Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 92: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31) Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 195:
**It seems that agreement has been reached that the original wording of the editnotice was too vague and it has now been updated, which takes care of the immediate issue; however, there are still some underlying matters unresolved and it would seem awfully bureaucratic to demand a new request to address them (especially considering that the problems lie in procedural bureaucracy :) As Wordsmith says above, the open procedural questions are: 1) is an editnotice sufficient warning for DS sanctions? and 2) should even obviously misguided AE actions prompt desysopping as a consequence for reversal? I'm uncertain on 1 - there are circumstances where it's impractical to individually warn every participant. I'd prefer to allow editnotices to be used as warnings, with the strong expectation that they will be used sparingly - perhaps only outside of articlespace, under the assumption that people participating in complex internal wikiprocesses are generally familiar with the system. Certainly I think NYB is correct to recommend emphasizing that blocks should be a last resort, not an automatic reaction to an evidently good-faith edit that happens to break the rules. {{parabr}} On the other hand, I'm very certain on 2: it's no secret that I strongly dislike the "AE tripwire" effect and absolutely do not think there is any benefit to trying to double down on it for future similar situations as a consequence of this request. It doesn't work as intended to reduce drama and overreaction or to support the efforts of admins working in difficult areas - compare this slow-moving and generally calm procedural discussion with the hypothetical situation in which a rush of arbs had voted in a Level II desysop. Again, I'm not sure we need a procedural change so much as a change in social expectations: if your AE action gets reverted, do what Coffee wisely did and take a couple of days off and then come to ARCA to work out how to fix whatever the misunderstanding was. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 01:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) {{parabr}} <small>I had an old tab open when I wrote this, and I see Callanecc has made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Arbitration_standard_provisions&diff=prev&oldid=728532991 this edit] regarding enforcement actions, which I can't contest as a matter of procedural validity - that is indeed an accurate description of what was decided last year - but I strongly disagree with its substance. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)</small>
***On editnotices: {{u|The Wordsmith}}, that's a good idea about the talk namespace, and article+talk vs projectspace captures most of the intended distinction. {{u|Newyorkbrad}}, I take it that you think a direct personal notification is always preferable to a general notice, but I'm not sure I agree; as far as I can tell most experienced editors hate these things. There's almost no way a template on your talk page, no matter how neutrally and blandly worded, doesn't feel targeted toward ''you''. A general notice risks being overlooked but also avoids annoying people who are already working in a difficult area. If delivering notices for article and talk space edits is chewing up too much scarce admin time, then it sounds like the solution is either to actively solicit more admin help in AE/DS, or to leverage what we have with more effective technical support. (Maybe a bot could deliver the talk-page alerts to those who edit particular pages for the first time and haven't been warned?)
***On reversal of AE sanctions: After a year of opportunities, ''this'' is the set of facts that prompts us to draw a line under AE1, instead of reconsidering that conclusion? OK, ''this'' time through the wringer went: Good-faith but undesirable edit, good-faith but undesirable block, quick unblock, everyone heads over to ARCA to sort shit out, compromise reached (though I guess it still needs some wordsmithing). Next time it'll be: Edit, block, unblock, <
* I agree we shouldn't be sanctioning anyone. So far as I'm concerned, practice is that talk page notices and edit notices are sufficient, and if our documentation is confusing or suggests otherwise then we should do something about it. This could be to change practice (but not to suggest that enforcement of such notices in the past was wrong) or to change policy/documentation as appropriate. "Potentially contentious" is a problem and I'd have to be convinced that such wording is useful and enforceable. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
**{{ping|Coffee}} Looks like we are getting somewhere, hopefully more of my colleagues will be around soon to comment. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 449:
===Statement by HighKing ===
I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years (wow .. that's a long time!) and I also think that asking for detailed reasoning at this stage would be unreasonable. His actions and good behaviour on this issue speak for themselves. [[User:HighKing|<
:After reading some of the comments below from our Arbitration people, I'm worried and concerned that the prevailing reasoning being provided for not lifting the ban suggests that an editor should only request an unban if they declare that they've no intention of editing in the subject area in question again. Yet I've seen other requests where an editor makes a declaration along the lines that they don't intend to rush back to the topic only to be told that there's then no need to lift the bad. Should we not AGF once the editor declares they intend to mend their ways (and have shown efforts to do so) and that they intend to abide by policy? Am I missing something? [[User:HighKing|<
=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
Line 552:
====GoodDay: Motion====
:
{{ivmbox|1=The Committee resolves that [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics|remedy 1.1]] (GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics) in the {{RFARlinks|GoodDay}} is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on GoodDay should GoodDay fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing concerning diacritics, broadly construed, or participating in any discussions about the same.<p>
Line 597:
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
*{{userlinks|Sfarney}} (initiator)
*{{admin|The Wordsmith}}
Line 603:
*{{admin|Dennis Brown}}
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith&diff=732875090&oldid=732872254 The Wordsmith]
Line 820:
#[[User_talk:Debresser#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction]]
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
*{{userlinks|Debresser}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Nableezy}}
*{{userlinks|Nishidani}}
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy&diff=732077020&oldid=731975480 diff of notification Nableezy]
Line 930:
I will be the first to agree that Debresser can sometimes be strong in his opinions but you also need to admit that for a pro-Israel editor, the "game" already starts off with the other side having a major handicap. Any issue that falls under 1RR or any RFC usually ends up being a numbers game, whether intentional or not. I think the best thing would be to shorten the TBAN and issue a strong warning. We really don't need to lose a usually good editor who can edit neutrally. I have seen Debresser editing with a pro-PA (in a way fixing the article but not touching content, etc.) and I have had my run ins with him as well but on the whole the IP area would be worse off without him.
I will just agree with ANA's point about the area not being one that neutral editors want to touch. During my time at AE I've also been told via email that this area is "off limits" either due to the headache or bias. That is indeed something that should be looked into, independent of this action. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<sup
=== Statement by Serialjoepsycho ===
| |||