"

 Topic ban 

Relating to  (and let me be honest, I'm not up for a protracted debate, I'm just here to offer a perspective that you are free to ignore).  The problem is how you phrased the issue.  If you are claiming admin abuse, you need to be specific.  If you are claiming it is no longer needed, then your opinion of PBS's original ban is irrelevant.  When it comes to General Sanctions, admin are given broad and sweeping authority, because the community wanted them to have a hammer to deal with problems.  Whether you deserved it or not, I have no idea, I didn't do that research and don't have time.  I'm talking about procedure here.  Kosh's comments just muddied the waters, unquestionably admin have the authority to do moratoriums and the like on these articles under General Sanctions, and do topic bans.  Authority isn't debatable because it is clearly spelled out in policy, so Kosh ended up making it less likely others would participate when debating something that is clearly not debatable, and PBS was on topic in addressing those points.  Your points got lost in the mix.  It happens.  And Dougweller and RGloucester also piped in, it wasn't just one person.  It was just one person taking your side, but he was mistaken on the procedural points.  Even DGG jumped in to support the moratorium, and he isn't prone to jump into fires.  Then Obsidi joined the fray.  So 5 people participated, besides yourself, not just one. The problem being that you guys debated the right of the admin to impose sanctions (and he clearly has the right), instead of the circumstances of your situation, which is why 80% of the people disagreed with you and Kosh. You complain that only one admin has spoken, but that isn't true.  Obviously, PBS is an admin, but so is Dougweller and DGG, neither of which has a reputation for being heavy handed.  Quite the opposite, actually.  In reality, he could have put a one year moratorium on name changes and it would have been 100% supported in policy, but he chose a very short and reasonable period.  You might not LIKE it, but the community voted specifically to give admin that power.  If you had not muddied the discussion up by mixing both issues, your topic ban and his authority to issue a moratorium, you would have had a better chance, although odds are that the topic ban would have stuck because there wasn't any abuse in his doing so that I could see.  It was his judgement.  Disagreeing with it doesn't make it abuse. And the fact that it was only three months....that is the shortest topic ban I've ever seen, so obviously he wasn't trying to be heavy handed.  Sometimes, you just have to accept that you don't have a case, and this one could easily be closed as ""no consensus to make any changes to existing sanctions"".  Again, I'm not up for debating, but I could care less about these articles, and if you want an honest review from an experienced admin, you just read it.  - 2¢ "