Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 66: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Removed invalid italics causing Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 117:
==== Community comments regarding Motion 1 ====
Will unrestricted editing automatically ensue after six months with no violations, or will it be necessary to file an additional amendment? <
: If the appellant does not violate his 1RR restriction, the restriction will expire after 6 months and he will be as free as you and me to edit that topic area. [[User talk:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
::Exactly. Conversely, if an indefinite block is instated at any point during the restriction, ''for a violation of the restriction'', the topic ban will be reinstated without need for further amendment. [[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> 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Line 167:
=== Statement by Mar4d ===
The analogy present here is incorrect; any user who restores a sock's edit does so on their own behalf and it is usually when he/her feels that this edit was valid. What if a sock revert vandalism, will you revert that too? Furthermore, an amendment like this will not go down well because Darkness Shines has a history of targeting innocent IP editors 86.x, 109.x, 39.x IP ranges who were not related to a sock. There are hundreds of people using these ranges and if this gets passed, then DS will pretty much revert anyone whom he thinks to be a sock on hindsight without evidence, as he is doing with another long-established [[User:Jozoisis]] using his poor judgement. He is kind of topic banning all editors from editing using the sock label even when usually in those cases there is nothing to suggest that this particular editor may be a sock. '''[[User:Mar4d|<
=== Statement by Richwales ===
Line 198:
I was the administrator who put the original restriction on DS because of there being issues of baseless SPIs being filed. One of the conditions was that DS may not file against Nangparbat. This is now worse off than it started, we are going from baseless SPIs to not even presenting evidence, but making a closed decision on who's a sock of who. While I admit (although I haven't looked for the behavior to verify it, i'm trusting the administrator's judgement) that DS has done some correct reverts like [[User:109.145.251.152]] which was blocked, reverts and tags like those to [[User:Desiray09]] are not appropriate as there is no trail of evidence to link this to the master, and it's one edit. If there is a block or something because DS emailed another admin or something, that's fine. It shows a second step in the process which is critical, especially when users can present bias from editing in the subject area. This is why a ruling that "editors may not remove suspected sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet user pages", as requested by DS, would be problematic. It also creates a horrible restriction if people are wrong and '''need''' to remove the tags, which i've had to do in my wiki-lifetime a few times.
On to the actual request for clarification, the request for a restriction that "no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor" actually undermines the policy at [[WP:BAN]] in which the community policy says that editors take responsibility for any edits restored. While I agree it's not optimal to restore banned editors contributions, if it's a good improvement, then why should we chuck it out the door? Were already blocking them, or protecting articles, making it harder for them to edit, it's not like we are [[WP:DENY|giving too much attention]] to the issue. I haven't specifically looked over the R/I ArbCom motion yet, but as Rich stated above, {{talkquote|The Race and Intelligence motion was, as best I can tell, passed in response to a particularly troublesome situation which was originally dealt with in an arbitration case. Quoting from the originally enacted remedies in that case: "[T]his topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment."|Richwales}}. There has been no presented evidence to indicate that this area is hostile, and further more, I don't see the extensive disruption. So there is no precedent to go on, and it undermines community policy in a way that would hurt it, not help it. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<
=== Statement by Smsarmad ===
Line 468:
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 481:
=== Statement by My76Strat ===
On November 4, 2012, Arbcom enacted the following motion:<blockquote>1) The topic ban placed against {{user|Iantresman}} as a condition of unblocking in {{plainlinks|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iantresman&diff=451128252&oldid=407852043|title=September 2011}} is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.</blockquote>{{user|IRWolfie-}} filed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Iantresman]] on November 9, 2012, requesting enforcement of [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases]], an outdated page that Iantresman is not sanctioned under. Furthermore, IRWolfie cites this talk page discussion<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration]</span> as impetus for seeking [[WP:AE]]. Nothing in that discussion rises to a violation of the enacted motion. Instead IRWolfie alleges that Iantresman should be topic banned under existing provisions of the discretionary sanctions in place for the topic being discussed. {{user|Timotheus Canens}} and {{user|NuclearWarfare}} both indicate support for the topic ban. I mentioned that nothing Iantresman had done was a violation and that [[WP:AC/DS]] points 2. and 4. were clear that a warning was required first. {{user|EdJohnston}} then stated that since "Iantresman was a named party of the [[WP:ARBPS]] case. A party should not require a special notice that the discretionary sanctions of that case can apply to them." I am seeking a clarification to this prevailing premise. It does not follow that Iantresman should be subjected to an immediate ban without warning simply because he formerly was. Especially when no action was a direct violation of the sanction in place. I thank the committee for giving their attention to this matter. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
@Thryduulf Your comment belies a tangential relation, actually elucidating the core of this request. Being aware of a potential for sanctions does not imply one would know they are encroaching the "event horizon". It seems intuitive that including the '''requirement''' (to warn) is a reasonable measure to alleviate this anticipation of uncertainty. Such a view is further indicative when considering the subsequent requirements that, "warnings should be clear and unambiguous", and they should "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". Instead of clarity, thoughtful editors are expected to accept misconduct happened without being shown where the transgression manifest. I would seriously like to know what specific action of Iantresman equivocates the crossing of an acceptable line. Was it when he asked the question, or when he offered his opinion? And if there is no right to be informed of this, failing to follow point 5, "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process" become rather moot and seem a waste of effort to proffer. One day I suppose I'll learn my place, and quit asking questions myself. Until then, just ignore my prose, and be thankful the servers can accommodate the wasted bytes necessary to publish my babel. Regards, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
=== Statement by iantresman ===
Line 623:
***Exactly, NYB, I know full well they're not the same concept; but the behavioural issues are quite similar as the topics occur on WP, and the time of the AE admins is wasted in dealing with arguments over which label an article deserves, rather than cutting right to what they are really being asked to do; evaluate conduct. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
;Community comments on proposed motion
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures]] states: "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made." I think modifying an "area of conflict" qualifies as "significant or substantive modifications" and believe the prescribed steps should be followed as outlined. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
:It's not a procedure. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) This isn't a change to ''Arbitration Committee procedures'', so the policy My76Stat cites isn't really relevant; nonetheless, I'm definitely glad to wait a couple of days for any additional community input before voting on the motion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
::I thank both esteemed members for correcting my perspective. It would be great if either of you would have linked the relevant guidelines that do govern best practices for adding or modifying an area of conflict, but I am aware that you could not; because there are no such guidelines. I have reviewed the guidance available, and the closest prose I could find are shown in my original comment. I didn't pull it from thin air either, but followed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions]], which seems to imply it is a "procedure", giving credence to "modification of procedures" as an appropriate clause. I guess that makes me a "wikilawyer" too, because I'm curious enough to seek guidance, humble enough to ask for help, and bold enough to state my opinion. It does not sit well with me, seeing Iantresman silenced by a discretionary topic ban for identical conduct, nor that he has been adorned with a compliment of labels that arguably rise to incivility. Some of the rhetoric has been echoed here, by esteemed members who are apparently comfortable wielding a rubber-stamp opposed to examining the merits of an action at their fore. Therefor, allow me to correct my original statement to reflect the policy that is relevant; [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]] where we are encouraged to not only ignore the rules, but to ignore them "beautifully". So much so, that there is no pressing need to even write them anymore. If someone does ask, call them a wikilawyer and show them the door. Regards, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
:::They are not modifying how the sanctions work, they are just applying them on more articles. That's not a modification of Arbcom's procedures. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 14:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. Thanks, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
::::I don't think this will really make it apply to more articles than originally intended; rather it just clarifies edge cases from doubt. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 21:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 645:
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 654:
Pursuant a question of policy interpretation initiated by [[User:The Interior|The Interior]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Interior#Passing]</span> I'd like to ask the committee to interpret if it would be unacceptable to post an obituary of a recently deceased wikipedian as a form of outing?
@ Courcelles, I appreciate your comment, and the counsel within. I did consider that this request could fall contrary to the arbitration process, hoping that the function "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" might apply. It is possible that a community discussion could reach an improper consensus without any malice intent, encroaching legal ramifications beyond what a lay body would reasonably consider. It seems within the clause allowing the Committee to "interpret existing policy". Even these provisions might require the protocol of a full case, which I would understand if the mandate is clear that a clarification must be narrowly construed within the context of an existing case. I apologize to the extent I may have approached this outside of process, and will comply with any directive issued. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
@ A Quest For Knowledge, Your suggestion could be a work-around approach to allow an editor to post condolences to the obituary, but Risker is absolutely correct that a paramount desire is to update the biographical information included at [[WP:RIP]], as well as the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki page.<span class="plainlinks">[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deceased_editors]</span> This can only be accomplished in the light of full scrutiny, and should be IMO. One way or another, it seems invariable that the Committee will be the only body sufficiently capable of providing a credible answer, IMO. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
@ The Committee, The more I think about this question, the more it seems clear that there really could only be one answer. I can't even support the notion myself. I think my sensibility was temporally impaired by emotion, or something like that, I hope, or I am afflicted with chronic brain-fart. <s>I'd like to withdraw this request as malformed unless you prefer ill-construed. But I will leave the task of removing it to the better discretion of the Committee.</s> Sincerely, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
@ Roger Davies, I agree. A significant factor of the counsel coming from this clarification, is the notion of "informed consent". This follows the insight Silk Tork elaborated on in saying; "when asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence." Further suggesting; "a guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up", acknowledging that this is a community prerogative. I am in full agreement. I am curious however, if this prerogative should be accomplished at the communities leisure, or if it is prudent for the Committee to direct a timeline? Besides a timeline, should specific points be directed for the community, to addressed? Like a protocol for soliciting informed consent. A guideline for designating which family member had the authority to speak for the entire surviving family. Perhaps even a protocol for the possibility that one member might give consent while another expresses dissent. In any regard, I am pleased that the Committee has rallied to provide this valuable insight, in such a timely fashion. Sincerely, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
===Note from Risker===
Line 666:
===Comment from The Interior===
Thank you for the advice, Risker. I'm going to go ahead and add the information. I suppose it might be beneficial to ask the community if we need to add to [[WP:PRIVACY]] a clause about deceased Wikipedians, but maybe it's (hopefully) such a rare occurrence that it can be dealt with case by case. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">[[User:The Interior|<
:Update: will hold off until we here a few other opinions, but I trust Risker's assessment as they knew the editor better than I did. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">[[User:The Interior|<
=== Comment by A Quest For Knowledge ===
| |||