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

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:11, 19 January 2010 editTiptoety (talk \| contribs)47,300 edits Archive to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan ← 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:
			#REDIRECT ]
	<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>
	= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}\|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment\|Requests for amendment\|]}} =
	{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header}}

	== Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong ==
	'''Initiated by ''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> '''at''' 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
	; Case affected : {{RFARlinks\|Falun Gong}}

	; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
	# ] (remedy 1)

	; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
	* {{userlinks\|Sandstein}} (initiator)
	* No other specific editor.

	===Amendment 1===

	I ask that remedy 1, ], be vacated and replaced by a standard discretionary sanctions remedy, such as e.g. ].

	==== Statement by Sandstein ====

	Remedy 1 provides for "article probation" for all articles in the area of conflict. But article probation, as specified at ] ("Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages") only allows article or topic bans. However, in some situations, administrators may wish to impose less drastic measures. For instance, in the open enforcement request at ], I think that a revert restriction would be more appropriate, at least initially, than a topic ban. Although one might assume that, '']'', the authority to impose a strong sanction such as a topic ban implies the authority to impose lesser sanctions, it is preferable (for the avoidance of doubt and wikilawyering) that such authority be expressly provided for.

	I make this request as an administrator active in ] (again since January 1, having confidence in the new ArbCom), and have no involvement in the original case or in any other disputes concerning Falun Gong. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Vassyana ====
	I have reviewed the editorial history of this topic area in some depth. Fulfilling this request would be immensely helpful to the editors trying to help ]. This will be encouraging to administrators already trying to make headway in the area. It will also encourage more administrators to intervene, especially those who may have been ambivalent about the more limited enforcement options. This will also be beneficial to editors in the area, with the conditions and sanctions better tailored to the situation. The resulting improvements and normalization of the editing environment will allow dispute resolution efforts a great deal more traction and success. The long-running and intractable nature of the overall dispute in the topic area should justify the expanded measures. ] (]) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Enric Naval ====
	Discrectionary sanctions would be good, to fine tune sanctions. (I think that this request was raised for the wrong reasons, but that's a different topic)

	==== Statement By Simonm223 ====

	Quite frankly I shouldn't even be given a revert restriction for protecting the neutrality of the FLG articles from blatant efforts to insert a strong POV. Notwithstanding that this is still a good idea. ] (]) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Statement by HappyInGeneral ====
	No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --] (]) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

	The latest example (food for thought):
	* Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes ] comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
	* However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts , , and no discussion about the actual changes.

	In my understanding Misplaced Pages is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! --] (]) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

	: I cross posted the above . --] (]) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Statement by other editor ====
	{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

	=== Further discussion ===
	:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
	==== Statement by yet another editor ====
	==== Clerk notes ====
	:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
	==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
	*'''Recuse'''. I wish to remain uninvolved as an arbitrator, because I have been involved in the past as an outside editor/informal mediator and wish to engage the area on that basis. I will make a brief statement as a regular editor. ] (]) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
	* This seems reasonable and uncontroversial; I'll make the appropriate motions. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Motions ====

	1) Imposition of discretionary sanctions
	:The ] is modified as follows:
	:(a) The ] (remedy #1) is rescinded.
	:(b) Standard discretionary sanctions (]) are authorized for "]" and all closely related articles.
	:This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.

	; Support
	# As proposed. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
	#<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 20:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 20:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
	# ] approves this motion 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
	# Per Sandstein's rationale above. ] (]) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
	# ] <sup>]</sup> 01:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
	# Sandstein's rationale fits here. Folks working at AE and to follow up these things need all the support the Committee can give them. ] (]) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

	; Oppose
	#

	; Abstain
	#
	----

	== Request to amend prior case: Speed of light ==
	'''Initiated by ''' ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">]_di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">]</sup> (formerly Army1987) '''at''' 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
	; Case affected : {{RFARlinks\|Speed of light}}

	; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
	# Remedy 4.2 "Brews ohare topic banned"

	; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
	* {{userlinks\|Brews ohare}}

	; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
	* (diff of notification of this thread on Brews ohare's talk page)
	===Amendment 1===
	* ]
	* I, A. di M., hereby request that the following sentence be added to the end of the remedy: "The topic ban is temporarily suspended until ] regarding ] is closed."

	==== Statement by A. di M. ====
	Brews ohare is the author of three of the pictures currently on the article ]. None of these pictures are directly related with the debates which led to the arbitration case, which dealt with the implications of defining the metre in terms of the speed of light in vacuum. On the ], initiated by me, constructive criticism has been expressed about the pictures; such criticism is also totally unrelated to the definition of the metre. While Brews ohare is still technically allowed to improve the pictures (as they are hosted on Commons) he is not allowed to participate in discussions about them, as that might be construed as transgressing his topic ban. I do not think that this is helpful, so I propose that Brews ohare is temporarily lifted from his topic ban until the FAC closes. ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">]_di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">]</sup> (formerly Army1987) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
	;Response to Steve Smith: It could, but that should be worded in a sufficiently clear way: Brews ohare said he's "not interested in a month of squabbles over sanctions", and I think that discussions about whether the wording did or did not allow a comment of his on that page wouldn't be helpful, either. ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">]_di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">]</sup> (formerly Army1987) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Tznkai ====
	In order for this amendment to be effectuated I (or another admin, or the committee) will have to suspend or lift the supplemental ban that I placed on Brews ohare previously. (Its in the case log) I have some ideas on how to word the amendment that I haven't committed to words yet, as I am still deciding whether or not to support this request.
	:I failed to timestamp the above. Whoops. Anyway, after considerable discussion on Brews ohare's talk page, I've decided that on balance, Brews ohare is a potential asset, and further has earned his shot at loosening restrictions. I intend to lift my supplemental ban after brief discussion at AE, and I support the motion below that will allow Brews ohare to participate in the FAC process to discuss the relevant images. I further recommend an excemption for editing the relevant images. --] (]) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Finell ====

	It would be helpful to the project if Brews' physics topic ban were modified to permit him to participate in discussion of graphics that he created, and that are used in the ] article, during that article's current FAC. It is not necessary that his topic ban be temporarily lifted, only that it be amended for this specific purpose. Recently Brews has been peacefully and productively editing math articles and his behavior has not been problematical in any way, so far as I am aware.—] 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Count Iblis ====
	Brews Ohare's topic ban should be temporarily modified to allow him to participate in the discussions about the diagrams he made. To answer Kirill's concerns, I think the whole point of Arbcom requests is to look at each case individually, we don't argue on the basis of precedents. Finell has pointed out above that brews has been contributing in a positive way. If there is an issue with diagrams and it is found that some modifications are needed, then it could be extremely inconvenient for someone else to do that. In practice this could mean that someone else would have to make new diagrams from scratch. This has to be weighed against the potential of disruption of wikipedia given the reason of Brews topic ban (endless arguments about speed of light, domination of talk pages). I don't see this potential for disruption given what Brews has been doing recently. As I said, precedents are irrelevant. In similar cases where someone has been topic banned from some politics page which is up for FA review, you may well conclude that despite that editor having made considerable contributions, the potential for disruption is very real. ] (]) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


	==== Statement by TenOfAllTrades ====
	As far as I know (and I would welcome any correction if I am mistaken), there have been no problems related to Brews' edits of images on Misplaced Pages/Commons. Further, I am aware of no major problems with Brews' participation in the project for the last couple of months — and I will say that stands in contrast to (and in spite of) the overzealous and...spirited actions of some of his self-appointed defenders.

	On the other hand, I must also note that (per Tznkai's comments) a broadening of Brews' original topic ban to include ] was required in late November in order to get him back on a productive track. There was also at least one violation of his physics topic ban in late December: .

	While the proposed amendment is far broader than necessary, I am inclined to say that that on balance the likelihood of disruption from a more narrowly-crafted exception is low and indeed would be beneficial to both the project and to Brews — and ''might'' form the eventual basis for future relaxation of his topic ban terms. An opening to allow Brews to participate in discussions regarding his images in the article (which are, as far as I know, uncontroversial) would probably be worthwhile. Further, allowing him to participate in (a part of) the featured article process should – hopefully – expose him to some of our most dedicated editors working to achieve some of Misplaced Pages's highest standards and goals.

	That's the carrot; here's the stick. While I hope and expect such a condition shouldn't be required, I would also suggest that the amendment explicitly be revocable by a consensus at ] if Brews' editing should stray into the tendentious or disruptive.

	The exact wording of such a temporary amendment is up to the ArbCom. ](]) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Statement by other editor ====
	{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

	=== Further discussion ===
	:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
	==== Statement by yet another editor ====
	==== Clerk notes ====
	:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
	==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
	*Would a narrower suspension applied only the pictures be useful? ] (]) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
	*Barring any substantial objection from other editors or arbitrators, I do not see why this cannot be handled by way of a simple motion providing a specific exception for Brews to discuss his images in this specific FAC. Barring any major objections, I will propose such a motion in the near future. ] (]) 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
	* I am uncomfortable with waiving a topic ban purely because some of the editor's work is being discussed at FAC, as it's an arrangement we've rejected in the past, and with editors responsible for even greater volumes of work. Is there some reason why Brews's direct involvement is necessary (rather than merely convenient)? ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
	*I said when the case closed that I'd be willing to support a change to the topic ban to allow Brews Ohare to contribute images and to discuss images (narrowly construed). I would, though, prefer that Brews Ohare himself make such an appeal. I would in principle support a motion like that Vassyana intends to propose, but only if Brews Ohare indicates that they support the appeal being made here. I would even support a complete relaxation of the ban to allow any image work, not just a single FAC discussion. i.e. making an exception for all image work would make more sense than making an exception for FAC alone. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

	==== Motions ====

	1) Exception to topic ban

	{{user\|Brews ohare}} is permitted to participate in the ] discussion for "]" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (]).

	; Support
	:# ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
	:# ] (]) 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

	; Oppose
	:#

	; Abstain
	:#

Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012

Redirect to:

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment