User talk:Carolmooredc
  Green Box Links to Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff  Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors. Cutting down on article-editing for a bit after a year of unpleasant contentious editing leading to a topic ban. But being a student of process in voluntary organizations, can't stay away from process discussions. |
|---|
 |
 | This user wants to see everything in its place. |
Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance
|
WikiProject Mass Surveillance Dear, Carolmooredc. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. -- It seems like you might be interested in this. There's a lot of overlap with WikiProject Libertarianism. We could really really use help getting our project together and getting first content set to mainpage. HectorMoffet (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC) |
May 2014
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.
Carolmooredc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- On April 15 at the Arbitration Proposed Decision talk page I asked at this diff about other editors subject to the ban: "will we topic banned editors be allowed to warn them on talk pages and/or complain at Arbitration enforcement about such violations?" I got no response.
- On April 22 at the same page I tried again, and I asked at this diff "And can I complain about SPECIFICO's edits at Arbitration enforcement?" referring to edits during the last day or so of the Arbitration.
- @Beeblebrox: replied: "There is no merit to complaining at AE as the case is not quite closed yet, although if your accusations are true it certainly doesn't reflect well on that user." He did not say topic banned editors have no right to complain about another sanctioned editor at Arbitration enforcement or that I could not complain about future edits once the Arbitration went into effect. I believe other Arbitrators also may believe topic banned editors can complain there. @Floquenbeam:
- In that context, I don't believe my comments related to the reasons SPECIFICO was banned or to his editing on specific articles of individuals who may or may not be within the parameters of the ban should be considered a violation of the Arbitration. I certainly tried to find out what the policy was, thought I had found out what it was, and had no intention of violating it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. The appeal is now being considered at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Carolmooredc
| Appeal is now copied to WP:AE#Appeal by User:Carolmooredc. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by {{{Carolmooredc}}}{{{
Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}Result of the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}
|
State of your appeal
Hello Carol. Admins have expressed a number of opinions at WP:AE#Appeal by Carolmooredc. Depending on how consensus is read, it might end with a continuation of the block, an unblock or even an overturn of the original sanction. In my opinion you'd have a stronger case for unblock if you will agree to comply with a strict reading of your ban:
- You would agree not to use AE or other admin boards to make complaints about other editors who are also banned under the Austrian Economics decision.
- You would agree not to participate in complaints opened by others unless your own behavior has been mentioned.
- You would agree to treat all talk pages as falling under your topic ban from Austrian Economics.
None of this would prevent you from asking AE or Arbcom to clarify your *own* restriction. If you accept this deal it would influence my vote, but I don't know if it would influence others. I personally believe that these restrictions are already in force against all the banned editors, but the opinion of admins about this question is not unanimous. You can also add to your own statement in the appeal if you wish; use {{adminhelp}} to get someone to copy it over. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me. Frankly, I don't think it would be helpful for me to agree to restrictions that might apply only to myself when it has become clear there is confusion and disagreements among Arbitrators, Administrators and the community on various aspects of Wikipedia:Banning policy. And I'll let my current statement stand. I'm really busy the next two weeks so I don't mind being unable to participate and then later waiting for the usual processes to clear up these issues.
- I do now agree that topic banned editors only should be allowed to respond to complaints about alleged violations of their own topic bans or to appeal blocks at Arbitration Enforcement. However, given the obvious confusion even among Arbitrators and Administrators as to what the policy is, and the uneven application of sanctions in the current situation, I do not want to commit myself to something Arbitrators and/or the community ultimately may reject.
- I also do not want to give up any rights regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment until it is clear there is a consensus among Arbitrators and/or the community about what the restrictions should be.
- Specifically, I still do want to seek clarification on your statement: "The phrase 'other pages' in the ban wording covers AE, in fact, it covers every page on Wikipedia where something related to the {topic redacted} might be discussed." This was not enforced as a policy in the preceding AE complaint. Since I do edit a lot of libertarian political articles where the {topic redacted} or its close associates might be mentioned or, more likely, used as a reference in some unrelated part of the article, I do not want to agree to have that policy applied only to me. If you are correct and that is the policy, Wikipedia:Banning policy or arbitrators must make that kind of wording explicit and ensure it is evenly enforced.
- I agree topic banned editors should not be using current discussions in talk pages to promote their topic banned agenda. However, I also know there is no consensus on this currently at Wikipedia:Banning policy. Nevertheless, after the block expires I finally will be able to remove some topic banned material put up in old sandboxes before the topic ban.
- Wikipedia:Banning policy obviously needs further discussion through RfCs or a Village Pump discussions about what the policies should read regarding both exceptions to limited bans and talk page uses. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Carol:
When I commented at AE, I thought that noting that I answered your email the way I did, even if it turns out my advice was wrong, would have resulted in a lifted block and a final warning, but evidently asking for clarification and acting on the answer doesn't count for anything at AE. This seems Kafkaesque, but it's not like that's a rare occurrence around here. I'm in a position where an Arb breaking WP:AE rules being seen by some as breaking WP:AE rules by unblocking without a clear consensus would probably do more damage to the system than a poor block or an incorrect block would, and there is not clear overwhelming consensus at AE to overturn the block.
So, while it's worth little to nothing, I apologize for evidently giving you the wrong advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to Carol for the reply and to User:Floquenbeam for explaining their thinking. In fact, while it can't hurt to discuss WP:Banning policy such a decision wouldn't decide this question one way or the other. Bans issued by Arbcom mean whatever they want them to mean, since WP:ARBPOL does not place a limit on what they do in this area. They can create any kind of ban they think is beneficial. The only people who are limited by the wording of WP:TBAN are those who say 'I hereby issue a ban from topic X per WP:TBAN'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Unblock and warning
Following discussion on my talk page indicating that you may have been given misleading advice about what you may do, I am unblocking you.
You are however warned that, according to the topic ban policy, you are forbidden to edit absolutely anything related to the topic you are banned from. The only exception, as described in WP:BANEX, is appealing or asking for clarification of your own topic ban, or undoing obvious vandalism and BLP violations. This means that you may not report others to AE or other fora in relation to this topic, and you may not comment about enforcement requests or other discussions concerning the conduct of others in this topic area. You must leave the topic area entirely behind you. Any further violation of your topic ban is likely to lead to a longer block. Sandstein 21:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)