Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 100: 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 337:
:''Best practice is to '''add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{tl|ds/editnotice}})'''.''
If it has been found sufficient in all the previous ARCA's I can recall about this, I imagine Arbs wouldn't change this rule suddenly for administrators now. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
::{{re|DGG}} {{re|Callanecc}} I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, since you've already commented below (seemingly without the realization that ArbCom wrote the policy to be used exactly as Ed used it here). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
:::{{re|Callanecc}} Then why was this not stipulated at the last [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=731850970#Clarification_request:_American_politics_2 ARCA] I'm clearly referring to? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
::::{{ping|Callanecc}} Perhaps a motion to add something to the effect of "if an editnotice is used to alert editors of active page restrictions, and the editor has not been previously warned (in the required time frame), administrators should allow the editor at least 5-20 minutes [Committee should decide what time] to undo their offending edit(s) prior to being blocked or otherwise sanctioned" to the alerts section of [[WP:AC/DS]]? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
::::{{re|Callanecc}} I rather like that one too... would definitely clear this up finally. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
::::{{re|Callanecc}} I refuse to sanction editors who are shown to be using the mobile or visual editors (this is always tagged in the history). Can we not make this an official policy until the devs fix that issue with warnings? Something to the order of: "if the offending edit is tagged as a mobile or Visual edit, administrators should not block for more than 24 hours unless the editor's knowledge of the page restrictions is clearly established"? Or would it be better to wait on the developers to have the notice more prominent in those two GUIs? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
:::::My biggest concern obviously is that putting it into written form makes it rather easier to game the DS system. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
::::::I will note I disagree with the use of green for any ArbCom editnotice. I was under the impression we could only use {{tl|ds/editnotice}} anyways, is that not correct {{u|Doug Weller}}, {{u|Callanecc}}, {{u|Krakatoa Katie}}? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
=== Statement by Galobtter ===
| |||