcement is that it may drive people away. By definition those people will not file appeals. So was Sandstein entitled to refuse to answer for his action at WP:AN per WP:ADMINACCOUNT prior to TRM making a formal appeal, and was the WP:AN capable of causing the talkpage to be unprotected (if Bishonen had not already unprotected it) and the block length to be reduced? WJBscribe (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

The whole circus is presumably why the committee remedy was to have the appeal at AE, and regardless of why the ctte adopted that, it is total waste to second guess and rewrite it in the middle. Just follow the route for appeal, no more is needed, here. It is simple, if the remedy laid out is followed: 1) editor action 2) AE complaint and/or discretionary AE sanction 3) appeal at AE. There should be none of this other stuff going on, it's just unneeded, and wasteful. And should the parties want a different route of appeal they can request it, here, later. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a further note. RexxS comments about INVOLVED make little sense. It is expected that many AE filings come from involved people. That's not an end-run around INVOLVED, at all, that is precisely the way INVOLVED is to be handled. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, RexxS, your arguments about INVOLVED still make little sense. A User complains, an uninvolved Admin acts -- that does not make for an INVOLVED issue, anywhere on Wikipedia, including AE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS: I understand that is your claim but it makes no sense, whatsoever: viz. I complain about someone who is breaching policy in a dispute I have with them, they are sanctioned by an uninvolved admin -- it is impossible (either by letter of policy or by spirit of policy) for my involvement to make them INVOLVED. Your argument would make every admin always INVOLVED - your argument is thus irrational. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Now, as for the rest, RexxS, apart from your odd INVOLVED claim, there is an appeal process for those questions, just follow the process, and don't turn it into a drama fest about over-the-top existential issues (that's not how to advance a collaborative process or project), because it can all be handled at the appeal. It's really quite simple and logical and community minded, someone does something so draining on the community that it actually results in an specific arbitration remedy, AE then provides enforcement, and the check is appeal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No. RexxS. You are ridiculously arguing that every uninvolved admin acts as a proxy for a complainant and that somehow makes them INVOVLED. Your argument makes no sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS: You come off it, as you are just making a totally ridiculous argument. Perhaps it is because you are not saying what your really mean to say -- if you want want to accuse Sandstein of bad faith, and not actually trying to act appropriately to do the work of AE, and accuse him of being INVOLVED, then do so - and take the consequence of having the actual courage of your conviction -- but don't make your totally nonsensical argument about a policy that has absolutely no application, here - with a hand wave to your dark aspersion implication about "some admins" (who?) . And that, if you have not noticed, absolutely no one has bought into, because your argument is just so poor, when it is not just a veiled aspersion against "some". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS: No. In fact, almost none of your so-called Sandstein "facts" are not controverted. Most are being controverted at the appeal right now, and the rest are being controverted, here. More to the point, none has to do with your nonsense arguments regarding INVOLVED, they have to to with other provisions of policy. That you have no facts regarding INVOLVED, is progress, because now there is no further reason to discuss INVOLVED. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Little Olive Oil: Give your evidence, here, or don't cast you weird aspersion. Just whom are you accusing? Your silly claim of experience rings particularly hollow as evidence, or just very bad and useless argument, to anyone here who has any experience. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Little Olive Oil: I said, no one had bought into it before you cast your aspersion. RexxS argument is nonsense as a general proposition, although, yes, I did note it could possibly make sense as an accusation against someone in particular. Where is your evidence and who are you accusing? If you are just making claims for which you have no proof, than why are you bringing them up? Sure, it's always possible some unknown people are evil, and corrupt, but Wikipedia does not work under such conspiracy assumption, as any experienced person would know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the WBScibe issue, I get that his position is that he want's to jump in and do something but it is wrong. The appellant and the blocking administrator are the ones who need to work it out for the good of the community, so yes, the effected party is the one to appeal, and then the uninvovled rest can help them work it out. If the effected party does not want to work it out with the uninvolved administrator via appeal, then the party that refuses the appeal is refusing the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

On the page protection: Opibina has hit on the nub of the problem, if the ctte did not want uninvolved admin to protect the talk page for what in the uninvolved admin's discretionary view was continuing of the blocked for behavior, it would have been good to be more explicit: 'only protect if there is gravedancing', etc. That being said, there is enough confusion (although BU Rob makes some good points, as does some of Drmies reply) not to take any action against Bishonen -- she tried to do her best, too -- but rather clear-up the confusion, which is Callanecc's direction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller: There is subtlety in both what you say and what Rob says. (From 10,000 feet view, IAR is just the tip of the iceberg in the realization that we work in a fuzzy policy environment.) With respect to the committee specifically, you are tasked with providing tailor-made remedies, so the difference between you bending and breaking policy - in that specific task of tailoring remedies - is going to be very subtle, at best. The committee on the one hand seemingly explicitly adopted page protection as a good remedy, here, so then getting a bit up-in-arms about how it should really be very, very rare, leads to the question of why mention it at all in the remedy? (It is at least by one possible appearance that the ctte, already marked this precise circumstance as a good rare instance). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor

I don't really understand why this TRM guy gets such leniency for violating various policies (including the one, as commented above, about using other editors to do things for you while you are blocked). Do the rules apply to all of us equally, or do they just apply to ordinary people who don't have administrator buddies? Jtrainor (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mifter

I made a formal statement concerning my thoughts on the block at AE (link to my comments) but in regards to this clarification request I wished to concur with the points raised by RexxS and WJBscribe regarding examining this issue fully and clarifying that AE actions are subject to consensus in the usual way per discussion at AN. I write primarily, in response to the points raised by Andrew D. about TRM creating a "todo list" on his talk page and his raising concerns about WP:BLOCKEVASION. I will note from that policy that "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand" and in this case TRM's expertise in handling errors on the Main Page is not in dispute, rather it is the way in which he interacts with other editors. To summarily revert or prohibit those contributions just because this is being worked out is clearly detrimental to the encyclopedia and arguably is cutting off our nose to spite our collective faces. I would rather have him ping me (as one of the primary and few admins active at DYK) over an error that is about to hit the main page than revoke talk page access because of the letter of a policy. In my estimation even if the committee finds that the letter of WP:BLOCKEVASION applies here (which I do not believe it does) I believe the net positives of allowing TRM to request the correction of errors about to hit the main page (with millions of views per hour/day) justify ignoring it as prohibiting such corrections would cause more harm than good and additionally simply escalate the situation further. Mifter (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In further response to Andrew D., where he states Isn't the point of a block to suspend an editor's activities, whatever their merits?, blocks per our blocking policy are preventative and not punitive. I believe you are referring to a ban which is a blanket prohibition on editing either a specific topic or the encyclopedia at large imposed by the community, Arbcom, the WMF, etc. and a declaration that an editor is persona non grata. When a user is banned they are prohibited from editing regardless of merits. Blocks are merely a preventative tool to protect the encyclopedia (blocks are used to implement bans but the vast majority of blocks are not bans.) TRM is not banned, he is only (temporarily) blocked in this case. Further, per my above argument and verbatim quote from the Block Evasion policy I do not believe block evasion applies in this case. Mifter (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

Given the valid concerns expressed about Sandstein's own unilateral actions, it is disappointing that he is making an issue out of Bishonen's removal of page protection. If Sandstein wanted the protection to be seen as part of his arbitration enforcement, he should have made that more clear. The block was too hasty and the protection was too careless. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mojoworker

Since it's caused some confusion (as seen in the statement by Jtrainor above), it would have been helpful if Andrew Davidson had quoted the entire sentence from WP:BLOCKEVASION: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." As Opabinia regalis notes below, if an editor in good standing wants to make those edits in their own name, then they've taken full responsibility for them. Mojoworker (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17

@RexxS: Please see WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." My bolding. Bringing someone to AE is not an administrative action. Can you correct your statement above? Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: So in your view, admins can't bring other editors to AE? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Ritchie333

Sandstein seems to have confused what Arbitration Enforcement allows as what it mandates. Had a 24-hour block been handed out, there would have been a small amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth, then it would pass and we'd all move on. By jumping to the maximum penalties allowed, he has created a wholly disproportionate amount of drama and his judgement has been called into question. For all the mantra of "blocks are preventative, not punitive", the block certainly isn't stopping draining conversations here, and at AE, and at AN! Some prevention! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I would echo Boing's comments below and say that some of Sandstein's comments, such as "Bishonen's unilateral actions, however, indicate that she is not really interested in my reasons at all, or she would have consulted with me before lifting the protection, as admins are supposed to" can be construed as violating WP:CIVIL. Bishonen made a good-faith attempt to quell a dispute and gave an explanation, and you don't seem to be giving her respect for that. Why are you so keen to see her punished? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: " I don't know about you, but I do not have the time to follow multiple noticeboard threads 24/7 repeatedly justifying myself at great length over and over again to random, often involved editors" You blocked a long-standing, albeit controversial, editor for a month. What on earth did you expect, high fives and barnstars all round? I am not at all surprised that you have received all this attention, and with a bit more foresight, you really ought to have expected it. Perhaps if you had thought about the harassment you might have picked up in advance, you may have decided on an alternative sanction instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Boing! said Zebedee

I think the suggestion of imposing a 24hr period before admin action can be taken in response to an AE request is missing the point and is, as Bish suggests, a mistake. It appears to me the frustration felt by some is over the enforcing *and* closing of the AE request by the same admin in a very short time and the cutting off of any further discussion that that entailed, not the enforcement action itself. I suggest the admin making an enforcement action should not be the one who closes the request, and the enforcing admin should always be open to question and/or discussion from colleagues after taking such action. (The apparent "I've spoken, and the rest of you are beneath me and not deserving of any consideration" attitude I see here stinks - I know this discussion is strictly about clarifying the pedantic minutiae of the rules, but I think that would be missing the wood for the trees.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: If you hadn't unilaterally closed the AE request, then you would have had a place to respond. Also, how does "You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now" tie in with "I completely agree that as an admin I should respond to good-faith questions by other editors regarding my actions. [...] I want to discuss them in one forum where focused, structured discussion is possible."? In this sorry affair I have seen little from you but a steadfast refusal to discuss your actions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I find your accusations of bad faith towards User:Bishonen very disappointing (and unfounded, as she has clearly explained why she did not think asking you first was required). Also, your insistence that you will only discuss your actions at an AE appeal mean that unless a blocked editor should make an appeal (as they actually have done in this case), you would refuse to discuss your actions with your fellow admins and community members. I do not think that is an acceptable attitude from an admin, and I would like to hear the opinions of Arbs on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC) (Adjusted for clarity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC))

Well, @Sandstein: When you were asked why you protected that talk page, I think you'd have done yourself and the rest of us a far better service if you'd just answered the bloody question instead of giving us this evasive and pompous runaround. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

Commenting on one thing and one thing only:

• @Doug Weller: The Committee very much can override policy. See WP:CONEXCEPT. Also see many, many historical examples such as WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. The Committee can't create policy, but it can issue binding remedies that overrule policy when tackling behavioral issues. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: As written, the remedy allows for Sandstein's actions. They do not need to defend their actions based on the protection or blocking policies, because their authority derived from the remedy, not policy, and the remedy itself is exempt from consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT. They should still fulfill WP:ADMINACCT, and I believe they have, stating clearly that they believed the remedy gave preference to full protection over talk page access revocation. Now, if the Arbitration Committee passed a bad remedy, that's a valuable but very different discussion. Doug Weller's statement that Sandstein didn't act within the bounds of the protection policy or blocking policy doesn't make much sense, because the Committee passed a remedy that allowed for these actions. This is similar to how I don't need to defend a protection under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 as preventing current disruption, normally required under the protection policy, because ArbCom has decided that the topic area's volatility allows for extra-ordinary actions at administrator discretion. Policy writing is hard, and if the Committee got it wrong, it needs to own that, not say that some uninvolved admin should know what you meant to write in the remedy. I find it disturbing that Sandstein is under the microscope for acting at his discretion to do exactly what you wrote he could do at his discretion. Other admins are watching, myself included, and we will certainly remember that AE actions no longer require consensus to reverse when we go to make them in the future. We'll also remember that the Committee considers it overtly improper use of the tools to act as prescribed in a remedy if we don't do so how they expected. I doubt the Committee fully grasps the chilling effect this discussion is likely to have on AE actions in the more complicated cases. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't see how we can avoid talking about chilling effects, Drmies. We now have precedent that an administrator can reverse an AE action with impunity entirely unilaterally instead of discussing it. ArbCom is in the process of gutting its own ability to credibly address civility issues of long-term editors. I'm not saying the result here should have been page protection, but the reversal without discussion is beyond the pale.

      As for whether the action was valid under the remedy, the remedy states "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block". There is no requirement for anything to occur beforehand to justify such a protection. Now, I'm not arguing that admins should go around doing things willy-nilly under ArbCom remedies without reason, but I think Sandstein clearly stated his reasoning. He saw TRM as continuing to be condescending and belittling, and he believed the remedy preferred protection over talk page revocation to address that. That is a valid rationale under "their discretion". You can reverse the page protection because you think it's not the proper action, certainly. But a claim that it was invalid is far too generous to the Committee that wrote and approved this remedy.

      I can't bring myself to believe you truly think ArbCom remedies must follow usual policies. If so, how was WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 passed, which allows ECP protection on all pages in a topic area whether or not disruption has occurred, contrary to the community-based ECP policy? This was even more not-in-keeping with ECP policy at the time ECP was created, when the community had authorized its use for nothing. Moreover, if ArbCom restrictions had to abide by policy, then the community could overturn any remedy by altering policy to disallow it. Is that actually something this Committee would consider acceptable? I'm bewildered. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• In terms of walking away from this request with progress, can we get a clear statement (preferably by formal motion) that all AE actions cannot be reverted unilaterally but must be discussed first? In off-wiki discussion, it's been argued that this reversal was valid because the page protection wasn't a sanction, but just an action. That type of distinction clearly was never the intent of the bar on reverting AE sanctions, and clarity is always helpful. This isn't a change of policy or anything; just documenting current practices. I'm still seriously worried that the vague "Well, this reversal was understandable!" type comments by arbs below are going to affect the efficacy of AE. Sometimes we have bright lines for a reason, and requiring discussion is not a high bar to meet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

Regarding a minimum 24-hour period for an AE complaint to remain open - we wouldn't need this if admins acted like they were supposed to and used their judgement and common sense when handling these cases. Case involving a clear-cut breach of a topic ban? Block away. Case involving WP:CIVIL and an editor with a controversial reputation? You know there's going to be various viewpoints so propose a course of action and wait an appropriate time for discussion. Or, if you feel you must take action right away, make it a regular admin block which allows the use of regular unblock channels. If you really, really feel you need to take unilateral AE action in a controversial matter then don't close the request yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MLauba

@Callanecc: a failure to log a sanction doesn't invalidate the sanction - I believe going down that route is exactly the wrong path. On the contrary, an admin who wants to protect an action under the provisions of an arbitration remedy should always log them as such. Doing anything else opens the door wide open to gaming, or for instance, this very ARCA here. Otherwise, your motion will clash with WP:WHEEL. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The clash with WP:WHEEL would happen when an action gets reversed and claimed as being under arbitration remedy after the fact. Given the extraordinary protection afforded by arbitration enforcement actions (which I don't dispute) against reversal, properly logging them in the same go doesn't seem like a particularly onerous requirement. Do we ever get away with deleting an article while forgetting to close its AfD? We have stringent processes for many admin actions. The thought that for the most protected admin actions clear logging would be a burden too much is baffling. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I think this attitude is exactly why some editors have effectively become WP:UNBLOCKABLE.

I believe most of the very few true unblockables have become unblockable in no small part because they were hit by disproportionate sanctions by some admins. Refusing to give clear and forthright explanations to their peers at AN makes it worse. When a significant portion of the community starts to feel that an editor, even under harsh sanctions, is being treated unfairly, that's when subsequent enforcement actions become more difficult. In this specific instance, your constant evasion of your accountability towards your admin peers and your dismissal of any questioning as coming from "friends of the blocked" will, I trust, have done a lot to make future administrative actions against TRM more difficult. I'd suggest you ponder that the next time you consider what a proportionate sanction may be, rather than how much discussion is required to apply it.

For someone who has been active in AE for longer than I have been an admin, I keep being surprised that these drama fests pop up regularly around some of your actions (as opposed to other long term AE regulars). When the Arbcom issues restrictions instead of outright bans, their purpose is to try and retain the positives an editor has to offer. Some reform. Many get eaten up by resentment and earn themselves a ban later. If their resentment shifts from the existence of the sanctions to the fairness of their enforcement, and that fairness is questioned by others for good cause, it defeats the whole purpose of the sanction in the first place. The role of AE is to deter editors from resuming the conduct under sanction, not to drive them to the brink, and even less to generate a wave of undue sympathy for them.

To wit - TRM's appeal discussion centers on the duration (not the validity) of your sanction. If that were off the table, the admins discussing the appeal would most likely have spent a lot of time examining the nature of TRM's defence, which IMO doesn't do him any favours. We should not be discussing the merit of your actions. That we do is entirely on you. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I quickly wish to note my support of Rexx's comments, particularly regarding WP:INVOLVED.

As for the meat of the situation I think there are four things that the Committee can do that would resolve most of these sorts of issues going forward - statements/amendments/declarations that:

1. Arbitration Enforcement actions must be proportionate to the situation.
2. The protections afforded to Arbitration Enforcement actions apply only to those actions that are unambiguously logged as being AE actions.
   • This noting can be in the block/protection/etc log and/or the case log, but must happen.
   • A sanction that is not logged is still valid, but only at the level of an ordinary admin action
   • A sanction may be logged retrospectively, but the AE action protections apply only from the time it is logged. Retrospective logging must be justified.
   • If it is unclear whether an action is an AE action or not, then users are encouraged to seek clarification from the admin making the action. Such clarification asked for in good faith must be given.
3. Every admin making an Arbitration Enforcement action (or explicit inaction) must explain their action and the reasons they chose when asked in good faith by any user.
   • If an (in)action is based on non-public information, then the answer to the question should state this (e.g. "I blocked Example based on checkuser evidence." or simply "This was due to non-public information." where giving more detail is not possible/advisable).
   • If a question has been previously answered, simply pointing to that answer is permissible.
4. Arbitration Enforcement actions do not require discussion, but if good-faith discussion is happening then the consensus of uninvolved administrators must be respected. This excludes situations with changed circumstances or new information, but any such action must be explicitly justified at the venue where discussion is happening.

I'd like the third point to apply to every admin action, but that is outside the scope of the Committee's remit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

We need this many words over talk page? Cut to the chase: Talk page access should not be revoked when sanctions are enabled. It's the only way to appeal. Sending email to ArbCom is insufficient. Here's a remedy that will work: Don't read another editors talk page if you don't like what they say. The corollary is already widely accepted: Don't post in User Talk space if the user has asked you not. Unlock the talk page. Trouts all around. --DHeyward (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Sandstein, there's a lot in these various contributions, but I think it's important to note at least one thing: Bishonen did not undo your block, which, it seems to me, is the most important part of the sanction. I note also that in your decision you didn't mention the talk page protection, and if this is going to boil down to procedure, that is not unimportant. It is correct that the possibility of talk page protection was there to protect TRM from gravedancing in the case of a block or other sanction; the argument that protection was to prevent TRM from any further incivilities is not so strong. Obviously, removal of talk page access would have done that, and I don't know if we'd be here if you'd decided on that (and announced it in the decision, I suppose). So, why the protection? And given that the AN thread focused on the length of the block, why should this particular disagreement be so important as to warrant this request for clarification? [There may be more to discuss--questions about involvement, for instance, coming from various sides, but this one decision on Bishonen's part is the heart of the matter.] Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:BU Rob13, User:Doug Weller, I'm not sure what CONEXCEPT is doing here. Doug is laying out that there seemed to be no reason for preemptive protection, and that policy supports this. Sure, ArbCom can override consensus--but that's not the same as saying an admin can, citing Arb-enforced possible sanctions, set aside policy for apparently no good reason. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, I think the committee wants to see drastic actions be documented and explained properly. Whether that was done or not is one of the things we're looking into, I suppose. Also, Several editors suggest that AE admins such as myself should use particular caution when dealing with "longstanding editors" or those with a "controversial reputation"--I am not one of those editors, and I think the committee agrees that we should have parity. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • BU Rob13, "the remedy allowed talk page protection"--and you mention "...if the Arbitration Committee passed a bad remedy", but that's precisely it. If ArbCom passed a remedy against policy, it shouldn't have passed, but it wasn't a remedy against policy. Sandstein's protection could have been perfectly in line with the remedies drawn up by ArbCom, but, so the argument goes, it wasn't--some argue because it wasn't announced or argued explicitly or even recognized, some (Doug Weller) because there was no apparent need for it. DS/AE gives admins power, but not unlimited or arbitrary power. These are strong words, and I am not accusing Sandstein of being a kind of dictator--far from it, but we expect admins at AE to give a good reasoning for their decisions. I read over Sandstein's decision again, for the third time now, and there is nothing in there about the need for protecting the talk page, or about evidence of talk page disruption in the first place, never mind likely hypothetical evidence of talk page disruption. As for this chilling effect, I think that's overblown. Admins know, or should know, that the power that comes with acting at AE comes with the burden of having to explain their decision. No one I know, on ArbCom or outside of it, wants admins in general and Sandstein in specific to stop weighing in at AE: we, and the community, need them there, but, again, with disclosure of a. their precise actions and b. the justification of those action. You know as well as I do that revoking talk page access is rarely a first step, and protecting a talk page is exceptional--and, in this case, included in the remedies to prevent the editor from suffering abuse. That's all--I don't see this as a case that is so fundamental that we have to talk about chilling effects and remedy vs. policy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • BU Rob13, I do not subscribe to these alarmist expressions which, I believe, are stated too strongly--for instance, that ECP is somehow "contrary" to policy, or that undoing one aspect of an administrative action, in this case an undiscussed and relatively minor part of an administrative action, is to be equated with the entire undoing of someone's work with impunity. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• I haven't read enough of this yet to have an opinion on the overall issue, but I do have an opinion on the small sub-issue that's been raised in a few statements about TRM using his talk page to make edit suggestions. If a blocked editor wants to post suggestions on their talk page, they can hardly force anyone to take those suggestions, and if an unblocked editor in good standing wants to make those edits in their own name, then they've taken full responsibility for them and it doesn't matter if the idea came from a blocked editor or they thought of it in the shower or it came to them in a dream. I happen to think it would be good for TRM to take a real break and not look at Wikipedia for at least a few days, but I'm not his mother. Let's leave that sub-issue aside and focus on AE.
  Moving along, I too am curious about the decision to full-protect the talk page, which is certainly unusual - the fact that it was explicitly mentioned in the remedy is, I think, a testament to how unusual an action that would be. (As a historical matter, the wording in the TRM remedy was clearly derived from this restriction in the GGTF case. AFAICT protection was used under that remedy once, for about a day, under circumstances that look at this remove like both continued misbehavior and baiting/gravedancing by others.) Sandstein, do you mean that you decided on protection over revoking talk page access because only the former was explicitly listed in the remedy? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There's an awful lot of stuff here that people seem interested in discussing, and that is worthy of discussion, but this isn't really the right venue or format for it. If you think there should be a rule about blocked editors posting article work on their talk pages, WT:BLOCK would be a good place to start. If you think WP:INVOLVED is insufficiently clear, there's a talk page for that too. I'll also put the various arguments/memes about "unblockables" and "people with admin friends" and so forth in that category, and the wiki-philosophical matter of the relationship between "policy" and arbcom decisions. I took my own advice and cut a bunch of comments about those issues from this post.
    I'm sympathetic to Sandstein's argument here that we can't realistically say "Use your discretion within parameters X and Y" and then when controversy erupts, respond with "Well, we didn't mean like that!" Admins should be able to expect that their discretion will be respected. On the other hand, I think most observers agree here that blocking TRM for a week and revoking talk page access only if significant disruption occurred would have been broadly considered a reasonable action. The decision to use the maximum available block length and do something unusual like full-protect the page is highly conspicuous, and I think that an admin making unusual and conspicuous decisions should expect to be questioned about them and should be prepared to explain them - being annoyed with the popcorn eaters at ANI is fine, but you don't need an arb-managed venue to respond to reasonable questions. (For one thing, it's not possible to stop the community from discussing a decision if they want to, and for another, arbs are slow ;)
    On the issue of the protection in particular, it just straight-up didn't cross my mind that the protection sentence might be read as implying that the full range of block parameters couldn't be used, because this remedy wording has been used before and it hadn't come up. (FWIW, I did think of it as primarily protecting TRM from unwelcome talk-page posts he couldn't respond to or remove.) If the wording of the remedy is a sticking point, I'm sure we can come up with a revision that will introduce other unanticipated subtle ambiguities be clearer ;) Finally, I agree with Bish that there's no need for a general imposition of a mandatory waiting period for AE requests, though I do think it would be collegial to wait on a request you can reasonably expect disagreement about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Recuse due to The ed17's involvement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Some comments:

1. On the block - The block is a legitimate arbitration enforcement action under the TRM remedy. Arguments about the block length are matters for the block appeal at WP:AE.

2. On talkpage protection - The talkpage protection is also a legitimate arbitration enforcement action, and should not have been unilaterally undone. Three qualifiers: First: if we want to dispute technicalities it's worth noting that the talkpage protection was not logged at the time it was reversed (per point 1 above by Littleolive oil). Is an unlogged sanction still sanction? Yes, but there's a tiny amount of wriggle room. Second: the reversal was in good faith, and ties up with a legitimate sense that the AE complaint discussion was hastily closed. Third: there is some legitimacy to the idea that the rationale for Arbcom's talkpage protection rationale (gravedancing provoking more TRM replies)hadn't been met when the protection was applied (though this is really a matter for the AE appeal).

3. On the AE closure: There is nothing in the AE rules that mandates that discussions stay open for any period of time, or that individual administrators cannot act unilaterally. This is a flaw in the AE rules, which periodically gives rise to issues like this. Separately from any outcome of this or the AE thread, the Committee or community should endorse a minimum 24-hour period for an AE complaint to remain open. That way there's at least some opportunity for other admins to weigh in, and some opportunity for a consensus to form. Most AE complaints are important, but few require such urgent responses that a 24-hour minimum would cause irreparable harm. There's a lengthier discussion on this here, which also proposes other minimum requirements. For now, suggest we start with 24 hours and see how it goes.

4. What to do - Noting the above qualifiers, suggest the following:

@Sandstein:, your actions were within the letter of the law, though there are some who might legitimately feel the block was too long and the talkpage protection unnecessary. Please feel free to respond further to these matters at the current AE appeal.

@Bishonen:, the talkpage protection was an arbitration enforcement action and shouldn't have been unilaterally overturned. However the overturning was explicable in the circumstances listed above. Please don't do it again. Instead, do please lend your hefty support to a minimum waiting period for AE complaints, so we can avoid future repeats of this burgeoning multi-noticeboard circus. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

5. On proxying from TRM's talkpage On an semi-related matter - @Andrew Davidson: Agree with Opabinia regalis, and note the second half of the sentence from BLOCKEVASION applies: ... unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I can't get my head around your refusal to explain your reasons to anyone but an Arb. Reasons for Admin actions should always be open unless they involve confidential material. My opinion is that one way to avoid 'disruptions of AE actions' is to be open and willing to respond to reasonable questions such as "Why?". After all, you stated when you protected it that "I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block." As has already been pointed out, removing talk page access would have done that. Full protection might have been reasonable later if there were serious problems. And we normally don't worry about editors venting when blocked. In fact, sometimes it provides evidence as to whether the block was actually necessary (note that I am not suggesting this wasn't a good block, no comment on that right now, but that I've seen seriously unacceptable editors explode and make it clear that they don't belong here). In a nutshell, I agree with Euryalus. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've thought about this some more and took a look at our protection policy, specifically WP:NO-PREEMPT which says "Applying page protection in a pre-emptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons. However, brief periods of an appropriate and reasonable protection level are allowed in situations where blatant vandalism or disruption is occurring and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it." Our policy also has a section on blocked users which says "Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user without talk page access should be preferred over protection." On one hand the remedy allowed talk page protection, but of course the Committee cannot override policy. Where's the evidence that there was disruption at a level of frequency that required page protection, or even that TRM's posts required removing talk page access? Doug Weller talk 09:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I see what Rob is getting at, but the wording at CONEXCEPT is unclear if not ambiguous. I see it as meaning that we can override a consensus decision, eg one made at ANI. Rob's reading it as overriding policy, and if that's what it means I wish it it made that explicit. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Euryalus pretty much said everything I was thinking. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• A few things:
  • I agree broadly with what Euryalus said above, with the exception of introducing a compulsory waiting period for AE requests.
  • I agree with the points Bishonen gives about why a waiting period isn't a good idea - they aren't discretionary anymore and we have two classes of sanctions, those imposed by individual admins and those imposed by consensus at AE.
  • Sandstein's block and page protection were not discretionary sanctions but rather the enforcement of a Committee sanction to which the standard provision on enforcement applies. This also means that the requirements at WP:AC/DS do not apply (that's something I'm working on fixing at the moment).
  • More generally, I agree with some comments made throughout discussions about this that the removal of talk page access could have worked in this situation. As far as I'm concerned (when enforcing ArbCom sanctions, or discretionary sanctions), unless stated otherwise in the decision, the authorisation to block includes all parts Special:Block (talk page access and email for accounts). Perhaps that's worth writing down somewhere for the future...

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I'm working on a motion to do that now. Primarily it indicates that some of the stuff in discretionary sanctions procedure applies to every AE sanction/action. For example, a failure to log a sanction doesn't invalidate the sanction and that sanction is defined as a discretionary sanction or as "any sanction, restriction, or other remedy placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions".

I take your point regarding bright-line rules, and generally I would absolutely agree with you. But, in this specific instance, rather than threatening/warning/desysoping, fixing the issue for next time is a better outcome for everyone. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@MLauba: That's already the rule for a discretionary sanction, all the motion will do is extend this for every arbitration enforcement action. If an action is clearly recorded as "arbitration enforcement" (or "AE") in the block/protect/deletion/etc log then the rules currently apply. As far as I'm concerned, ignoring "arbitration enforcement" (or "AE") in the block/protect/deletion/etc log or notification and then arguing that it wasn't recorded on the case page log is gaming the system. In this instance, it was unclear to both parties whether it needed to be logged and then that not logging it meant it was invalid.

Not sure what this has to do with wheel-warring? For example, what this motion will do is that when admin places sanction (e.g. a block) and notes that it's arbitration enforcement (in the block log for example) but forgets to log it (in the DS log or the case page for non-DS) then it will be a valid sanction and cannot to unilaterally overturned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that accidentally deleting an article without closing its AfD happens reasonably regularly without too much kerfuffle (and generally with someone just doing the paperwork for the admin who clicked the delete button). I'd agree with you there would be a WHEEL concern if it hadn't been noted as arbitration enforcement when it was done (in the block/protection log), the central log that you type into is there for the record and the future rather than recording that a specific action was done as arbitration enforcement.

I think we might have our wires crossed a little. I'm saying that if an action is taken (such as a block or page protection) and it is noted in the automatic (block or protection) log that it is an arbitration enforcement action then it is a valid AE action and under the protection of the protections against reversal. The admin then going to the log page (whether WP:DSLOG or the individual case page) and recording it is not required for it to be considered under the protection of arbitration enforcement rules (only that the action itself is clearly recorded as "arbitration enforcement"). When the new (current) discretionary sanctions procedures were being written, that was one of things suggested during the community consultation to reduce the bureaucracy and complexity of the system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

---