Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:59, 21 April 2023

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Request by Sandstein concerning the list of named parties[edit]

Sandstein was initially informed that he could remove himself as a party, but was later re-added by Committee direction. AGK [•] 13:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The filing party named me as a party to this case, against my wishes, apparently because I indefinitely blocked MickMacNee in 2010. Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs), who later unblocked MickMacNee, was also so named, but simply removed himself without a clerk reacting to this. As a result, I am currently listed as a party, while Scott MacDonald is not.

If the Committee intends to examine the block and unblock of November 2010 as part of this case, I request that Scott MacDonald be re-added as a party. If the Committee does not believe that this block and unblock are relevant to this case, I request that my name be removed from the list of parties as well. Sandstein 11:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kirill Lokshin's comment below, I've removed myself as a party. I reiterate my recommendation, however, to examine as part of this case how the (intentional or unintentional) support or tolerance of persistent antisocial conduct by administrators inhibits community resolution of problems of this sort. In particular, I have all but stopped involving myself as an administrator to help resolve conduct problems because this community, and this Committee, appears to tolerate random interference (in the form of unblocks-on-a-whim without discussion) by other administrators. This discourages community-level resolution of problems involving longterm problematic conduct and makes it more likely for them to fester long enough to reach this stage. Sandstein 05:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on a review of the statements made to date, I do not believe we will be examining the events of November 2010 as part of this proceeding. As such, you and Scott are not required to participate here, and may remove yourselves from the list of parties if you choose. I will have the clerks notify you if the scope of the case changes in a way that affects you in the future. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

(Not a clerk comment) In my view, the Committee has in recent years not recognised the significance of being named as a party to an arbitration case. Especially in cases such as this one, which has a narrow scope, it is important that editors are not flippantly named as a party. I have personally been named as a party in one previous case when I had no involvement in the underlying incident, so I empathise with editors who are annoyed at being in the same situation. No comment on the question of Scott MacDonald. AGK [•] 11:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to support Sandstein's request here. He and I were involved in a block/unblock cycle of Mick eight months ago. That cycle formed part of a RFArb at the time, which the committee rejected. I'm quite sure an examination of Mick's behaviour would want to look at the reasons for the block (which I've never disputed were solid) and what Mick indicated at the time of the unblock. However, I doubt that the Committee will be interested in rehashing the debate about admin decisions involved. If I'm wrong about that, let me know, add me as a party, and I'll submit evidence and commentary concerning it. But if, as I suspect, that's a stale issue the Committee are not going to wish to confuse with the ongoing question of Mick's behaviour, then it would be better if Sandsein and I were saved from wasting our (and your) time here, and muddying the waters (in which case, he should be removed as a party). To my knowledge, neither of us has any involvement with the disputes about Mick in the last six months or more.--Scott Mac 13:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a more general note, I wonder if the Committee could codify its view on the significance of the list of named parties. There have been in the past some comments by arbitrators on the subject, but it would be helpful to have a specific principle - or even an official procedure - to reference. On the Climate change workshop page, there was also some official commentary - in which it was held that the list of parties is not unchangeable, nor a prerequisite for rulings against an editor (although due notification of an editor is) - but that cannot be presumed to apply to all cases, and in any case could now be outdated. Although the arbitrators may not view it so, it is not insignificant to most editors in good standing to be named in a case, because it would be fair to view it as something of a slight on one's reputation. That could be mitigated in future by having a clear procedure for removing from lists of parties an editor who does not belong there, or by at least stating that it is not a big deal. AGK [•] 16:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am less worried about reputation or being named as a party, than having to watch a page, and perhaps feeling the need to respond to comments by people about my actions, only to find at the end arbcom saying "shrug, that's out of scope and uninteresting here". Notification is fine, but it needs not to come at the finding stage, but early on. What's needed is for some arb to say "hm, this might be significant" - and ask for those involved to be notified - not assuming that people named in the initial acceptance are still watching. Or alternatively, some hints as to scope when the case is accepted. In this case, because one of the filing parties made an aside about an old fracas involving myself and Sandstein, we're both not quite sure whether we need to hang about here or not.--Scott Mac 18:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Beyond My Ken concerning the list of named parties[edit]

Beyond My Ken was informed that he could remove himself from the list of parties if he so wished; he did so. AGK [•] 13:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in the most recent underlying incident is limited to commenting on the AN/I report, and then in the Request for Arbitration pointing out factors which I believe warranted a case being opened. As I remarked earlier, I have not had significant negative personal interaction with MMN, so I have no real evidence to present, and do not plan to do so. I don't mind being listed as a party, even though it seems inaccurate to do so, so I leave it up to the committee as to whether I should remain in the list of parties or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

At this time, I see no particular need to have you participate; you may remove your name from the list of parties if you choose. The clerks will notify you if the scope of the case changes in a way that affects you in the future. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am available if the need arises. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Request to add Δ as a party to this case[edit]

Request to add Delta as a party is declined. AGK [•] 10:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) I would like to add Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a party. MickMacNee was just involved in an edit war with Δ on User talk:Rd232 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) [1] [2] [3] [4], but a heated dispute between them precedes this[5] by three years. Concerns with Δ's activities are striking similar to those with MickMacNee's: edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, and disregard for consensus, with the aggravating factor of Δ's misuse of bots and scripts. Prior dispute resolution, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, and a community sanction have already been tried, but haven't resolved the situation. The result has been endless discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ, and on WP:AN and WP:AN/I, as well as slow motion block wars on both the Δ[6] and prior Betacommand[7] accounts. Chester Markel (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I apologize for sloppiness in the initial formulation of the parties list. Chester Markel (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a legitimate question of scope: arbitration considers the behavior of all involved parties, but that begs the question of how the dispute is characterized. If the dispute is "community disagreement with MickMacNee's behavior over the last several years", then there's one involved party. If we consider MickMacNee's recent and long-standing disputes with other users, there are more parties, at least one of whom is definitely worth adding. This ultimately isn't my decision to make, of course. Chester Markel (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for examining Δ's behavior in the current case, rather than separately in a case which may or may not happen, is that it would be unfair to consider MickMacNee's edit warring with Δ, while ignoring Δ's edit warring with MickMacNee, etc. Chester Markel (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill: the dispute between Δ and MickMacNee dates back to at least 2008, in which MickMacNee was a critic of Δ's activities as Betacommand: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. This resulted in Betacommand using BetacommandBot to post frivolous warnings to MickMacNee's talk page [13]. MickMacNee continued to contest Betacommand's behavior [14] [15], including his more recent conduct as Δ[16]. The ongoing dispute between MickMacNee and Δ was still so heated on 30 May 2011 that MickMacNee wrote "You've not got one ounce of symapthy, not one drop, for the hundreds of admins/editors who have been all around the houses with Delta/Beta before, who have placed block after block, made proposal after proposal, sat through arbitration case after arbitration case."[17]. Of course, if you want to examine Δ separately, the ongoing block war, with actions most recently as today[18], suggests that he will end up here, for the third time, sooner or later. Chester Markel (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Δ's participation in this particular incident is not, in and of itself, sufficient to make him a party to the broader dispute here. Do you intend to submit evidence regarding the relationship between Δ and MickMacNee that goes beyond it?

(Any broader issues with Δ's conduct are best examined in a separate proceeding.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would like to be removed from this case, If you want to discuss my actions take it to a separate RFARB, and lets look at my actions since my unbanning, and lets not dredge up dead horses. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Probably a bit of a slippery slope. If you want to include every one who is combative and aggressive and disregards consensus in favour of their own views, that will be a very long list. I could add 2 or 3 right now. And if you look at the decline that was made of the previous request for arbitration for MickMacNee, and at Roger Davies' recent decline of a current request for arbitration, the arbitrators in general appear to dislike taking on "omnibus" cases where several different cases are combined into one. Looking at your history of dispute resolution, I also think the question of why you filed this arbitration case could use some examination, but it's not my place to ask that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good way of putting it. I think restricting this case is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to archive the proposals of Chester Markel and move them to the discussion page[edit]

Proposals collapsed and moved to the talk page as suggested. –xeno^talk 13:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4) Because of the needless disruption caused by many of these proposals, made by the sockpuppet of banned user John254, it is counterproductive to allow any further threaded discussion of his proposals on this page. An archived record should be preserved on the discussion page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without commenting on the accuracy of "needless disruption", I see no problem with archiving Chester Markel's proposals. Obviously, he will not be engaging in any more discussions regarding them; and any that need to be discussed further will no doubt be proposed by someone else in due time. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support as proposer. Note that there does not seem to be any pressing need to archive Chester Markel's evidence. Even if parts of it are disruptive and beyond the scope of the case, they can be ignored by arbitrators and other participating users. Mathsci (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Xeno for collapsing the proposals. Mathsci (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove discussion of the blocking policy in general from the case[edit]

Request responded to (declined). AGK [•] 10:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5) I'd quite like to maintain momentum on the blocking policy discussion and open it up to the wider community. A statement on it as I've proposed below might be good, but allowing the discussion to take place in the community looks like the way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Anyone is free to bring proposals for policy improvements before the community, with or without our approval. Further, I see no reason to believe that a decision in this case would require any clarification of blocking policy, or would result in any such clarification being issued. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

6)

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Proscribed conduct[edit]

1) All Wikipedia editors are required to comply with the project's policies on user conduct as a condition of participation in the project. These policies outline the minimal acceptable standards for user conduct by explicitly prohibiting a number of disruptive activities (such as personal attacks and edit-warring).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Primarily as background. My intent here is to focus on the "bright-line" policies which prohibit unacceptable conduct, rather than a more general discussion of what "good" conduct might be. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have no problem with this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Entirely agreed. But making it happen is the difficult part. Sandstein 16:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiality[edit]

2) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".

Comment by Arbitrators:

A new principle, attempting to tie together the high-level principles for "good" conduct set forth by the WMF and the community. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with this.. SirFozzie (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A step in the right direction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm in complete agreement with this proposal. It enunciates an ethos that is implicit in our mission, but that our policies (let alone our practice) have so far not made clear enough: we are a serious project of a scholarly nature and must therefore not only be superficially polite to one another, but practice genuine professionalism and collegial respect in our interactions. Editors who, by their background or inclination, are not ready or able to do so, need to leave the project. Sandstein 16:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I wonder if really we should refound the whole civility/NPA policy structure around be collegial/collaborative/helpful/nice. Because those are the standards we should expect of ourselves and others most of the time at least, with some room for forgiveness for the occasional blowup in heated moments. The current policy structure encourages finger-pointing "that's uncivil!" "that was a personal attack!" "sanction this!", which often ends up with all sorts of cross-cultural and inter-personal subjectivity. It would be much simpler to be able to say "I thought that wasn't very helpful/collegial, and whilst not rising to a level demanding sanction, let's recognise it wasn't the best way to communicate". That's the sort of thing, with no sanction attached, which makes it easier to admit error etc, and therefore to improve or build forgiveness, etc. PS Stating the obvious: this policy refounding (a) probably won't happen (b) is outside scope of Arbcom. But if anyone wants to pursue discussion of it, I'd be interested. Rd232 public ^talk 18:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Eraserhead1: oh, sure, I didn't mean remove entirely the possibility to sanction for incivility/NPA, but rather to restructure policy so that the emphasis is on promoting good behaviour and not on sanctioning bad. It's easier to agree behaviour is "not ideal" and can be improved, which hopefully makes it more likely that it will be, than to agree it's "so bad it's worthy of sanction". We might as well try an approach that doesn't emphasise the stick so much, given that we so often can't agree on how or whether to wield it. But that doesn't mean breaking the stick. :) Rd232 public ^talk 23:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Rd232, I see your point, and I think at a basic level that is a better approach than the current one. However for more serious violations you're still going to need something that has some teeth to it. If there's an issue with more serious violations not being addressed - well we probably come back to the points I've made on the blocking policy talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232, fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiality and proscribed conduct[edit]

3) The expectations of collegiality among editors go beyond the minimal levels of acceptable conduct specified by the project's behavioral policies. The fact that a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited does not make it appropriate in a collaborative environment or conducive to maintaining a welcoming atmosphere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Expanding on "Collegiality", above. There is an attitude in certain quarters that everything not forbidden is encouraged; this is by no means the case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Kirill. Just because it's not explicitly written down somewhere doesn't mean it's not part of the social compact between editors that Wikipedia is goverened by. SirFozzie (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A step in the right direction (vs wikilawyering) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed, as above. Sandstein 16:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Corrective action plans[edit]

1) Any editor banned by the Committee for a period of six months or longer will be required to submit a corrective action plan upon their return to Wikipedia. The plan must indicate an understanding of the behavior that led to the ban being imposed, and outline specific strategies (such as mentorship arrangements or voluntary restrictions) to ensure that this behavior is not repeated. The plan must be reviewed and approved by the Committee before the submitter may resume editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Potential new remedy; comments welcome. The intent here is to prevent a cycle of lengthy bans (which the editors in question simply sit out) followed by rapid returns to problematic behavior. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Anyone likely to abandon their account in response to this is equally likely to do so in response to the lengthy ban itself, no? As far as scaling is concerned, I doubt that the workload would be all that significant; we don't ban nearly as many people as we used to in years past, and I expect the time spent here would be balanced by less time spent on second cases for recidivist editors. (This assumes, of course, that the approach would be successful in reducing recidivism). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no big problem with this. If we've placed a ban of six months or more on a user, they've deviated from wikipedia's norms to an extent that we likely need more information to be confident in their editing going forward. SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer 'Any editor who appeals a block or ban to the Arbitration Committee may be required to submit a corrective action plan as part of the appeals process. The plan should indicate an understanding of the behavior which led to the block or ban, and outline specific strategies (such as mentorship arrangements or voluntary restrictions) to ensure that this behavior is not repeated.' PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight, that might make sense, but it would address a different group of blocked/banned users from those Kirill is discussing. Your proposal would concern users who appeal an administrator's block or a community ban (or perhaps who petition to have an ArbCom ban shortened). As I understand it, Kirill's original proposal deals with users who have been banned in an arbitration decision, whose ban is about to expire by time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if my wording is too much of a departure from Kirill's original, then I'd suggest that Steven Zhang's wording would be an improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This approach has great appeal, if you can handle the additional workload. In principle, I see no reason why this should not apply retroactively to currently banned users. Sandstein 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This may work in limited cases, but I wouldn't apply it to all. It is only likely to encourage some banned editors to abandon their accounts and attempt to start new ones (though that might not be the worst outcome if they changed their conduct to avoid detection). Also, how would this scale? After five years, what number of banned editors might possibly be submitting plans for approval? Also, would this apply to those appealing community bans? It might also be an idea only to apply this after a first problematic return - give people a chance to return clean first, and only require this if problems resume. Also, making this a case-by-case consideration, you avoid the appearance of micromanaging every single ban. Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor subjected to this should be informed at the time of their ban, which means that it is not back-dated to cover those editors currently serving a ban. Obviously some troublesome editors are worse than other troublesome editors (making no comparison of MMN with any other editor here), and ArbCom should be the arbiter of whether or not this requirement needs to be invoked on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else MMM might be, he is not a guinea pig. As I do not see this proposal as being specific to either this editor or this set of circumstances I would be wary of introducing this remedy now. If this is to be a new option to be used in regulating inappropriate conduct, then I think it needs prior ArbCom/Community (depending if there are limits on who may use it) consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not exactly? Is there something special about MMN that precludes him from being a "guinea pig"? Someone has to be the first. His case seems exactly right for this. MMN's behaviour has been incorrigible. Does it make sense to ban for a year then let him back in without something to indicate the year off has resulted in a change? DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Consensus exactly. Consensus is formed one of two ways, by an action not being reverted or by a proposal being discussed. It seems to me that the former is being proposed, when I think that the latter will provide a much more reasoned and comprehensive basis for any implementation (such as, is this option only to be available within Arbitrations, can it be required by the Community via RfC or AN banning discussions - and why not(!), etc.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what good these corrective action plans are meant to have. Apart from feeling good to insist upon and creating a kind of consent decree, what purpose do they serve? Will they allow us to better identify potential backsliding and deny an unban at the end of the ban period? How do they fit in with the rest of AE actions? What is the motivation for the banned editor to write one of these (apart from the threat of a continued ban)? What is the motivation for a banned editor to write a good corrective action plan? I'm asking this host of questions because I have seen plans like this put into place under slightly different circumstances (in the Navy, personnel at my command had the same basic idea as you guy) and it didn't really work as advertised. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have similar doubts. I can't see it having any positives besides allowing those who impose it to pat themselves on the back and say they're being useful. For the person subjected to it, it's likely to breed resentment more than actually help prevent problem behaviour. Any improvement in behaviour would likely come despite the plan, not because of it. In the pertinent case, I surely can't envision Mick about to go on a tirade but stopping because he had a corrective action plan in place. At this point, I'd say give him a lengthy ban and let him know he's on a short leash when he comes back. If he gets into more of these kinds of disputes, give him a clean start but have all of the arbs know who his new account is, and ensure he knows what behaviours will or will not be tolerated. I can't see a public plan that will allow Mick's detractors to follow him around and point out his deficiencies doing anything but cause more drama. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrective action plans[edit]

1.1) An editor who is banned by the Arbitration Committee may be required to prepare a corrective action plan upon returning to the project. The requirement to submit this plan may be included in the original ban provision or imposed by the Committee following a reset of the ban duration for cause or an unsuccessful appeal of the ban.

The corrective action plan must:

Demonstrate a full understanding of the problematic conduct that led to the ban; and
Propose specific steps to be taken by the editor to ensure that this conduct is not repeated.

The strategies proposed in the plan may include mentorship arrangements, voluntary topic or editing restrictions, or any other measures that the editor believes will prevent further problems.

The editor must submit their corrective action plan directly to the Committee, and may not resume editing until the Committee has reviewed and approved the plan.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Revised based on the version by Steven Zhang, with various procedural details added. If this is to be used as a generally available (but optional) adjunct to a ban, I see no need to place conditions on the ban length. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can support this if we can figure out a way to maximize the chance that the "planning" will lead to more productive and collegial editing from the returning user. Ideally the returning users would have used the ban time to introspect about how they can become better editors; but the types of editors capable of such introspection and improvement don't usually wind up in the ArbCom-banned category to begin with. I am a bit concerned that it will turn into a ritual self-criticism exercise, and that would not be good for anyone. But if there is a consensus to implement this and see if it is helpful, I can accept that; certainly our usual practice of banning people for six months or a year and then throwing them back in the deep end is not optimal, and our recent decisions in which a ban of X length is followed by restrictions on return to editing of Y length or indefinitely, while an improvement, are being drafted that way on a bit too ad hoc a basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also could support this version. However, following the confusion in regard to the Ottava Rima appeal, I think I'd prefer if an indefinite ban was applied, with appeals every 6 or 12 months, instead of banning for a year, but only allowing a return to editing after agreement of a plan. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this will be too cumbersome. We keep having issues with enacting this elsewhere so I think we are just creating a rod for our own backs. The person returning from a ban has to take some responsibility for their own actions and show that they can edit collaboratively and non-disruptively, and obey the rules. I think that devoting the time of constructive editors here is not a good use of volunteer time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In general probably a good idea. I think it helps both the banned user and the community to (a) reduce risk of repetition of previous behaviour (b) by planning for a return make it clear that the user can come back, i.e. the ban isn't just another way of saying "you did bad things, sod off and don't come back" (c) overall make it more likely that the user's return will work out well. Rd232 public ^talk 18:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This version works a lot better for me. Perhaps they could post it publicly as well, or the committee could post the action plan to the AC noticeboard for the community to also give input and feedback on it? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are certainly similarities here between the case PhilKnight mentions and this one, but I think there are some distinctions. So regarding point of return and terms of return, some circumstances here will need to be studied a bit more closely (and notes will need to be kept) - including for example the (perhaps occasional) periods where there have been no issues from this user and the pages that were being worked on during those periods and the users who he was working with (if any). I doubt that the meaning of these provisions will be fully understood from this case (particularly when they appear quite new on the surface), so be prepared for the appeals that first come in; I doubt the long-term reaction will necessarily be positive if there's confusion regarding how this will work in practice and not enough thought was given (or homework was done) on the very first case it was introduced in. Chances are you will need to actively provide guidance on terms that will be acceptable...in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per my previous comments, this is an option that may be considered, debated and refined, and agreed to be an option in Arbitration (and Community bans) going forward - but I am loathe to have this included in this case, especially as it is only a working model, when there are more established methods by which this case may be resolved. It is difficult to establish how effective this method might be, if it is not yet fully formed in all parties mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment of special masters[edit]

2) An editor found to have engaged in inappropriate or uncollegial conduct may be appointed a special master by the Committee. The special master will be an administrator in good standing, acceptable to both the editor and the Committee, and will be responsible for monitoring the editor's conduct and providing both guidance and enforcement as necessary and appropriate.

The special master will have the authority to impose any reasonable restriction on the editor's activity at his or her discretion; such restrictions may include, but not limited to, user interaction restrictions, page or topic bans, special requirements for particular types of edits or for edits in particular areas or topics, or any other measure that the special master believes would be conducive to improving the editor's conduct. The special master will have the authority to issue blocks of up to one month in length should the editor engage in misconduct or refuse to comply with restrictions. Restrictions and blocks imposed by the special master may only be appealed to and overturned by the Committee, and all other administrators will be strictly prohibited from interfering with them.

During the time that an editor is subject to a special master, all other administrators will be prohibited from imposing blocks on that editor, except in emergency cases. All reports of poor conduct on the part of the editor will be referred to the special master, who will have exclusive authority to determine a suitable sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Potential new remedy; comments welcome. This is intended to replace for the old (and largely unsuccessful) system of "paroles", which suffered from repeated problems of inconsistent enforcement, disputes among enforcing administrators, and a general inability to impose any subsequent sanction without re-litigating the original case. By vesting authority in a single individual whose opinion is respected by both the Committee and the affected user, any necessary enforcement can be made consistent from incident to incident, protecting the user from drive-by sanctions and the enforcing administrator from casual reversals. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth & David Levy: While I suppose you have a point regarding connotations, it's worth noting that "special master" is taken from a comparable position in the real legal system, not a term created specifically for this proposal. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This.. I don't think I can support. I've seen it tried. Hell, I've tried it myself (with Vintagekits). Administrators who get pulled in here will become part and parcel of whatever issues that surround the user. Also, I'd prefer not to tie the hands of administrators to take necessary actions (and should those actions be determined by an uninvolved consensus NOT to be necessary, changed and reversed). SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SirFozzie - this approach has been tried before and didn't work. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This type of arrangement may be appropriate in some cases; I can't say it would never be appropriate, but I can't say that it should be used all the time, either. I've written three decisions this year in which the committee wound up banning one of the parties, and I don't think a special master/mentor/referee/whatever would have helped in any of those. (I also agree that we'd need to come up with a different name, per several of the comments, although Kirill is quite correct about the origin of the term.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous, I think this is an expensive use of volunteer time. We have rules, how much help does someone need not to cross them? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As editors are sometimes busy outside Wikipedia, we cannot expect any single administrator to be available within a reasonable period of time whenever an editor sanctioned in this manner is active. Considerable disruption could occur while the "special master" was, for instance, on vacation. To be workable, several "special masters" would needed, to ensure that requests for action would be attended to promptly. Alternatively, much of the block warring could be ended by instructing administrators in a sufficiently compelling manner that when a user has accumulated several overturned blocks, there are to be no further blocks without consensus in a preceding community discussion, except in emergency circumstances, and no unblocking without similar consensus support. Realistically, administrators aren't going to refrain from unilateral unblocking unless assured that there is to be no blocking on a whim. Simply setting higher standards of administrative conduct would prevent many disputes from escalating to this point. Chester Markel (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that special master is a legal term of art, but laypeople are more likely to associate it with some sort of BDSM relationship... In principle the idea sounds appealing, but I am aware that in the past there have been situations where mentorships of this sort have spectacularly failed. The concerns below are also valid. I'm not sure that I have a better idea right now, though. Sandstein 16:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible name, and in general perhaps not such a great idea. In individual cases, it can be proposed as part of a corrective action plan. Rd232 public ^talk 18:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A couple of comments:

1. The term "master" could be perceived as demeaning. I suggest "overseer" as an alternative description. If this is deemed too similar to "oversighter," perhaps "supervisor" would work.

2. I share SirFozzie's concerns regarding tying the hands of other administrators (and by extension, the community at large). I recall an editor exploiting a similar setup (in which only his "mentor" was permitted to impose a block) to get away with more. —David Levy 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However it is put or phrased or dressed up, the above proposal would demean any editor who agreed to it (I suspect most would leave rather then be subjected to such terms). 'Special master' as a term is also vaguely Orwellian and carries connotation of a master-slave relationship - if you do rename it, move more towards the teacher as master meaning (though Jedi masters would be even better). I can see where the idea comes from (the idea of a mentor), but there will be lots of resistance to it, especially as presented. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Special Mentor" would be a better term. Any admin should be able to impose a block if they thought it necessary, but the Special Mentor would be able to amend the block as they saw fit, without it being considered wheel-warring. An edit notice to be placed on the talk page of any editor who is subject to Special Mentoring so that the admin placing the block knew that it was liable to be amended, This would stop the editor being mentored for having free reign to disrupt when their Special Mentor was not around to oversee their editing. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology is troublesome. But then, I suppose putting a person under the powers of "masters" and "overseers" is not much worse than sending them off to reeducation, as Kirill also once proposed [19]. I can only hope arbcom members will never conceive of the idea we need special remedies to help editors to better concentrate on important things; they might propose setting up special virtual camps for teaching that skill. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will not work in this form. Many admins won't be aware of the condition on a user, and simply block for a 3RR or breaking a probation on an article. Plus, mentors go away for a week or a few days, can no other admin block for simple infringements? It would seem to offer a problematic user a good deal of immunity. A better wording would not be to restrict admins from blocking, but encourage them to ask the mentor where that is suitable, and in all cases explicitly permit the mentor to review, remove or adjust any blocks on their own authority. That means that if the mentor isn't about, then the normal admin discipline would apply.--Scott Mac 10:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of standard so that people have to behave civilly to one another is a good idea. If its demeaning to editors then they shouldn't have been continually uncivil in the first place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First issue: During the time that an editor is subject to a special master, all other administrators will be prohibited from imposing blocks on that editor, except in emergency cases.—I personally would oppose that per Scott.
There is also another matter: As MastCell put it, "We take a fraction of the time and effort we're willing to spend on this rehab project, and instead spend it on supporting, encouraging, and retaining constructive editors." If the Committee decides that an editor's conduct is poor enough that a "special master" needs to be appointed but not so poor that they need to be banned, I think it would be far simpler to put them on 0RR and call it a day. NW (Talk) 20:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, 0RR doesn't deal with conduct problems on talk pages and in projectspace. More's the pity. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. Anyone that feels he is being uncivil reverts him and moves on. Bit harsh, sure, but if you want to avoid a ban, it is certainly an easier way to go. NW (Talk) 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some locations, you would almost certainly get some people objecting to that and reinstating the text. You might also get the original editor restoring the removed text with some changes to use more civil language, and then having it removed again, and so on in a cycle until (by collaborative editing?) an acceptable tone is reached. I can't see it working in practice, but I agree it is better than having a special master or mentor. More likely, the argument will move elsewhere. But I do see what you are getting at - it is a bit like a communal cold shoulder as the ultimate way to apply pressure to conform to community norms. In order to be heard, you have to be civil. But ultimately, everyone needs to be able to control themselves around here. One thing I am surprised at is that the venting MMN did on his talk page is still there. I suppose people are waiting for MMN to retract it himself, or something. Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my response to the proposal above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Master has a specific gender in English. It is also used to denote some kinds of sexual conduct. "Special" has a long history of euphemistic abuse. If you're proposing parole officers, then paint them bright pink; or, call them precisely what they are. For the later, "Conductor." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As said before, Special master is a very specific legal term and should only be read in that manner. That is not at the root of any problems I have with the suggestions with Kirill and I rather wish people would stop confusing the term with other things. SirFozzie (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is infact a term, the term is so socio-culturally specific—jargon even—that its use on an international encyclopaedia is somewhat of a red flag. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting not as a clerk, which I think I am entitled to do because of the potentially sweeping effects of this proposal) I quite understand why Kirill chose the term "special master", but it is too specialised for general application and would be misinterpreted. I therefore agree that this proposal must be renamed. Furthermore, I do not see how this differs very much from the failed Wikipedia:Mentorship program of c. 2006. MastCell, as quoted by NW above, summarises the problem with this quite well. If a user does not correct their behaviour after countless ANI threads, attempted interventions by uninvolved editors, and ArbCom admonishments, then I venture to say that Wikipedia would be better off without them, and that a ban would be the better option. Note that I absolutely have no specific user in mind, and certainly am not referring to MMN or any other party (which anyway, I may not do as a clerk); I am just thinking of potential generic applications of this proposal in future. AGK [•] 21:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles[edit]

Thinking of the project as a whole[edit]

1) When making judgments we should think of the project as a whole. If someone is a net benefit to the project, and the mistake is relatively minor we shouldn't worry about it too much.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We've adopted this principle in several recent cases, albeit usually with more ponderous phrasing and longer words. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I suspect that is a principle already applied at the stage the Arbs consider the Request for Arbitration (particularly the "relatively minor" bit). At this point, that horse is/should already be way out of the stable. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like either Sandstein's block or HJ Mitchell's unblock are particularly egregious and both actions look reasonable enough to me. We could take their actions super-seriously, but frankly chilling out about it seems a much more productive approach. Which is why I've proposed the remedies I have below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Agreed. I was thinking of the main subject. DeCausa (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was particularly clear about that :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing drama[edit]

2) Creating more drama than necessary is bad, and it drives people away from the project. Sometimes drama is inevitable, but if we can avoid it then we should.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Beverages are good[edit]

3) I think we can all agree that ~~beer~~ beverages or for those who abstain, the social aspects around responsible drinking are good.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given the multicultural nature of the project, I'd suggest replacing 'beer' with 'beverage'. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly opposed. I do not drink beer :-) Sandstein 16:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 10:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil done, but I think the aims of this one have been achieved :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) Mick has generally failed to follow the communities standards with regards to civility and collegiate behaviour that are required to be a net benefit to the project as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think you mean collegial, not collegiate; the latter means "belonging or relating to a college or its students", and college students are not always collegial. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

HJ Mitchell[edit]

1) HJ Mitchell should buy Sandstein one beer - either virtually or in real life - with another equivalent drink or product as substitute if required, as agreed between the two.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 10:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I suspect this may not be a serious proposal. AGK [•] 23:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, but I wasn't aware it was customary to fill up Arbcom case pages with frivolous drivel. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might get everyone to chill out. It seemed very tense when I made the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein[edit]

2) Sandstein should buy HJ Mitchell one beer - either virtually or in real life - with another equivalent drink or product as substitute if required, as agreed between the two.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 10:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I suspect this may not be a serious proposal. AGK [•] 23:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, but I wasn't aware it was customary to fill up Arbcom case pages with frivolous drivel. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee[edit]

3) Per Jimbo Wales' MickMacNee should be allowed to walk away from the project with dignity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If MickMacNee were to announce that he is retiring before this case gets too much older, in a credible fashion, then I would probably take his word for it and see no need for a formal decision about his behavior, at least unless and until he were to return. To that extent, whether to walk away at this point or see the process through is up to him. (I must immediately add that I don't think I speak for the whole committee on this point; several of my colleagues have historically been much more skeptical about retirements under these circumstances than I am.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

We should protect the dignity of all, even those who behave undignifiedly. But this would have happened, insofar as it was still possible, had my block not been callously undone. Then MickMacNee could have left with his pride intact as an innocent victim of me, the Evil Abusive Admin. Now he is also likely to be publicly excoriated by our highest authority, which I wish on nobody. Sandstein 17:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sandstein, you now suggest that one reason for the indef block of MMN was to prevent his public humiliation? Maybe MMN should buy you a beer:) - BorisG (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the blocking policy[edit]

4) The blocking policy should be improved by the community to ensure that blocks are applied more consistently by different admins.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think Sir Fozzie has a good point that this should be addressed primarily by the community, however I think having a statement from Arbcom stating that something needs to be done makes it less likely that the issue stalling into a no-consensus stalemate and it also avoids the need for a log trawl to find further examples of poor behaviour to satisfy those who argue that it should always be left up to administrator discretion. Thus the above proposal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a typical arbcom statement ("the Community is advised to...") would be far too weak, here. I'd prefer something a bit stronger, such as "the inconsistent application and enforcement of blocking policy has led to drama and inequities that detract from the core goals of the project. ArbCom strongly encourages the Community to address this matter as quickly as possible." At the same time, we don't want to be piling additional layers of bureaucracy on top of admins. This isn't going to be easy to fix, and there's a fairly high likelihood of it accomplishing absolutely nothing whatsoever, so starting it off on the right foot with some clear recommendations and an unequivocal description of the problem would go a long way towards getting something done. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately given the discussion on WT:BLOCK the next stage is to go through the log and gather evidence - oh the joy - but that looks like the next step - then if that evidence shows significant issues I guess we can progress from there.

The issue is that while there is a lot of smoke coming off from the blocking policy people seem to be unconvinced that its actually on fire. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because it works fine 90% of the time. The 10% where you have favoritism or hounding or vigilantism or wheel-warring that causes drama seems just rare enough so as not to be considered a major problem by many. The biggest issue I can see is with WP:CIVIL and the horribly inconsistent enforcement thereof. An inexperienced editor will get blocked for a week for calling someone a fucking asshole, but experienced and highly active editors will make a habit of being just slightly less of a prick and never get reprimanded. Just recently I was reading an RfC where an editor repeatedly referred to the argument of someone with whom he disagreed as "rhetorical tripe". This kind of low-level but ingrained twattery is far more disturbing to me than the occasional outburst from a new editor. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to work 10% of the time is a hell of a lot though really. Taking a look at the block log the 50 requests before the current 50 (as there are some auto-proxy blocks in the first 50) covers a period of around 2 hours. If even 1% of blocks are bad that means there are around 10 bad blocks a day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Strange Passerby[edit]

Proposed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Since he was extending my block, I can solidly assert that User:Sandstein didn't do anything that I wouldn't have done myself in that instance. When updating the AN3 report, I made it a point to mention that the block length might very well have been indefinite to begin with given the disproportionately extensive history of edit warring, but that the 72 hours would happily be extended if he continued to edit war. Upon seeing that MickMacNee publicly admitted that he clearly intended to resume edit warring ad infinitum until he got his way, I certainly would have increased the block length to indefinite myself until MickMacNee rescinded that threat, because it's a clear-cut case of a preventative block. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that Sandstein's extending of my block was exactly what I, personally, would have done had he not beaten me to it, and because of my comment on the AN3 close, it can be reasonably assumed that I gave every bit of suggestion that I'd condone another admin extending my block in a situation like the one which presented itself at the time. --slakr^\ talk / 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom have already established principles in other cases about block extensions in response to incivility and while there is a quick reaction in the short term to "threats", such extensions tend to be reversed by the Community in the long-term (if an admin has failed to do so by himself at that point) - much in the same way that HJM has effected. Additionally, if you would have "extended" (which indicates your intention of increasing the duration) the block without seeking input from ArbCom beforehand, or without waiting to see whether Mick actually does edit-war, this would apparently deprive MickMacNee of the ability to defend himself in these proceedings; you would in effect be substituting your own judgement, further exacerbating a concern/perception of injustice, and further disrupted the very purpose of this dispute resolution cycle (which several editors found more acceptable than through the Community noticeboards) - a lot of editors have made a lot of effort to bring it here (particularly so the conduct could be examined, the user could respond, and for a group of users to make a decision), but it seems a few users had decided to undermine what was hoped to be achieved here. I've only touched on a handful of the issues that your statement has presented and I'm not sure you understand the full effects of your statement here (including the apparent contradiction of the earlier statement: "I didn't want to have to deal with the pending arbcom case or whatnot"). Could you please clarify would you still would have made the extension at the time, though more importantly, whether you would still make such an extension if the same circumstances were presented in the future? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel that an extension of the block under those circumstances might not have been something that you, personally, would have done. However, I feel it important to note that it is something that at least I would have done. As a result, Sandstein's actions should not be considered, in any form, to constitute a wheel war. Furthermore, a block time of "indefinite" doesn't necessarily mean "infinite" and doesn't necessarily mean that a user is banned. Rather, it means that an admin feels that a block expiry time is inappropriate given a situation. A vandal-only account is indefinitely blocked until it demonstrates (e.g., via {{2ndchance}}) that it wishes to edit productively. It's only indefinitely blocked in the first place because the actions immediately preceding the block are obvious enough to suggest that an expiring block would result in continued vandalism. In the exact same way, at least as it would seem to my and Sandstein's eyes, someone threatening to continue edit warring—indefinitely—necessarily warrants an indefinite edit warring block, because a block with an expiry simply would not be appropriate with an outstanding threat of that nature, until the threat itself it was rescinded. --slakr^\ talk / 22:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that in this case, even if you knew beforehand that there was a good chance that the extension would be reversed in the way it was by HJM, you would have still gone ahead and imposed the "extension" like Sandstein anyway? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea; that's asking me to make a decision for a situation that would be impossible to happen, as I've never been able to predict the future. Things happened the way they happened, and my sole reason for posting here was to explain my take on the way things happened and my opinion regarding the interpretations of another editor on how they view the events. --slakr^\ talk / 04:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate why you are posting here, but the content of your posting(s) have provoked a very separate question which goes to administrator judgement; your "I'm not sure" seems like an indication of "if I was in identical circumstances today, I might still try to impose a block extension like Sandstein did, even though I know from this situation that the action will be reversed one way or another". If an administrator lacks the judgement to figure out (a) *why* care needs to be taken when dealing with certain circumstances (particularly after noticing a block log of this sort) and (b) *why* an extraordinary amount of effort was taken to bring it to ArbCom (rather than simply deal with it through standard Community noticeboard or the means of an individual admin's tools), then there's a problem. Unlike Sandstein, you don't have a pattern of problematic admin conduct and judgement which has repeatedly caused needless escalation/disruption and (2) resulted in the issue being arbitrated already (resulting in the Committee advising the admin to avoid conduct enforcement when it relates to arbitration); I think with time, you'll figure out the underlying point of this, even if you do not fully understand right now. In the case of Sandstein however, there is much more to it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously free to infer whatever you'd like from my lack of response to your hypothetical. I can't attest to its validity, however, since I couldn't accurately answer it in the first place. See also historian's fallacy and hindsight bias. Furthermore, I feel that in this particular situation, I've explained to the best of my ability why I believe that this proposed finding of fact is not necessarily warranted in this particular situation, and I understand why you disagree based on your prior experience with issues related to Sandstein. --slakr^\ talk / 07:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire basis upon which you were commenting (with such certainty) was from the perspective of a hypothetical; namely, what you would have done and agreed to if you were online at the time (seeing you actually weren't there to impose the extension in time). Yet by your own admission, you apparently lack an answer on whether you would still do the same thing again (after knowing that this type of block will be lifted in this way). Regarding why you have no accurate answer or certainty on the matter, I understand that you say the situation is impossible to happen and you cannot predict the future, but I guess that's the crux of this disagreement. I think it's reasonable to ask of any sysop with regards to their propensity and judgement; if a sysop has the ability to know what he would have done a day ago in such circumstances, and then the sysop learns of the consequences, he would also have the ability to know whether he would still do it when identical circumstances presented themselves today (or if he would approach the case differently after he has been made aware it is not so straightforward). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block was extended clearly to prevent further disruption. Sandstein is often too quick to issue blocks, but this one is not such a case, for the user clearly threatenned disruption unless blocked indefinitely. Perhaps it was possible to predict (based on past experience with previous unblocks of that user) that one admin or another will reverse that action, but if admins start taking into account such past experiences, they will never block any established editors, or editors with many friends etc. The fact that there has been no disruption since then proves nothing. Perhaps we can give a medal to users who have not created any disruption for an entire week! Likewise, an idea that users participating in an ArbCom case are immune from admin action and thus are free to cause disruption and drama elsewhere is preposterous. - BorisG (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We neither use blocks to punish users for their behavior nor do we use them as "medals" to praise their behavior. By one point, simply saying "I was preventing something" is really not good enough. That part of blocking policy doesn't exist so you can frame an agenda in the form of an excuse; it exists because it is fundamental and at the very heart of the circumstances where blocking is to be used. A lack of disruption since then proved that the extension *actually* prevented nothing; the original block was sufficient to address the issue. Reactionary measures to reactions by a frustrated blocked user have rarely (if ever) led to positive results, and this type of thing has been subject to arbitration in the past; in those cases, it's never been endorsed by the prior ArbComs, and I don't why this ArbCom should be here either. That the reactionary measure was imposed by an admin who was involved is what this matter that much worse.

I'll also note an interesting contrast that can be seen from the other user who was involved in this incident; he went out of way to accept the part that his comments may have played in sparking the conflict and felt that it should have been handled differently so as to not provoke this type of reaction (which again, given the history of events, was predictable and led to the need to examine this). That user could have very easily insisted for the sake of appearing in the right that the blocks were needed and to keep them; instead, he asked for the blocks to be lifted because he acknowledged that they were unhelpful. That is, he actively took steps to resolve the issues rather than use these proceedings as an excuse to litigate against an admin who took the initiative to overturn an unnecessary action.

Admins who have decided to appoint themselves in the role of cowboy police commissioner, whose blocks must never be touched, disagreed with, or overturned, are not going to be welcomed by the Community in this role (or similar roles for that matter). They would never have elected an admin if they placed this sort of condition in an RFA too. If an admin is causing as much further and unnecessary escalation as possible and shows all signs of continuing along a path which is counter to what the project is actually about, that becomes a problem. This becomes even more problematic if the admin does not appear to be receptive to feedback from their peers and others, and does not appear to be learning from experience. This is why ArbCom have been given the ability to impose actual binding measures - to finally resolve such ongoing problems rather than let them continue from month to month. Unfortunately, the countless arbitration matters involving this admin have failed to produce the desired results, and simply ignoring all of the relevant circumstances here (just because it is convenient to some) is not going to fly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as it is the remit of an admin to make an unilateral unblock or variation of a block, so it is within the responsibility of any admin to sanction an editor in the interests of the community - as perceived by that sysop. Policy explicitly notes that this is part of the responsibility of having admin rights, and part of why the process of choosing admins is so robust. Unless it can be shown that Sandstein acted in bad faith, then their actions were within policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell has wheel-warred with Sandstein[edit]

2) In undoing Sandstein's indefinite block of MickMacNee without discussion with him and without community consensus at WP:ANI, HJ Mitchell wheel-warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would not use the precise term wheel warring here. A while back, I proposed a change to the policy that states undoing an administrative action without consensus or the ok of the other admin was wheel-warring, to get rid of what I termed the "second-mover advantage", but the change unfortunately did not stick. However, this does not clear the action itself as it caused more drama, and was done A) Without contacting the administrator involved, and B) AGAINST an active, ongoing consensus in the ANI thread Sandstein proactively opened to look at the administrative action taken. So it's not wheel warring by the current policy definition,, but no where near what we expect of administrators. SirFozzie (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it would be even worse than <redacted> and again gives the moral high ground to whoever got to the block button first. <redacted> GovCom needs to curb its enthusiasm for limiting admins' ability to use judgement at every opportunity it gets. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what's at issue here, HJ, is that you apparently didn't use your judgment. — Coren ^(talk) 14:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed "Well, I disagree, and I disagree with the consensus" is not a valid "judgement" call. SirFozzie (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted>HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Wheel-warring is a term that's used a lot to refer to the reversal of an admin action, almost always by people who disagree with that reversal. However, the definition in our policy is "reinstating a reversed action". Since no action was reversed until I reversed Sandstein, a wheel war would not have occurred unless somebody else reversed my reversal. To draw a comparison with a non-admin action, an edit war doesn't occur when B reverts A, but when A or anybody else reverts B's revert. This proposal is based either on a misunderstanding of policy or a desire to rewrite it, which is not within the remit of GovCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he didn't - per HJ above. Rd232 public ^talk 18:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not, per policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee has been disruptively using Wikipedia as a personal battleground[edit]

3) MickMacNee has repeatedly escalated content disagreements into personal battles and disruptively so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

All administrators advised[edit]

1) All administrators are advised against making conduct-based blocks that are not immediately necessary, such as when there is an active Arbitration Committee case involving the blocked user's conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, in lieu of a proposal specifically targetted at HJ Mitchell or Sandstein. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal up to the comma mark, and not the example provided (nor, likely, any others); necessary is the only consideration required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All administrators reminded[edit]

2) All administrators are reminded of the need to respect community consensus and to not undo another administrator's actions without such consensus or the other administrator's agreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This begs a perennial question that I have raised in several places over the years and have never seen definitively answered (though it does not quite describe the facts of this case). Administrator A blocks User:X. Administrator B disagrees with the block but, rather than unblock unilaterally, brings the matter to ANI for review. After a well-conducted discussion with good points on both sides, half the commenters opine that it was a good block and should stand, and half the commenters opine that it was a bad block and should be undone. Is the correct action to leave X blocked (because there is no consensus to unblock), or to unblock X (because unblockness is the default state and there is no consensus supporting the block)? Now, whatever your preferred answer to that riddle, how would our adopting this proposed principle affect it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree that it is more important to establish general rules preventing the repetition of such drama than to target remedies at individuals (other than at MickMacNee). However, much as I would welcome a rule that admin actions may not be undone without consensus or agreement, we do not have such a rule, and so the Committee cannot remind us of it. I have drafted some much less stringent proposals below. Sandstein 10:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@newyorkbrad: consensus should be required to make a sanction stand, if the sanction is substantively contested (by an editor in good standing not subject to the sanction). If after a reasonable period the community cannot agree that the sanction is merited, it should be withdrawn or replaced by something the community can agree on. This should be an obvious principle of natural justice, but somehow WP has evolved to give undue respect to an initial administrative action, such that community consensus is required to overturn it. This is obviously bad policy/practice, encouraging precipitate fait accompli actions by any of the 1000+ admins over community discussion, even when it's pretty likely that an action will be contentious and result in discussion. I've proposed some related policy amendments at WT:BLOCK. Rd232 public ^talk 19:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, in lieu of a proposal specifically targetted at HJ Mitchell or Sandstein. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could add "or modify" after undo. The extension or reduction of blocks can be problematic as well. If you look at the period of May 2011 in MickMacNee's block log, there is a reduction of a block by a sitting arbitrator (who is recused in this case). The reason given (which I tend to agree with) was "Reducing to 24 hrs, per apparently overwhelming consensus. I can't see any valid reason given for 2 weeks." The 'reason' for the block length, as given in the log, was "Escalation of period (should probably be longer)". This is a common case of people not being quite sure what block length to give to a long-term editor. Some will hand out long blocks. Others will say they should be shorter. Some throw their hands up in despair and say "block indefinitely". The point at which people's patience runs out varies from person to person. That leads to great confusion in community discussions, and difficulty in getting consensus settled on a block length. It would probably be useful if someone did a proper analysis of MickMacNee's block log, with links to the discussions surrounding each block. That is the heart of this case, IMO. The context surrounding each block should be what the arbitrators look at, and then the overall record weighed up, along with MickMacNee's conduct during the arbitration case (which hasn't been great so far, but he has time to show a better side to himself). Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "finding of fact" needs more thought. I quite often undo another administrator's actions without consensus and without discussing it with them. (Usually unprotecting things which no longer need protection.) This is perfectly fine as it is uncontroversial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, policy does not support this - and for good reason. A revert of abusive or simply bad first block need not be referred to the blocking admin, as they are part of the problem. Equally, an abusive or simply bad unblock/variation is an issue in which the second admin should not need to be consulted, but the overturn of that second action largely depends on the subsequent actions of the blocked/unblocked party. If that editor continues to violate policy (and they are also in the position of being warned by the fact of the original block) then another admin is likely to apply a suitable sanction - making any revert by all but an abusive admin extremely unlikely - but if they comply with Wikipedia practices then there is no reason for the variation to be overturned until after discussion (including, of course, whether the subsequent actions by the account necessitate the reapplication of the original sanction). I, and a few others, looked into this issue very hard a few years back, following a disagreement on the application of Wikipedia:Wheel war, and we found that the status quo provides the best safeguards against the abusive use of sanctions - although not perfect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, in the hypothetical situation Brad proposed, an even split should default to unblock on general principles per Rd232. This proposed remedy would change that, and as such shouldn't be enacted as worded, as it implies a presumption of guilt in this edge case. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee placed on probation[edit]

3) MickMacNee is placed on general probation for a period of 6 months, during which time if in the opinion of two uninvolved administrators in good standing he is found to have disrupted Wikipedia by any means (including using it as a battleground), he may be blocked for up to two weeks. After 3 blocks, if any two uninvolved administrators in good standing finds him to still be disruptive, MickMacNee may be banned for up to 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't speak for anyone but myself here, but I think that probation would be excessively light for this situation, especially with some of the post block comments that were made (Yes, we give blocked users a little room to vent, but this went several miles beyond what is minimally allowable). SirFozzie (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree with Jimbo Wales that MickMacNee and the project have shown not to be mutually compatible by now, and that they need to part company permanently and with dignity. Sandstein 10:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Proposing the max block at two weeks as I don't think a 24- or 72-hour block would make much difference to Mick. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is too lenient, if Mick isn't going to walk away from the project he needs a real block, i.e. something of at least 3 months, ideally 6 months or a year. This should be done if only to show that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. To give him a fair number of chances, which this does means that he's being given a lot of extra chances with no real punishment. If after the end of a block of at least 3 months he gets put on probabiton/attack probation for a further 6 months/1 year that seems like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee placed on personal attack parole[edit]

3) MickMacNee is placed on personal attack parole for a time of 1 year, during which time he is not to make any comment that could reasonably be construed as a negative personal comment against another editor. If in the opinion of two uninvolved administrators in good standing he is found to have made such comments, even if retracted, he may be blocked for up to two weeks. After 3 blocks, if in the opinion of any two uninvolved administrators in good standing MickMacNee has made further such comments, he may be banned for up to 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As above. Sandstein 10:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Sandstein[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Elevated common standard of conduct required[edit]

1) Because of their different age, cultural and professional background, Wikipedians have different expectations about Wikipedia's working environment and different opinions about the minimal level of appropriate conduct that is to be observed. But the collaborative nature of Wikipedia requires the observance of a common standard of conduct, and the scholarly and serious nature of an encyclopedia project require that this standard is not merely the lowest common denominator, as may be the case on other internet fora, but an elevated standard on the order of the professional culture prevailing in the management of large enterprises or government authorities, or in academic fora.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, to explain the statements concerning problems with the lowest common denominator issue below. Sandstein 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"an elevated standard on the order of the professional culture prevailing in the management of large enterprises or government authorities." Management? Why don't we simply import one set of norms external to the project wholesale. Looking at Foucault briefly, I, for one, would prefer to be torn limb from limb in public by horses than to be change managed in a synergistic manner while moving forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detrimental effects of a lack of an effective common standard of conduct[edit]

2) Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia project, is vitally dependent on qualified specialists contributing to our articles. Many of them are disinclined to work in an environment where misconduct such as edit-warring or personal attacks is common and unsanctioned. Such misconduct is therefore detrimental not only because of its immediate disruptive effect, but also because it frustrates the project's goals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An indication of this effect may be the fact that we have good coverage of topics that groups of people with a relatively high tolerance for conflict (notably young male students) tend to like (such as warfare, computers and popular entertainment) but a relatively poor coverage of social and social science topics, which are often associated with the interests of groups of people who are normally less confrontative, such as women and adult professionals. The overly high tolerance of confrontativeness in Wikipedia may therefore also in part explain the gender gap among contributors (something like 70% of Wikipedians are men, I believe). Sandstein 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Extremely strong point. Goes a long way to expalining the different "camps" on this issue. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Uneven observation and ineffective enforcement of conduct requirements[edit]

1) The minimal levels of acceptable conduct specified by the project's behavioral policies, let alone the community's broader expectations of collegiality among editors, are often not observed, including by a minority of longtime editors and administrators. Such misconduct is frequently not met with measures that would lastingly prevent its recurrence, either because (a) dispute resolution attempts are not even made because of their perceived futility, (b) relatively few administrators have the inclination and the intestinal fortitude to attempt the often-controversial enforcement of conduct standards, and (c) such attempts as are made are relatively often frustrated, notably through unblocks, by administrators who place a lesser value on conduct requirements or their enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. An example of this ineffectiveness is provided by MickMacNee's block log. Sandstein 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

My issue here is with the term "lesser value" when it may more AGF'ly be described as different. One admin may think that strident criticism of the interpretation of a policy that lead to a sanction to be indicative of the critics inability to conform to expected WP practice, where another admin may consider the critics points to have reasonable grounds for complaint. I should prefer not to see any standard other than "in pursuit of the best interests of the project" be placed on the actions of any administrator in the execution of their responsibilities (and I try to work to that ethic myself when I disagree with the actions of other sysops). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably more an issue of the blocking policy not really working properly, but you do need to enforce these things reasonably evenly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do, according to our understanding of policy and how an accounts actions may be violating it. The rare instances of bad blocks and unblocks are the extreme, but I would suggest that there are very few admin actions that would have unanimous support among the sysop community (and perhaps impossible among the wider community) but nearly all admins accept that the rest are acting honestly according to their understanding (which is why all admins tend to support their fellow sysops in most cases, as it is recognised that while individuals may differ in "how" nearly everyone understands the "why".) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct requirements are enforced only to the lowest common denominator[edit]

2) The enforcement of a common standard of conduct is particularly frustrated by the following dynamic: Because of the differences in opinions and backgrounds, as mentioned above, attempts at enforcing the required elevated standard of conduct are frequently controversial. Especially if they involve an established editor, it is statistically likely that an administrator who is among the minority of editors who prefer relatively low conduct standards, or who is sympathetic to the editor who behaves problematically, objects to the enforcement attempt. Because Wikipedia's blocking policy provides that blocks can be undone essentially at will, but not reinstated because of the wheel-warring rule, the practical effect of this is that an enforcement measure has lasting preventative effect only if it conforms to the lowest common denominator of administrator opinion (i.e., if none among the 1,400 administrators objects to it), rather to the common standard of conduct. This veto power of every individual administrator also has the effect that editors who have several active friends (even if these are in a minority overall), or editors who hold popular views, are substantially less likely to be lastingly prevented from engaging in misconduct than unknown editors or those with unpopular views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. An example of this dynamic in action can also be seen in MickMacNee's block log. Sandstein 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See the talk page for an in depth reply to this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point Eraserhead makes on the talk page. Sandstein is correct that admin actions should follow a common expectation as regards conduct, but you have to have checks and balances to prevent either extreme emerging, both editors that are too readily unblocked, and editors that are too easily kept blocked due to the blocking admin stalling on the issue (or admins who hand out excessive indefinite blocks when something else could be tried first). Related to this is the degree to which some people are tolerant and have patience. Some admins and editors are only tolerant to a point, and soon switch to longer blocks and/or indefinite blocks. Other admins and editor are willing to try other methods first. The treatment an individual gets, and the speed at which escalation occurs, depends largely on which admins chose to get involved, and which people turn up at 'community' discussions. Some editors (based on what they see happen elsewhere) expect slow escalation and lots of second chances, and are outraged when they don't get this. A common standard for escalation and when to make the step to an indefinite block would help. The degree to which previous blocks should be taken into account is also problematic. Some people look down a block log and go "long = bad", when you actually need to look at the context of each block. When discussing a block log, it should be compulsory to link not to the block log, but to the discussions pertaining to each block. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think improvements to the block policy to be clearer about expected durations is a great idea and better than my suggestion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals I make below do not prevent an unblock in the event of the blocking admin stalling. Personally, I believe that fixed block durations should be abandoned altogether, at least for repeated disruption, because fixed durations promote a punitive approach to blocking, in the sense that one gets lightly "punished" with short blocks for low-level disruption and heavily "punished" with long blocks for more serious disruption. That is wrong. Blocks should be focused on preventing future disruption, not punishing past misconduct. And the way to do this is to unblock as soon as the blocked user understands the problem, and not after a random fixed period of time. But this is somewhat beside the point, which is the influence of (un)blocking dynamics on the levels of observed misconduct. Sandstein 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a persuasive case for the duration of blocks to be much less variable than they are now. Something like 24 hours and indefinite, as all the options in-between seem to just cause endless arguments. Also, if admins only had the options for 24-hour blocks or indefinite blocks, they would probably think much more about their blocks. There would, however, have to be much more attention paid to unblock appeals, and as Scott points out, you would have to get community consensus, not legislate through ArbCom. The other problem is you end up in cycles of demands for apologies and contrition, which would be followed by false promises and false contrition. In some cases, it really is better for people to not discuss a block and just to sit it out and come back calmer and wiser after the event. In those cases, if an indefinite block was applied, the advice would be to request an unblock after a day or after a week. However, the fact that the block is indefinite can have varying effects. Some users would get angry and dig themselves deeper into a hole. Others would just leave and never come back. And so on. It is impossible to generalise in a community this diverse. It would help if more statistics were available, of course. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues that you guys have missed is that forcing a user to lose face and admit they've screwed up for a first/second offence shouldn't be needed - obviously if they don't admit the issue then they should get a longer block than if they do admit their flaws but they shouldn't get a ridiculously harsh block for a first/second offence just because they didn't want to lose face.

I also find that when dealing with vandals if you escalate the warnings sensibly you almost always avoid having to block the user. If you handed out a 24 hour block for a first offence where do you go for the second offence? Indefinite still seems excessive, so I wouldn't be able to escalate the block term for that second offence.

What I'd like to see is say 24-48 hours for the first offence and then double/triple that time until you get to the 3th/4th offence, at which point an RFC/U seems reasonable, and if that doesn't work Arbcom for a 3 month-12 month block. If you then get back to Arbcom again, probably an indefinite ban is the way to go. If that (or something similar) was codified in the blocking policy we'd be in a much better position than we are now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user does not necessarily need to admit that they screwed up. They just need to convince us that they won't do it again, whatever they may think about it. I'm ready to unblock a user who tells me: "You're completely wrong, I was entirely justified to revert fifteen times, and you're a dictatorial control freak, but if I'm not unblocked otherwise I'll agree under protest to no longer do it." All that matters is effective compliance, even though an actual understanding of policy is of course preferable. Evidently, after the second or third incident, such statements are no longer convincing. Sandstein 08:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well "effective compliance" was reached much earlier in the case I'm talking about than the user was unblocked and there have been no issues since either. If you want some diffs for this stuff I'm happy to provide them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have an issue with language here. Block reductions and unblocking are not actions taken because a sysop has "lower" or "softer" standards of appropriate behaviour in regard to the actions of the sanctioned editor, but because they believe that there are issues with the original sysop action. Just, as Sandstein correctly points out, the subsequent unblock or block variation is a unilateral one so in the vast majority of cases is the initial block (in fact, undoing a sanction arrived at following a consensus provided by a discussion by the community or arbcom is so rare as to be ignored - that action becoming a basis of an examination of the fitness of the admin concerned) and this is one of the checks and measures built into the system. Only after a unilateral block under interpretation of WP policy and a unilateral unblock under a differing rationale of the same does the matter go to the community to decide upon. I would not care to have only the first instance to be permitted to be at the discretion of one solitary (and fallible) sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell[edit]

Withdrawn per agreement with HJ Mitchell. Sandstein 21:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Restriction on reverting conduct enforcement measures[edit]

1) To ensure the effective enforcement of conduct requirements, administrators are restricted from undoing administrative actions taken with the stated purpose of ensuring compliance with the project's conduct requirements, except:

if they have acquired the conviction, following a comprehensive and written review of the circumstances and normally an attempt at discussion with the editors who took and who are affected by the actions, that the actions were not necessary to prevent misconduct, or are no longer necessary because the affected editors have demonstrated that they (now) understand the applicable standards and have credibly asserted that they will observe them henceforth; or
if a community discussion has demonstrated consensus that the actions were not necessary or are no longer necessary as specified above; or
with the consent of the administrator who took the actions or the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the community (and the Committee) needs to look seriously at reducing the second-mover advantage built into our wheel war policy. As I said above, while HJ Mitchell's reduction was not technically wheel warring, to do so against an active ongoing consensus to maintain the block makes it very unpalatable to me. Especially when there was 30 plus hours remaining on the reduced term, HJ Mitchell had plenty of time to either A) Talk to Sandstein to attempt to get the block reduced, or B) Go and try to get the consensus that the lengthening of the block was valid (at that time) changed. He did neither. SirFozzie (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on Strange Passerby's second proposed remedy, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I am aware that there is (regrettably) currently no community consensus for a general requirement of "discuss before unblocking". My proposal, therefore, continues to allow unilateral unblocks (or unprotections etc), but does require that these be made with a minimum of forethought and normally (i.e., except in cases of obvious error) at least with a genuine attempt at communication. Essentially, I believe that the danger to the project from continuing to tolerate frequent misconduct outweighs the danger arising from the inconvenience of making poorly thought-out administrative measures slightly more time-consuming to undo. Sandstein 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make it difficult to unblock (by which I presume you also mean alter the duration of a block), then you should make it at least as difficult to place the block in the first place. But this just reinforces the ludicrous suggestion that the moral high ground belongs to the first one who reached for the block button. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you do that how do you handle vandalism only accounts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is Sandstein trying to revise my unblocking of Mickmacnee some months ago. He presents it as "unilateral" (which is was not) without discussion (which is was not) and a simple reverse/wheel-war of his action (which it was not). His original blocking was fair, but the review of it did not demonstrate any consensus for a "community ban". I mediated with Mick and got assurances of better behaviour, and unblocked because those assurances changed the situation, and per WP:ROPE. (It does now looks as if Mick may have indeed hung himself, but that does not invalidate what I did (and did with the support of other administrators)). As Sandstein says, there is no consensus for "discuss before unblocking" (although I did discuss, just not with him) and given that lack of consensus, the Committee would be well advised to stay away from the policy creation he is inviting here. Sandstein is a "block 'em hard" enforcement guy (as is quite evident) but he can't now get policy changed to mean his blocks need to stick. A community ban means a situation where no other admin will unblock. If there's not a clear consensus for a community ban, then those wanting someone banned need to let it go, or come to arbcom.--Scott Mac 14:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not go into the details of that particular disagreement, although I disagree with both your judgment (in taking this sort of "assurance" from a user with this kind of record even remotely seriously) and your description of events. The main problem seems to be that we have different (good-faith) perspectives about the use of the block tool. You appear to believe that an indefinite block should only ever be applied in the case of a community ban - so much so that you refer to my indefinite blocks as attempts to impose a community ban. I believe that this is not so. The difference between a ban and an indefinite block is that a block can (and should) be lifted at any time when it is no longer needed to prevent damage, whereas a ban is a definitive removal from the project. But, crucially, a block (of any length) should only be lifted if the blocked user recognizes that he has done something wrong and convinces us that it will not happen again. Such recognition has been notably absent, so far, on the part of MickMacNee. Now I agree that your approach - unblock readily because a reblock can also easily happen in the event of further disruption - is one possible way to do it. But I believe that it is a suboptimal approach, because it forces us to go through potentially infinite iterations of the same script: disruption-drama-block-drama-unblock-drama. This, and the associated damage to the project, can be avoided if blocks for repeated disruption are normally indefinite and are only lifted when the blocked user convinces us that he gets it, rather than sulk and shout and wait for the block to expire. I am not advocating for my (or anyone else's) blocks to "stick", as such, but I am convinced that a careless unblock without credible assurances has the potential to be very damaging. That's why I propose rules to ensure that unblocks are made with a bit more forethought and care. Perhaps we administrators should also recognize that because we all have somewhat different (and mostly equally valid) approaches to our job, we need to agree not to get in each other's way too much - that is, I let you deal with the problems you have decided to tackle the way you prefer, but I ask you to extend the same courtesy to me. Sandstein 14:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used your judgement to block. Fine. I, after having a discussion with Mick that led me to think there was a reasonable chance he'd "got it", used mine to unblock. The problem is that you seem to OWN the block and take it as "your case". No, once you've blocked someone it is for others to decide what happens next. Same when I unblocked, it was for others to make the next call. Who was in whose way? As I say, if you want a change to the blocking policy, propose it and get a consensus: not legislation via arbcom.--Scott Mac 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what I actually propose above, it has nothing to do with owning blocks. It would not even have prevented you from unblocking MickMacNee when you did. It would have simply expected you to merely attempt discussing the matter with me first, and to provide brief reasons why you thought there are good reasons to believe that no further disruption would be forthcoming. That's not very burdensome. Sandstein 15:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing invites arbcom to be "govcom" - so best to propose it at WP:VPP and not here. As for the rest, I agree with HJ Mitchell, the heavier burden should fall on the blocker. If blocking is so easy, it shouldn't be necessary to stroke your ego before overturning it.--Scott Mac 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the heavier burden of justification should fall on the unblocker, because he possibly enables continued disruption (with its broader toxic side-effects, see the proposed principles above), while the blocker prevents it. The principal duty of an administrator is preventing damage and disruption to the project, not to cater to the egos and goals of people who are here to play a MMORPG. And if you do think that the only possible benefit of communicating with a colleague would be to stroke their ego, you are ill suited not only to the position of administrator, but to any position in a collaborative project. Sandstein 08:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do now notice that on another occasion where HJ Mitchell undid your own protection of MickMcNee's talk page without discussion, you yourself (rightly) complained about it and told HJ Mitchell: "undoing an admin action without a hint of discussion is disruptive and likely to get you desysopped". Your apparent position that if somebody undoes your action without discussion it warrants a desysop, but if it happens to others it's nothing to be concerned about, is ... not entirely consistent. Sandstein 16:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: This has nothing to do with "moral high ground."

We don't want bad blocks any more than we want bad unblocks. The question is how to best go about preventing either from occurring, which tends to be a balancing act of sorts.

I agree with Sandstein that "the danger to the project from continuing to tolerate frequent misconduct outweighs the danger arising from the inconvenience of making poorly thought-out administrative measures slightly more time-consuming to undo." Quite simply, prompt blocking (which halts disruptive behavior that otherwise would continue) is more important than prompt unblocking.

In 2007, I was blocked by an editor with whom I was engaged in a good-faith content dispute. The block (later ruled "inappropriate" by the ArbCom) was unilaterally lifted by another administrator approximately three minutes later. While the latter action obviously benefited me, I'm confident that a community discussion would have resulted in the same outcome, albeit with some delay (which I'd gladly have tolerated if this standard were applied across the board).

However, I agree with Scott MacDonald that the ArbCom has neither the responsibility nor the authority to create new policy. This matter is best addressed by the community. —David Levy 21:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that seems appropriate, except for the case I highlight on the talk page where it drags on for two weeks rather than 3 minutes and involves threats of going to Arbcom to get it reversed. If you make it harder to get the block reversed then that's going to make it even harder for less popular users to get unblocked, which is definitely bad when the blocking admin screws up. What we need to do is to stop both extremes with some general guidance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the case you refer to, but I don't see why it could not have been solved in little time by an unblock by another administrator. Such unblocks are not forbidden, neither by the current rules nor by my proposal. My proposal does not want to make unblocks harder, but only to ensure that administrators make them with a minimum of forethought and care to increase the chances that an unblock is beneficial rather than detrimental to the encyclopedia (as the previous unblocks of MickMacNee have evidently been given his repeated relapses into disruption). For this reason, while I agree (and have said elsewhere) that ArbCom has no authority to make policy, they do have the authority to clarify the application of existing policy, particularly concerning the duties of administrators, if a non-uniform understanding or application of policy leads to constant disputes. They are, after all, a dispute resolution body. Sandstein 08:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, but even though unblock requests were made it wasn't solved in that way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm right as to the block you are referring to, the reduction in block time has nothing whatsoever to do with your threat to go to arbcom. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? I reduced the block to time served because he admitted to the sockpuppetry and agreed to never do it again in response to Fences' question. Nothing more. T. Canens (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case why wasn't that question asked on day one? Why did it take threatening to go to Arbcom for that question to get asked? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask Fences why he asked those questions, though I seriously doubt that has anything to do with your arbcom threat. Might I remind you that he repeatedly denied socking with some fanciful stories about expatriates and roommates and such? Only when Fences made clear that he didn't believe those stories at all did he finally admit it. Oh, and we don't normally ask sockpuppeteers to explain themselves before blocking them; they need to explain the socking before they can get unblocked, not the other way around. T. Canens (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what he said, you could still have asked the questions Fences did much earlier in the process. You didn't need to wait for Fences to ask them. And while he said he wouldn't use multiple accounts in the future, in the end he didn't actually admit to having used sockpuppetry beforehand.

That's the key point here, what counts is how people agree to behave going forward - initially we should cut the user some slack, as in the end was done here, but after a number of blocks we should be less forgiving even if we personally like the individual. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you admit to using more than one Wikipedia account? Yes/No". Indeed. Interesting how you missed the first question in the list.

Why should I ask someone to admit that they have done X if they had already repeatedly denied it already? Abusive sockpuppetry is by definition intentional, which is why SPI does not even require notice. There's no innocent explanation for it. They sock, they get blocked, and it's their responsibility, should they desire to get unblocked, to persuade us that the disruption will not resume, not the other way around. T. Canens (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He had actually already admitted that, as he had used one additional account in good faith.

Tim if you're going to continue to stand here and say that you think indefinite blocks are acceptable for first time offences and that you aren't prepared to give them a reasonable chance to get out of it then I'm really quite concerned - obviously those concerns need to be raised elsewhere but still. I thought it was a one off screw up... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the particular type and circumstances of the offense. User:Ecoleetage was speedy-banned immediately after the offense (he called an editor's employer to try to get him in trouble), for good reason. Occasional screw ups such as a 3RR violation is qualitatively different from socking. T. Canens (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite for a first time offence is still excessive unless they do something utterly outrageous like what Ecoleetage did. Sockpuppeting isn't in the same league as that. Even edit warring is actually fairly serious, as you have to breach 3 reverts in 24 hours to get blocked for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there is nothing within the wording that allows the undoing of an abusive or plain bad block, (per the comments I have provided above). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility of administrators unilaterally undoing conduct enforcement actions[edit]

2) An administrator who unilaterally undoes an administrative action stated to be necessary to ensure compliance with the project's conduct requirements is responsible for speedily addressing any reports that are brought to their attention about continued misconduct by the previously affected editors, as long as the administrator is active on Wikipedia. The administrator is particularly responsible for taking appropriate action to prevent the continuation of the misconduct. Should they fail to speedily respond to the reports or to take appropriate action, the taking of such action by others is not considered wheel-warring. This remedy does not apply to actions undone non-unilaterally, that is, pursuant to clear community consensus, or by consent of the previously acting administrator or the Arbitration Committee. That Committee may sanction administrators who repeatedly fail to assume these responsibilities, just as it may sanction administrators who repeatedly take inappropriate administrative actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed to introduce a balance of responsibilities. An admin who (correctly) blocks a disruptive editor has thereby demonstrated that they are willing to assume the responsibilities of their job, but an admin who unblocks has not (yet) done so. Because the job of an administrator is to help protect the project from damage, and an unblock introduces at least the possibility of continued damage, the only way for an unblocking administrator to assume his responsibilities is to be ready to take action should continued damage ensue. Sandstein 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An administrator who unilaterally undoes ~~an administrative action~~ one of my administrative actions" - there, fixed that for you. Rd232 public ^talk 19:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP comment removed. AGK [•] 23:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not practical. Sandstein, have you ever unblocked another editor after an unblock request on their talk page? If so, do you consider yourself responsible for that editor forever more? The expectation is that if disruptive behaviour resumes, any admin can act on subsequent reports. But you have to wait until new sanctionable conduct takes place. To make this clearer, if editor A is blocked for action T, and admin X blocks him, and then editor A apologies for and retracts action T and requests an unblock and that is granted by admin Y with a warning not to do it again, then editor A repeats that action, or a similar action, then admin X would be free to reblock and that would not be wheel-warring because it would be a new block. What would be wheel-warring would be if editor A resumed editing peacefully or had not resumed editing, and admin X reimposed the block without discussion because they disagreed with the unblock. The correct course of action is to discuss. Whether the blocking admin needs to be contacted following an unblock request on the talk page is arguable - for a truly independent review, you shouldn't need to contact the blocking admin, or should do so in such a way that the independence of the review is not threatened. But the blocking admin may be able to correct misleading statements made by the blocked editor, or have other information that is needed to reach a decision. What is vital is that if the blocking admin will be unavailable between the time of blocking and when the block expires, that they indicate somewhere whether overturning the block would need a discussion or not. Some admins are happy for their actions to be overturned and then discussed, others insist on discussion before their actions are overturned. It largely depends on the exact circumstances. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have unblocked many users, and yes, I am ready to address problems with their conduct if somebody asks me to. That's basically all that I propose here; not very much of a burden. I agree that administrators have different expectations about being contacted for discussion, and it seems this is part of the problem. I do expect to be consulted before an unblock simply as a matter of collegial courtesy, and consider that failing to do so is very rude behavior, but I am aware that many others administrators do not have the same expectation. Unless we all agree on the same approach, which is not likely, it is probably best simply to respect each other's preferences when these are known. Sandstein 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has constantly tried to argue that by assuming good faith and unblocking Mick after assurances that I was forever after responsible for him. This to the point of demanding I reblock 8 months later. This is quite simply designed to have a "chilling effect" on unblocking. If an unblock is wrongheaded, get a consensus to reblock or go to arbcom. I unblocked Mick in the hope of good future behaviour, I was not naive enough to believe that to be a certainly, or even a probability, just a possibility worth a try. I unblocked in the knowledge that if I was proved wrong, it would be easy enough for one of 1400 admin to reblock, and the [{WP:ROPE]] would tend to make things clearer. Indeed, after having done so, I believed it better NOT to take further admin action concerning Mick. No user is the responsibility of any one user (unless, of course, it is Sandstein.)--Scott Mac 14:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott: "Commissioner" remark deleted. Please avoid the sarcasm. AGK [•] 23:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would imply that every unblock or variation is in regard to a belief that the sanction (or its original tariff) is no longer required to improve the standard of conduct of the blocked party. In respect of the greater majority of my unblocks, few though they are, they were made in the belief that the blocking administrator was in error or acting inappropriately to such an extent as to invalidate their action. Since admin actions should not be in respect of the editor, but in regard to the application or violation of policy, I do not see how any duty of care toward any party devolves from taking sysop actions (although this does not stop an admin volunteering their time in trying to resolve issues regarding editors and their understanding of policy). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Steven Zhang[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Corrective action plans[edit]

1) An editor who is banned by the Arbitration Committee for a period of six months or more may have, as part of their conditions of return to editing, the requirement to submit an action plan to the committee imposed, demonstrating an understanding of the issues that led to them being banned, as well as detailing steps they will take to ensure the behaviour does not repeat (self-imposed topic bans or restrictions or accepting a mentor.) This plan must be accepted by the committee before the user can resume editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Prefer this wording to Kirill's version - it's a good idea, but should be applied on a case by case basis. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An alternative to Kirill's proposal. The main differences here are that this would make it apply on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to universally. It could be detailed in the ban that the user would need to submit an action plan to the committee prior to their return. I just don't see the need for making it universal. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 13:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that some banned users might voluntarily submit such plans. Indeed, some editors might come up with similar plans after coming close to being sanctioned, and could point to such plans as evidence of their reforming/reformed nature if people keep "going after them" (as sometimes happens). Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good discussion point (as is Kirill's) - but outside the scope of addressing this arbitration case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment of mentors[edit]

2) An editor found to have engaged in inappropriate or disruptive conduct may be appointed a mentor by the Arbitration Committee. The appointed mentor will be an administrator in good standing, and be acceptable to both the editor in question and the committee. They will be responsible for assisting in the editor's return to Wikipedia, providing them with guidance and support, and when necessary, appropriate enforcement measures.

When necessary, they will have the authority to impose any reasonable restriction on the editor's activity at his or her discretion; such restrictions may include user interaction restrictions, page or topic bans, editing restrictions or special requirements for particular types of edits or certain topics, as well as any other measure that they believe would aid in improving the editor's conduct. The mentor will also have the authority to issue blocks of up to one month in length should the editor engage in misconduct or refuse to comply with restrictions. Restrictions and blocks imposed by the appointed mentor may only be appealed to and overturned by the Committee, and all other administrators will be prohibited from interfering with them.

During the time that an editor is subject to an appointed mentor, all other administrators will be prohibited from imposing blocks on that editor, except in emergency cases. All reports of poor conduct on the part of the editor will be referred to their mentor, who will have exclusive authority to determine a suitable sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have reworded Kirill's original proposal, as I felt the original proposal was leaning slightly too much towards punishing a user for past conduct "special master", "monitoring" their edits etc. Some users returning from bans will need this sort of supervision, some will not. The proposal already contains provisions for remedial action if the returning user steps out of line, so I feel that stating the mentor's main focus is to guide the user back into editing in a collaborative and productive way, with steps that can be taken by the mentor if this does not occur, or if the user slips back into troublesome conduct. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 13:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I object to the idea of prohibiting blocking by other administrators (and by extension, the community at large).

In the past, reliable enforcement proved impossible (because many administrators were unaware of the restriction, leading to drama/distraction when they unknowingly violated it) and editors were permitted to get away with conduct that would have gotten anyone else blocked.

When an editor's behavior issues necessitate ArbCom sanctions, he/she is the one whose continued participation should be subject to special conditions. Placing such restrictions on the community (thereby exempting the editor from the normal dispute resolution process) isn't a solution. —David Levy 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better to say "During the time that an editor is subject to an appointed mentor, all other administrators other administrators are asked to report any behavioural problems to the mentor, and refrain from blocking other than in clearly urgent preventative situations (ongoing vandalism or clear 3RR violations). Any blocks issued by other administrators shall be subject to review and amendment at the mentor's discretion." This means that an admin unaware of the mentorship is able to block - and means that the user can keep edit warring when the mentor isn't about.--Scott Mac 19:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment of mentors[edit]

2.1) An editor found to have engaged in inappropriate or disruptive conduct may be appointed a mentor by the Arbitration Committee. The appointed mentor will be an administrator in good standing, and be acceptable to both the editor in question and the committee. They will be responsible for assisting in the editor's return to Wikipedia, providing them with guidance and support, and when necessary, appropriate enforcement measures.

When necessary, they will have the authority to impose any reasonable restriction on the editor's activity at his or her discretion; such restrictions may include user interaction restrictions, page or topic bans, editing restrictions or special requirements for particular types of edits or certain topics, as well as any other measure that they believe would aid in improving the editor's conduct. The mentor will also have the authority to issue blocks of up to one month in length should the editor engage in misconduct or refuse to comply with restrictions.

During the time where the editor is under mentorship, other administrators are asked to report behavioural issues to the mentor, who should act in a timely manner to deal with the raised issues. Other administrators are advised to refrain from blocks unless absolutely necessary, such as vandalism, edit warring or major disruption, and would be temporary actions in these cases that can be reviewed and overturned by the mentor if necessary. Restrictions placed on the user by the appointed mentor may only be appealed to and overturned by the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Revised version. While I still feel it important that when a user is under mentorship by an admin, that the admin handles sanctions on that user, I also agree it impractical for the mentor to be online 24/7, so a caveat is required giving administrators the ability to put in place blocks in cases like the ones I listed above. These would be temporary blocks, as required to prevent damage to the project, but can be reviewed by the mentor when they return. I don't feel the wording is quite right, feel free to play around with it. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Guerillero[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Pattern of Controversial Blocks[edit]

1) Sandstein (talk · contribs · email) as made several blocks that have been at the heart of or a contributing factor to several arbcom cases. While xe does most of xes admin work in an controversial area, this pattern of contested and controversial blocks can not be ignored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can recall only three such cases: the 2010 Trusilver case, where an AE block by me was improperly undone; the recent Dreadstar case, where the same happened; and this case, where a block by me (which was not the grounds for this case) was undone contrary to an active community consensus. In the first case, the other administrator was desysopped; in the second, they were reminded not to do it again; and in no case has either the community or the Committee found that the blocks I made were wrong (if anything, the contrary).

If these cases illustrate anything, it is that there is a minority of administrators who believe that the rules of consensus and collegiality do not apply to them and/or that they can freely engage in nepotism to protect disruptive users because the wheel-warring policy shields them from consequences. Such conduct is not uncommon, as are of course bad or controversial blocks and unblocks generally, but I seem to be the only one ready to highlight the problem at arbitration, which is why my name may be associated with it. Sandstein 06:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As an outside observer, this sums up my frustration in this case. I do understand that this is almost outside of the specific scope of this case, can we ignore that this is the second time in 3 months that a case featuring one of Sandstein's blocks plays a major role. I have yet to lurk through the archives but I am certain that there is another case or two that involve xes blocks. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Clerk comment) I think this proposal is inappropriate. The committee either finds that an editor has conducted himself inappropriately, or does not find so. Wishy-washy aspersions about the past actions of a party are precisely the sort of thing that is avoided in arbitration, and in my view it is equally as out of place on the workshop. I do not think that the role of the clerk is to vet workshop proposals, but it is to ensure that the case pages are used with professionalism; in my view, we cannot reconcile that general aim with this proposal. I would be grateful if an arbitrator could comment here. AGK [•] 23:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will have to disagree with you have said AGK, and simply silencing this type of input and frustration is not going to change the strong concerns about a pattern of behavior that are held beyond a mere minority of users; it will merely shift the focus onto a group of users who are themselves in a glass house. ArbCom needs to take responsibility and resolve this concern for once and for all - the fruits it has been reaping since failing to do so are not going to go away if something does not change (that is, if it is not addressed in this case explicitly). In the previous case, an arbitrator already made a comment to the effect that admins who contribute to the escalation of situations are not helping the project, and arguably, it's happened again. That it happens when there is continuing jurisdiction is what makes it even more mind-boggling. To Guerillero, arbitration matters can also occur on the request for arbitration page; it doesn't need to have been in the case alone, so I expect you will find more there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. However, having re-read the proposal (and Sandstein's comment immediately above), I just can't overcome my discomfort with the tone and content of this proposal - especially as the workshop page is so prone to becoming something of a mud-slinging contest. I will sit on the fence until an arbitrator comments, if one does, and otherwise I will defer to you and let the proposal stand. Regards, AGK [•] 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular xe area of controversial work is Arbcom Enforcement (hey, at least I didn't SHOUT!)... If a matter is going to be brought up again in front of the ArbCom, the intervening period including the enforcement is very likely to be part of the discussion. I see no evidence provided for the inferences that Sandstein's actions were either contested or controversial. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Rd232[edit]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Civ-hat[edit]

1) Civility enforcement is notoriously difficult, because civility is often subjective and selective attempts to enforce it can be used as a weapon which actually reduces collaborativeness instead of enhancing it. There are no easy answers, especially when the civility problem is not an occasional outburst but rather a general approach. Here's a novel one: apply a civility probation under the terms of which any editor may apply a specific {{hat}}-style template ({{civ-hat}}) to comments by the user, if the comments are uncivil. The user would not be able to remove the hatting unless they substantively rewrote the comment (assuming it wasn't replied to, in which case striking or apologising inside the hat), and if someone else removes the hatting in good faith it can't be re-applied. An editor clearly abusing hatting after warnings would be blocked for disruption. Rd232 public ^talk 19:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"I don't think that's going to resolve much unless an editor voluntarily agrees" - I agree with that, it would definitely help if the editor agreed to it at least semi-voluntarily. For instance, they could propose it as part of a "corrective action plan". Or it could be offered as an alternative to greater sanction. As to misuse: I'm inclined to see some WP:ROPE here. Editors misusing it would be identifying themselves as troublemakers, and (a) subject to sanction and (b) perhaps shed light on why the editor under sanction was being uncivil in the first place. Also misuse to exclude the relevant editor is limited since (a) the comment is being hatted, not removed; (b) if it takes 3 goes to rewrite a comment to a form so civil that it can't reasonably be hatted, well that's a learning process, isn't it? Rd232 public ^talk 11:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think that's going to resolve much unless an editor voluntarily agrees to letting others apply such hats etc. I can also see a few situations where this will be misused/gamed by some users who are hell bent on removing an editor they personally don't like, and how quickly that can provoke a dispute that's probably worse than the original wordings/comments which are (sometimes merely allegedly) of concern. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232, I'm commenting on the assumption this is more of an alternative to AC measures (including harsher sanctions). The reaction can be pretty standard regardless of how much (or how little) a comment is modified, let alone touched up or collapsed. The response by users who feel they are being slighted or treated differently for what's really a perceived issue is usually not one that is memorable for the right reasons. People also don't like to feel that they are compromising their character and who they are as a person when they comment (whether that feeling is justified or not is an opinion which varies across the board, but it is felt strongly enough in any event), and then questions emerge over how much is essential touching up, how much is the preferences of a select few, and how much it can change the entire meaning of the post (and how willing they will be to participate without disruption when this sort of thing hangs over them). As to misuse, I think the extent of the disputes regarding how much someone is a troublemaker (let alone whether they are in the first place) would probably frustrate the purpose of the exercise, even with the theoretical safeguards. All that said, this probably works better as a tool or term in a mentoring-type arrangement/plans (or the creative terms which are being used in lieu of "mentoring" to essentially try and describe this teaching/learning process between a subject and "mentor(s)"). The process can certainly be of value where the user is willing, able, enthusiastic (enough), and willing to sacrifice/compromise a lot in favor of deescalation. But I note this with caution, because like with a lot of things, there are also strong feelings about how effective these arrangements are (eg; if an user had all the things I described in my previous sentence, "would there even be a need for this type of measure at all if that was there in the first place?", "Is the time and resources expended on this actually producing results?" etc). To add to that, there are also strong feelings regarding how far they take the actual purpose of this project to one which focuses more on other types of stuff (including, but definitely not limited to, rehabiliation - something which the Community wants less time/attention spent on). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ncmvocalist. This will be yet another avenue for drama over these hats. - BorisG (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be reasonably denied that there is a civility issue on Wikipedia. This isn't a massive change, and surely is worth a try. If it fails and causes more drama than it prevents then we can always try something else, but if we never try anything we never get anywhere. A lot of the progress that I have helped make on WP:ITN has been implemented due to a willingness to try new ideas from the participants. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Example 6[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: