Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 38: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:56, 13 January 2022

Revision as of 07:53, 25 January 2022

Line 516:

:'''''[[Special:Permalink/338711430#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong|Original discussion]]'''''

{{atop}}

'''Initiated by ''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> '''at''' 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Falun Gong}}

Line 534:

Remedy 1 provides for "article probation" for all articles in the area of conflict. But article probation, as specified at [[WP:GS#Types of sanctions]] ("Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages") only allows article or topic bans. However, in some situations, administrators may wish to impose less drastic measures. For instance, in the open enforcement request at [[WP:AE#Simonm223]], I think that a revert restriction would be more appropriate, at least initially, than a topic ban. Although one might assume that, ''[[a maiore ad minus]]'', the authority to impose a strong sanction such as a topic ban implies the authority to impose lesser sanctions, it is preferable (for the avoidance of doubt and wikilawyering) that such authority be expressly provided for.

I make this request as an administrator active in [[WP:AE]] (again since January 1, having confidence in the new ArbCom), and have no involvement in the original case or in any other disputes concerning Falun Gong. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

==== Statement by Vassyana ====