Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Arcticocean (talk | contribs) |
→Statement by coldacid: where to put these requests? |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
=== Statement by coldacid === |
=== Statement by coldacid === |
||
{{ping|Yaris678}} I think the part that "raises the bar" is {{tq|Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks.}} In particular, the "may only" part should probably be just "may", although since I'm not an arb I look forward to one of them correcting me. // [[User:coldacid|coldacid]] <small>([[User talk:coldacid|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Coldacid|contrib]])</small> 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
{{ping|Yaris678}} I think the part that "raises the bar" is {{tq|Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks.}} In particular, the "may only" part should probably be just "may", although since I'm not an arb I look forward to one of them correcting me. // [[User:coldacid|coldacid]] <small>([[User talk:coldacid|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Coldacid|contrib]])</small> 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
Between this proposal and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=652950265#Amendment_request:_Discretionary_sanctions.2Farticle_probation one below] by {{ul|Rich Farmbrough}}, is there anything in place for gathering these up for the next [[omnibus bill|housekeeping motion]]? I'd suggest rather than just declining and parking these away, that perhaps there should at least be a page to hold onto these requests until such time for the motion to come together. // [[User:coldacid|coldacid]] <small>([[User talk:coldacid|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Coldacid|contrib]])</small> 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by GoodDay === |
=== Statement by GoodDay === |
||
Revision as of 02:36, 22 March 2015
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/4/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|Clarification request: Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]] | none | none | 16 March 2015 |
| Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions/article probation | none | none | 21 March 2015 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Clarification request: Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
Initiated by Yaris678 at 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Yaris678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Yaris678
I have tweaked the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions in a draft version at User:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions. I don't believe this proposed wording changes the meaning of the text but I do believe it makes it easier to follow, especially for those not familiar with the workings of ArbCom.
The table below list these changes with an explanation of each one. I would appreciate it if the committee would consider these changes for implementation.
| A Text in current wording edited by Roger Davies at 11:15, 11 March 2015 |
B Text in proposed wording edited by Yaris678 at 10:42, 12 March 2015 |
Explanation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lead | Discretionary sanctions seek to maintain an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles, by allowing administrators to impose restrictions on editors that severely or persistently disrupt that environment. Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks. | This will enable the page to explain what discretionary sanctions are relatively quickly in a way that Wikipedia users appreciate elsewhere on the site, including on policy and procedure pages. | |
| 2.1 | Decorum | Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. | Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. | Although these terms are explained in the "Definitions" section, people may jump to one of these sections and wonder what the terms are. Providing Wikilinks addresses this. In the proposed text, wikilinks are not provided if an abbreviation occurs soon after a previous explanation or wikilink for the term. |
| 2.2 | Expectations of administrators | Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement. | Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement. | |
| 2.3 | Sanctions | Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE. | Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE. | |
| 3 | Sanctions | Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. | Uninvolved administrators are authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe to be necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project, including:
|
Bulletise list and re-order sentence to make it easier to follow. |
| 4 | Appeals by sanctioned editors | 3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". | 3. submit a request for amendment at requests for amendment ("ARCA"). | Consistency with point 2 of the list. |
Moved from other sections
- In reply to Coldacid I'm happy to lose the word "only". Yaris678 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to GoodDay Adding in the words "broadly construed" sounds like a good idea. Yaris678 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Thryduulf That was just to avoid using a singular they or similar. But happy to go there if you think it helps avoid the idea that we need more than one. i.e. change to "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe..." Yaris678 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Roger Davies The "severely or persistently" language is taken straight from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. Yaris678 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Roger Davies Is this something that can't be addressed by removing the word "only" as I suggested above? Yaris678 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Roger Davies I've got no problem with this being rolled into a housekeeping motion. On the other point... I was very careful to not touch the bar. Can you enlighten me on how this was raised? If you think this is the wrong venue for such a discussion, can I suggest User talk:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions? Yaris678 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Thryduulf That was just to avoid using a singular they or similar. But happy to go there if you think it helps avoid the idea that we need more than one. i.e. change to "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe..." Yaris678 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by coldacid
@Yaris678: I think the part that "raises the bar" is Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks.
In particular, the "may only" part should probably be just "may", although since I'm not an arb I look forward to one of them correcting me. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Between this proposal and the one below by Rich Farmbrough, is there anything in place for gathering these up for the next housekeeping motion? I'd suggest rather than just declining and parking these away, that perhaps there should at least be a page to hold onto these requests until such time for the motion to come together. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDay
The broadly construde part of my own Arb restriction is quite clear to me. On the 2 occassions that I breached it (on my own talkpage), the result was a 1-week block & a 1-month block. The question might be, are editors under arb restrictions being dealt with evenly when they breach. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent
- Ds-Alerts are a techno-bureaucratic abomination which should be marked historical as soon as possible. Let's look at the wording: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding See #topic codes for options, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is blah blah
- Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
- This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
- What rubbish. In other words, I pretty much have to lie / prevaricate, for the following reasons:
- "This message is informational only" Do you think I just wasted too much of time reading through "To see whether a user has been Alerted to discretionary sanctions, ..." and doing that nonsense for "information only?" No, I think the editor is acting like a dweeb and it is my intent to rat them out at WP:AE if it continues.
- "Don't hesitate to contact me " Actually, I'd greatly prefer it if you hesitate. If I thought there's any chance addressing you like a reasonable person would work, I'd have done it already rather than dealing with the ds/alert nonsense.
- (Not really important, but) "authorised" "Discretionary sanctions is" "familiarise" ... do I sound like a Brit/Aussie/Kiwi/Indian et. al? I'm an American: Baseball, Mom, Apple Pie and "sanctions are," "authorized," "familiarize." I respect your dialect of English please respect mine.
- Ds/alert are dehumanizing interaction for both the notifier and notifiee, contrary to the gestalt of the collaboration ideal of Wikipedia. The barriers to entry are over complicated instructions are the danger of getting sanctions if you post an alert 364 days after the last one. I understand the history; the newer system is an improvement over the prior "angst over warnings" system. But it's an unnecessary Rube Goldberg. We already have an existing, simple, easily and widely understood system for notifying and then enforcing remedies: the WP:3RR system. Please just use that. NE Ent 08:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
On point 3, add a bullet for the original omitted text "or other reasonable measure". Otherwise, these are great suggestions and I agree with all the other wordsmithing feedback submitted thus far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Liz
I'm surprised by this proposal after looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review where there were three rounds of consultation before Discretionary Sanctions wording was altered. Is it appropriate to suggest a rewrite here? Liz Read! Talk! 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion
- On a first read I'm inclined to agree with 1, 2 and 4 without comment. Point 3 though changes "any uninvolved administrator" to "uninvolved administrators", which could be interpreted as meaning an administrator may no longer act alone. I like the rest of the change though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- So far I'm with Thrydulf. Yaris687's suggested change seems to work. Of course, I may have missed something being still green. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like I did. It's probably better handled in a general housekeeping motion with other issues as Roger suggests. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Yaris678, I'm afraid I got the wrong end of the stick when you were asking at WT:AC about clarifications. I'd assumed you had some major points that needed urgently sorting ... As you know, DS is a committee procedure (with the force of policy) and changes can only be made by motion. Looking at your suggestions, none are urgent so best is to address them in the next housekeeping DS motion (probably in a couple of months). Incidentally, Point One is inaccurate and explicitly raises the bar at which DS can be imposed, which I'm sure was not intended. Thanks very much for your input, Roger Davies talk 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yaris678 To clarify, DS isn't about "[imposing] restrictions on editors that severely or persistently disrupt that environment", that can be done by admin under normal admin discretion. Instead, it allows admins deal with any misconduct, even minor misconduct, in sensitive/hot button/tinderbox articles. ie zero tolerance. Roger Davies talk 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Coldacid Yes, you make a good point there too. DS is typically for "edits about, or pages relating to [topic]" and are also about exporting disputes into fresh areas outside the specific area of conflict, Roger Davies talk 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strike the "only" and I don't see this makes a difference, so, totally indifferent, really. Neither set of wording has any problems. Courcelles (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty well indifferent on these too, and agree having them in with general housekeeping rather than as a special request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Decline. AGK [•] 00:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions/article probation
Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 02:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
I submit that the following remedies are outdated, and therefore:
- clutter the list of discretionary sanctions and article probations.
- provide unnecessary complexity and instruction creep.
- place unwelcoming templates on article talk pages.
None of these remedies have been invoked for several years, if ever, one case has no admin action for nine years.
I have no doubt that there are other outdated remedies but these certainly are.
I propose that these remedies be struck
1
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Remedy to be struck: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
Passed: 27 October 2011
Last admin action: Never (22 December 2010 for previous version)
2
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Remedy to be struck: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Standard discretionary sanctions (Amended version)
- Also strike Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under supervision, since supervision remedy is already struck.
Passed: 8 March 2013
Last admin action: 24 July 2009
3
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine
Remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Article probation
Passed: 1 February 2008
Last admin action: 1 April 2008
4
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
Remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Article probation
Passed: 2 January 2007
Last admin action: 3 March 2007
5
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi
Remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi#Article probation
Passed: 9 November 2006
Last admin action: Never
6
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding
Remedy 1: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Article probation
Remedy 2: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#General restriction
Passed: 5 February 2008
Last admin action: 3 December 2010
7
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming
Remedy 1: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming#Probation
Remedy 2: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming#Mentorship (lapsed)
Passed: c. 6 February 2006
Last admin action: 12 June 2006
8
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland
Remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Article probation
Passed: 13 March 2008
Last admin action: 29 May 2008
9
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic
- Remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Free Republic placed on article probation
- Remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Democratic Underground placed on article probation
Passed: 29 March 2007
Last admin action: 29 February 2008
10
Case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2
Passed: 12 October 2009
Last admin action: 12 March 2011
11
Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election
Remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#ElectionArticle probation
Remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#ElectionStatus of current editors
Enforcement: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#ElectionContinuing jurisdiction
Passed: 1 July 2006
Last admin action: None
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC).
Statement by Username
Statement by Username
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Discretionary sanctions/article probation: Clerk notes
Discretionary sanctions/article probation: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Comment: Thanks for looking at this, Rich. As there is another initiative afoot to tidy up old sanctions, it's best I think to combine this one, and that one, along with other amendments in a single housekeeping motion in a couple of month's time. We probably need to tidy up some of the old cases and that can be done then too. I don't agree with all your analyses incidentally: DS for The Troubles was used last December and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 yesterday. Roger Davies talk 04:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd also rather wait and do it all at once. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Decline per above, and I would suggest this would have been tidier submitted in a table. AGK [•] 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)