Initiated by SarekOfVulcan at 16:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Doncram arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Doncram notified

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban

• Request to lift the ban

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I just avoided agreeing with Doncram in an AfD because of the IBAN. It's been in place for almost 5 years, we've done a good job avoiding each other, and I'd like to not have this hanging over our heads any more. (Previous request here)

Mendaliv, I would find that an acceptable alternative. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webb Mountain Park. I noticed that C. W. Gilmore had edited it, and I wondered what was up. For the most part, I haven't come across Doncram's edits at all. In my editing, I come across Doncram very rarely.(Rephrased for clarity. For example, I can think of one large noticeboard discussion I edited after he did.) While I still have a strong interest in historic buildings, he doesn't typically edit the ones I'm looking at.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doncram

Why the request? They are not explaining. I am in fact a victim of long-term harassment by this editor, and I resent being dragged back into any discussion about it at all. I certainly don't need or want the editor's help in AFDs, one of two areas in which I participate frequently. I probably would avoid any AFD where they had commented, and in 5 years I recall coming across such cases only one or two times. For a number of years they followed me to new NRHP articles which I had just started and repeatedly interrupted with partial deletions or opening AFDs or ANI incidents. They opened the arbitration case against me which led to me being blocked from partipating in the NRHP area (and i have only been active there again during the last year or two, after accepting the block), and then they did not themselves participate in the NRHP area for all the years since. I would not welcome their following me to NRHP topics and AFDs in the future. --Doncram (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

I'm not a fan of indefinite sanctions simply because they create an artificial status quo which often turns permanent. Especially interaction bans. The basic question you wind up asking in these cases is why the requestor wants the IBAN lifted, which inevitably turns into concerns that the requestor intends to interact with the other party in a disruptive way; after all, if the requestor didn't want to interact with the other party, why would he or she make the request? Well, I think that logic needs to go away. It leads to indefinite sanctions becoming permanent, and imposing an additional unnecessary burden on editors when doing basically anything on-wiki. That is, every time you contribute anything from then on out, you have to think, "Could this be seen as an IBAN violation?" I think that's unfair, particularly after a period of years.

That said, I think rather than a straightforward removal, the Committee might do what it did in the November 2016 motion in this same case: Rescind for six months and allow any admin to reinstate during that period, and if the six months lapse without incident, the IBAN lapses entirely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, somewhat in response to BURob 13's comment, that my hope would be that the eventual outcome would be to kick future issues (should they occur) to the community rather than this remaining under Committee supervision forever. I'm thinking along the lines of the way courts disfavor mandatory injunctions because of the supervision burdens involved. Though I know this is a prohibitory remedy we're talking about, I think the same principles ought to be observed, and at some point we should expect the vast majority of sanctioned editors to fully exit the arbitration remedy system.

My point is that I think the full lifting of the IBAN in this case ought to be understood to terminate the Committee's jurisdiction over that aspect of the matter. Honestly, not having to deal with AE or Committee procedure whenever a dispute comes up is, for most editors, going to be the real goal of getting a remedy lifted. On a Wikipedia where many view process as bureaucracy, the possibility of having to deal with AE or the Committee itself can itself be burdensome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Doncram: Clerk notes

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

Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion

• To both editors: Do the two of you still edit in the same topic areas? Do you often come across each others' work? Specifically to SarekOfVulcan, what was the AfD in question and how did you come across it? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given what Sarek said about the frequency he encounters Doncram these days, I'm inclined to lift this sanction. Since they supposedly don't encounter each other much these days, we have a very easy litmus test for whether either editor is acting disruptively after the sanction is lifted. If one of the two suddenly starts initiating contact regularly or appearing on the same pages with great frequency, it's easy enough to re-impose the sanction (or a different one, if only one side is acting problematically). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting it the same way as we did in the November motion Mendaliv mentions. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support what Mendaliv said: Rescind for six months and allow any admin to reinstate during that period, and if the six months lapse without incident, the IBAN lapses entirely -- Euryalus (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram: Motion

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Proposing in line with above comments. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agreed, this is the right way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Euryalus (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Katie^talk 14:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Happy this no longer needs to be a formal arrangement. Worm^TT(talk) 15:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sarek should be mindful that Doncram still has concerns, and should continue to steer clear, but I agree that five years should be long enough for the formal remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. What NYB said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Slightly belated support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I have to echo Callanecc and highlight the comment of NYB. With a party concerned about an end to a sanction, we should be looking at potential alternatives, yet not promising anything if we resort to this. Blindly walking a sanction out because it's old doesn't mean it doesn't still have use. --
   Amanda (aka DQ) 05:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. When one of the parties to an interaction ban has concerns about it being lifted, I'd rather it not be modified. However, given that the sanction has been in place for 5 years and that a suspension (rather than outright removal) is being proposed I'm here rather than opposing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by arbitrators