Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 92: 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 28:
I am taking some time off to think about everything that happened today, to reevaluate my actions and to calm down some. I would appreciate if you could take that into consideration (i.e. email me if you have an immediate need for me to comment, I'll gladly provide my cell number as well if necessary). I also do not intend to rehash all of my arguments from earlier (there's an obvious sign that I'm missing something here, but I'm not going to discover the answer via those types of discussions), I would just like some guidance from the Committee so I can be that sure I'm properly enforcing your actions.
I apologize to The Wordsmith for leaving him with most of the work on the RFC for a bit, but I feel it's best for me to reset before I move forward. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Signing off... <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|<
:{{u|Kirill Lokshin}}, {{u|Opabinia regalis}}, {{u|Doug Weller}}, {{u|Callanecc}}: The whole point of this restriction is to reduce the unnecessary workload faced by editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, and thorough (and in the case of the BLPs, in full compliance of the requisite policies)... I'll refer to such editors as "content editors" henceforth. Having a 0RR restriction would allow "drive-by" editors to place something completely without consensus on the page, and having the 1RR restriction creates an issue wherein a drive-by editor can easily force the same issue when adding content that has not existed in the article before (as long as only one content editor is actively watching the article). So the idea for prohibiting "potentially contentious content without firm consensus" was to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, as long as we can find an acceptable method to reduce the workload of our content editors and ensure that the media is not scrutinizing our behaviour in the process. Do you all have any ideas on how to address this particular issue? Or do you feel it is literally outside of the available restrictions that your discretionary sanctions provide? (I'd also love to hear from {{u|Anythingyouwant}}, one of the most prolific editors on [[Donald Trump]], on their ideas on how to solve this issue.) <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}} Great point. Perhaps something like "if an edit is reverted, you are prohibited from adding the contended edit back until consensus is found for it"? Better wording can be used for the final restriction, but this would seem to be a good idea based on your input. <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|<
:{{u|Waggers}}, {{u|Callanecc}}: From what I'm seeing, yes. This should completely remove any issues regarding admins blocking users unfamiliar with the area, who are editing in good faith. It would definitely seem to make any editor's intentions quite clear too. <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|<
:{{u|Callanecc}}: I've updated all of the editnotices per your request, (as can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016&diff=prev&oldid=728377887 in the log]), the new wording is now: ''{{tq|You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.}}''. I hope that the wording is now satisfactory to the Committee. Please inform me if I need to change anything else. <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|Newyorkbrad}} That's the entire point of changing the wording. I can ensure you that such blocks will not happen in the future, now that the letter of the restriction can be followed without overreaching onto editors without familiarity with the situation. <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 Stadscykel ===
Line 106:
Speaking only to the idea of using edit notices as a replacement for the alert to a user about DS in place on a page, I strongly discourage this as an acceptable replacement. At least for myself, the appearance of a editnotice is like banner ads on other websites, and my own eyes slip right past them unless they are brightly colored, large, or something I am specifically looking for. It is very easy to miss these if you have been editing WP for long enough. On the other hand, a talk page message on the user's page is not likely to be missed, and can be readily treated as a warning directed at that user (even if it is copy-pasted warnings). Once warned about the general topic DS, those editors can continue to edit elsewhere and aware that DS applies to a certain range of topics, they should be informed enough to watch for editheaders to know whether a page falls into the same sanction or not.
Noting the other factor, this GMO RFC, if I were specifically planning to comment on an RFC, it is reasonable that a statement in the header of the RFC (not as a editnotice) is going to have to be read for anyone replying to that RFC, so in such a case, the broad alert about the existing DS can be put there instead of warning every user that replies the first time. That DS warning can be repeated in the editnotice, but I think the RFC header would be reasonable assured to be something that had to be read by all participants. --[[User:Masem|M<
=== Statement by Gerda ===
Line 257:
=== Statement by Laser brain ===
Literally nothing in David's statement is correct, including my username. I don't really have anything else to say. --[[User:Laser_brain|<
=== Statement by The Wordsmith ===
Line 297:
*'''Decline''' piling on here per above. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per above. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' --[[User:Guerillero|<
*'''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' albeit late. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Line 528:
=== GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*What has changed since July 2015, September 2015, and January 2016? --[[User:In actu|In actu (Guerillero)]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<
*I'm mostly with Thryduulf and Guerillero. What's changed from the previous appeals and the comments arbitrators made then? <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 05:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
*Just a breve comment <small>OK, fine, NYB took all the good puns!</small> {{ping|GoodDay}} Do you want this restriction lifted because you want a "clean slate" or because you want to edit in the area? If the latter, what do you want to work on? [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 21:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 572:
;Oppose
# --[[User:In actu|In actu (Guerillero)]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<
# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] ([[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|talk]]) 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
# [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 778:
=== Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*'''Uphold''' --[[User:Guerillero|<
*A couple of comments. First, a person appealing a sanction before us may argue that the original sanction was flawed, even if upheld at AE or AN, because ArbCom retains final jurisdiction over all actions taken [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Arbitration Enforcement|on our behalf]]. However, the standard ArbCom has historically used when reviewing appeals has been that of abuse of discretion. Therefore, the relevant question is, was The Wordsmith's imposition of a topic ban an abuse of discretion? At first glance, it does not appear that was the case. The fact that he based his topic ban on remedy 5.1 rather than on remedy 4 (authorising DS for the topic area) has no bearing on the validity of the sanction itself, because, assuming there was evidence of sufficient misconduct to justify the imposition of a discretionary sanction in the first place, then such a mistake should be considered a mere clerical error, which can be rectified without any formalities. On review of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney|original thread]] and of the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive281#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_sfarney|discussion following sfarney's appeal]], I am satistied that there is enough evidence of misconduct to justify the imposition of a topic ban.<p>The question then becomes whether The Wordsmith was involved. Again, historically, when involvement has been argued on the basis of off-wiki conduct, the bar has ben set rather high, for various reasons, including a desire to prevent both opposition research and a chilling effect on admins. In this case, in my opinion, that high bar is far from reached.<p>For all these reasons, as far as I'm concerned, this appeal should be '''rejected'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 16:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
**Having reviewed the evidence we were sent in private, I am confirming my vote. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 23:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Line 883:
=== Statement by Nableezy ===
Umm, despite Debresser's efforts to paint me as somebody who is a "POV editor" with ever changing arguments to keep negative material about people I dont even particularly like (Abbas), the two sections that he is using to attempt to claim my arguments morph are [[Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM]] and [[Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources]] are about two entirely different sections in the article and completely unrelated material. And one follows the other, but not in the order that he writes above. Yes, I had two different problems about two different edits that Debresser made, edits that Debresser edit-warred to restore in a BLP despite good faith BLP objections, despite [[WP:BLP##Restoring_deleted_content|specific policy requirements]] on restoring such material, requirements that Debresser has repeatedly ignored. Ill respond to the rest of that baseless screed if an arbitrator would like me to, but that is a decent example of the type of careless and occasionally reckless editing that Debresser has been engaging in. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<
=== Statement by Nishidani ===
Line 958:
* I haven't had time to read this, but on the procedural question {{u|EdJohnston}} raised: I see no reason {{u|Debresser}} can't choose to skip the other venues and come straight to ARCA provided he understands that a result here is a final decision, i.e. you can't come to ARCA and then go back to AE about the same thing. I'm afraid that bouncing stuff to AE on a technicality would result in it coming back here again later. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 22:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
**Aye, per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#appeals.notes]] ''per saltum'' appeals are explicitly permitted. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
*** <small>From [[per saltum]]: "The phrase is used in the legal term certiorari per saltum, meaning the possibility of seeking a resolution before a higher court, bypassing intermediate instances" for everyone else who had to google it. --[[User:Guerillero|<
**{{ping|Debresser}} Can you confirm that you're aware of the above and still want to appeal here rather than AE? [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
*This is going to take a while for me to parse through. I admit at this point I haven't read the full ARCA nor the full AE request, but I'd like to start with some preliminary questions. These are purely informational questions not to assign blame or guilt or make any judgement.
Line 974:
*Upon review, I find Lord Roem's actions reasonable; so, appeal '''declined'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 11:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
*When deciding on appeals of discretionary sanctions, I look at whether the enforcing admin's actions are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and DS procedure. In this case DS procedure was followed so there are no issues there. Lord Roem seems to have been very reasonable (3 months is a short topic ban by AE standards) and is willing to discuss options to move forward. For those reasons I '''decline''' the appeal. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' --[[User:In actu|In actu (Guerillero)]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<
----
{{abot}}
| |||