Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 68: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 223:
=== Motion: Waldorf education discretionary sanctions ===
:
Proposed:
Line 235:
:;Support
:#Proposed. Adapted from a previous motion regarding the similar article probation remedies passed in ''Prem Rawat''. [[User talk:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 19:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:#Note though that the principles about the removal of original research and unverified information still are applicable. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<
:#As I've noted above, this seems like the reasonable next step. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:# [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 278:
=== Statement by The Devil's Advocate ===
Looking over the second arbitration case, it seems the dispute extended to other areas involving Armenians and Azeris. Most notably matters concerning Armenia-Turkey and Azerbaijan-Iran were brought up in the opening statements of the case. I think it was intended to focus on conflicts broadly construed. The editor Sandstein mentions, clearly violated the topic ban explicitly because some of the content being removed was about Nagorno-Karabakh and most of the fund's activities noted in the article concerned the NKR. Perhaps what needs to be clarified is that the discretionary sanctions concern the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts broadly construed.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|<
=== Statement by Gatoclass ===
Line 287:
===Comment by KillerChihuahua===
Comment: Use caution; slightly vague is not necessarily a bad thing. If we're too specific, we'll get editors who complain that their edits aren't covered because the exact conditions were not spelled out on the sanctions page. Any attempt to make it too specific may cause more problems than it resolves. One puppy's opinion. [[User:KillerChihuahua|Killer]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|<
===Comment by Grandmaster===
Line 298:
===Statement by SMcCandlish===
It must be "either Armenia or Azerbaijan", because of the scope of AA2, as noted by Grandmaster. I posit that this was not only intentional at the time, it's a good situation to maintain, because those who will rant for or against Armenia and Armenians, Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis, etc., are also prone to making pro- or anti-Turk, pro- or anti-Kurd, etc. rants and POV-pushing edits. I have used the applicability of AA2 to very good effect in curtailing editwarring of this sort at [[Van cat]], [[Turkish Van]] and [[Turkish Angora]] over the last year+, and ethnic viewpoint-pushing will surely return to these articles almost immediately if AA2 is suddently no longer applicable simply because these cat articles touch on Armenian–Turkish and Armenian–Kurdish relations but don't also involve Azerbaijan. If it were interpreted as "both-and" not "either-or", then "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" would have virtually no meaning or applicability. — <
=== Statement by other user ===
Line 310:
* I'd say either/or. I'd support a motion to clarify. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
* These sanctions are deliberately meant to be broadly interpreted, so I'd say it's any articles relating to Armenia ''and/or'' Azerbaijan ''and/or'' any related ethnic conflicts, that last bit of course being somewhat redundant. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
*Modifying what I said at AE: I believe that a standard topic ban ought to cover anything relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, whether that covers the actions that the governments have taken with respect to each other or individual citizens doing things that antagonize citizens of the other country. This allows it to be narrowly tailored enough to stop most disruptive behavior, but if the scope needs to be expanded to cover something apparently unrelated (say [[Armenian cuisine]] for example), there should be a way to do that. For that reason, I'm going to hold back on supporting Tim's motion for now. A motion would be useful, but I'm not sure this particular wording covers what I would like to see. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<
**The standard topic ban in an area does not necessarily have to cover the entire area for which DS is authorized. For example, we authorized DS for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan; it does not mean that every topic ban in that area needs to cover all three. Authorizing DS for the broad area allows sanctions to be readily handed out for spillover into related areas, which frequently happens. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 18:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
==== Motion ====
Line 317:
Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.
:
:'''''Enacted.''''' '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 05:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 324:
:#Proposed. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:#[[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:#[[User:AGK|<
:# Useful clarification which doesn't extend the discretionary sanctions but more properly identifies the range. I understand NYB's quibble, but I think that "Pages" or "Edits" would point to the same activity: an edit to a page related to.... I think Wikipedians understand what is meant either way. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time</sup>]]''' 08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:# [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]]) 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:# '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<
:# [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 394:
=== Statement by The Devil's Advocate ===
I was involved in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive129#Noetica|AE discussion]] that led to these warnings and was even threatened with such a warning myself for suggesting that the filing editor was using AE disruptively to illustrate a point because the editor was the subject of an AE discussion at that time and admins were suggesting that a warning be given in that case (in the editor's filing the comment "here is someone you ''can'' warn" was a red flag). To me it seems obvious that warnings can create friction because they are rightly seen as stepping stones to sanctions. In addition, a warning involves an allegation of misconduct and where an editor believes their conduct is within the bounds of policy it is hard to not grasp why an editor would be annoyed with such a warning. Certainly, I was incensed at Sandstein's suggestion to warn me when my comment was perfectly consistent with drawing attention to inappropriate use of AE. Other editors were, in my opinion, also acting within the appropriate bounds of policy. I specifically believe OhConfucius made a reasonable argument, with evidence, that the filer of the AE case had also been disruptive in the topic area. Some of Sandstein's comments on this matter seem incredibly misguided with regards to AE procedure and are not what I would expect from an admin who frequents that area.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|<
@AGK The main issue here would be that the warnings were issued per an official finding of fault at AE. However, improper warnings from regular editors ''are'' subject to scrutiny as it becomes a civility issue. When an "uninvolved" administrator does the same thing it is generally seen as a minor misuse of authority at best. Part of the issue with these warnings is the suggestion that these editors did something that could lead to sanctions. I think the principle should be that if someone is warned outside AE it is a matter of individual conduct by an editor, admin or not. When it is a formal AE finding it should be open to appeal, though logically the notification would stick. Essentially, the result would be that the finding of fault is vacated, but the editor will be considered to have been constructively notified. It would essentially go from a warning about misconduct to a polite notification of discretionary sanctions. The purpose of a notification is partly to insure an editor is aware that there are unique restrictions in a topic area and acts accordingly. It would mean essentially that a repeat instance of similar edits would not be automatically treated as an offense, let alone a repeat offense, and that a minor escalation would not be immediately taken as deserving of sanction even if it rose to the point of an actual violation of policy. Were they to do some serious and obvious policy violations after the vacated warning, however, they would not be able to argue that the rescinded warning means they can't be sanctioned for it as they would still be considered aware of the restrictions. In other words, you can dispute accusations of a repeat offense, but cannot claim ignorance of the discretionary sanctions to get out of an actual serious offense.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|<
===Statement by SMcCandlish===
Line 407:
--><p>I cannot impress upon the Arbitration Committee enough how serious a matter this is, as two productive editors, [[User:Noetica]] and [[User:Neotarf]], have already resigned editing Wikipedia over Sandstein's warning for reasons similar to those for which I have been contemplating quitting as well. I refuse to continue volunteering massive amounts of my time to a project in which I can be falsely accused of wrongdoing by random administrators, and put in a "sword of Damocles" position of being blockable with impunity by the first admin to disagree with my approach to any style/titles matter, yet never having been subject to any kind of procedure topic-banning or otherwise restricting me for anything, and, ultimately having no recourse at all. As I use my real name here, the "reputation-bash-ipedia" factor is not in any way trivial to me. It isn't just, and it's not a tenable system of dispute resolution.</p><!--
--><p>PS: The fact that admins have a strong collective tendency to reflexively side with other admins any time admin judgement is questioned means that avenues like [[WT:AE]] <del>are not</del> <ins>may not be</ins> suitable for this, and a more formal deliberative process <del>is</del> <ins>may be</ins> needed. — <
*{{strong|The "red flag" that The Devil's Advocate raises is essentially the same one I'm raising.}} There {{em|must}} be an avenue of appeal when a warning like this is issued and its appropriateness and/or accuracy is questionable, because otherwise other editors (including admins) can pile on the warning with a threatening, harassing "Ah {{em|ha}}, now we've got you by the short hairs!" campaign. Precisely this kind of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]/[[WP:WINNING]] misuse of ARBATC to just shut me up at all costs and punish me is clearly happening to me right now in WP:AE, spearheaded by an admin (not Sandstein) whom I legitimately questioned in my sole comment in the previous Apteva vs Noetica AE request that Sandstein issued me an ARBATC warning for! It's completely circular reasoning from which there is no clear path of appeal. — <
*{{strong|Hans Adler correctly points out below that the problem exists from the outset in the warning itself: "If you continue to misconduct yourself...."}} I have disproved that I did in fact misconduct myself in the first place. (I can reiterate this proof if needed, but that's better saved for an appeal, not discussion of what the avenue of appeal is). The fact that this can constitute a false accusation, a [[WP:NPA]] violation, is one of several reasons that appealability of this particular type of warning is not "silly" as Hersfold suggests some people dismissively think it is. And it has nothing to do with "undoing a notice", as Salvio suggests, but formally voiding an accusation where the accuser refuses to retract it and there's no or insufficient evidence of actual wrongdoing. — <
*{{strong|The evidence presented}} by NE Ent's revision, above, and Iridescent, below, seems to be conclusive. Even if the original idea was informational warnings that aren't stigmatizing, the actual warnings depart radically from this idea. — <
*{{strong|Re: Carcharoth's commentary}}, below: I agree with your summation of the difference between a general, unappealable notice with regard to a topic area being contentious, vs. a stern surely-must-be-appealable warning, that alleges wrongdoing, like I and three others received. The fact that these are clearly and importantly different is why we're here talking about this. I also agree with your side point (which is tangential to this particular WP:ARCA request, but pertinent to the underlying issues that led to it), namely that MOS/AT "specialization" is problematic. It's something I don't actually do, and the stability and consistency of MOS is more important to me than it's exact particulars. Most of what I do on WP is [[WP:GNOME]] cleanup, and when I focus on long-haul topical editing it is usually with regard to cats and billiards, not style. I've left MOS alone entirely for months at a time before, and most of my editing with regard to it is answering talk page queries about its applicability. No one agrees with every single thing in MOS (MOS necessarily only addresses style matters on which people are likely to disagree). It's genuinely problematic when people go on tendentious, system-gaming, forum-shopping anti-MOS campaigns over trivial crap like wanting to replace dashes with hyphens. People who try to uphold the hard-won consensuses at MOS from such nonsense should not be receiving the threatening, disruption-alleging type of ARBATC warnings we received, especially given that the accusations of wrongdoing behind them (i.e. the casting of broad, vague, irrelevant aspersions without evidence simply to personalize the debate) are demonstrably false. — <
*{{strong|@Enric Naval}}: Virtually everyone else here is recognizing the distinction between "just a warning" and the actual wording and intent of the not-just-a-warning that Sandstein used. This entire long discussion is mostly about these distinctions. Please [re]read more of this until the distinction is clear to you. — <
*{{strong|@Cailil}}: [[Straw man|No one used]] the phrase "effective bans". I have suggested throughout the discussion, from user talk to here, that there is effectively no real difference between a topic ban the community imposes by consensus, violation of which can result in an immediate block after further discussion e.g. at WP:ANI, and a wrongdoing-alleging "special warning" under ARBATC, violation of which can result in an immediate block without any further discussion at all, other than that the latter simply throws [[WP:PROCESS]] and [[WP:BLOCK]] in the trash can in two different ways. I hope that is clearer. {{em|Sandstein's warning, if left unappealed and unappealable, {{em|does}} pretty much amount to a weird, "consensus-free" form of topic ban by individual fiat.}} It cannot be what the ArbCom intended. And even if a block under ARBATC discretionary sanctions would actually require a discussion at WP:AE first (I doubt it, but the thick legalistic nitpicking that hovers around ArbCom/AE like a fog is largely impenetrable to me), there's {{em|still}} no effective difference (the community topic-bans then ANI enforces, vs. an "[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute|univolved]]" admin warns then AE enforces), other than the lack of consensus process to arrive at a topical restriction for that particular editor to begin with. (Note also that SarekOfVulcan almost {{em|immediately}} sought to have me sanctioned further (probably blocked) at AE (in a request no one is taking seriously), for my comments at RfA, using Sandstein's warning as his sole basis. He then did the same thing at AN against Neotarf, for comments at the same RfA. My concerns here are based not on idle speculation or unreasonable "terriblizing" anxieties, but on very recent actual administrative behaviors stemming directly from the Sandstein warning.</p><!--
--><p>It is important that Neotarf also interpreted Sandstein's warning this way. I'm not just coming up with "crazy shit" as SarekOfVulcan put it yesterday at AE [what was that about personalizing the dispute, again?] Neotarf indicated, at the same RFA I commented on, a reluctance to speak his/her actual concerns about the candidate's controversial MOS-related proposals, mentioning both Sandstein's warning and SarekOfVulcan's bogus AE against me for comments in my vote at this RFA. Then (guess who?) SarekOfVulcan deleted Neotarf's comments, and went to WP:AN about it. If this isn't clear indication of some serious problems with regard to both the ARBATC warning/threat/accusation that's under discussion in this ARCA, and admin behavior outlined here, I'm not sure what is. I also honestly feel unable to state what the latter problems might be any more specifically than I already have without being accused yet again of "personalizing the debate" in a ARBATC-violating way despite the fact that style/title matters are only tenuously connected to this discussion, just like they were at the AE filing I got censured for commenting on by Sandstein. If anyone can't make out the patterns I'm outlining here and why they're actual issues that need resolution, I don't know what else to say. — <
====Now what?====
{{strong|At this juncture, I am wondering whether I should formally request at [[WP:RFARB]] an appeal of Sandstein's accusation}}, given the general though not unanimous pattern of agreement I'm seeing below among Arbs that this sort of warning (i.e. one that indicates an alleged finding of wrongdoing) must necessarily be appealable. I don't want to rock the boat or be seen as squeaking just to get grease, but I want our names cleared on that issue (especially in my case because I use my real name here). Also, at the frivolous new WP:AE report SarekOfVulcan made against me the other day with regard to my opposition to a candidate at RfA, Sandstein used the fact that I have not filed such an RFARB request yet as if it were a salient fact when formulating his "uninvolved" response. I feel I'm left with little choice but to proceed to RFARB, even if this ARCA discussion is still lingering. But if there's a way to resolve the matter without that step, I'm all for it. (It seems to me that the most obvious would be for Sandstein to simply retract the warnings as having been based on a misunderstanding of what our posts in that Apteva vs. Noetica WP:AE case meant and referred to – namely already-concluded, specific and relevant determinations of disruptive editing at WP:AN, not vague antagonistic "aspersions" – because he wasn't aware of that background.) — <
*{{strong|Update}}: Things are getting worse, not better. Sandstein has announced, at a patently vexatious [[WP:AE]] request, his intent to personally ban me from any and all MOS-related discussions. I feel I have no choice to but renew my claim that Sandstein, SarekOfVulcan and several others are engaged in active campaign of [[WP:HARASS|harassment/hounding]] against me. — <
*'''@AGK''': Re: "I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues" – Any progress on that? I'm basically just in a holding pattern on what to do here. — <
=== Statement by Hans Adler ===
Line 472:
=== Quick comment by Iridescent ===
With no opinion on this particular case—I have no desire to read through the history of what looks at first glance to be yet another border skirmish of the Great Em-dash War—warnings, particularly official-looking AE warnings that those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's byzantine internal processes will assume are Arbcom-mandated, do have a scarlet letter effect, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=%22you+have+already+been+warned%22&fulltext=Search&ns3=1&profile=advanced as people see the previous warnings and assume "this editor is a troublemaker" or "this editor has officially been told they're in the wrong]. (It's exactly the same issue as incorrect blocks remaining in a block log, leading to subsequent "look at the length of the block log!" comments.) Given this, there ought to be some mechanism for getting a formal "you should not have received this warning" notice that the editor in question can point to later on should it be necessary. Whether it's a discussion on ANI, an Arbcom motion, or a formal vote at a [[WP:Requests for appeals]] page (which would be a valuable resource, as it would keep all the people who are interested in that kind of meta crap arguing with each other rather than wasting everyone else's time), there ought to be some mechanism for this, and Arbcom are the only people mandated to set this kind of process up. ("Consensus" won't be a goer, as the squabbling about what form the process should take will run on for three years and go nowhere—''cf'' every policy debate in the history of Wikipedia.) – [[User:Iridescent|<
:@Coren & Hersfold—[[:Template:Uw-sanctions]] is '''explicitly only to be used if an editor has breached sanctions''', and is explicitly not "a demonstrable notification of the existence of sanctions in a topic area", and the statement "a warning does not necessarily imply that there was any misconduct" is flat-out untrue. The exact wording (on the template page, so presumably anyone using the template can't claim to be unaware of it) is ''"[this template] is intentionally worded to apply only after an editor begins to misbehave; preemptive warnings are considered hostile"''. – [[User:Iridescent|<
=== Statement by ErikHaugen ===
Line 516:
=== Statement Cailil ===
I just want to make a quick submission as an AE admin on the general process of warnings, and not the case in point. <br>As Coren notes it ''has'' long been the accepted understanding that if someone has contributed to an area under sanctions and has participated at AE or other discussions asking for others to be sanctioned that their awareness of the probation/sanctions and the ruling is sufficient notice prior to being sanctioned themselves. <br>Thus there is an inconsistency between the wording of [[WP:AC/DS]], the sanctions templates AND actual practice. <br>Furthermore another inconsistency exists in the divergence of approach of [[Template:Uw-probation]] (which states that "this isn't a warning or an accusation of misconduct") and [[Template:Uw-sanctions]] (which carries an explicit accusation of misconduct); this difference is strange considering that both warnings are required ''before'' administrative action can be taken against a particular user. Perhaps the question the committee needs to ask is: "''does a notification of AC/DS need to be so strongly worded or would something along the lines of [[Template:Uw-probation]] be more constructive?''" <br>Also, I see no reason that these formal warnings of AC/DS cannot be rescinded by AE. As it stands the wording at WP:AC/DS makes these warnings analogous to a [[Penalty_card#Yellow_card|yellow card in soccer]] or a [[police caution]]. There's no reason why AE can't rescind this, as it can other formal actions by admins relating to the RFAR's enforcement. <br>However it should be noted that a number of statements above have over-stated the function of such warnings as "effective bans" this is thoroughly inaccurate--[[User:Cailil|<
:@SMcC: Both you and Neotarf inferred that Sandstein's warnings were tantamount to bans. You state above: that the warning "effectively constitutes something closely akin to a topic-ban"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&curid=22747419&diff=537944482&oldid=537771227], and Neotarf says in reference to that same warning that "four editors who are effectively banned from WP by the actions of one admin"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=537381565&oldid=537360086]. Also SMC both I and Lord Roem asked you to reduce the length of your posts and I will reiterate that again--[[User:Cailil|<
=== Statement by Gatoclass ===
Line 552:
*@Stanton: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=540065898&oldid=539959327 The AE case you mentioned] isn't vexatious, nor is Sandstein the instigator. Based on the lack of consensus even among sysops as to blocking/banning you, it would certainly be unwise of Sandstein to action his "threat". He doesn't need any encouragement, for it was one lone comment that got him "warning" us four. But if he ''does'' block you for the aforementioned, that will confirm for me beyond doubt that Sandstein's judgement is impaired. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 10:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
:*I said the {{em|request}} is vexatious (which it clearly is; its filer is someone I very recently tried to have Apteva's topic-ban extended to cover at WP:AN for MOS-related disruption, and who has frequently been at loggerheads with me, Noetica, et al., on various style issues he never gains consensus for), and I said that Sandstein had announced an intention to see me banned; I did not say the vexatious request was Sandstein's. I haven't done anything new and different Sandstein can magically ban/block me for. — <
===Suggestion by Killerchihuahua===
Why not just change the verbiage on uw-sanctions from ''"If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic"'' to ''"If you fail to conduct yourself appropriately on pages relating to this topic"'' and move forward? This whole thing seems to be about the "continue to" verbiage, which as noted above was not the earlier phrasing. (although it was added in May 2008[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-sanctions&diff=214337539&oldid=188930404] so it isn't exactly new, either.)
I'm seriously thinking of being '''bold''' and just doing it, but I suppose some Arbs might be irritated if I take that upon myself while this is underway. [[User:KillerChihuahua|Killer]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|<
===Comment by Heim===
Line 582:
**That never was the intent of the warnings, SilkTork, and if they are understood this way then we need to clarify the matter. The point of the warning is to avoid anyone getting sanctions while not knowing there was DS in place – not any sort of "formal warning" system. Indeed, we have previously ruled in the past that, because someone ''clearly'' knew of the sanction (for instance, by having been a party to the case and been notified of its results) then the warning was unnecessary for AE to enforce the sanction.<p>The prerequisite to sanction is "the editor knows that the topic is under DS"; a warning is just the most straightforward way of making sure an editor demonstrably knew. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 14:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
***[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]] makes it clear that the warnings are a formal part of the process - "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning", "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning". Actual misconduct is built into the process, on the sanctions page it says: "Warnings should ... identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways", and the warning template uses the phrase "If you continue to misconduct". This makes sense. Why would anyone want to warn someone with a formal template when they were editing appropriately in a sanctioned area? There would need to be a ''reason'' for a warning. In the AE discussion in question, there were 14 people involved, four of whom were selected for a warning. If there is no reason for a warning, then a warning should not be given - and I assume there was a reason for warning those four editors in particular, otherwise all 14 editors would have been reminded that DS was applicable. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time</sup>]]''' 15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
* Under the present system of discretionary sanctions, "warning or notice" of discretionary sanctions can be given by ''any'' editor—not merely by an uninvolved editor or administrator. While we are here, I would be minded to amend the standard discretionary sanctions procedure so that it requires any admissible notices or warnings to be given by an editor who is ''not'' involved in the subject area. (I see no reason to restrict the ability to give warnings to only uninvolved sysops; so long as the editor giving the advice and warning is not involved in the dispute, whether he or she is a sysop is irrelevant.) I am so minded because it seems utterly bone-headed to expect one disputant to make a serious attempt at educating another disputant as to how his or her conduct can be improved; such an system is a non-starter. I would also prefer that we avoid having these warnings turn into another arrow in the disputants' quiver—though I have been out of the enforcement game for over a year, so I would welcome comment as to whether this is a serious ongoing issue or merely a potential problem. Hans Adler gives good examples of where the language in our sanctions concerning "non-admin" warnings is ambiguous.<p>As for Sandstein's questions: I do not consider warnings to be appealable. Therefore, in my view, once {{tlx|uw-sanctions}} has been placed on an editor's talk page (with the appropriate parameter used so that a link to the final decision is included), the warning is irrevocably given and no appeal of it can be made. The notion that one could appeal a mere "notice" of discretionary sanctions—as though the warning and advice it gives can be "unlearned"—defies logic. [[User:AGK|<
:* To various: Even if these notices (as has been argued) damage an editor's perceived reputation, I do not think our creating a bureaucratic process of appealing the notice would be an effective solution to any case where such reputation damage has been wreaked. And even if these notices (as has been argued) constitute a finding of guilt, placing an editor "on notice" is tantamount to giving them advice; advising is not sanctioning—so these notices cannot be appealed as though they were an enforcement action or sanction. I'm not persuaded by any of the counter-arguments that have been offered in the statements above, and therefore I maintain my position.<p>Those rebuttals aside, I make two further observations. First, the vast majority of notices, in my experience, are warranted; I think, as a community, we are mature enough to informally dismiss those few cases where a notice is given unjustly. Second, it would fly in the face of the spirit and purpose of the discretionary sanctions system for these notices to be appealable; they are supposed to be a courtesy notice to editors who are new to problematic topic areas, not a formal prerequisite to the giving of sanctions. Discretionary Sanctions is designed so that misconduct can be sanctioned efficiently and effectively; I am therefore vehemently opposed to any attempt to make it ''more'' difficult to sanction editors who are misconducting themselves.<p>To Sandstein: in reply to your third question, I would answer both WP:AE and WP:AN. In reply to your fourth, I think the views of all uninvolved editors should be welcomed in appeals; but, as only an administrator can reverse an enforcement action, it must only be the views of uninvolved administrators that are counted towards the determination of consensus. This last point is ambiguous and would therefore need clarification by motion from this committee. I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues. [[User:AGK|<
*''Placeholder''. I have limited time or access (partly because of the storm) until Monday. I'll post some comments on Monday or Tuesday. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - In general I agree with the view that neutral notifications to editors possibly unaware of the fractiousness of an area (not the case here, as all those affected were well aware of the tensions in the topic area) should be used liberally and widely, not seen as warnings and should not be able to be appealed, but just seen as polite notifications. i.e. the 'older wording' referred to in some places above. I agree that stern warnings are something else altogether, and should be firmly linked to a diff of the conduct that provoked the warning, and should be able to be appealed, though leaving Wikipedia altogether seems an over-reaction to me (and that's putting it mildly). My general view, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard what I've said on the subject before (I once engaged Noetica on their talk page in a discussion about this), is that over-specialisation in article titles and manual of style issues isn't really the greatest idea. It can work up to a point, but the peculiar tensions of an environment that anyone can edit means that certain ideals just aren't attainable and you can't get to the point where editors can work harmoniously together following a manual of style the right way (which means not following it all the time), and at the same time resist the temptation to argue over the manual of style or article titles instead (in real-world editing environments, people do argue over style, but if they are professional about it, they don't let those arguments affect their actual editing, and they keep the focus on the editing rather than what sometimes happens on Wikipedia where people get drawn more into the arguments about style than the editing work that really needs doing). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Line 683:
===Arbitrator views and comments===
*The restriction at issue is remedy 1 in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay]], in which GoodDay was prohibited from making edits concerning the use or non-use of diacritical marks, because he had been engaged in a series of controversies concerning when such marks should be used. At this stage, I think it best that GoodDay stay away from this area, even though he indicates that he accepts and is ready to implement a consensus that was reached. The non-substantive changes to names contained in hockey articles to which GoodDay refers can be made by other editors, and there is no threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia if it takes some time to make them all. Thus, I don't see the benefit to GoodDay's getting involved again with this aspect of editing that would outweigh the reasons it's best for him not to. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
* I agree with Newyorkbrad, and I don't think I have anything important to add to what has already been said. GoodDay seems to have edited successfully in recent months (though I recall there was difficult with his edits in the months after the arbitration case was closed), but I do not see compelling grounds here to vacate his restriction. I would deny this appeal. [[User:AGK|<
*GoodDay, there was significant dispute about your behavior last time with regards to diacritics, to such a degree that ArbCom felt the most effective solution would just be to topic ban you from them. I don't see any reason to change that now, per Newyorkbrad's last few sentences.<p>@AQFK: Yes. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<
*I see no reason to lift this restriction at this time. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
*As per NYB, editors who have less baggage in regard to diacritical marks are probably best suited to be making the edits that GoodDay mentions. And probably as part of general editing of an article, rather than as a focused mass article edit session which might be seen as contentious or politicised. This is a delicate area which can flare up. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time</sup>]]''' 18:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 970:
=== Statement by KillerChihuahua===
I have long felt that notifications should be the standard, as opposed to warnings. Keep formal warnings, they have their place; but leaving out the notification option has led to a sticky situation where an editor effectively cannot be informed without being accused of wrongdoing, and cannot be sanctioned without a step which is often pointless and harmful to the encyclopedia (in the sense that one must cross off "warning" before doing anything else which might be indicated.) This is absurd, so sorry. Editors ought to be able to tell other editors without having to wait until the new editor has committed a foul which they might have been able to avoid; articles should not be left at risk just because an editor has to be warned, and then ''another'' filing must take place before they're actually prevented from harming the encyclopedia. Then comes the second problem; editors who ''are'' warned react in a hostile fashion if they think there is any question regarding their actions, leading to more drama and bad feelings. Then there is the third problem, which has led to truly ridiculous arguments on AE; editors argue that they can't be sanctioned because they were never formally, adequately, procedurally correctly, warned. Notifications solve '''all''' these problems. I have always had notifications on articles on community probation which I have written and enforced, and there is far less hostility, far less wiki-lawyering, and far less bizarre rules wankery. With notifications, one is truly being kind and letting someone know ''before'' they get into trouble. This is my view not just on this case but every case on DS as well as CS; we should change the standard approach to a more proactive, helpful one. One puppy's opinion. [[User:KillerChihuahua|Killer]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|<
:See [[Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation#Notifications]] for an example; "Listing here indicates only that an editor has been notified. Listing here should not be taken to mean that the user's edits were in violation of the article probation." IOW notification is not to be taken that an editor has done anything wrong; and the verbiage of the [[TL|Uw-probation]] template is also friendly and informative ("a routine friendly notice"), rather than accusatory. This is one instance where I think the community standard practice is preferable to the ArbCom standard practice. [[User:KillerChihuahua|Killer]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|<
=== Statement by other user ===
Line 986:
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Thanks for bringing up this point. I can see the aid a "list of notices", etc., could provide, but I'm also of the mind that, in trying to keep a fraught area cool, giving friendly (unlogged) notices first might be the best option (also per [[WP:TEMPLAR]]). [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#cc6600;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#ff6600;">talk</span>]])</small></sup> 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
* As was implied above, I do intend to deal with the wider issue of notices by means of an overarching motion, which I hope to draft in the near future (the motion will require a large commitment of time and a lot of attention to detail). Ultimately, the nature of notices (and the notices–warnings dichotomy) will need to be decided through a binding vote among the committee, but community comment will certainly be solicited. [[User:AGK|<
:* NewsAndEventsGuy: I have published a draft motion at [[User talk:AGK/DS]], where you are welcome to submit your thoughts and comments. [[User:AGK|<
*This appears to be being handled. Thanks to AGK for the draft motion. I agree with KillerChihuahua's comments on notifications (similar to such comments made elsewhere). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
----
| |||