Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 68: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 123:
*'''Decline'''. I'm hardly inclined to revisit an entire case when all that's been presented in support of the request is a laundry list of conclusory allegations devoid of actual reasoned argument and analysis. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 07:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
* '''Decline''': these are merely assertions, Rich, and thus unpersuasive. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 08:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
* Whilst I can empathise with Rich's point of view and thank him for attempting the "omnibus request", I'm afraid I likely to decline it. Of the points made, 1, 2, 7, 12 15 and 16 are just assertions, with no evidence to back them up, 7 and 15 specifically blames the arbitrators, which is a shame. 3 and 4 misinterpret the policies mentioned, as the findings are backed by evidence and unless the evidence is shown to be incorrect, these points are moot. Points 5, 6 and 18 are incorrect as the remedies directly serve the findings, especially finding 6. Points 8-11, 13, 14 and 17 are not reasons to vacade remedies or findings, though I would be interested in hearing any evidence for 10. 19 does not make sense given that no remedies have been stricken. <p> Overall, Rich, I believe you have made a lot of assertions, hoping some of them might stick. This scattergun technique does little for your case, as anything that might be worth listening to gets lost in the the mix. I would be concerned with point 16, but you have put forward no evidence for it and it doesn't match the evidence I've seen so far. I am also very interested in point 10, as it appears to agree that there was previously an issue with your automated editing, but there is no longer, I'd like to know what's changed. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<
*Like my colleagues, I find that this request only consists of dogmatic assertions and circular logic; there is no evidence whatsoever to show that either the various provisions are no longer necessary or were not warranted when they were adopted. For that reason, I feel I have to decline as well. <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>]] 11:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
*I thank Rich for putting together everything into an omnibus request, but like my fellow arbs I'm not seeing compelling reasons to refactor. Arbitration cases contain things that sanctioned parties don't like, that's for sure, but that does not make them attacks on professionalism. Likewise, the remedies were designed to prevent this situation from occurring again--hardly punitive.
* I am sympathetic to Rich's frustration with being unable to edit using automation, but I cannot agree with his assertion that last year's final decision was systematically flawed. In actuality, and contrary to what Rich argues, the case treated him fairly. We could easily have reached a more severe decision (by banning Rich), and what we did decide was, if anything, a showing of leniency—and an acknowledgement of Rich's enormous value to the project (in respects other than his unfit operation of bots and scripts). '''Decline''', though I am grateful that we have did this all at once and not by a piecemeal approach to requesting amendment. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* I'll also consider this amendment to be Rich's last resort to appealing the case, at least for the foreseeable future. I will refuse to entertain further such denouncements of the decision made in the case. [[User talk:AGK|<
----
{{abot}}
Line 212:
**I'm not persuaded we should modify the previous committee's decision regarding the reliability of sources; following the standard they set appears to have protected the article from bias and, considering that what works should not be changed without a compelling reason, I am inclined to decline this request for amendment. That said, regarding article probation, on the other hand, I agree that it should be updated to the standard set of discretionary sanctions, as DSs allow for more leeway: admins may impose a wider array of remedies, including article-level restrictions. <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>]] 15:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
*The principles passed in the decision reflect the interpretation of the 2006-2007 committee of the policies and guidelines as they existed at the time of the decision. Our policies and guidelines governing reliable sources and self-published sources have undoubtedly evolved in five years, and the sources should be judged under our current standards instead of the one interpreted five years ago. The question whether any particular source is a reliable source is a content matter for [[WP:RS/N]], and outside the jurisdiction of this committee. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
* We would be remiss to assume that because the community was unable to regulate this topic in 2006, it is unable to do so today. The Wikipedia community has expanded its capacity to resolve disputes over contentious topics, and for that reason I am minded to vacate (by motion) the article probation remedy that was passed in 2006 and confirmed in 2007. [[User talk:AGK|<
* I think that, even if the committee felt the need to retain jurisdiction over that particular matter, we would need to reevaluate the situation according the current context and not the situation as it was over six years ago (which is an eternity in Wikipedia terms). I'm open to arguments that there remains a problem needing Committee intervention, but it seems clear to me that the original ruling has long been overtaken by our evolving policies on reliable sourcing. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 16:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
**I wouldn't mind revising this to discretionary sanctions given that the situation seems more under control and that the additional flexibility is desirable. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*After reviewing the case and reading Alexbrn's comments, it appears that care is needed to keep these articles from drifting toward inappropriate bias, and the sanctions have been working. The words quoted above: "Information may be included in articles...." are from a findings of fact in the case, and while they informed the decision, are not a formal part of the sanctions, which are that Waldorf education and related articles are placed on probation (and later that Pete K is banned indefinitely from those articles). ArbCom article probation asks that editors are especially mindful of content policies, such as [[WP:NPOV]], and that seems a sensible precaution to keep in place for articles which have suffered from POV problems in the past. The ArbCom ruling did not forbid using Anthroposophy related publications, but found in 2006 that for controversial statements those publications were unreliable. As my colleagues have indicated above, actual discussion on which sources are suitable today can be dealt with by discussion on the talkpage of the articles or by raising the matter at appropriate noticeboards, such as [[WP:RS/N]]. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
::As regards Alexbrn's question regarding this line in the remedy: "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." I think Alexbrn's own comment, "if the statement being sourced is truly uncontroversial, and notable enough for WP, then a neutral non-Waldorf source will exist for it that can be used" matches that in [[WP:SELFPUBLISH]] which says: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". As for the actual sources used in the [[Waldorf education]] article - that is a matter for contributors to discuss, not for ArbCom. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
:::Agree with EdJohnston that the main points are made in the first sentence of the remedy. And it does seem that [[Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions]] appears to do the same as [[Wikipedia:Article probation]]. Though wording does differ in some places, it appears as though the intent and effect is the same. Is it worth us looking at Article probation, and which articles are affected by that remedy, and perhaps updating that remedy to be replaced in its entirety with Discretionary sanctions? '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
::::I note that last year [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=528976811#Motion:_Replacement_of_.22Article_Probation.22_with_.22Standard_Discretionary_sanctions.22 Prem Rawat] was updated from probation to Discretionary sanctions. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
*Agree with the arbitrator comments made so far, especially those emphasising that the reliable sources noticeboard is the best place to attempt to resolve such disputes, though a summary to point to about how sources in this particular area are handled may help. EdJohnston's suggestion to replace or modify the existing case to include discretionary sanctions is worth considering. I'll wait for more comments from my colleagues and others, especially as to what level of problems is needed for discretionary sanctions and when other (more specific) remedies work better. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 234:
:;Support
:#Proposed. Adapted from a previous motion regarding the similar article probation remedies passed in ''Prem Rawat''. [[User talk:AGK|<
:#Note though that the principles about the removal of original research and unverified information still are applicable. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:#As I've noted above, this seems like the reasonable next step. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 241:
:# Although we wouldn't be adopting this motion without reason to believe there is some ongoing controversy on this series of articles, it should be clear that we haven't closely scrutinized the recent editing in this area, and that the motion isn't targeted at any particular editor or group of editors. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:# [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
:# '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
:;Oppose
Line 325:
:#[[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> 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:#[[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 22:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:# Useful clarification which doesn't extend the discretionary sanctions but more properly identifies the range. I understand NYB's quibble, but I think that "Pages" or "Edits" would point to the same activity: an edit to a page related to.... I think Wikipedians understand what is meant either way. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
:# [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<
:# '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 579:
*This settles on the question of what a warning actually is. If you're driving down the interstate, is a warning more akin to your passenger pointing out a speed limit sign, or is it a cop pulling you over, running your license, and writing you a warning "this time"? If it is the former, then there's really no need for an appeal system; if it is the latter, then there should be, because the clear undertone has to be that you've done something wrong, and that you're on notice for a substantive sanction of some form 'next time'. Sadly, I think the perception is the latter case, and this isn't really ideal. There has to be a way to not make it so confrontational of an encounter, and not a mere prerequisite for sanctions, but I've shoveled far too much snow today to have any grand ideas tonight. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 07:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
**That's actually an interesting analogy to use; the cop would be well within his authority to issue a full ticket rather than a warning if he wanted to; however, if he does issue you a warning, then you've no excuse the next time you get pulled over and the warning shows up in the second cop's system. As such, I think the way discretionary sanctions are set up IS the latter case in practice as well as perception. The warning must be officially "on record" rather than simply noticing the sign as you drive past (or see it at the top of a talk page). As to how to improve this, we've little options, because as noted above not everyone will notice a thing on a talk page, and new users won't have been around when the case in question was held, and so can't be expected to simply "know." Perhaps one option could be adding a generic template warning to the edit notice of all affected pages to the effect of "This page, part of a number on the subject of BLAH, is subject to [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]]. Please be warned that any disruptive conduct on or relating to this page may result in sanctions up to and including blah blah blah..." It doesn't have to be terribly detailed or even very forceful, it just has to be noticeable enough that anyone editing the page has no excuse to say they didn't know. [[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> 05:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
*As the warnings are being used as part of a formal sanction process, and the implication is that some form of misconduct has taken place, then appealing against a warning using the appeal procedures as outlined on [[WP:AC/DS]] seems appropriate and necessary. A sanction cannot be applied without a formal warning, so tagging someone with a formal warning puts them a step closer to being blocked. They can appeal the block itself, but not the warning (even if incorrectly placed), that allowed the block to take place. If on review it is felt that there was insufficient misconduct for a formal warning, then the warning should be rescinded, and should not be taken into account when dealing with any future potential misconduct by that user. I trust the AE admins to make the appropriate on-the-spot decisions, but anyone can make a mistake, and it's right and fair that if an action is questioned, that it can be looked into and reversed if necessary. If the decision was appropriate, then the warning is kept in place, and the user who was warned has had confirmation that their actions were problematic. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
**That never was the intent of the warnings, SilkTork, and if they are understood this way then we need to clarify the matter. The point of the warning is to avoid anyone getting sanctions while not knowing there was DS in place – not any sort of "formal warning" system. Indeed, we have previously ruled in the past that, because someone ''clearly'' knew of the sanction (for instance, by having been a party to the case and been notified of its results) then the warning was unnecessary for AE to enforce the sanction.<p>The prerequisite to sanction is "the editor knows that the topic is under DS"; a warning is just the most straightforward way of making sure an editor demonstrably knew. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 14:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
***[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]] makes it clear that the warnings are a formal part of the process - "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning", "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning". Actual misconduct is built into the process, on the sanctions page it says: "Warnings should ... identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways", and the warning template uses the phrase "If you continue to misconduct". This makes sense. Why would anyone want to warn someone with a formal template when they were editing appropriately in a sanctioned area? There would need to be a ''reason'' for a warning. In the AE discussion in question, there were 14 people involved, four of whom were selected for a warning. If there is no reason for a warning, then a warning should not be given - and I assume there was a reason for warning those four editors in particular, otherwise all 14 editors would have been reminded that DS was applicable. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
* Under the present system of discretionary sanctions, "warning or notice" of discretionary sanctions can be given by ''any'' editor—not merely by an uninvolved editor or administrator. While we are here, I would be minded to amend the standard discretionary sanctions procedure so that it requires any admissible notices or warnings to be given by an editor who is ''not'' involved in the subject area. (I see no reason to restrict the ability to give warnings to only uninvolved sysops; so long as the editor giving the advice and warning is not involved in the dispute, whether he or she is a sysop is irrelevant.) I am so minded because it seems utterly bone-headed to expect one disputant to make a serious attempt at educating another disputant as to how his or her conduct can be improved; such an system is a non-starter. I would also prefer that we avoid having these warnings turn into another arrow in the disputants' quiver—though I have been out of the enforcement game for over a year, so I would welcome comment as to whether this is a serious ongoing issue or merely a potential problem. Hans Adler gives good examples of where the language in our sanctions concerning "non-admin" warnings is ambiguous.<p>As for Sandstein's questions: I do not consider warnings to be appealable. Therefore, in my view, once {{tlx|uw-sanctions}} has been placed on an editor's talk page (with the appropriate parameter used so that a link to the final decision is included), the warning is irrevocably given and no appeal of it can be made. The notion that one could appeal a mere "notice" of discretionary sanctions—as though the warning and advice it gives can be "unlearned"—defies logic. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 22:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
:* To various: Even if these notices (as has been argued) damage an editor's perceived reputation, I do not think our creating a bureaucratic process of appealing the notice would be an effective solution to any case where such reputation damage has been wreaked. And even if these notices (as has been argued) constitute a finding of guilt, placing an editor "on notice" is tantamount to giving them advice; advising is not sanctioning—so these notices cannot be appealed as though they were an enforcement action or sanction. I'm not persuaded by any of the counter-arguments that have been offered in the statements above, and therefore I maintain my position.<p>Those rebuttals aside, I make two further observations. First, the vast majority of notices, in my experience, are warranted; I think, as a community, we are mature enough to informally dismiss those few cases where a notice is given unjustly. Second, it would fly in the face of the spirit and purpose of the discretionary sanctions system for these notices to be appealable; they are supposed to be a courtesy notice to editors who are new to problematic topic areas, not a formal prerequisite to the giving of sanctions. Discretionary Sanctions is designed so that misconduct can be sanctioned efficiently and effectively; I am therefore vehemently opposed to any attempt to make it ''more'' difficult to sanction editors who are misconducting themselves.<p>To Sandstein: in reply to your third question, I would answer both WP:AE and WP:AN. In reply to your fourth, I think the views of all uninvolved editors should be welcomed in appeals; but, as only an administrator can reverse an enforcement action, it must only be the views of uninvolved administrators that are counted towards the determination of consensus. This last point is ambiguous and would therefore need clarification by motion from this committee. I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Line 686:
*GoodDay, there was significant dispute about your behavior last time with regards to diacritics, to such a degree that ArbCom felt the most effective solution would just be to topic ban you from them. I don't see any reason to change that now, per Newyorkbrad's last few sentences.<p>@AQFK: Yes. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
*I see no reason to lift this restriction at this time. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
*As per NYB, editors who have less baggage in regard to diacritical marks are probably best suited to be making the edits that GoodDay mentions. And probably as part of general editing of an article, rather than as a focused mass article edit session which might be seen as contentious or politicised. This is a delicate area which can flare up. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
* I've given this request a lot of thought; while I'm not involved in WP:HOCKEY, I am quite informed about the topic generally, and the issues with diacritics in published sources as well. It will be very difficult for *any* editor of hockey articles involving the NHL level to completely avoid diacritics; just about every team has a few players, coaches, managers or other key figures whose names or earlier teams (sometimes) include diacritics. GoodDay, could you please help me to understand how you would address editing articles where diacritics [could/do] exist? [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
* Per the statement by Resolute and the comments made by Newyorkbrad, I don't think this restriction should be lifted. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 07:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 985:
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Thanks for bringing up this point. I can see the aid a "list of notices", etc., could provide, but I'm also of the mind that, in trying to keep a fraught area cool, giving friendly (unlogged) notices first might be the best option (also per [[WP:TEMPLAR]]).
* As was implied above, I do intend to deal with the wider issue of notices by means of an overarching motion, which I hope to draft in the near future (the motion will require a large commitment of time and a lot of attention to detail). Ultimately, the nature of notices (and the notices–warnings dichotomy) will need to be decided through a binding vote among the committee, but community comment will certainly be solicited. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 23:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
:* NewsAndEventsGuy: I have published a draft motion at [[User talk:AGK/DS]], where you are welcome to submit your thoughts and comments. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 23:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
| |||