Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Steve Smith (talk | contribs) →Arbitrator views and discussion: my view |
|||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
**Moving on to the issue that needs clarification, I support the reinstatement of the topic ban and agree that the general probation (which was still in force) gives some authority to take this step, but I think that an indefinite topic ban requires a new ArbCom motion, and that any arbitration enforcement action should only extend to reinstating previous sanctions, not extending them (or, at most, resetting them to a length not greater than the original sanction). Accordingly, I would suggest reimposing the topic ban until 20 October 2010, and also reactivating the exceptions (numbers 1 and 2) that allow participation in featured article candidacy discussions solely in order to discuss images and to edit said images. I would also suggest that if the topic ban expires or is lifted at some point, that Brews Ohare realise that he needs to ''change'' his approach to such articles and to write down how he will change his approach, and if he cannot change his approach, to avoid such articles otherwise he ''will'' end up indefinitely topic banned. And to clarify a few other points, I view remedy 3 (the general probation) as still in force, and I believe the wording of the motion referring to "supplementary restrictions" referred to the 24 November 2009 restrictions imposed by Tznkai and logged at the case page in the logs section. Finally, I agree that the ''actual'' expiration of the topic ban should have been logged at the case pages at or soon after the point it expired. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
**Moving on to the issue that needs clarification, I support the reinstatement of the topic ban and agree that the general probation (which was still in force) gives some authority to take this step, but I think that an indefinite topic ban requires a new ArbCom motion, and that any arbitration enforcement action should only extend to reinstating previous sanctions, not extending them (or, at most, resetting them to a length not greater than the original sanction). Accordingly, I would suggest reimposing the topic ban until 20 October 2010, and also reactivating the exceptions (numbers 1 and 2) that allow participation in featured article candidacy discussions solely in order to discuss images and to edit said images. I would also suggest that if the topic ban expires or is lifted at some point, that Brews Ohare realise that he needs to ''change'' his approach to such articles and to write down how he will change his approach, and if he cannot change his approach, to avoid such articles otherwise he ''will'' end up indefinitely topic banned. And to clarify a few other points, I view remedy 3 (the general probation) as still in force, and I believe the wording of the motion referring to "supplementary restrictions" referred to the 24 November 2009 restrictions imposed by Tznkai and logged at the case page in the logs section. Finally, I agree that the ''actual'' expiration of the topic ban should have been logged at the case pages at or soon after the point it expired. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
***@Sandstein: sorry, I misread remedy 4.2. In effect you have narrowed the scope (from all physics pages to just 'speed of light') and extended the timescale to indefinite. I am still wary, however, of new sanctions imposed at arbitration enforcement extending beyond the date when the initial sanctions would have normally expired (20 October 2010, in this case). My feeling is that if an administrator thinks sanctions need to be extended in time or extended in scope, that needs to come to ArbCom for clarification or amendment. The exception would be things like resetting sanctions following evasion, or following a set series of escalating sanctions set out in enforcement provisions. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
***@Sandstein: sorry, I misread remedy 4.2. In effect you have narrowed the scope (from all physics pages to just 'speed of light') and extended the timescale to indefinite. I am still wary, however, of new sanctions imposed at arbitration enforcement extending beyond the date when the initial sanctions would have normally expired (20 October 2010, in this case). My feeling is that if an administrator thinks sanctions need to be extended in time or extended in scope, that needs to come to ArbCom for clarification or amendment. The exception would be things like resetting sanctions following evasion, or following a set series of escalating sanctions set out in enforcement provisions. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
*As has been noted above, the general restriction on Brews remains in place until 20 October. I do not believe that any sanctions placed under the guise of arbitration enforcement can extend beyond that point without additional arbitration committee involvement. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 00:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 00:28, 5 August 2010
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light]] | none | none | 4 August 2010 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Historical elections | 21 July 2024 |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
Initiated by Sandstein at 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
- Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
- Possibly the contributors to WP:AE#Brews ohare (notification on that board)
Statement by Sandstein
I request clarification about whether the sanction Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted has expired.
The motion of 20:37, 29 March 2010 recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions reads in relevant part:
- "The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes."
It is not clear whether sanction 3, entitled "Brews ohare restricted" is part of the "supplementary restrictions" that the motion refers to, because it is not listed in the "(namely ...)" part of the motion and, in the list of sanctions on the case page, it is not followed by the comment "Modified by motions below" as is sanction 4.2, entitled "Brews ohare topic banned".
The question is relevant because I have just been enforcing sanction 3, following an enforcement request at WP:AE#Brews ohare. It has subsequently been argued on my talk page that sanction 3 has expired. Should that turn out to be the case, my enforcement action was in error, but in this case I ask the Committee to consider reinstating the sanction by motion because, as the enforcement request shows, it appears to continue to be necessary.
I would also appreciate it if the Committee would consider establishing a process to ensure that arbitration case pages always unambiguously reflect any change in status of the decisions without much need for interpretation. Sandstein 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth, thanks for the advice concerning page updates. You appear to be under the impression that I reinstated the full topic ban as a discretionary sanction. I did not – I only imposed a ban from the article Speed of light and its talk page. Sandstein 09:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Comment by Brews_ohare
The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.
This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.
This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked.
I would raise the following points:
- Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
- I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
- I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment by JohnBlackburne
To clarify I did not claim that the previous warnings were about ArbCom. I simply wrote "He has been warned before" with diffs, so editors could make up their own minds about the relevance of them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Hell in a Bucket
keeping this short...typing one handed is a bitch. 8-) I am not advocating for brews specifically, I'm more concerned with arb enforcement w/o specific authorization. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- First up, I would encourage Sandstein (as someone active in arbitration enforcement) to approach the clerks and sort out a good way of making sure that it is clear what is in force or not following an amendment. The topic ban does have the phrase appended in italics Modified by motions below 02:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC), but there are other, possibly clearer options, such as collapsing old text to avoid it being unintentionally read as still in force (in passing, the previous confusion caused at the date-delinking case is still there, so you could raise that as well). I suggest going to the clerks noticeboard to raise these issues, especially the one of how to deal with time-delayed expirations (it is not normal to expect case pages to be modified every time a sanction expires, but maybe it is needed in some cases). Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Moving on to the issue that needs clarification, I support the reinstatement of the topic ban and agree that the general probation (which was still in force) gives some authority to take this step, but I think that an indefinite topic ban requires a new ArbCom motion, and that any arbitration enforcement action should only extend to reinstating previous sanctions, not extending them (or, at most, resetting them to a length not greater than the original sanction). Accordingly, I would suggest reimposing the topic ban until 20 October 2010, and also reactivating the exceptions (numbers 1 and 2) that allow participation in featured article candidacy discussions solely in order to discuss images and to edit said images. I would also suggest that if the topic ban expires or is lifted at some point, that Brews Ohare realise that he needs to change his approach to such articles and to write down how he will change his approach, and if he cannot change his approach, to avoid such articles otherwise he will end up indefinitely topic banned. And to clarify a few other points, I view remedy 3 (the general probation) as still in force, and I believe the wording of the motion referring to "supplementary restrictions" referred to the 24 November 2009 restrictions imposed by Tznkai and logged at the case page in the logs section. Finally, I agree that the actual expiration of the topic ban should have been logged at the case pages at or soon after the point it expired. Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: sorry, I misread remedy 4.2. In effect you have narrowed the scope (from all physics pages to just 'speed of light') and extended the timescale to indefinite. I am still wary, however, of new sanctions imposed at arbitration enforcement extending beyond the date when the initial sanctions would have normally expired (20 October 2010, in this case). My feeling is that if an administrator thinks sanctions need to be extended in time or extended in scope, that needs to come to ArbCom for clarification or amendment. The exception would be things like resetting sanctions following evasion, or following a set series of escalating sanctions set out in enforcement provisions. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Moving on to the issue that needs clarification, I support the reinstatement of the topic ban and agree that the general probation (which was still in force) gives some authority to take this step, but I think that an indefinite topic ban requires a new ArbCom motion, and that any arbitration enforcement action should only extend to reinstating previous sanctions, not extending them (or, at most, resetting them to a length not greater than the original sanction). Accordingly, I would suggest reimposing the topic ban until 20 October 2010, and also reactivating the exceptions (numbers 1 and 2) that allow participation in featured article candidacy discussions solely in order to discuss images and to edit said images. I would also suggest that if the topic ban expires or is lifted at some point, that Brews Ohare realise that he needs to change his approach to such articles and to write down how he will change his approach, and if he cannot change his approach, to avoid such articles otherwise he will end up indefinitely topic banned. And to clarify a few other points, I view remedy 3 (the general probation) as still in force, and I believe the wording of the motion referring to "supplementary restrictions" referred to the 24 November 2009 restrictions imposed by Tznkai and logged at the case page in the logs section. Finally, I agree that the actual expiration of the topic ban should have been logged at the case pages at or soon after the point it expired. Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- As has been noted above, the general restriction on Brews remains in place until 20 October. I do not believe that any sanctions placed under the guise of arbitration enforcement can extend beyond that point without additional arbitration committee involvement. Steve Smith (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)