Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 109: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) create |
Fix Linter errors. |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 324:
*I'd be alright with lifting the ban and going to probation. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 22:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
===Motion: India-Pakistan===
:
{{ivmbox|1={{u|SheriffIsInTown}}'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASheriffIsInTown&type=revision&diff=841345083&oldid=841015004 topic ban] from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.}}
:'''Enacted''' - -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 22:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Line 456:
=== Statement by S Marshall ===
*I think this matter raises novel issues about procedure. Wikipedian culture takes deleting pages very seriously, and deleting a page out of someone's userspace feels quite violative to me. I was appalled to learn that a page that purports to describe the rules says that AE deletions can be reviewed at the AN but not at DRV. I feel that in the (probably relatively rare) situation where it's appropriate to review an AE deletion without direct scrutiny from Arbcom, then the most correct venue would be DRV. But I also feel that deleting a page as an AE action is the kind of thing that Arbcom should normally supervise directly, because an AE action should normally be about an editor's behaviour rather than a matter of content. Therefore the scrutiny should normally happen here.—[[User:S Marshall|<
:*{{ping|SilkTork}} --- The deleter's position is that this could not be justified as an in-process speedy deletion and was done purely as AE ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2019_February_24&type=revision&diff=885004350&oldid=885002859 diff]). I also don't fully agree with my friends RoySmith, Hobit, SmokeyJoe et. al. when they say DRV is mainly about content. I feel that what DRV is mainly about is the analysis and critique of sysop judgement calls and use of discretion. Interestingly, in the decade or so since I became heavily involved in DRV, we've ''never'' reached a consensus to ask Arbcom to desysop anyone -- which is why there's never really been any overlap between the two venues. We've found wrong calls, because sysops are only human, but we've never found serious misuse of the mop.—[[User:S Marshall|<
:*Arbitrators, you're in the process of reaching a bad decision here, and it's worrying that you're reaching it with such glacial slowness. I think you're already overworked and you don't have the attention to spare on reviewing AE decisions in a timely way. Nobody has ever produced an example of a deletion that should properly be reviewed at AE; and we already have a prompt, effective, low-drama and trouble-free way of reviewing deletions at DRV; so it would be appropriate for you to make a decision explicitly pointing all deletions to DRV. You can do so with every confidence that DRV will call on you if you're needed.—[[User:S Marshall|<
=== Statement by User:SmokeyJoe ===
Line 688:
==== Motion: Discretionary sanctions procedure ====
:
(1) Proposed:
{{Ivmbox|1=The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|Discretionary sanctions Procedure § Sanctions]] is amended at ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions.caveats|sanctions.caveats]]'' to read as follows:
Line 718:
==== Motion: Discretionary sanctions procedure (2)====
:
(1) Proposed:
{{Ivmbox|1=The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|Discretionary sanctions Procedure § Sanctions]] is amended at ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions.caveats|sanctions.caveats]]'' to read as follows:
Line 746:
====Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications====
:
{{ivmbox|1=The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications|standard provision on appeals and modifications]], replacing the current text of the fourth note:
:{{tq|All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.}}}}
| |||