Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 82: 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] |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 202:
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
*{{userlinks|MrX}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Arzel}}
; 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:Arzel&diff=646897575&oldid=646822627]
Line 270:
=== Statement by Gamaliel ===
For each of these violations there is likely a reasonable excuse or explanation, but together they and many, many others add up to a long-standing pattern of behavior. It is well established, most recently in the Gamergate case, that a pattern of negative and problematic behavior even in the defense of justice or policy is not acceptable. No one is saying adding poor sources or violating BLP is acceptable, but constantly responding to alleged incidents of such in a manner that is pointy, uncivil, and personalizes disputes is counterproductive and inappropriate. Behavior like this is the reason that political articles are a hornet's nest that many users want to avoid. It poisons the atmosphere of collaborative editing and encourages retaliatory behavior from other editors. We're long past the point that, as Collect suggests, this editor be asked nicely to refrain from such behavior. [[User:Gamaliel|<
=== Statement by DHeyward ===
Line 298:
====Motion (Arzel topic banned)====
:
{{Ivmbox|1={{user|Arzel}} is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the [[United States]], broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator per the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Enforcement of restrictions|standard provisions]]. Arzel may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.}}
Line 386:
====Motion (Eastern Europe)====
:
{{Ivmbox|1=On 11 February 2015, {{admin|Coffee}} blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARussian_editor1996&diff=646670682&oldid=615871233 an editor] relying on the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe|discretionary sanctions provisions for Eastern Europe]]. As a discretionary sanctions block it was out of process as the editor had not been [[WP:ACDS#alert|pre-notified of discretionary sanctions for the topic]]. Accordingly, the [[WP:ACDS#modifications|prohibitions on modification]] do not apply and the block may be modified by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee is advised to better familiarize themselves with the [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions provisions]] before using this process again.}}
'''Enacted''' - --'''[[User:Lixxx235|L235]]''' ([[User talk:Lixxx235|t]] / [[Special:Contribs/Lixxx235|c]] / [[User:Lixxx235/siginfo|<small>ping in reply</small>]]) 00:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Line 425:
#[[WP:ARBGG#ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned]]
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
*{{userlinks|GoldenRing}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|MarkBernstein}}
*{{admin|Gamaliel}}
; 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. -->
*MarkBernstein - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkBernstein&diff=647662844&oldid=647297497]
Line 532:
I find the evidence presented here does not warrant a retroactive sanction nor a discretionary one. As initially presented to me on my user talk page, they included the correction of another editor's typo as evidence of problematic behavior and the inaccurate claim that Mark Bernstein's discussion of anti-Semetic comments about him on Twitter was an attack on other Wikipedia editors labeling them anti-Semetic.
Mark Bernstein is widely unpopular on Wikipedia due to his blog posts and the press coverage they have received, and he is even more unpopular on the less savory parts of the internet, who desperately want him sanctioned so they can add Mark Bernstein to their collection of Gamergate trophies and parade his severed head on a pike through the boards of 8Chan. I believe this particular request is sincere and made in good faith, but we can't ignore the context of the request. In this sort of atmosphere, where so many editors are utterly convinced of Mark Bernstein's perfidy and menace, otherwise well-meaning editors are likely to view even the most innocuous statements by him in the worst possible light, as is happening in this request. [[User:Gamaliel|<
{{ping|GoldenRing}} I didn't interpret your post here as a request for action or an accusation against myself, but I do appreciate your clarification. [[User:Gamaliel|<
=== Statement by Johnuniq ===
Line 559:
=== Statement by [[User:Liz|Liz]] ===
Just wanted to make the observation that looking at the sanctions log, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate_2|2014 GG block log]], not all topic bans issued were indefinite and some were just for a period of a week or a few months. Not all editors who were topic ban were included in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]] which clearly identified those editors whose topic bans were commuted into the standard topic ban. [[User:Liz|<
=== Statement by DHeyward ===
Line 600:
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
*{{userlinks|Smallbones}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Fluffernutter}}
Line 607:
*{{admin|HJ Mitchell}}
; 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:Fluffernutter&diff=prev&oldid=647257409 diff of notification Fluffernutter]
Line 642:
:::"In cases where it is clear that a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. In cases where the general dispute resolution procedure has been ineffective, the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive or sensitive situations."
::[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(
{{u|Roger Davies}},
Line 657:
{{u|Carrite}}, I just can't imagine somebody seriously writing "the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing per se, the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding."
The "WMF's unilateral tweaking" was the largest RFC in history [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment]. 1103 users (79.4%) supported the change to the TOU and only 286 against it. That's 4 supports for every 1 against. Folks who say that there is no community support for the TOU either haven't paid attention or want to exclude a large number of the members of our community. If anyone - arbs or otherwise - want to change the outcome so that the TOU is no longer policy, the TOU describe how they can do that. It certainly hasn't been done yet. There's no requirement that another RFC has to be run so that policy can be enforced. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(
=== Statement by Fluffernutter ===
Line 682:
=== Statement by Jayen466 ===
The most elegant solution is to strike the principle, as there is neither a related finding of fact nor a related remedy. This leaves the committee free to formulate something more developed if and when a related case arises. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<
=== Statement by Harry Mitchell ===
Line 832:
**{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} Indeed, it is very much a work in progress, and it needs to be viewed as such. I think this will take some time, effort, and serious community thought, and won't be solved by attributing it to arbcom. Hopefully through this process of (general) improvement, these issues will be ironed out. But sometimes it takes them being highlighted for the community to make any real progress on them. Thanks for the thoughts. I really hope the community can work a reasonable policy out, although this is a difficult issue, and it may take quite some time. If there is any general guidance I would give, it is that the community should work out processes which are implementable, not ones which look good from a PR perspective. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 13:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
====Motion (Paid editing principle in ''Wifione'' case stricken)====
:
{{Ivmbox|1=Principle 6 on paid editing is stricken from the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|''Wifione'']] case.}}
| |||