| Revision as of 03:58, 3 April 2018 editBeyond My Ken (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers263,291 edits →E-mail from Captain Occam← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:10, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,116 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 52) (botTag: Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}} | <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}{{ArbCom navigation}} | ||
| <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 500k | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 16: | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| '''Behaviour on this page:''' This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ==] closed== | |||
| <!-- ] (]) 09:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| : ] | |||
| Ouch, Remedy #5 really cuts into my ''"Infoboxes should be limited to mostly politicians & sports figures articles"'' argument :( ] (]) 13:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I wonder if it's necessary to have both the probation and the normal discretionary sanctions at once. ] (], ]) 13:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: They argued that one was more for a person, the other for an article. - I hope we'll never need any, one or the other. --] (]) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::The probation is a discretionary sanction. It is just a predefined one. I think that is better, because as I said on the PD talk page, we already have defined procedures for how to deal with DS. I also agree with Gerda about hoping we won't need either in practice. ] (]) 13:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I assume the purpose of the Committee's decision was not to encourage ] in an infobox case...to immediately go and do something like ]? ], much? ]<sup>]]</sup> 13:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wow that is a dickish move. Maybe Volvlogia should also be placed on Infobox probation aswell ? .... Just a suggestion. –]<sup>]</sup> 16:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No need for probation. I'll let things simmer, won't happen again like that. Scout's honor. --] (]) 16:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *It's up there with of Cass's edit that came only hours after the case closed. - ] (]) 17:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|GoldenRing}} you missed the "original announcement" link ;) ]] 18:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Remedy #4 requires somebody to kick the ball off, so I've created ] at ]. ] ] ] 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Just yesterday someone said "...decision of whether to include an infobox should rely on the judgement of the article's main authors..." (diff not included, lest I be accused of canvassing). In the light of this outcome, what should be the response to that? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **This case changed nothing related to that. The response has always been (and likely will always be) ]. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 13:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *...and how about the comment "Infoboxes are not compulsory, articles are written for people to read, the lead provides a summary if an infobox conveys all that is necessary then the article seems somewhat redundant."? Do not both of my examples fall foul of "editors are reminded... not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general"? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **Outside of any context, that would appear to be a violation of the "editors are reminded..." warning ''iff'' it is a comment made in a discussion about a single infobox. However without the surrounding context it is impossible to know for sure. ] (]) 10:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ***It is indeed in the discussion of a single specific artcile's infobox, on the talk page of that article. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ****OK so it's potentially against the reminder, but it's still not possible to be certain without the full context. You're currently skriting close to the spirit of both ] and ] - either provide the full context or drop the matter. ] (]) 15:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *****"infoboxes are not compulsory, articles are written for people to read, the lead provides a summary if an infobox conveys all that is necessary then the article seems somewhat redundant." is a perfectly reasonable argument to not have an infobox on an article where an infobox is just duplicating information already present and clear in prose. That the same argument can be applied to many many articles does not make it 'general about infoboxes' it just means the same problem that some editors have with infoboxs is widespread. Its an incredibly badly worded 'reminder'. ] (]) 16:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *****What part of {{Tq|"diff not included, lest I be accused of canvassing"}} are you having trouble understanding? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ******The bit where you provide context so it can be looked at without your cherry-picked selection. Either pony up a diff or accept you wont get a straight answer. ] (]) 22:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ******Ah I see its good old ] where the context is provided that numerous people have *already* made specific note that the information in the infobox in that article is already in the article, the infobox is ugly and adds nothing, and the quoted statement is *directly* below your own post where you want to include an infobox claiming it has info that is not in the lede. So, less an editor wanting to "turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" and more editor "responding to the discussion already in progress". (The 'articles are written for people to read' is probably a direct response to your machine readable argument.) ] (]) 23:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| An arbitration decision cannot constrain community policy-making or guideline-writing, and this one does not purport to. Comments in the RfC cannot violate the decision by their content, though they should be civil, free of personal attacks, etc. ] (]) 11:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| If anybody isn't certain about the Arb ruling? that's what ] is for :) ] (]) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Discretionary sanction notice == | |||
| Can I ask under what basis a notice of discretionary sanctions can and should be dropped on people? seems to be egariously awful and comes across as little more than bullying. If it is a valid use of the notice (although deeply chilling and little more tha a way of shutting down any interaction relating to IBs), <s>should also lead to a similar notice?</s> Should ''any'' change to the status of an IB lead to this? - ] (]) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :By design, anyone editing a topic that is covered under discretionary sanctions can be notified of discretionary sanctions in relation to it. The notice can be placed on anyone editing in the topic area, regardless of what their editing is. Its meant to prevent edit warring and so un-necessary future blocks - and to an extent, enable future blocks. It is designed precisely to be 'chilling' in that respect. As a practical issue, AE wont sanction anyone who has not been notified in advance of sanctions related to a topic, so its common to make sure as many people are aware of the potential for sanctions in advance. So when they do get taken to AE they cant say 'oh I didnt know about it'. Its not uncommon after an arbcom case is closed with DS in a topic, to see many many editors notified of the DS as they may not have been following/involved in the case. ] (]) 21:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: Within hours of the case closing, {{u|Volvlogia}} added an infobox to ] – an article where {{u|SchroCat}} and I had ] in 2013 – and {{u|Sagaciousphil}} reverted it with the edit summary (''No consensus for this; please see talk page, thanks''). So I'm the editor who put the DS alerts on both of their talk pages, under the impression that that was exactly what ArbCom intended. Now, my distaste for sanctioning productive editors is a matter of record, so I'm no fan of discretionary sanction, xyz probation, or arbitration enforcement, but ArbCom have got to be clear about this: is every editor who places a DS alert going to have to defend their action afterwards? If so, you might as well rescind your remedy at ] right now, because no uninvolved editor is going to be cooperating with it. I can understand us not wanting alerts to be placed by editors "with unclean hands"; but those will be the only ones left willing to place DS alerts if this is taken to its logical conclusion. {{ping |Worm That Turned |KrakatoaKatie |RickinBaltimore |Premeditated Chaos |BU Rob13 |Euryalus |Alex Shih |Callanecc |Doug Weller}} you're the ones who put us in this situation: what's your solution? --] (]) 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Discretionary sanctions alerts do not suggest wrongdoing. It says so right on the notice. You were perfectly correct to place those alerts given the history of both editors and the context of what happened at that article (though I'll note Volvlogia actually didn't need an alert, given they were a party to the case – they're automatically "aware"). If editors harass those placing alerts, that is itself grounds for sanctions. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree that Rexx was right to place a tag and no he shouldn't be harassed. No one should be harassed. | |||
| :::: One problem is that in the past, DS tags have actually been used to harass, intimidate, and threaten so in many cases placing a tag carries with it an unpleasant tone. There's no way of knowing if an editor will feel harassed when a tag is placed since the threat comes out of the editor's history and could also depend on who places the tag. Nor do I think we should be threatening people with punishment because they feel intimidated. However, incivility is incivility no matter where we find it so the question is at what point do we warn and or curb incivility rather than punish-and Misplaced Pages is not punitive-for reacting badly. What I would like to see, and I have no technical ability to either know if this is possible or how to do it, is that anyone who edits an article under DS is automatically pinged. Failing that rather lofty idea just a note in the template with a little more explanation might make defensive editors feel better. I have also mentioned to editors that an article was under discretionary sanctions and been told the remark was chilling when that wasn't my intent. And one time I actually had the audacity to ask that an editor be made aware and warned of DS after unilateral removals of 7 or so sources. I was sanctioned for several month for my trouble. So yes, DS has lots of baggage. I'd add that giving single admins the power to apply DS sanctions was meant to lighten the load at AE but anytime one admin has that kind of discretionary power trouble can follow. | |||
| ::::The remedy is to change the way DS is viewed. How can that happen?(] (]) 19:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::Littleolive oil makes very good points here, although their edit summary mentioned odors, which I felt was inappropriate given that olive oil itself can give off quite a pong when it goes rancid. That aside, even leaving a sanctions notice for an administrator -- one would have thought administrators would be above feeling chilled or intimidated by anything? -- can result in , so I think it is clear that something needs to be done to reassure people about the nature and intent of such notices. I apologize for not having any good ideas as to how to achieve that. ] (]) 19:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:O).... very very funny!!!(] (]) 21:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)) | |||
| : You know what I think about the style of arbcom messages, right? (If not, ].) I received a DS notice, and when I wanted to copy it to my talk archive, I received the largest error message I encountered so far: if I really wanted to send a DS alert to Gerda Arendt? No, I just wanted to archive. Can that be fixed. - Then: will we receive any instructions as what kind of behaviour will/should result in the alert, or will every single one of the thousands who write an infobox every day be notified? - I predict requests for clarification. --] (]) 21:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know what, Gerda, one of those notifications you received said that you had received it because you had commented on some case about infoboxes. So what do you do when you want not to receive such notifications -- well of course, you comment some more about cases about infoboxes, as you're doing right here! Welcome home, Gerda. ] (]) 21:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's perhaps as well to note here, since I don't see any mention of it above, that the alert must not be posted on an individual more than ''once a year''. If you try to post it, you get a big pink notice exhorting you to check the history for previous relevant alerts, and to be sure not to alert the person if they received one less than a year ago. The system, in other words, warns against using the alerts for pestering people. ], since you received the standard DS alert for infoboxes from RexxS yesterday, you shouldn't be alerted again until March 28, 2019 at the earliest. If it nevertheless happens sooner, you should consider complaining. (I don't mean to imply that you were threatening her with pestering, ]. Just, the one-year rule is probably not well known, since you only discover it when you actually try to post an alert.) ] | ] 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC). | |||
| :::P.S., Gerda, you apparently got the big pink notice when you "tried to alert" your own archive. (Copying it as text from your talk might have been better.) You can just ignore the warning and press "Publish" again. ] | ] 22:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC). | |||
| :::: (ec) I still wonder why I received that big pink thing when I tried to copy to my own. The program should notice that I am I. I am unafraid of arbcom messages. DYK that I even made a DYK about it, my reaction to the first arbcase closure, I mean? ... that the hymn "''']'''" (Jesus, my joy) by ] and ] mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? - I ], more to come tomorrow. | |||
| :::: ps: yes, I managed, doing exactly what you (and the notice) recommended, - but still think it's no great programming. --] (]) 22:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it's pretty good as it helps avoid an editor getting more than one alert a year, minimising pestering as much as programming can do. ] ] 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I said nothing against "one per year", but the program should distinguish archiving, no? --] (]) 22:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: It ''might'' be possible for the programming not to display the warning if ] is the editor and the page being edited is ] or a subpage of that (e.g. ]). However, this will require the input of people with far greater technical expertise than me and the template talk page is probably a better place for discussing it. ] (]) 10:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The edit filter should no longer fire for subpages in userspace. ] (]) 10:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've said this in the past, but I continue to think that it ''would'' be helpful to revise the notices to make it clearer that simply giving the notice does not imply wrongdoing. No matter how many times some editors say otherwise, it is a fact that the templates ''look'' like a warning. They just do, and that is counter-productive. And this has been a perennial issue. Among multiple previous discussions of revising the templates is ]. I'd really like to see some of the ideas from that previous discussion implemented. --] (]) 17:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given the of the thread containing my suggestions and the most recent discussion, I think the message is pretty clear, {{u|Tryptofish}}, and it feels to me like it can be summarised in two words, the second of which is "off"... perhaps supplemented with a comment indicating a disinclination to produce fecal matter. I'd like to be wrong, but actions speak loudly and the present ones persuade me. :( ] (]) 00:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like so many discussions that, for whatever reason, didn't spark enough participants, the conversation kind of faded out... Well, let's try again. ] (]) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposed change to Template:Ds/alert=== | |||
| Currently, the text at the start of {{tl|Ds/alert}} is as follows: | |||
| * ''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| * The ] has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding (topic), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision can be read <nowiki></nowiki>. | |||
| * | |||
| I propose changing it to the following: | |||
| * This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that any of your contributions to date have been problematic.'' | |||
| * You have recently edited a page related to ''(topic)''. ''Be aware that the ] has authorised ] for all pages related to this topic.'' For more details, <nowiki></nowiki>. | |||
| ] (]) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Maybe call a spade a spade?=== | |||
| Out of curiosity, does anyone randomly hand these out? People say it's not a warning but does anyone really believe that? If I see someone making gnoming or other uncontentious edits I'm not going to slap a DS notice on their talk page. However if I see someone being disruptive or making content changes that I know other editors will find contentious (justified or not) then they get a DS notice "warning" them that "his means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks." I don't think my practice is that unusual. After all, all of BLP is covered by discretionary sanctions but how many BLP-DS notices are given every day? --] <sup>]</sup> 02:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == E-mail from Captain Occam == | |||
| I received an unsolicited e-mail from Captain Occam using Misplaced Pages's e-mail facility. I have directed him not to e-mail me again, and that I would bring it to ArbCom if he did. His response in '''''another''''' e-mail to me was "Ha ha ha, really? ... Please go ahead. I'd say it's about time ArbCom took a look at your behavior." | |||
| (Note: the text of the second e-mail is quoted here without the permission of Captain Occam, since the e-mail was unsolicited, and he was instructed not to contact me again. I'm willing to forward it to whomever wishes to see it.) | |||
| His first unsolicited e-mail was about an edit I made to ], a subject that he is topic banned from. Is the fact that he used the Misplaced Pages e-mail facility to contact me a violation of his topic ban? If so, then I believe he should be blocked, have his TPA removed, and his access to e-mail cut off. In fact, my '''''real''''' opinion is that he should have his ban reinstated, since he should never have been unbanned in the first place. | |||
| ] (]) 03:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :*Original case remedies | |||
| :*Amendments by motion | |||
| :*I;m not certain where his unbanning discussion is. Private e-mail? | |||
| :*Captain Occam's sanctions are at ]: | |||
| ::<blockquote>'''Captain Occam is topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. He is subject to a two-way interaction ban with Mathsci (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log). If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the R&I case page.'''</blockquote> | |||
| :] (]) 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't believe I am under any obligation to inform Captain Occam about this complaint, but in fairness: ]. I would caution Captain Occam, however, to read ] '''''very closely''''' so that he does not violate his topic ban in any response he should make here. ] (]) 03:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:10, 25 December 2024
Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.