Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 64: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) create Tag: Disambiguation links added |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 85:
1) The restriction imposed on {{user|GregJackP}} in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#GregJackP topic-banned|Climate change case]] and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee|Ban Appeals Subcommittee]] on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.
:*'''Enacted''' - [[User:Guerillero|<
''For this motion there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.''
Line 106:
:;Comments:
:*On noting the comments above and reviewing [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change|the case]] I was inclined toward supporting this motion - though when I went to check recent contributions I noted just today the start of an edit war - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Islamic_societies&action=history]. I would rather wait to hear more statements. We have perhaps gone to motion rather quickly here based on few supporting statements (none?). '''[[User:SilkTork|<
:::The RfC is a good idea. And, while the community haven't come forward to support this request, they haven't come forward to oppose either, so that is also good. I'd like to just wait another 24 hours to see if any other comments are made, and in the meantime I'll have a quick glance at contributions history. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
::Holding off for a while before voting. Also somewhat more inclined to lift the CC ban than the NRM one at the moment. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 16:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
----
Line 193:
===Comment from The Blade of the Northern Lights===
I'm one of the other regular AE admins, and the only reason there's an appeal of Timotheus Canens' actions here is because he beat me to it. The ''last'' thing we need in this area is people using these articles to soapbox about whatever conspiracy theory strikes their fancy, and this is as good a way to handle it as any. I don't really care whether or not this solution is in The Book<sup>TM</sup>, it's already proven its worth in putting a stop to what was going on there before it, and I see no reason to remove it if it's working. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*All editors are reminded to edit only in their own sections. --[[User:Guerillero|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Well, the labeled "problem 3" is not a problem at all. Admins have always and authority to issue special rules in discretionary sanctions to make articles work, a long-standing precedent has been imposing 1RR under their authority. The restrictions imposed here look reasonable to me, and we aren't going to direct an article deletion. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
*The restrictions T. Canens applied are complex but sound. In response to the complainant's three arguments: 1) suggested edits simply now require additional scrutiny; they are not discouraged nor prevented. 2) If the new restrictions are inadequate, I suggest you ask an enforcing administrator to extend them. I agree that existing content is not restricted, but I can't say whether that was an obvious omission or by design. 3) Plainly, these restrictions are authorised by standard discretionary sanctions (they regulate user conduct, not article content), and T. Canens acted sensibly and within the limits of the remedy. If there is nothing else to consider, I would dismiss this complaint. [[User talk:AGK|<
*Awaiting more statements. I'm sure there are plenty of other observers who can comment on how things have been applied in this case, vs. other discretionary sanction areas. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
*I have no issues with T. Canens' actions here, which are well within the range of discretionary sanctions. The objective is to stop the disruption, and this seems to have a reasonable chance of doing so. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 207:
**@AnkhMorpork: Even so, AE is [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|that way]]. Administrators are empowered to handle this on their own, so there's little need for us to do anything in this regard. In the meantime, since you appear to believe that section should not have been deleted, I'd suggest starting that 48-hour discussion to get it re-added. There does not appear to be a consensus amongst the committee that the sanctions as they stand merit revocation, and since an administrator applied them in the first place there's no reason to believe they couldn't be extended by an administrator in the manner you're requesting. [[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> 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
* I essentially agree with my colleagues; although the restrictions are slightly complex, they are well within the acceptable bounds of discretionary sanctions. Obviously these restrictions are innovative, and it may well be prudent to evaluate their effectiveness in due course, however I suggest this request Request for Clarification can be closed without action. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 11:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
*While I essentially agree with my colleagues that T. Canens was acting in good faith and is to applauded for looking for solutions beyond locking down an article or blocking users, I also share AnkhMorpork's concern that general editing restrictions are being applied to all users without there being a discussion first. The reason I share this concern is that I have noted a tendency for editors to apply commented out/hidden restrictions in articles (such as <nowiki><!--DON'T CHANGE THIS WITHOUT DISCUSSION --></nowiki>), or to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/AC/DC&oldid=487210466 impose restrictions in editnotices], and now we are moving toward making such informal restrictions acceptable at ArbCom level which would encourage their use at a lower level. While I am not against imposing such general editing restrictions where needed, I do feel that it would be worth looking into formalising the process so that an open discussion is included so that there is both clear consensus on using such restrictions, and a time limit on their use. As the Foundation is concerned to encourage more readers to get involved in editing Wikipedia, it would be appropriate to first consider a solution which is less restrictive of the general reader. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
----
{{abot}}
Line 296:
=== Statement by Jayen466 ===
Support. I had thought of proposing this myself a while back. Enough time has passed. Andries has access to good sources, and I trust him not to abuse the editing privilege. '''
:Echoing Tjfo098's concerns. Discretionary sanctions in the topic area seem like a good idea to me. --'''
=== Statement by Tijfo098 ===
Line 329:
*Would be willing to consider this. No blocks since 2006, user talk page looks fine, reduced but continued editing history, no apparent issues with his few comments to the relevant talk pages (a restriction that was lifted back in 2008). This case is 5 years old; I think we can probably find a way to give it a try. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
*I could go for lifting this topic ban, and giving consideration to either invoking remedy 5 to impose standard discretionary sanctions on the topic (Which would almost surely be the case already if this were a 2009, and not a 2006, case.) or granting AE authority to reimpose the topic ban on this single editor if problems arise. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
*I think it's worth considering lifting the user topic ban, and putting discretionary sanctions on the topic itself. This would allow work to be done by someone interested in the topic and apparently with access to sources, while protecting the article against potential instability which may arise from his involvement. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*Based on the discussion, some moderation or removal of the existing topic ban seems to have a tentative consensus here--what is lacking is any agreement on the specific nature of such a modification. Lifting the topic ban is simplest, discretionary sanctions are easy procedurally but NW's point on their expansion is well taken. I will likely support whichever modification a colleague is willing to put forward as a motion. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
*I'd be willing to support a modification here. Perhaps we should consider suspending the topic-ban for three months, with the option of then lifting it completely if there are no serious problems during that time. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 364:
:# Fair enough. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:# all editors have to abide by rules. Any editor finding problems with another editors' editing can raise this at one of several venues. I can live with this option. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:# '''[[User:SilkTork|<
:# Second choice, support the alternative limited to Andries, and given that we really don't know anything about the current state of the editing environment in this area beyond what we can casually glean from skimming the pages, since the case is several years old at this point. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 05:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 382:
:# Would prefer 4 months as this places the decision in the run up to the holiday season. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 10:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:#: I have no objection to this. It would mean that the final decision would be made by next year's arbitrators rather than this year's, to the extent there is turnover, but I don't think that's a big deal one way or the other. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:#I'm quite keen that we ''don't'' so regularly authorise discretionary sanctions that it is as though we are throwing bureaucratic confetti, so this is my only choice. (I'm fine with returning to this issue in three, rather than four, months. Our busyness over the holiday season seems greater in imagination than in reality.) [[User talk:AGK|<
:# Support as written; while I'm okay with 4 months if there's a copy edit, I think we can handle it in 3 months if Andries shows he is doing fine. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Willing to support this alternative, too. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Yes exactly. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
:# OK. Willing to give this a go. Only one article has recently experienced edit warring - [[Sathya Sai Baba movement]] - and that was by IP accounts, so I have semi-protected it for three months. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
:#Far from optimal, so ''only'' if nothing else passes. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 396:
; Comments
*I'm still considering the requests for discretionary sanctions to be applied to the topic area, while weighing that against the reluctance to expand discretionary sanctions. The article has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=&limit=500&action=history recent history] of instability, and we are adding to the potential of there being increased instability with the removal of restrictions on Andries. There is the same weight of responsibility on admins if we leave matters as they are, or if we grant any of the motions: an infringement on a series of articles can be reported and sanctions applied whatever we decide. Motion Two, however, is the only one that changes the situation from attention on one editor to attention paid where the disruption is most likely to happen: as what we are seeing is that the user has no recent problems outside the topic area, and that the topic area itself is unstable, it appears to me that it may be the topic area that requires attention rather than the user. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
::@Tijfo098. Yes, I have been considering semi-protection, and that may well be enough. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
----
Line 445:
* I agree with the cautious approach outlined by Hersfold. That said, Mandated External Review is a new process, and some fine tuning may be appropriate. Looking at the [[WP:MER]] page, there is already an exception for 'minor, uncontroversial corrections to spelling, grammar, and/or style' and it's possible this clause could be expanded slightly to allow fixing one own's edits, for example. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
* I agree with Hersfold's and PhilKnight's positions. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 06:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
* Recuse. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I also agree with the comments above. And since Homunculus has indicated he also agrees, this request can probably be closed soon. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
*Just noting that I'm in broad agreement with the above, but have nothing specific to add. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Line 507:
=== Statement by Masanori Asami ===
This statement has been deleted[{{fullurl:User_talk:Masanori_Asami|diff=516533537&oldid=516518255}}]. [[User talk:AGK|<
=== Statement by EauOo ===
Line 533:
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*As there is confusion regarding the matter, a clarification seems appropriate. It appears that the [[Senkaku Islands]] are part of the [[Sakishima Islands]] which in turn are part of the [[Ryukyu Islands]], so while related there is a degree of separation akin to Ireland and the British Isles. Someone editing an article on the [[Isle of Man]] should not be subject to remedies related to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles|The Troubles]] unless the material they were editing actually related to The Troubles. The sanctions in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands]] applied a remedy specifically to the article currently named [[Senkaku Islands]] and then a separate remedy to all other islands in the area. It would appear to me that [[Ryukyu Islands]] are not another name for the topic which is currently named [[Senkaku Islands]], and so remedy 8 would apply. I'm not sure how to reword the remedy to make it clearer that remedy 7 only applies to "The topic covered by the article currently located at [[Senkaku Islands]]". The wording seems fairly precise, and is worded such as the name of the article was being changed. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
::@Lothar von Richthofen. My intention was to make the link that the [[Senkaku Islands]] are part of the [[Ryukyu Islands]] in the same way that [[Ireland]] is part of the {{British Isles]] (which includes the [[Isle of Man]]). There is a specific remedy for the the [[Senkaku Islands]] (remedy 7) and a broader remedy for nearby islands (remedy 8). The wording is fairly clear on that, though worded as such because the name of the article was changing. Remedy 7 applies to the [[Senkaku Islands]] under whatever name they are called. It would take a significant leap to make the [[Senkaku Islands]] include the [[Ryukyu Islands]], on a scale equivalent to [[Ireland]] including the [[British Isles]]. In this instance remedy 8 applies; the questions remaining are - does the remedy wording need amending to make it clearer (I'm not sure it can be clearer), and do we need to have a motion so that remedy 7 now explicitly covers the [[Ryukyu Islands]]. As NYB says below, that might be a bit strong just for one disruptive user. Is there evidence of other disruption on [[Ryukyu Islands]] articles that might warrant a move from remedy 8 to remedy 7? '''[[User:SilkTork|<
:::@Lothar von Richthofen. If a user feels that there is a naming dispute occurring on an article dealing with an island in East Asia, they would need to inform an admin who would then make a decision as to what to do. The user could contact an admin directly or via an admin noticeboard, including, as this comes under ArbCom, the AE noticeboard.
:::If the person who prompted this query has been blocked, and you feel your questions have been addressed, is this matter now closed and the clerks can archive this? '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*A clerk can close this as resolved. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I believe the intent of the remedies in the ''Senkaku Islands'' case is broad enough to allow an administrator to impose discretionary sanctions concerning [[Ryukyu Islands]] and [[Ryukyu Arc]], even though there is no current sovereignty dispute (that I'm aware of) concerning the Ryukyus. If anyone strongly disagrees, then an an arbitrator motion here to clarify the situation might be warranted. However, before anyone imposes discretionary sanctions, I would ask whether there are serious, chronic problems with these articles (as was the case with the Senkaku Islands and before that with the currently-in-the-news [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks|Liancourt Rocks]]). If the problem basically arises from a single disruptive editor, then invoking the whole rigmarole of discretionary sanctions may be unnecessary and more traditional ANI type remedies might suffice. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Line 550:
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] ([[User talk:Gimmetoo|talk]]) '''at''' 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)<br/>
'''Summarily re-opened by the Arbitration Committee''' per [{{fullurl:User_talk:Ohconfucius|diff=509894547&oldid=509859850}} this]. [[User talk:AGK|<
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 592:
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*Any update on this? '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 21:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
* I've asked the clerks to archive this request. [[User talk:AGK|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. [[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> 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
*Agree with Hersfold. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
**Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - [[User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js]] - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
**Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 608:
----
;Comments made ''after'' the request was re-opened:
* Summarily re-opened per [{{fullurl:User_talk:Ohconfucius|diff=509894547&oldid=509859850}} this] statement by the committee. [[User talk:AGK|<
* I agree with Risker's comments, firstly no sanctions are currently active, and secondly, a return to the same conduct which led to the imposition of sanctions could result in the sanctions being reinstated. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 20:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
* While we agreed this matter must be re-visited, I must confess I've lost track of what, if anything, we need to decide here. If nobody can point to a pending problem with OC's edits (or any current arbitration decision) that requires this committee's attention, I think this request should be archived. Jclemens, if you are reading, might you point me to a summary of relevant, pending issues? [[User talk:AGK|<
** I have no summary of "issues", to the extent that I have no particular background in the date delinking issue in general. What I did do was block Ohconfucius' accounts when he surreptitiously edited date-related matters in defiance of instructions to contact the committee before doing so if he un-retired. That has been the extent of my involvement; to the extent that his deception has made me wary of his promises, I remain skeptical of his reassurances, especially given his history of past sanction, but that is not related to the issue that prompted this to be opened in the first place. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
* The point of this appears to have got lost. I am for this being archived. If there is an issue for us to clarify, a fresh request could be made. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
* If none of my colleagues weigh in soon, this thread should be archived by a clerk. The situation has clearly dissolved, leaving us nothing to decide for the time being. As SilkTork says, if our attention is needed in future we can be found here. [[User talk:AGK|<
**Agree this can be archived now. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Line 725:
Bali Ultimate, you say [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABali_ultimate&diff=516249315&oldid=516220440 you are a named professional] except you behave as a named idiot. Named professionals come to Wikipedia to write articles and not to be ""meanie" on talk pages." Now you are blocked, and when the block expires you'd come back with your tail between your legs or else. It is the only thing you've achieved so far. <small>— [[User:108.60.151.4|108.60.151.4]] ([[User talk:108.60.151.4|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/108.60.151.4|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at 23:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC).</small>
: I.P., you have stated only that you object to my comment, but not why. You must therefore forgive me if I pay little heed to your statement, but I do ask for your clarification. You state unilaterally that my comments demonstrated "extreme immaturity" and suggested they had "the appearance of partiality". On your former statement, I am sure you are aware (as a regular contributor) that baseless, ''ad hominem'' remarks like that are unacceptable on Wikipedia. I am particularly at a loss to see how those remarks demonstrated immaturity. On your latter statement, I think you misunderstand the role of an arbitrator: we do not exist to "judge" cases, nor to "protect and serve" and uphold the rigid public image that goes with such missions, but to solve editorial disputes. If to do so I must succinctly state I think an editor needs to be referred to AE for sanctioning, then I will do precisely that. The role of arbitrator is made up largely of an ability and willingness to speak about the proverbial elephant in the room; you subscribe to a woefully flawed vision if you conflate that ability with "partiality". [[User talk:AGK|<
===Statement by Pluto2012 regarding AGK comment ===
Line 749:
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* I've asked the clerks to archive this request. [[User talk:AGK|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I have already opined on Bali ultimate's talk page about the recent edit war in the "Shark attacks" section of this article:{{Talkquote|Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the ''Shark attacks'' section. While I do not condone BU's comments on the article talk page, his edits neutralised some glaring problems with the POV in the Shark attacks section. The POV of that section was totally skewed, whereas Bali's re-write restored some balance and reason—and made it clear how laughable the "sharks" theory really is. This is a classic case of POV-pushers baiting somebody like BU into verbally lashing out.}} To me, the problem is that edits to this article are being policed only for decorum, and that obvious POV-pushing is being disregarded. I therefore advise the enforcement team to examine complaints about this article in more detail, and to look at the substance of incidents and edits. Rarely is only one side to blame, and sometimes editors lose their head for reasons which are actually valid. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* I concur with PhilKnight and SilkTork, though I echo my call that more rigorous enforcement of ''POV-pushing'' as well as merely ''un-collegial conduct'' needs to be made in this topic area. [[User talk:AGK|<
*This is a request regarding Timotheus Canens posting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoological_conspiracy_theories_%28Arab-Israeli_conflict%29&diff=514195889&oldid=506248518 these restrictions] on the [[Israel-related animal conspiracy theories]] article, which [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles was recently discussed] and archived on 26 Sept as being acceptable. I am not comfortable with general editing restrictions being applied to articles without there being some form of discussion and consensus sought first; but as these restrictions have been discussed, and there is a consensus for them, then a reasonable amount of time must be given to see how they work, and for any problems to be worked through via discussion on the article talkpage or on AE. It's perhaps too soon to be bringing this back to ArbCom. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
* Given that TC has recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZoological_conspiracy_theories_%28Israel_related%29&diff=515934443&oldid=515923958 modified] these sanctions, I think we should allow some time before determining their effectiveness. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 15:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
*I see no reason to modify the tweaked sanctions, but they have got to be enforced. This article is a train-wreck, and if people are not following them, block them. If that doesn't solve it, full protect it and force folks to use the talk page. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Line 919:
***How many times have we restored adminship without a full RFA, and when was the last time it was done (Ignoring cases where the tools were temporarily removed, such as through an emergency desysop or temporary injunction)? [[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> 21:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
****Two that I can think of are GlassCobra (2010) and Coffee (2009). I don't see any others in the motion archives, but I haven't searched exhausively. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
*****"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.]" That would seem to allow ArbCom to review and reverse a sanction, such as a desysop - and that would make sense. If on reflection, changing circumstances, new evidence, etc, it appears that a sanction is not appropriate or no longer appropriate, then coming to us first to reverse or amend the sanction would be the right thing to do. However, I would be wary of encouraging desysopped admins to use this route for requesting the return of the tools. The process of going through RfA is a sound one, as the community prefers to have admins in which they have confidence. An RfA confirms that confidence. If an admin can ''only'' regain the tools by avoiding RfA, then they patently do not have the community's trust. ArbCom returning the tools when it is clear the desysopping was inappropriate is a different matter, but in this case the request is because Hawkeye7 feels the community would not make a fair judgement. A successful RfA would be much better for everyone than ArbCom restoring the tools; and trusting the community and making the right judgement (which would include the timing of a request for return of the tools) are qualities that some Wikipedians look for and respect in an admin. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
----
{{abot}}
| |||