Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:14, 23 May 2009 editWizardman (talk | contribs)Administrators400,015 edits →Motions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits dpuble redir 
Line 1: Line 1:
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} = #REDIRECT ]
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header}}

== Request to amend prior case: ] ==

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Durova}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|ScienceApologist}}
*{{userlinks|Sceptre}}
*{{admin|Kaldari}}

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by ] ===
It's a pleasure to be filing a positive request. As the Committee is aware, ScienceApologist has been working on an improvement drive for the ] article. He wishes to see the revisions imported to en:wiki and bring the page to featured article status. This requires three things:
# GFDL-compliant importing. Kaldari has volunteered to undertake this.
# Limited proxy editing to the article and related processes of GAC, peer review, and FAC. Sceptre and I have agreed to undertake this.
# Permission from ArbCom for the above.

So proposing the following case amendment:
:''ScienceApologist's ban is amended to permit limited proxy editing related to the ] article. ], ], and ] have permission to proxy for ScienceApologist by editing the article, its talk page, and at process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.''

Kaldari and Sceptre should be adding their agreement to this propoal shortly, and ScienceApologist should be emailing the Committee to affirm his endorsement of this request. Respectfully submitted, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
Affirming Durova's post. Probably no need to affirm that I would seeing as I announced on AE my intention to if asked. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
Affirming Durova's post. Although I would like to clarify that I think it is important for ScienceApologist himself to make the import edit, which would require a 1-edit suspension of his wikipedia ban. The reason behind this is that this rewrite is a significant contribution to Misplaced Pages and 10 years from now it shouldn't take an archeologist to figure out who contributed the writing (indeed it should be possible for a bot even to make the determination). This is both to insure proper attribution per the GFDL and per convenience for future editors. This is not strictly required per the GFDL, but it is the proper way to handle this, IMO. Doing attribution in edit summaries is far from ideal, especially when we're talking about a complete rewrite of an important article (mainly because such attribution is not machine-parsable). I would be willing to handle performing the 1-edit unblock and reblock and overseeing the edit.

=== Statement by ] ===
I support this request. <s>However I submit that it would be ''much'' easier to simply allow ScienceApologist to make the edits directly, to wit, I propose the following motion:
:''ScienceApologist's ban is amended to permit editing related to the ] article.''</s>
] ] 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:Striking my proposed motion. ] ] 04:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
I agree with bringing the content into Misplaced Pages, but I disagree with Kaldari's proposed method of doing so by having ScienceApologist do a single ]. For GFDL purposes, I believe it would be preferable for an admin to transwiki the article, then merge the page histories, which I believe would result in SA's edits showing up in the page history as being by SA. The GFDL situation is complicated because SA is not the only person who has contributed to the article at Wikisource. If SA or anyone else does it as a single edit, I suggest listing the names of the contributors in the edit summary; but that's not as good. See the discussion at ], especially the comments by ], for example ; she's very knowledgeable about copyright policy. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* Very well; I've proposed a motion below. Please keep in mind that you are still responsible for the edits you make in your role as proxies; so please use your best judgment to determine whether the edits being requested are reasonable before making them. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
* Recused. --] (]) 06:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Motions ===

1) ], ], and ] are granted permission to act as proxies for ] by making edits to the ] article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

;Support
:# As proposed. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:# Needs to include mention of the proposed brief unblock. Other than this, though, the rest of the ban needs to be served out. If it was a topic ban, it could be altered. But this was a site-wide ban for conduct problems. Suggest also that care is taken with the editing history here. Please make sure the edit history makes sense. ] (]) 02:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:# &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:# In passing I want to note that I am favourably impressed by ScienceApologist's way of coping with his block. ] (]) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:# With the usual caveat that the editors that perform the actual proxy edit take responsibility for it. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:# <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 05:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:# Per Coren. ]] 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:# ] 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

;Oppose
:#

;Abstain
:# (As recused) --] (]) 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:# Also recused, due to ScienceApologist's role at the New York chapter meetings. ] (]) 02:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:# <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
----

== Request to amend prior case: ] ==
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*]

*] ()

*]
*]

*] (already posted here)

*]

*]
=== Statement by ] ===

I would like to request that my topic ban on editing Ayn Rand related articles be lifted. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done on Rand related articles, including major ongoing consolidation and cleanup being led by ] and ] (please see ], which has become a central hub for these efforts). Currently, my limit to talk pages is severely limiting my ability to improve the project, as even in the most uncontroversial of cases I have to ask for other users to make the change, which is frustrating to me and, I am sure, them. Were the committee to lift this restriction, I would voluntarily place myself on 0RR (excepting, of course, vandalism removal), would avoid making any controversial edits without first gaining clear consensus via the Talk page, and would make sure to avoid involving myself in any edit wars. Thank you for your consideration. ] (]) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I only listed myself because I don't believe this directly affects other users. I did post a link to this on ], and if the Committee likes I would be glad to notify all other members of the original ArbComm proceeding. ] (]) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
:I originally posted this request at the of ], who is I'm sure tired of having to make noncontroversial edits for me that I could largely make myself (I was originally planning to just ask for permission to tag articles).

:The best place to see my involvement would be at the ] page, where I've started actively hunting through the "darker corners" of the Objectivism-related articles. There are a number of these articles, and they tend to be are extremely poorly written, of dubious notability, and POV. Many are in need of being merged or prodded.
:In terms of the kinds of edits I would like to be able to do:

:First, I would like to be able to add tags to articles. This would help tremendously with sorting.

:Second, I would like to be able to PROD and AFD articles. As this has the potential to be controversial, I would discuss any such move on the cross-talk page before doing so.

:Third, culling inappropriate material. There's lots of this stuff in the Objectivism section. We just recently finished a cull of a couple of different sources that turned out to be nonnotable and/or self-published (books by Ronald Merrill and James S. Valliant). There is also, for example, the quotes section on ], which despite being an article about a topic that extends far beyond Rand consists only of Rand's quotes (also IIRC quotes sections are discouraged).

:Fourth, fixing blatantly obvious POV, for instance, as shown . I had to other users to make that fix despite the fact that it was totally non-controversial--it's never Wiki's place to say that someone's arguments are "oversimplified". I also repeatedly notified the talk page about edits from our problem IP (see EdJohnston's update to ]), e.g. , which frankly I would have fixed on my own.

:Fifth, I intend to make grammatical and format fixes, and be the grammar Nazi I was raised to be.

:Sixth, in those cases where I do decide to be ] (which will likely be rare) it will be done on a section or subsection level, one piece at a time, without trying to rewrite whole gigantic articles, making it easier for other users to comment and edit changes and for consensus to develop.

:Seventh, I intend to implement changes where consensus has been reached.
:In terms of if other editors believe I overstep myself, I do not presume to tell ArbComm what decision they should make, or what sanctions they should place on me. I would suggest that the thing to do would be to either bring it back here or to go to an admin. Admins and ArbComm are really better suited to answer that kind of question than I am. If lots of my edits are being reverted, I think the thing to do would be to look at context. Are my edits based on consensus and it's just one person reverting, are my edits a case of being ] in the face of no consensus (which to be honest is not the best idea on many of these articles) or are they directly against consensus? One is not my fault, one is potentially problematic, and one is definitely problematic. But I'm not planning on breaking my word on this. I intend to work for consensus, to make universally acceptable changes, and above all ''not to edit war'', which is what my original sanction was for. ] (]) 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
::Carcharoth, I think Karbinski was pointing out the kind of edits I might make (or oppose) if I were not banned. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Karbinski. ] (]) 08:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Quick question to Vassyana--could the motion make clear whether or not I would be permitted to revert vandalism? ] (]) 06:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] === <!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

I have been spending some time trying to help with the Rand-related articles recently, and I can confirm TallNapoleon's statement that there is an immense amount of editorial work to do. It would be very helpful to have him back on board.] (]) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

=== Statement by ] ===

Edit warring has continued on the article, but with new editors. Articles of this nature have significant issues on questions of weight and verifiability and attempting to deal with them simply as behavioural issues of the editors involved is at best a short term solution. Current editors have carried out far more RRs that KD ever did. I have no objection to his request, he has always been careful to attempt a NPOV and to properly source material in a field where he is knowledgeable. --] (]) 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
: Sorry only just spotted this. RR as in 3RR etc. Since the Arbcom ruling edit warring has continued. My point was that there has been a lot worse behaviour than exhibited by TN since the ruling which has gone unpunished. I was '''not''' referring to KD. I am supporting TN being reinstated, although I think he should not be under any special restrictions. --] (]) 09:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
A couple examples of edits he may have made to ] and . --] (]) 10:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As well an example of an edit to ] - - that he --] (]) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] === <!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* There is a question of what effect this will have on the editing environment. If you could please inform the current active contributors of your request, it would be appreciated. Opinions of current participants would be helpful. (That said, I would give fair warning to any who might comment that while reasonable objections and opinions are welcome that this is not an open forum to slag on other editors or complain about the "evils" of one side or another.) If you could, please better illustrate the kind of contributions you intend to enact. Could you link to a couple of examples of changes you would have made? Can you provide a few links to show your participation in recent discussions and additionally highlight a few broadly accepted changes that were implemented where you took part in the preceding discussion? It will also help our determination if you better clarify what sort of restriction you are looking to volunteer. Can the restriction be enforced, as per normal, by any uninvolved administrator? If a lot of your edits are being reverted, should this be considered against your limited mainspace participation? If a portion of your edits are seen as controversial or pushing the line, should that be considered against your participation? How would you expect violations of the restriction to be treated? Should your restriction revert to the mainspace prohibition? Should you be blocked? Should you be placed under another restriction? Any information and context that you can provide will help us make a determination. --] (]) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
** TallNapoleon seems to be have a good awareness of what boundaries he should respect. His request provides a suggestion for very strict editing conditions. No objections have been lodged, but some editors believe this would be of benefit and all indications appear to support that position. As such, I have proposed a motion below. --] (]) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
*Question for Snowed: what do you mean by "RR" and why are you referring to KD? This amendment request is about TallNapoleon. And a question for Karbinski - I'm not sure what you are saying here. What are your diffs showing? Are you objecting to TallNapoleon's restrictions being lifted or are you saying he has been editing the articles instead of the talk pages? <small>The explanation by TallNapoleon makes sense - the question to Snowded still stands. 19:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)</small> ] (]) 07:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the answer, Snowded. I think some restrictions are still needed, and have voted to support the motion below. ] (]) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Motions ===
1) The topic ban imposed on {{user|TallNapoleon}} (see ]) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on ] and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.

;Support:
:# As proposer, per my comments above. --] (]) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:# Support; TallNapoleon seems to have improved and is working well with editors on talk pages. ] (]) 09:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:# ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 16:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:# <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:# ] 21:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

;Oppose:
:#
:#

;Abstain:
:#
:#

----

== Request to amend prior case ]==

=== Statement by DrKiernan ===
The process to develop a procedure for deciding Ireland article names has stalled. All three moderators have resigned. However, ] have been suggested.

I would summarise the comments of those editors participating in the current discussion of the options on the wikiproject talk page as:

Approve option 1 (or a version of it):
#BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 8 April 2009
#Fmph 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#DrKiernan 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#Kittybrewster 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#BritishWatcher 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#Rockpocket 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#Bastun 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#Evertype 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#ras52 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK with option 1:
#Jack forbes 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose option 1:
#Redking7 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#MusicInTheHouse 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerned with option 1:
#Mooretwin 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (because it tackles each problem in turn to try working towards a global solution rather than tackling everything at once)
#RashersTierney 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (because it might lead to option 4)

That's at least a two-thirds majority in favour of trying option 1.

I ask:
# that ArbCom amend ] with the addition of: ''If the panel should fail to develop a procedure, then ArbCom will impose one.''; and
# that ArbCom impose option 1 of ] as phase 2 of a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles, without prejudice to further phases of the mechanism or procedure that may arise in the future in the course of discussion. ] (]) 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

* '''Comment''', I would add myself to 1 above and also comment that no mediation took place, poor participation is in part being due to people waiting for something to happen. BHG but a good set of statements in place, but this is not an issue for passive mediation. --] (]) 05:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I'm sorry that the Committee's outline of how a solution to this dispute should be reached, without dictating a result, has apparently not succeeded or led the parties to an agreed resolution. Awaiting further statements before opining on how to proceed from here. ] (]) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
* We are currently working to select new moderators for the project. Credit goes to FayssalF for ensuring that this was being addressed. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Sebastian, PhilKnight, and Edokter for volunteering for the difficult task and wish them well. Please bear with us for a few days while we sort things out. (This does not preclude evidence that another approach may be needed or suggestions for an alternate method of handling the situation.) --] (]) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
** ]. New moderators have been appointed and discussion is being opened at the project talk page to review the possible participation of an arbitrator. --] (]) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
* Per Vassyana. I am concerned, however, that the number of participants in the process and the discussions seems to be declining and is less than in previous iterations that tried to find a resolution to this issue. Any solution to this will not work if there is insufficient participation in both the process and any final naming discussion or vote or other process. Hopefully establishing a new set of moderators will help. ] (]) 09:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

----

== Request to amend prior case ]==

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|SirFozzie}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Sandstein}}

=== Statement by SirFozzie ===
The Troubles, are not as contentious as they once were, thanks to the tight lid on edit-warring that was created by ] ], that subjected the whole subset of articles covered by The Troubles to a 1 RR. This has blunted a lot of the constant edit-warring. However, six months after the fix was applied, someone wants to rip the band-aid off and let the (metaphorical) blood flow anew. ] has stated that he will not act on AE requests regarding this remedy, because it is not an ArbCom remedy. We've already seen several folks using IP's to edit war and then when the IP is blocked, use throw-away accounts. The sanctions are needed.. there are 10+ sections in the archives where this is used since December alone.

So, despite my utter distaste of time-wasting bureaucracy such as this, would the ArbCom please vote in the following as a formal ArbCom remedy, as posted by ]:

*All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as ].
*All articles related to ''The Troubles'', defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
**Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
*Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
*As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, I leave it to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: <nowiki>{{Consensus|This article is currently subject to ''']''', as laid out during a previous ] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}}</nowiki>

List of times the Rlevse sanctions has been brought up on AE (there are another 5-10 where it's been mentioned in passing, but these are the ones that refer to the 1RR rule itself.)

, , , , , , , , , , , , and the two latest ones on AE. If the Committee would look at the history of AE from archive 30 or so on, usually 2 or 3 or 4 sections per archive will have to do with this series of articles,

I don't believe that a new full fledged ArbCom would do anything more then to spend a couple months of time with the same parties arguing in the same way. Instead, what should be done is apply common sense. Use the Rlevse sanctions, and keep the peace in an area where there will be no peace if not applied.

=== Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite ===
If one admin chooses not to act on a particular enforcement request, it doesn't stop another administrator stepping in. Whilst Sandstein might not agree and therefore decide not to take action, if another administrator believes the editor in question has broken the case remedies (In this case it is enforcement of discretionary sanctions) then that is up to them and they may block for that. From what I can see, Sandstein hasn't said he'll overrule other administrators and I suspect he wouldn't even challenge other administrators if they made blocks as part of Rlevse's restriction. It looks like Sandstein merely doesn't agree and doesn't feel comfortable enforcing the decision - that's his prerogative and feel free to simply block if someone goes against the 1RR restriction. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sandstein ===
I'm commenting in my capacity as admin patrolling ] and responding to enforcement requests there. Ryan is right in that I won't (and have no authority to) overrule any admin enforcing the "Troubles" case as he or she sees fit. However, the "Troubles" decision does not, as Ryan seems to believe, provide for discretionary sanctions. Instead, at ], it provides that disruptive editors may be put on ] and, at ], that ''these'' editors are then subject to 1RR. ''That'' is the arbitral decision that can and should be enforced at ], including by me.

The section entitled ], which purports to put ''all'' articles in the area of conflict under 1RR, on the other hand, is not an enforceable arbitral decision, since it was apparently never voted on by the Committee. Its author, Rlevse, has confirmed this at . That is why I will not act on enforcement requests concerning it.

I recommend that the Committee:
* remove the section ] from the case page or leave a comment so as not to cause others to mistake it for an operative remedy, and
* if it feels that this is warranted (I've too little experience in this area to comment on this), properly amend the case to provide for either a general 1RR restriction on the area of conflict, or for discretionary sanctions as with other comparable cases. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

;Additional comment with respect to bainer below: It's good to know that this is a community sanction, although it would have been helpful if this had been noted somewhere. It is probably not advisable to add a sanction of this type to the "log" section of the arbitration page without any indication of its provenance or authority. Still, since ] is not intended for the enforcement of community sanctions and arbitration pages should probably not contain non-arbitral remedies, I maintain my recommendations above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

=== Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist ===
Sandstein has summed up what I was going to say. Perhaps both sanction-schemes would be useful? ] (]) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

:Sandstein, yes, the community sanction was inappropriately written and logged into the ArbCom case instead of the appropriate location. I do wonder whether there would still be a consensus supporting such a measure if the sanction discussion was more appropriately titled; although I was active at the time, and particularly interested in sanction discussions, I know I wasn't aware of it. If the remedy is needed, ArbCom should vote on it and put it into the case - at least that would resolve the matter re: logging.

:Unless the remedy is written into the case by ArbCom (in which case AE is more appropriate), ANI is where complaints should go - as with any other requests to enforce community sanctions. ] (]) 08:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tznkai ===
As the unlucky administrator who started the long chain of events that lead there, I want to add two things. One, discretionary sanctions do exist in that dispute area, they are editor targeted however. Two, the broad 1RR was proposed as an alternative to using probation. It has, I believed, helped significantly in the topic area, and has set an objective standard for that all users can be held up to. I strongly urge the committee to consider endorsing the community remedy.--] (]) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Domer48 ===
Having opposed the sanctions, or I should say how they came about I must concede that they have had a positive effect. They have reduced the edit warring and encouraged discussion. POV warriors have been marginalised with disruptive editing being quickly closed down most of the time. Some Admin’s with a particular bias (admin’s can and do have biased opinions) have been reluctant to address the actions of some editors but the 1RR has proved itself despite this. We all know what the sanctions entail, and have clarified through experience what 1RR is and how it operates. For example, a number of reverts without intermediate edits in between is considered to be 1 revert.

So what I’d suggest is that the sanctions be placed on a separate page with the block log transferred to it. It should include:

*All articles related to ''The Troubles'', defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
*All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as ].
*Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
*Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
*As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, it is up to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: <nowiki>{{Consensus|This article is currently subject to ''']''', as laid out during a previous ] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines on this talk page first.}}</nowiki>
*These final remedies have been linked to ] and ].

It should also include what we mean by 1RR, so there is no ambiguity. If it is felt that criteria no.1 is not clear enough expand it. The template be changed to direct editors to the appropriate page, including a link on ] in case any templates are missed during the page change. That’s my 2 cents worth, as to simply remove the sanctions would be counter productive.--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* '''Request''' Could we have links to the 10? related AE threads since Rlevse augmented the case. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
*: It looks like this community-based remedy is doing the trick. I am happy to leave it as Stephen Bain suggests, or write it into the decision as Sandstein suggests. Could someone please notify the regulars who have been affected by this remedy. e.g. Sarah777, Manticore126, Domer48, BigDunc, and Mooretwin. They may have valuable views to share on how this remedy plays out. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Commment''' I'm flattered something I wrote that I thought was basic has been so useful. I'm willing to make a motion if it looks like enough arbs will support it. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

* Sandstein is correct that the 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during ]. There is nothing wrong with this. There are a couple of issues though:
:# the notice of the 1RR restriction on the case page (and on article talk pages) should be altered to describe it as a community-based remedy, or removed to some other appropriate page, to avoid confusion;
:# there is unfortunately no convenient venue for enforcement requests on such community-based sanctions, personally I have no problem with ] being used just as a matter of convenience, but otherwise ANI would make do.
:--]&nbsp;(]) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

* I see no reason for ArbCom to intervene with a community-imposed sanction. (Indeed, I would encourage administrators and the community to impose sanctions as necessary without the intervention of ArbCom.) Additionally, an administrator could simply warn someone who is edit-warring or otherwise disruptive that the topic area has seen a lot of problems and that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (It would be advisable to be polite and clear about the problem, directing the editor to any relevant policy pages and giving a bit of guidance about how to better work with others on Misplaced Pages.) Upon a repeat performance of disruption, the person can be sanctioned or blocked, without bureaucratic hurdles or reliance upon the particulars of an ArbCom decision. I have no particular objection to issues being raised at AE for areas subject to arbitration enforcement, but ANI would be appropriate if the AE regulars find this undesirable. --] (]) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
** Noting Carcharoth's comments, I have no objection to logging on the case page, for the sake of a unified log location. However, community based general sanctions can be referenced at ] and community imposed individual sanctions can be referenced at ]. --] (]) 05:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
*Nothing much further to add. Will vote on a motion to write the sanctions into the case if needed, pending feedback from those John asked to be contacted. But leaving as a community-based sanction (per bainer's description) would also work. ] (]) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
**One concern with a community-based sanction is the lack of anywhere to log sanctions. It is not acceptable for such restrictive sanctions not to be logged. Future admins or arbitrators trying to review the situation need an accurate log of actions taken and sanctions issued, whether following arbitration cases or using community-based sanctions. Strongly suggest logging (or continuing to log) at the case pages for now. ] (]) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' No admin is '''required''' to enforce any Misplaced Pages policy or any sanction (be it an ArbCom or Community Sanction) but that does not stop the sanction from being enforced my other admins. Unless there is a problem with the Community sanction that can not be worked out by the Community, '''I see no need for action by the Committee'''. ]] 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Concur with Stephen Bain and FloNight (and kudos to rlevse). &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''; I think that the tenor here is that this community sanction has ArbCom's '']'', and that AE is a logical place to bring enforcement (even if strictly out of scope). &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', agree with Flonight, since it's a community sanction then there's nothing we really need to do. ] 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012

Redirect to: