User talk:Timotheus Canens: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Your restricitions: rephrase - does this make more sense? |
|||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
So to be clear, are you attempting to draw a parallel with this [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan 2|this request for clarification]]? In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and ARBCOM clarified that 1rr could be applied. Have you considered that in our case, all I-P related articles are '''already''' under 1rr restrictions, and there is absolutely no precedent for the bizarre type of slanted restrictions that you have concocted and now seek to impose? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><font color="#990000">Ankh</font></b>]]'''.'''[[User talk:AnkhMorpork|<font color="#000099">Morpork</font>]]'''</small> 19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
So to be clear, are you attempting to draw a parallel with this [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan 2|this request for clarification]]? In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and ARBCOM clarified that 1rr could be applied. Have you considered that in our case, all I-P related articles are '''already''' under 1rr restrictions, and there is absolutely no precedent for the bizarre type of slanted restrictions that you have concocted and now seek to impose? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><font color="#990000">Ankh</font></b>]]'''.'''[[User talk:AnkhMorpork|<font color="#000099">Morpork</font>]]'''</small> 19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
*:I'm going to take a crack at rephrasing what T. Canens's explanation, Ankh, in the hopes that it will make more sense to you: there has been a lot of disruptive edit churn on [[Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)]]. That's not to say that anyone was intending their editing to be disruptive; it's just saying that the result of the editing that was going on there was that the article was being disrupted. Now, since that article is covered under the Discretionary Sanctions, that means that any uninvolved administrator has the ability to step in and impose sanctions to stop the article from being disrupted further. Since the disruption here stemmed from content that was being perceived as OR, a remedy has been put in place that makes it harder for people to ''add'' content that other people would dispute, while also making it harder for people to ''remove'' content that has prior consensus. It will also stop people from churning up the article content fighting with each other. This is a good thing, though it may not feel like it to you. It means that the article will settle into a more stable state, due to the editors there being made to edit on the basis of consensus rather than impulse.<p>T. Canens is quite within his rights, as granted by Arbcom and the community, to impose a sanction like this in an edit area covered by DS. You're not obligated to like it or agree with his taste in remedies, but it has been duly imposed, so you are required to abide by it unless/until it's revoked by either the imposing admin, Arbcom, or a consensus at [[WP:AE]]. WP:AE is your route to appeal if you wish to appeal the imposition of this sanction; complaining elsewhere isn't really going to do the job. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 19:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)</p> |
|||
Revision as of 19:55, 23 September 2012
Please click here to leave me a new message.
|
Archives
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| 3+ months |
| to update |
Notes
| Notes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| PGP key |
|---|
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24 QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv 9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k 3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3 W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4 Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950 VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8 df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK 2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU 2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+ wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432 E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0 RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7 /L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc= =oCnW -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- |
The Signpost: 17 September 2012
- From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook
- WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force
- Featured content: Go into the light
- Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
AFCH Bug
Not sure where to report this so I'll put it here. When accepting a non-article submission (ex: template) the link to the talk page in the message left to the creator is broken. See this edit. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 20:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's a problem with the template, not the script. Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Elliott_Miles_McKinley regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please review. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley. Thank you. GB fan 22:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2698 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
News
|
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser TSU
- Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Your restricitions
Please explain why editors may freely remove existing material from the article, but yet additions to it require prior talk page discussion and an established consensus. This contrasting approach is a cause for concern. Ankh.Morpork 18:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because the ultimate goal of the restriction is to make original research and synthesis hard to add and easy to remove, while limiting collateral damage by making it also hard to remove content that is reasonably likely (by virtue of having been previously vetted under the restriction) to be good.T. Canens (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- "by making it also hard to remove content that is reasonably likely... to be good." - But the scope of this restriction only applies to "content added in compliance with this restriction". This means that long-standing material in the article can be removed sans any restriction while the addition of any new material will be onerously circumscribed. Was this your intention?
- Secondly, can you clarify wherein lies your authority to unilaterally impose restrictions on articles. I was under the impression that this was the purview of ARBCOM, and that discretionary sanctions were applied to editors after consultation with other admins.
- Indeed, the discretionary sanctions that you reference explicitly state: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area. Since I am reluctant to conclude that you have inexplicably arrogated an ARBCOM right for yourself, I request you explain why you have extended the ambit of user sanctions to include article restrictions. Ankh.Morpork 18:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is no guarantee that the content currently in the article is not OR, unlike content that has been actually vetted through a discussion.
- Incorrect and incorrect. Discretionary sanctions are imposed by "any uninvolved administrator", "on his or her own discretion". While we may choose to discuss at AE, we always have the ability, and the discretion to act alone. Article-level discretionary sanctions have a long history (maybe not in P/I, but in WP:ARBEE and WP:ARBAA2 cases), and they are explicitly approved by arbcom in this request for clarification. T. Canens (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- And likewise, there is no guarantee that every editor that wishes to add any new material to this article will be adding original research to the article. Yet you chose to stymie this with your personal stringent restrictions, imposed without any other admin consultation, but chose to allow removal of material to remain unchecked. In essence, you have single-handedly precluded any expansion of this article by any editor.
- I will add that your comments regarding the prevention of original research suggest that you have taken a position in this content dispute upon which your decision to impose these partisan restrictions is predicated. Can you explain whether this is indeed the case?
- Article-level restrictions are by definition blunt instruments. I am of the view that its benefits in this case outweighed the risks. You may, of course, disagree.
- No. If you want to appeal these restrictions, WP:A/R/A and WP:AE are that way. I'm not going to change them. T. Canens (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
So to be clear, are you attempting to draw a parallel with this this request for clarification? In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and ARBCOM clarified that 1rr could be applied. Have you considered that in our case, all I-P related articles are already under 1rr restrictions, and there is absolutely no precedent for the bizarre type of slanted restrictions that you have concocted and now seek to impose? Ankh.Morpork 19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to take a crack at rephrasing what T. Canens's explanation, Ankh, in the hopes that it will make more sense to you: there has been a lot of disruptive edit churn on Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict). That's not to say that anyone was intending their editing to be disruptive; it's just saying that the result of the editing that was going on there was that the article was being disrupted. Now, since that article is covered under the Discretionary Sanctions, that means that any uninvolved administrator has the ability to step in and impose sanctions to stop the article from being disrupted further. Since the disruption here stemmed from content that was being perceived as OR, a remedy has been put in place that makes it harder for people to add content that other people would dispute, while also making it harder for people to remove content that has prior consensus. It will also stop people from churning up the article content fighting with each other. This is a good thing, though it may not feel like it to you. It means that the article will settle into a more stable state, due to the editors there being made to edit on the basis of consensus rather than impulse.
T. Canens is quite within his rights, as granted by Arbcom and the community, to impose a sanction like this in an edit area covered by DS. You're not obligated to like it or agree with his taste in remedies, but it has been duly imposed, so you are required to abide by it unless/until it's revoked by either the imposing admin, Arbcom, or a consensus at WP:AE. WP:AE is your route to appeal if you wish to appeal the imposition of this sanction; complaining elsewhere isn't really going to do the job. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to take a crack at rephrasing what T. Canens's explanation, Ankh, in the hopes that it will make more sense to you: there has been a lot of disruptive edit churn on Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict). That's not to say that anyone was intending their editing to be disruptive; it's just saying that the result of the editing that was going on there was that the article was being disrupted. Now, since that article is covered under the Discretionary Sanctions, that means that any uninvolved administrator has the ability to step in and impose sanctions to stop the article from being disrupted further. Since the disruption here stemmed from content that was being perceived as OR, a remedy has been put in place that makes it harder for people to add content that other people would dispute, while also making it harder for people to remove content that has prior consensus. It will also stop people from churning up the article content fighting with each other. This is a good thing, though it may not feel like it to you. It means that the article will settle into a more stable state, due to the editors there being made to edit on the basis of consensus rather than impulse.