| Revision as of 12:02, 31 December 2009 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,423 edits Archive Lapsed Pacifist 2 request for amendment: stale. Removed with no action taken.← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:07, 31 December 2009 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,423 edits Archive The Troubles request for amendment: stale. Removed with no action taken.Next edit → | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
| * Just because ArbCom has reviewed an area or examined specific editors in the past does not mean that all related matters are ArbCom business. Even where we have previously intervened, efforts to resolve the matter at the community level are usually required before we will step in. Have you tried utilizing ], including requesting admin intervention? Is there any particular reason this cannot be resolved at the community level? ] (]) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | * Just because ArbCom has reviewed an area or examined specific editors in the past does not mean that all related matters are ArbCom business. Even where we have previously intervened, efforts to resolve the matter at the community level are usually required before we will step in. Have you tried utilizing ], including requesting admin intervention? Is there any particular reason this cannot be resolved at the community level? ] (]) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *It's not clear what change you want other than you want some sort of sanction. Besides, ] may be a more suitable venue, if you have the evidence to support a filing there. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | *It's not clear what change you want other than you want some sort of sanction. Besides, ] may be a more suitable venue, if you have the evidence to support a filing there. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| == Request to amend prior case: The Troubles == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ]]] '''at''' 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|The Troubles}} | |||
| ===Amendment 1: New remedy: Discretionary Sanctions=== | |||
| * ] | |||
| : ''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. | |||
| : ''The scope of these sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, or British nationalism. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related. | |||
| : ''For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. | |||
| : ''Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor. | |||
| ==== Statement by Elonka ==== | |||
| Discretionary sanctions have been routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as ], ], ], ], and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom did not start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Misplaced Pages. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project. | |||
| I have personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect in multiple other topic areas, and can vouch for their effectiveness. A complete list of every formal warning or sanction I have placed is at ], but a few examples of creative sanctions include: | |||
| * Banning one editor from one article and its talkpage for one week. | |||
| * Banning one editor from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days. | |||
| * Banning one editor from editing the lead section of one article for one month. | |||
| I should point out though, that in actual practice, specific sanctions were rarely needed. Mainly it was the ''possibility'' of sanctions that was useful. In most cases, simply warning an editor that they were at risk of being placed under discretionary sanctions, was all that was needed to encourage them to voluntarily moderate their own behavior. | |||
| To see examples of sanctions which other administrators have used, see: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| The Armenia-Azerbaijan situation is a good case study for this. I have never personally implemented sanctions in this topic area, but I did note that the ''first'' case, ], in April 2007, did not include discretionary sanctions. The conflict in the topic area continued, and resulted in a second case a few months later, ]. In the second case, discretionary sanctions ''were'' authorized, and with administrators empowered to use creative sanctions , a third Arbitration case has not been needed. | |||
| The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008 and October-November 2009. A recent (November 2009) attempt was made to authorize discretionary sanctions via community discussion at ], but though a majority of uninvolved editors were in support of the idea, there was not a clear consensus. So I'm bringing this here, for a formal determination by ArbCom. It is my hope that if discretionary sanctions can be authorized in the topic area of Irish and British nationalism, we can avoid a case with a name such as "The Troubles 2". --]]] 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| =====Elonka's reply to Vassyana===== | |||
| The articles within the topic area of Irish and British nationalism are subject to large quantities of ] edit-warring. The articles are technically under 1RR (one revert per editor per article per day), but when teams of editors on each side engage in the battle, 1RR means very little, since we'll just get a stream of different editors coming through, all reverting each other. For example at ], there has been a longterm edit war about whether the infobox should state that the founding date of the organization was 1905 or 1970. Other disputes overflow to articles that have a more tenuous connection to the topic area, but are still clearly the same editors battling over issues of nationalism. For example, {{user|Mooretwin}} created articles about soccer players from Northern Ireland, such as ] and ], and move wars erupted as to whether the articles should be disambiguated as "(Northern Irish footballer)" or "(Northern Ireland footballer)". The dispute has also overflowed to the ] article, with an edit war over Scotland's national anthem. Another overflow article is at ], about an extremist political group which has policies related to Northern Ireland. Though not directly related to "]", it is still an article in the British/Irish nationalism topic area, and is a location where established editors continue to revert each other. | |||
| Any action taken by an administrator in this topic area, no matter how minor or how clearly supported by policy, is usually immediately challenged by one side or the other of these battling editors. Challenges range from well-coordinated wiki-lawyering and ] arguments, to accusations of bias and incompetence, and sometimes out and out personal attacks. It takes considerable fortitude for an administrator to deal with this, and the frustration is enhanced by the fact that administrators have very few tools at their disposal in this topic area. We can remind people of 1RR (1 revert per article per day) or put them on probation (1 revert per article per week), but with the coordinated tag team efforts, the edit-warring at the articles continues. If discretionary sanctions were authorized though, uninvolved administrators could implement more specific sanctions. For possible examples: | |||
| * Implementing 0RR on an article's infobox | |||
| * Banning an editor from reverting any good faith edits, unless they are already engaged in discussion at the article's talkpage (this in particular would help in eliminating "drive-by" reverts) | |||
| * Banning a particular editor from editing one or more articles, but still allowing them to participate at the talkpages. | |||
| * Banning an editor from creating new articles that use titles not supported by previous consensus | |||
| * Banning editors from removing reliable sources from an article | |||
| These kinds of sanctions would force the battling parties to cease their coordinated edit wars. This would (hopefully) encourage them to find other methods of dealing with disputes, such as to work through the steps of ], and work on crafting an actual consensus version of each article. --]]] 21:07, 17 November 2009 (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 ==== | |||
| --> | |||
| ==== Statement by GoodDay==== | |||
| The proposed amendment is acceptable. Afterall, my proposal of barring self-proclaimed British & Irish editors from those articles, hasn't been endorsed. ] (]) 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by MickMacNee ==== | |||
| Discretionary sanctions are more than needed for ongoing disputes in the area of British - Irish relations, broadly construed, primarily because of the ongoing poor behaviour of the editors involved, rather than any inherent problem with the topic. However, I have extreme concerns over the potential scope of this, and the wording needs to be extremely precise. The committee should read ] for an example of where the scope of the term ''"...British nationalism in relation to Ireland"'' has already been taken way too far, to chilling effect, to impose a Troubles case restriction on an article which has barely anything to do with British - Irish relations, in order to deal with an ongoing dispute that didn't even encompass British-Irish relations in the slightest. ] (]) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I would actually appereciate it if as part of these new remedies, the numerous instances of unsubstantiated soapboxing commentary were addressed by admins as and when they see it. Highking has been asked time and again to put up or shut up with regards to his pet theories over the result of the ], and he has been reminded time and again who the ] is to which he needs to appeal if he thinks the result was an abuse or does not reflect the NPOV, so far he has done nothing except continue to make these unsubstantiated allegations, poisoning the atmosphere, presumably on the 'say it enought times and it becomes true' principle. ] (]) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As with the BNP example, the Scotland example is another dispute that had nothing to do with British - Irish relations, on an article that had nothing to do with British - Irish relations. The common thread here is apparently editors, not article topics, so why are topic based sanctions such as placing articles on 1RR being used here? If a full case is needed to deal with editors so that we don't have to start labelling everything and anything they might ever touch as under Troubles restrictions, then lets have it. ] (]) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by LessHeard vanU ==== | |||
| I suppose that I am one of the "fly in the ointment" opinion providers in the recent discretionary sanctions/Irish (anti)nationalism discussion. It was my suggestion that defining an uninvolved administrator within the English language Misplaced Pages is problematic - unlike the cultural or nationalism views of other cultures (the Baltic States issues, for example) it is both difficult to find admins that have not been exposed to (anti)establishment views regarding recent Irish history, and to have those unexposed sysops engage within the debate (because the first action appears to taint how they are perceived thereafter). Most of the resistance to the consensus noted by Elonka was that of those editors generally considered as being sympathetic to Irish nationalism sentiment, plus a few others including myself, who were concerned that one side of the process of dispute resolution were likely to attract a far greater fraction of such sanctions than another. What I am referring to is a potential application of ]; where the ''status quo'' might be presented as the neutral pov, where in fact it <u>may</u> be the result of cultural conditioning for the last few centuries, and should be permitted to incorporate other viewpoints. Having said that, it does not seem to me to be an area in which ArbCom can definitively rule. Vandalism is vandalism, and can be dealt with as such, whereas the judgement of what may be considered good faith efforts to move the definition of "neutral viewpoint" is far more difficult. Efforts by the community, as noted by Elonka, to address these issues is riven by the same bias' and prejudices that is being sought to resolve. ] (]) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Tznkai==== | |||
| The Troubles case currently points to ], apparently referencing . We have moved well beyond that, and we need ''some'' sort of update. As for "the community discussing this" you can urge as much as you want, but from where I am sitting, the community at large is not interested in the issue, although they are occasionally interested in the abstract topic of admin power. I appreciate the concerns that LessHeard vanU and those less eloquent but still in agreement with him have. I can only respond "tough." The intense partisanship in the topic area, combined with the already unpleasant topic (partisan bloodshed over the course of many years), combined with editors quick to point fingers and accuse of bias have made it impossible for any sort of "reasonable" solution. New editors to the area (the lifeblood of solving these sorts of problems) are quickly run out or simply frustrated the hostility of the editing environment. The goal at the end of the day is a good quality encyclopedia - to reach that end, we need a normalized editing environment, or as close as we're going to get, and discretionary sanctions are the only tool we have that can do that. | |||
| The only alternative is the community stepping up and really making a real effort. If twenty, or even ten completely disinterested neutral editors showed up everyday to work on the topic are, that would fix pretty much everything. I would welcome the community's interaction with open arms, and gladly put my tools away and STFU, and let them on their merry way if so asked. If arbcom has any brilliant ideas on how to achieve that, awesome. I've made a couple not-so-brilliant suggestions myself ]. Until we get the collective balls to really take on these situations though, I insist that the poor sods who try to keep the peace or at least ] be given tools that don't reference an extinct procedure.--] (]) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''Addendum''': | |||
| I've been working on a model discretionary sanction remedy ] that others may want to comment on, but I bring it up here because of the comments I made concerning is construction. I repeat the juicy bit that I feel is most relevant: "This may seem like it is handing too much power to admins. That is a perfectly valid concern, but topic based discretionary sanctions are the nuclear option. It is to be used when the community at large has abandoned a topic area because of partisan behavior. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here level of disruption. The goals are (1) to contain the behavior to prevent the articles from a total slide into anarchy (2) quarantine the disruptive behavior into increasingly smaller areas and protect community resources from being expended and eventually (3) hopefully expunge partisan editors from the topic area enough so non-partisan editors will eventually return. Take, clear, hold. Lets hope it works better for us than it does for the military" | |||
| It is my strongest recommendation that the committee use my model provision or something similar to give the few admins who work the problem a green light to try creative sanctions that may bring about some stability to articles. This includes for example, taking a disputed article, banning all the warring parties from that article, (or protecting it outright because of edit warring), and shunting them all to a sandbox until they figure it out. | |||
| In the alternative, for those afraid of abusive admin power ''think of something else''. I don't mean this as an attack, it is a genuine plea. | |||
| ====Statement by RashersTierney==== | |||
| I strongly oppose the extension of admin. powers in this area specifically because its terms of reference are so broad and are being interpreted in a way that was not intended. Special Restriction tags put off ordinary editors and will adversely affect the development of articles that may have been, for a limited time, the subject of disruption (for any number of reasons). Discussion on an article's Talk Page before this tag is applied might provide less draconian alternatives, with a similar process to have it removed. 'States of exception' on Misplaced Pages should be kept to an absolute minimum. ] (]) 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by BritishWatcher ==== | |||
| I also strongly oppose the extension of Admin powers on this case agreeing with many of the points raised in previous statements. The situation over at ] and the conversation that has taken place over at ] highlights the dangers of the current powers, the idea such power should be expanded is deeply concerning. | |||
| Here is the quote by Elonka on her talk page | |||
| "Per , and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies." | |||
| That is basically saying that any article which mentions a policy on Ireland or mentions Ireland could fall foul of the troubles restrictions. I consider this a gross misinterpretation of the original ruling by Arbcom. This matter of the BNP article urgently needs to be addressed and could be considered here as its on this same topic. If the BNP is troubles related which is a political party in the UK but not related to Northern Ireland nationalism / loyalist groups then all UK and Ireland political parties must also have such restrictions. | |||
| ] - Mentions they support devolution for Northern Ireland. | |||
| ] - Mentions Northern Ireland on several occasions, including not allowing people in northern Ireland at one point to join the party. | |||
| ] - Mentions the fact they do not contest elections in Northern Ireland. | |||
| These are just a couple of political parties. Every single political party in the UK and Ireland has a policy on Ireland. The idea we must apply restrictions to all those articles is simply a huge expansion of the current Arbcom ruling on the troubles issues. Again i strongly oppose the expansion of Admin powers on this matter as it has been proven current powers have been so clearly misused. ] (]) 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Today in this post Elonka said.. | |||
| :: "It doesn't have to be ]-related to be within the scope of the case." | |||
| If that is currently the rules then god knows what will happen if the attempt to expand Admins powers is granted. How on earth can The troubles sanctions be applied to artciles that dont have anything to do with the troubles? This needs sorting out and clarifying to stop admins going around imposing martial law in such a way with threats that anyone can be banned or blocked without warning if they violate a 1RR. Authoritarian is too light a word to use.] (]) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by HighKing==== | |||
| I'm not a participant in this dispute although I have occasional reason to edit some of these articles. I oppose this amendment for the same reasons as outlined by LHvU, and also because I believe there is a simpler approach to encouraging article stabilization. It seems (and I've personally run foul of this) that any topic that touches on British-Irish relations can be unilaterally lumped into the broad topic of "The Troubles", even if the article has nothing to do with it. It is also apparent that British-majority editing can impose a British-POV onto many articles, even though it is incorrect, and all in the name of "consensus" (the recent discussion on the article name of the sovereign country "Ireland" is a great example). I suggest that the current 1RR restriction imposed on "The Troubles" is flawed and is different to the normal 1RR policy. If the objective is to stabilize articles and encourage discussion to reach consensus, then I believe that by imposing the normal 1RR policy of "No Revert of a Revert" will be much more effective. --] (]) 18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====View by Giano==== | |||
| Certainly not. Admins more than enough power as it is; besides which there is nothing to prevent an Admin being any more biased than an ordinary editor. In my considerable experience as a very interested, non-editing observer of The Troubles' troubles I have seen some Admins that have indeed been prone to partisan bias on both sides. Many Admins have tried and failed to solve the problems here, and a super-empowered Elonka, or any other similarly ennobled Admin would merely be petrol on a fire. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Rockpocket==== | |||
| I don't object to this amendment. I think for it to be successful, we would have to have a rather strict interpretation of "uninvolved" (for example, I wouldn't dream of using these sanctions myself). I think many of the participants fear admins who they have a history with would use these unfairly. It may put some minds at rest for those of us admins who have been active in this area to make it clear they would have no intention of using these. | |||
| I also think judicious and creative use of such sanctions can and would have a strong positive effect. For example, removing a single disruptive presence from an article and talk page can do wonders for improving the editing atmosphere. Often just one individual can be the driving force behind divisiveness. Remove that editor specifically, even for a short time, and other editors from both sides may find a consensus on an acceptable middle ground. As a practical example, see the section at ] and the one below, and compare with the discussions in the sections above it. Note the difference in tone and, consequently, how sensible editors coming from many perspectives managed to have a civil and constructive discussion and apply that to the article. Its my interpretation that the absence of a single editor from both the talk page and article was the key difference. I think is amendment could permit this type of progress to occur more often. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====View by Rannpháirtí anaithnid==== | |||
| Definitely no. On the face of it this may seem like a good idea and I in no way doubt Elonka's sincerity in respect of it. The major issue facing British-Irish articles is the ] that they have become. Even among ostensibly cool-headed editors exists suspicion of the motives of others. A handful of editors occasionally flare into outright war-mode, drawing others into it. The way to resolve the issue is not to give admins a bigger stick, that only re-inforces the idea that a battle is being fought. We need to normalise the situation, not "abnormalise" it any further. | |||
| Outside admins, to their misery, have tried to resolve these issue before - go ask SirFozzie or Masem. God bless them, but anyone trying to "fix" this problem gets drawn into it and becomes an actor in it. We don't need a lone cowboy to put order on the Wild West. We certainly don't need to kit them out with bigger guns. What we need it a wet blanket, not more fire. 1RR is good because it acts as a wet blanket. Bigger sticks are bad because they encourage more warfare. | |||
| We need to normalise. Normal means ] and ]. Normal rules. If someone breaches the normal rules, enforce the rules as normal. There's plenty of scope within the ''normal'' rules to enforce ''normal'' behavior. We don't need to make anyone feel special just because they behave incivilly. We definitely don't need to reinforce the idea that they are fighting a war. | |||
| The range of articles that this ruling has come to cover is so extensive that it now effectively covers the an entire chapter of the encyclopedia. We cannot square off a corner of the encyclopedia and label it as a battleground. That is how this ammendment would be interpreted and it is the kind of behavior that it would encourage. | |||
| Think: wet blankets. Don't think: fire. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====View by Sarah777==== | |||
| Oppose. This isn't a "nationalist" conflict per I/P; Armenia/Azer; Balkans etc. This is NPOV v. the dominant systematic Anglo-American bias in Wiki. And the proposing Admins are partisans in the conflict, albeit they are not aware of the fact. They think they are "neutral", applying "rules" and "policies". They are not. The breadth and scope of potential conflict is so wide that we will inevitably end up with frustrated Admins targeting Irish editors in the mistaken belief that "Irish nationalism" is the problem even though it ''doesn't even exist'' in most cases. Supporting this proposal will either result in a blatant ''political censorship of all British-related articles'' or else chaos. | |||
| As in RL; we need to admit that some problems have no easy solutions, there are no magic bullets. Just possibilities to make things much worse. ] (]) 01:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by BrownHairedGirl==== | |||
| To my surprise, I find myself in agreement with Giano: the powers proposed here are far too sweeping, and will inflame the problems which they seek to resolve. Their unlimited scope reminds me of the ], which allowed police to pretty much whatever they thought fit, and were applied overwhelmingly to nationalists. As a result, the manifest injustices of Special Powers Act became a significant factor in stoking further conflict, and the "remedies" proposed above will undoubtedly have a similarly destructive effect. | |||
| Per rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, we need to normalise this area of wikipedia rather than adopt measures whose perceived injustices which will stoke the conflicts between editors. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Addendum by BrownHairedGirl ===== | |||
| Having read the other contributions to this discussion, and thought about it further, I would like to offer a further observation. | |||
| To date, admin involvement in this area has overwhelmingly focused on policing technical infringements such as edit-warring, and conduct issues such as incivility. That sort of response can succeed only if it restores focus on a shared purpose, but the lack of that shared purpose is the source of the problem here. As such, technical and conduct-based enforcement will inevitably fail to resolve the disputes, because suppressing one set of symptoms merely produces another set of symptoms. Admins end up playing ], unsuccessfully. | |||
| The core issue here is that on both sides of this dispute there are editors with strongly-held points of view. This of itself is not a problem, because ] is explicit that we should be ''representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources'' ... but the most notable feature of this area is the presence of a number of editors on both sides who persistently and tenaciously work to ensure that articles either disprove or suppress viewpoints to which they are opposed. I have watched countless articles turn into battlegrounds as the opposing forces manoeuvre to slant an article on way or the other, when it is painfully obvious in most cases that the article concerned could be relatively easily constructed to give clear voice to ''all'' the significant viewpoints. | |||
| Unfortunately, this core problem is never addressed, because arbcom refuses (for good reason) to take a stand on content issues, reserving its remit to user conduct. As a result, countless warnings, rulings and sanctions in this area have not resolved the problem, because they never actually address it. So we find ourselves facing a proposal for draconian powers, which still fail to address the core issue. | |||
| Rather than looking for yet more ways of taking sledgehammers to symptoms, I suggest that these proposals be shelved and a wider discussion initiated on how the community should deal with editors who persistently take NPOV to mean that the opposing viewpoint may be represented only if it is demonstrated to be false. That's a huge undertaking — and maybe an impossible one — but I can see no other way to end the conflicts in this area. --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Thryduulf==== | |||
| I think that the amendment proposed by Elonka could work, but only if applied to a much smaller set of articles than they suggest. I would use wording along the lines of "1. an article about or directly related to the Troubles. 2. articles articles about Irish nationalism or British nationalism related to Ireland where there is no significant objection by established editors of that article not involved in Troubles-related disputes". This would avoid situations like the existing one over the BNP article. As a counterpart to the vastly reduced scope of article restrictions, I would say that restrictions on editors involved in the disputes should be used more, with blocks of several days in the first instance for engaging in Irish nationalist and/or British nationalist POV pushing in other articles. | |||
| This would need to be done carefully however to avoid accusations of bias against others by heavily biased editors resulting in blocks to innocent parties. In a dispute where everyone who did not agree with one editor's opinion was labelled as anti-Irish regardless of why they did not agree. In this situation, the user throwing around accusations of anti-Irish bias without merit should have been subject to restriction for their disruption. ] (]) 01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====View by Sswonk==== | |||
| At the recent AN/I discussion where Elonka first drew up this request as a proposal, I opposed with the notion that the boundaries of the scope of The Troubles in the encyclopedia were ill-defined and bound to become grossly inflated, and that the other European conflicts and the Mideast one shown as precedents for similar Misplaced Pages treatment were not nearly as "close to home" for many enforcers as this one. I formulated that opinion being uninvolved and frankly unaware of much of the previous discussion and actual evidential diffs shown, but essentially wrote along the same line as a more well-written rationale later expanded upon by LHV. Here, I came to a conclusion that the situation is what I thought I would describe as a bad road intersection, one where hiring more police and giving them stronger powers wouldn't solve a problem that really needs to be addressed by a redesign of the intersection itself. Coming to post those thoughts now, I see the view above by RA, which really sums that sentiment up very well. So, I am two for two: seeing these problems with the proposal and then now the amendment, independent of the other two editors but in broad agreement with them, indicates to me there is some truth in that view. If we are asked by John Vandenberg to offer a better solution, I would suggest following the advice of LessHeard VanU and Rannpháirtí anaithnid to not take a view that presents editing surrounding The Troubles and other elements of Irish independence movements as a war itself which needs a "crackdown". Rather, practicing a more calm and measured response is a solution that already is available, with the previous rulings in force and other existing tools ready to handle truly insidious behavior. Metaphorically, don't poke the bear. I could have linked to the essay of that title if that is what I meant. Essentially I mean that RA and LHV have it right and solutions are found when thinking along those lines presented by them, not by broadening the conflict with more potential avenues of dispute. ] (]) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====View by Snowded==== | |||
| Something does need to be done, although overall the problem is not as bad as it has been at times. A series of wars on a range of Irish articles can be linked to provocative edits by a small number of editors - some of whom have been banned and not received progressive blocks for subsequent failures. Scotland has just got one of its 2/3 times a year debates about national anthems and country status, there is no need to extend this type of sanction to that article. The surge in interest in the BNP and EDL and other far right groups in the UK has put them in the news so they are active, but I wouldn't say that any of them are really out of hand given the contentious nature of the subject matter. The current debate on the "whites-only" membership rule and the related court case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Troubles and there is no case for a 1RR rule there at the moment. So I would suggest: | |||
| *Enforce ] and sanction anyone who reverts a revert, with the admin restoring the prior position. This was used well on ] but needed more enforcement. That is much better than a 1RR restriction which is too easily gamed | |||
| * Ban all IPs from editing any article put under this type of sanction. IPs can edit at will and frustrate established editors tempting them into a failure to follow IRR. Some of the IPs are socks anyway. | |||
| * Most of these articles really need admins who understand the political context. Its too easy to miss deliberate provocation, or misunderstand what is going on. I think there is a case for a small number of admins to look after some articles and agree sanctions collectively. They can also intervene to create a structure to debates. | |||
| * Keep the British National articles under watch, but don't impose on them yet, the connection to the Troubles is remote (ditto Scotland). Keep this to articles linked to the Troubles, or individual attempts to take issues related to the Troubles onto other pages. | |||
| * It is all too easy for a disruptive editor to make multiple small changes to an article, claiming that each is an attempt to improve the article. They don't fail the 1RR rule but place other editors who simply want to restore the prior version while discussion is taking place on the talk page in an invidious position. Any sanction should therefore clearly state that if an issue is disputed, then the ONLY place for discussion is the talk page, not progressive edits of the main article. | |||
| --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' Yes, ] would be far superior to 1RR. If there is to be an amendment it should be that. 1RR is just asking to be gamed - although BRD requires genuine ''discussion'', not a lock down on "consensus" by veto. That too would need to be enforced, which requires admins familiar with the topic to understand the nuances involved. I don't agree about blocking IPs for many reasons that don't need to be discussed here and would see the issue as being both British and Irish nationalism involving, say, Scotland but not the BNP (different kind of nationalism, different kinds of topics). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Nickhh==== | |||
| If the upshot of this amendment would be yet more swooping onto pages that have no serious relationship as such with the Troubles (like the BNP) to impose restrictions on editing or editors that would not otherwise be imposed, it is clearly a very bad idea, and is most certainly not a simple amendment to an "existing case". This kind of creeping extension of previous decisions, such that in this case it would now cover "British nationalism" generally, and so that individual admins would have the authority to arbitrarily decide that even where there is doubt about whether specific pages are included within that, their interpretation trumps everything else, is wholly inappropriate. And given that I have seen it suggested that Irish or British editors should be barred from editing such articles, as they have too much invested in them, I might similarly suggest that arbs and admins recuse themselves from proposing and then approving dramatic extensions of this sort to their own powers in specific areas. I also agree with Snowded about the inherent problems with 1RR as a remedy. And, going beyond that point, the proposer's self-certified assertion that they have "personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect", is, well, a little contentious - on many occasions those sanctions have simply allowed very poor content to accumulate on WP, and go unchallenged, even if they may have occasionally helped at the margins in terms of any conduct issues. --] (]) 18:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' On the last point, this is a serious matter. The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopedia, it's not social club. "Discretionary" powers emphasises keeping order, not writing/improving content. "Removing" an editor may have a very calming effect on an article but it does nothing to address genuine problems the content may have. It's an answer to a content dispute that relies on "removing" editors that say there is a problem with the content. That's doesn't solve anything, it just makes belief that there is no content dispute. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''Addendum''': As already noted, and per Mastcell , there seem to be two themes to this request - first, the issue about discretionary sanctions, and second, a suggestion that the scope of the Troubles decision should be extended to anything to do with British or Irish "nationalism" (or even, it would seem from one reading of the request, any article with the word "Ireland" in it - although apparently not every one including the word "Britain". Yet). I'm sceptical about the first, though don't have that strong an opinion, and no involvement in Troubles-related issues. However, the second is of serious concern - on what basis is this extension being proposed? Is there a serious problem with either British or Irish nationalism in a broader sense on other WP articles? I'm sure there has been and will continue to be the odd flare-up related to either of those isses (and indeed English/Welsh/Scottish nationalism), but is there extensive edit-warring, abusive/disruptive behaviour and sockpuppeteering of the level that requires ArbCom attention where it doesn't already apply? I don't wish to pretend that all British and Irish people and WP editors are paragons of liberal virtues, or that WP doesn't have an Anglo and, more generally, a Western bias to it, but equally I don't see any current need for a creeping extension of the scope of a decision that was very specifically about the Troubles - a relatively recent manifestation of a specifically Irish-British dispute about a small-ish part of the north of Ireland. ArbCom is the court of last resort after all, not WP's ruling body. --] (]) 18:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by SirFozzie==== | |||
| I am in favor of anything that would normalize the environment in this section of articles. I do not think that removing current sanctions would do that however. I think the only reason that John Vandenberg's suggestion below would work, was that everyone who is currently gaming 1RR and AE will now be gaming 3RR and ANI/3RR. IE, AE would stop being clobbered... and it would go back to ANI. | |||
| If you're thinking of that, tell us to make a full fledged case. Otherwise, what it will do, is ensnare more administrators (in ANI) into this area and send them down the path to being attacked, charged with bias, etcetera just like every other administrator who has gotten involved in this area. | |||
| Rather then wait a couple months for that to happen, let's do it now. Let's identify the high-level bad actors in this area, and remove them from the environment (Topic Ban, or siteblock, etcetera), and see if other editors improve (either from not being pushed as much into wars, or getting the hint that WP has had '''ENOUGH''' of the constant battles). If not, deal with them until either all the edit warriors have been removed from the ] or until everyone stops the Battleground mentality. | |||
| My thoughts are that these new sanctions would supersede the existing sanctions (ArbCom/Community). I do think that something needs to be in place. This is a good idea, but we really have three options: The current sanctions (ArbCom/Community), the newly proposed sanctions, or a full fledged Troubles 2 cases. Annulling the existing case is not a good option, in my opinion. ] (]) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| =====Suggestion for proposed motion===== | |||
| After discussion of this case with others, I do think the proposed discretionary sanctions would be useful in this area. I would be hesitant to completely drop the community restrictions "cold turkey", however, and prefer phasing them out if we can. So I would take Elonka's wording for the proposed restriction, with the following addendum. | |||
| :''The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 30 days after the conclusion of this motion, the ArbCom will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.'' | |||
| This would allow us two months of phase in time, to see who gets placed under discretionary sanctions, etcetera, while continuing the general sanctions and seeing if they're still needed. ] (]) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any update on this, prior to the US Thanksgiving break? ] (]) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Domer48==== | |||
| Vassyana below asks what are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? It is a fact that behavioral problems in this area from the time of the original Troubles Arbcom have dramatically reduced. This is no doubt down to the number of sock abusing accounts that were closed down, (I'm not fully convinced that we got them all) which has resulted in this reduction. The current problems being encountered at the moment in addition to the normal issues is the "New Admin in the area" syndrome. The latest is ] who was preceded by ], ], ] etc etc... In this syndrome it seems to follow a typical pattern. They start by taking their Que from the sitting Admin's, a big mistake since these Admin's are neither uninvolved or without their own bias, they then wave a big stick, throw around a few blocks which get overturned, and then call for additional sanctions. | |||
| Now the latest problems started with a bad block, another common feature on these articles. This which then had to be lifted. The Admin, rather than accept that they were wrong, created a fuss and went off to looking for "''clarity''." Now everyone knows what 1RR on the Troubles is, and we know that they were dropped because . We also know that the 1RR restriction is not part of the decision which was Case Closed on 08:09, 30 October 2007, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during . In addition to proposing amendments at they then posted this at . | |||
| This latest proposal is also based on a bad block and ban, and the same Admin's attempt to get retrospective support for them in the form of these additional “''discretionary sanctions''.” Here is the and . Now the block was very quickly as been a bad block. Likewise the ban, however the Admin who issued it still has not got the good grace to admit they were wrong, with this comment supposed to signify . Not to be thwarted though, they placed a “''discretionary sanctions''” , with this call now for additional sanctioning powers to be given to them. | |||
| So what do they mean by “''discretionary sanctions''”? Is it like ]'s use of “''discretionary sanctions''” above to issue a bad block and ban on an editor who he is involved in a content dispute with? Or is it like ]'s bad block above and placing probation on an editor who has challenged here and comments? When sanctions are place at the discretion of Admin's they are going to be abused. Clear cases of edit warring , violation of 1RR will also be ignored despite and with Admin's obviously not being sanctioned . | |||
| I agree with 1RR, but it can not be at the discretion of Admin's. If you violate 1RR you get sanctioned! These latest blocks and Bans illustrate why we should not give “''discretionary sanctions''” to Admin's.--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: to reject this attempt to censor wikipedia. That the like of Moreschi could be considered "uninvolved" shows this motion up for the joke that it is. To even suggest this motion illustrated how you and others have have seriously failed to adhere or understand the ]. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Comment by MastCell ==== | |||
| I'm generally in favor of discretionary sanctions in problem areas, as I'm not aware of any more effective alternatives (though I'd be open to hearing bright ideas). I do agree with Coren that discretionary sanctions formalize, rather than extend, an admin's "power". If the admin enjoys a reasonable degree of community confidence, then their imposed sanctions will generally stick whether or not they're backed by a formal decree from ArbCom. On the other hand, if the community lacks confidence in an admin's discretion, then they shouldn't really be in the business of enforcing discretionary sanctions in the first place, so it's a moot issue. | |||
| That said: I think anyone voting on this proposal needs to pay close attention to the wording. The existing Troubles probation covers "British nationalism ''in relation to Ireland''" (emphasis mine). Elonka's proposal would cover "British nationalism" categorically, regardless of relation to Ireland. That is a significant broadening of the scope of the existing case, and it appears to be one crux of dispute here and at Elonka's talk page (one current dispute is over whether to characterize the ] as "whites-only", which seems to have little to do with Ireland). | |||
| Let's take it as given that discretionary sanctions are an appropriate extension of the ''existing'' Troubles probation. I'd like to see more (rational) discussion on the proposed extension of scope, because that to me is the real debate. Perhaps discretionary sanctions should be extended to ''any'' issue of British nationalism; if that is the case, I would ArbCom to make that extension with eyes open. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Side comment by uninvolved Mathsci ==== | |||
| Groups of editors may move randomly between articles in ways that are hard to fathom. Two articles that are directly related to the Troubles, far more than ], ] or ], are ] and ]. These have no Troubles tags on their talk pages. If administrators are unfamiliar with British/Irish politics, it might perhaps be advisable to avoid this area. ] (]) 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Angus McLellan ==== | |||
| There is a table like that mentioned by John Vandenberg at ]. Many thanks to Elonka. | |||
| While I have no objection to the changes Elonka proposes, I do not view them as essential. Policy on ] says that "...editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR". Other policies are equally broad in their applicability, such as ] and ]. As Rockpocket said, "removing a single disruptive presence from an article and talk page can do wonders for improving the editing atmosphere". So let's do it more often, if necessary. | |||
| I am not in favour of extending the scope of the decision which I think is broad enough, as I interpret it. I am fairly clear in my own mind as to what constitutes a ''Troubles'' article. It is one where the editorial disputes which can be seen in articles concerning the Troubles, narrowly defined (and I can't define the Troubles so narrowly as to exclude the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War, although others may do so), are imported. From that perspective the recent fun at ] or over the non-existence of a purely Scottish national anthem are not part of this problem even if they do share some of the same cast. ] ] 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Jdorney==== | |||
| At the moment we have teams of people trying to re-write all kinds of articles for POV in this area. The ''only'' way this will change is if admins enforce NPOV - as well as general good article standards for readability and length. If admins need more powers then fine. If you're not edit-warring you've got nothing to fear | |||
| The problem with many Irish history articles right now is that, due to competing wars over pov, many have become unreadable, too long and contradict themselves. in those articles where one "side" has given up - as at ] and ] - not only is the quality of the articles terrible, they also extremely pov. In the USC article, for example, half the "disbandment" section currently argues the USC were Nazis! | |||
| With the current tag team edit wars going on, it's also impossible to revamp such articles, as your edits instantly get reverted by eds who assume you're on the "other" side. | |||
| What are we doing here? Are we playing a game, where antagonistic teams compete to see who can game the system best? Or are we supposed to be working together to produce quality, readable, npov articles? If its the latter then we need admins to be able to enforce non partisan editing. | |||
| ] (]) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrator views and discussion === | |||
| * Explain it to me like I'm stupid. What are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? Are there editors exihibiting such problems who otherwise work productively and uncontroversially in other areas? Are the numbers of disruptive editors too high or too deeply engrained in the editing area to deal with them on a case by case basis? As a side note, the discussion linked demonstrates how the heavy participation of involved editors can derail outside input and make it extremely difficult to decipher the opinion of the broader community (as represented by participating uninvolved editors). I '''strongly''' encourage the community to address this issue, as it has deep negative consequences across most controversial areas. Beyond that, I await further statements. (As a note, '''please''' keep statements to a reasonable length and do '''not''' rehash the ANI discussion here.) ] (]) 08:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * It would be helpful to have a table like ] drawn up for all related AE threads over the last six months. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 08:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *: Based on the recent spat of statements, I am more inclined to believe that this amendment is required, because it has been effective when employed in more recent cases of this kind. I don't see careful consideration by the parties who should have the most valuable insight - just lots of ]. There is no need to quickly add your statement to make sure your voice is heard; this is not an admin noticeboard. If you don't think this amendment is right, your statement should offer a better solution. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *: Note that I would also be very happy to "normalise" this area by annulling the case. That should be a shock to the system, and ''might'' mean that a few of the problem editors become saints. Those that dont will likely end up being brought back to Arbcom in due course. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *: Considering SirFozzie's suggestion on a practical level, if this amendment passes in the next week or so, the 30 day review will start when the new arbcom panel is just settling in, and are being inundated with requests from people hoping to obtain the attention of the newly appointed arbcom members who are both enthusiastic and .. umm .. relatively uninformed. ;-) As a result, I think it would be wiser to push the review out to mid- or late-February. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Personally, I think that the discretion Elonka asks us to enshrine already belongs to administrators; strictly speaking, the only thing discretionary sanctions add is provide a formal venue where such interventions are centralized (Arbitration Enforcement) and make it "more bad" for another admin to unilaterally overturn measures placed by one of their colleagues. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *First off, I do not believe that any "special" statement needs to be made to provide the degree of administrator flexibility being sought here, and I believe that administrators have ample tools now, although I do see a somewhat disappointing reliance on a few and little creativity that is currently within scope. I agree with several of the commenters that there has been progressive "creep" in the scope of this set of sanctions, and it is serving to spread the battle rather than to circumscribe it. This appears to be largely related to following the contributions of editors rather than because the articles involved are related to The Troubles. This creep needs to stop, as it deters uninvolved editors from developing, maintaining and improving the content of the encyclopedia. I suggest that enforcing administrators consider that if the battle is being taken elsewhere, then the issue is the editors and not the article, and the sanctions should be in line with that. For articles, ] is generally more effective in attracting independent, uninvolved and knowledgeable editors, whereas 1RR will nearly always deter the uninvolved from editing—quality editing will frequently involve multiple "reverts" or removal of coatrack content. I am not seeing much that would make me inclined to support the original proposal or the motions being proposed by my colleagues. ] (]) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't foresee any massive advantage to replacing a probation remedy with a discretionary sanctions remedy, given the problems that have been articulated here (coordinated edit warring, expanding areas of conflict, and attacks on administrators trying to implement the existing remedy). A remedy providing for article-specific sanctions might be useful, but it would also run up against some of the same problems. Rather, I agree with SirFozzie's (original) assessment that a new case may be needed. --] (]) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Motions=== | |||
| ====Motion 1: Discretionary sanctions==== | |||
| Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating in stages to a maximum of one year if the misbehaviours continue. | |||
| For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. | |||
| Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor. | |||
| ;Support: | |||
| # <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # (With additional text} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Including Roger's changes. ] (]) 13:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # The opposers' points have merit, but I think it's worth trying this. Inclusion of the requirement of a warning before sanctions are imposed is a particularly helpful step that may help keep users in the affected areas away from the line. ] (]) 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Very weakly. If this fails to help, then it just comes back here anyway so we'll see. ] 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Oppose: | |||
| # Not seeing value in this; the remedies from the existing case, as supplemented by later community actions, and the existing discretion allowed administrators are quite sufficient. I note, on reviewing logged bans and blocks, that multiple sanctions are included in that log that are routine administrator actions that just happen to relate to editing behaviours on the related articles; for example, blocks for making personal attacks are routine and not specific to the existing remedy or this proposed modification, which actually doesn't modify anything of significance. ] (]) 18:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Per comment above, I see little value in this, and think a new case would be more appropriate. --] (]) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # I remain unconvinced that any part of this not already covered by the remedies of the existing case already falls well within the discretion afforded uninvolved administrators to prevent disruption ''anywhere'' within the project (and not just in one problematic area). Requiring the committee to craft remedies for every case where there is a dispute before administrators can enforce our policies is not helpful, and this motion would tend to encourage a mindset of "It's not a real sanction unless it was done by ArbCom". — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Per bainer, so we can once again look in depth at this reoccurring issue. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Abstain: | |||
| # My only reservation is the fettering of admin discretion by way of arbitrary block and ban limits. Thus, I am abstaining instead of opposing. I note that I am entirely unconvinced that it is impossible to find uninvolved or unbiased admins in the English speaking world. For better and worse, the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking internet (including Misplaced Pages editors) is dominated by the United States. Assertions about the impossibility of finding neutral English speakers grossly overestimates the interest in and awareness of Irish and British politics in the United States. Even in Canada, where the awareness of the Isles' history is much higher, you'd be hard pressed to find that many people with a firm opinion about the Troubles. ] (]) 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Discussion | |||
| *I'm very happy to support this though the block and topic ban provisions should probably be more qualified. Perhaps add to paragraph one: "Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating <s>in length</s> <u>in stages</u> to a maximum of one year if the <s>misbehaviour continues</s> <u>misbehaviours continue"</u>. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:This could be interpreted as a second offense earning a year long block. I dont think that is reasonable in any but the most extreme cases, and those extreme cases are likely to be easily solved by the community. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sure, but I'm not prepared to support a sanction that s currently drafted allows a year's site ban for a first offence at a single administrator's discretion. I've tweaked the proposed amendment to accommodate your comment. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Your proposed amendment works for me. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Motion 2: Scope==== | |||
| The scope of the discretionary sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to ], ], or ]. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related. | |||
| ;Support: | |||
| # There is obvious sprawling from the main area into related areas of nationalism. I am not ignoring concerns about spreading the drama, but rather find them less convincing than arguments that the disruption is inclusive of these areas. Drama prevention should not be focused on inhibiting the ability of administrators to act, but rather on ] so that admins do not have to act. If behavioral issues are spreading and disruptive, it is the response to administrator intervention that is drama-laden and disruptive, not the impositions of sanctions themselves. It is not the admin's fault, nor that of other editors in the topic area, if an editor is launching personal attacks, edit-warring, tendentiously arguing, or so on. That responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the editor engaging in such conduct. ] (]) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # While anyone reasonable would see what " reasonably construed" should encompass, sometimes restating the obvious is necessary. If one is under a topic ban then the topic as a whole is ''verboten'', regardless of the title of the article (though editing unrelated parts of a an article would normally not be problematic). — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Oppose: | |||
| # While I see the reason for this - to prevent wildfires spreading elsewhere - I'm uncomfortable about conflating the BNP with the Troubles. The topics are not really related though they may both offer similar opportunities for jingoism, and worse. I note though that under the "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision in Motion 1 is already sufficiently widely drawn to enable administrators to topic ban from editing in other topics/articles where the editor is causing trouble. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # The mention of ] misses the point (that is more England-Scotland issues). The articles that cover Irish-British politics are more ], ], and ]. Or indeed, ]. Politics in Northern Ireland is incredibly splintered and factional, and it does take a little bit of background reading to become acquainted with it. I would favour remedies focused on editor behaviour, rather than drawing too wide a net over too many articles. Find the editors who consistently push the boundaries, and deal with them. Ensure articles outside the topic area don't get affected and continue to function as normal. Impose stringent restrictions on the editing of articles within the topic area. Ensure that editing on an article remains relevant to that article. Consistently focus editors on improving articles (especially the non-contentious areas of the articles), instead of arguing over the controversial parts (or, indeed, manufacturing controversy where none exists). ] (]) 13:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # If there is the sense that the battle is being carried beyond the confines of the original scope, then the problem is more likely the editors than the articles. Involving an ever-increasing number of good editors into this sanction mentality is destructive to the development of the encyclopedia and paints good editors as warriors in a battle in which they are uninvolved. Again, I point to the editors bringing an inappropriate mentality to peripheral articles as being the problem here, not the articles themselves. ] (]) 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Per vote on #1. --] (]) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Per Roger Davies, Carcharoth, and Risker. ] (]) 15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Abstain: | |||
| # | |||
| ;Discussion | |||
| ====Motion 3: Review of community-based restrictions==== | |||
| The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 45 days after the conclusion of this motion, the Arbitration Committee will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence. | |||
| ;Support: | |||
| # <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # ] <sup>]</sup> 08:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # I think periodic review will help here. The discussion suggested by BrownHairedGirl would help, and I largely agree with her comments about normalising the topic area, remembering that the aim is to improve the articles, not just keep warring editors apart. ] (]) 13:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Oppose: | |||
| # I'm loathe to intervene in community decisions without a strongly compelling reason. I perceive no such need here. ] (]) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Per vote on #1. --] (]) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # I think that increased direct intervention from the Committee is unlikely to be useful in this case. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Per Vassyana and Coren. ] 16:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Per Vassyana and Coren. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Abstain: | |||
| # While I see some value in the community looking at how this is going, I think there's been some pretty good feedback both on AN/I and in this review from the broader community already, identifying that the spread of scope of this decision is not welcome. There is, however, benefit in reviewing the effectiveness of remedies on a periodic basis. ] (]) 18:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # This review should take place, but I'm not convinced it needs to take place under our auspices. ] (]) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Discussion | |||
| ---- | |||
Revision as of 12:07, 31 December 2009
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requests| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for amendment
 | Use this section:
How to file a request (please use this format!):
This is not a page for discussion.
|
Request to amend prior case: West Bank - Judea and Samaria
Initiated by Nableezy at 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Remedies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Amendment 1
- Nishidani restricted; G-Dett restricted; Pedrito restricted; Nickhh restricted; MeteorMaker restricted; Jayjg restricted
- The topic bans of the above users are lifted
Statement by Nableezy
User:Canadian Monkey has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100. NoCal100 was using a number of sockpuppets during the dispute that brought this case about (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive for examples and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of NoCal100 for a list of confirmed socks) as well as a sockpuppet during the actual case. The entire process was disrupted by abusive sockpuppetry by one user. The actual dispute has seemingly been resolved by the community. The only thing the topic bans are doing now is depriving the encyclopedia of 6 highly capable users in a topic area that badly needs them. Other restrictions can be used to limit any edit-warring, such as imposing a 1RR for however long.
Statement by IronDuke
I have long felt this was a good idea, and I must offer heartfelt thanks to Nableezy for having the courage and thoughtfulness to propose it. I understand that the committee was unhappy with the editing patterns on I-P articles, and that unhappiness was well justified. However, we lost some of our best editors in the service of making things ostensibly more "pleasant" on those pages (which has not, AFAICT, in fact happened), and banned editors for extraordinarily picayune offenses. I would add NoCal to the list of parolees, NOT because I approve of sockpuppeting -- I am emphatically against it -- but because the "crime" he was banned for was so ultimately minor (compared to what so many others get away with on a daily basis) that a fresh start with a solemn promise never to sock again would benefit him, Misplaced Pages, and the subject matter at hand. IronDuke 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Mackan79
I think this request may have merit. To briefly recap for new and old arbitrators, the above case involved a dispute over the use of the terms "Judea and Samaria" (or either term by itself), and whether these terms have been superseded by the modern name, "the West Bank." The named editors in this arbitration were all clearly on one of two sides. On the one side User:Nishidani, User:G-Dett, User:Nickh, User:Pedrito, and User:MeteorMaker sought to limit the use of the terms, while on the other side User:Jayjg, User:Canadian Monkey, and User:NoCal100 sought to maintain or expand use of the terms. These were not the only editors to address the issue, of course, but it seems that they were the most actively involved.
It's now been accepted that two of the above accounts, User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100, are the same user, and most likely the return of a previously banned editor. If arbitrators review the request for checkuser here, I think you will see that all of this was even more involved, with likely at least two more accounts of the same editor (User:I am Dr. Drakken and User:Mr. Hicks The III) having been used to bolster his position and perpetuate the larger dispute. All of these accounts were noted for their highly confrontational style. While presumably it was not known that these were all the same user, the fact that each of them appeared to be a sock of someone, and the possibility, had been noted.
The difficulty in my mind is that all of these editors have been at least somewhat combative, even if at this point I think one has to consider the reasons why. The question may be whether the editors are willing to continue in a different mode. This may work in part, though in truth I have no hope that it will happen in all cases. Perhaps 1RR would work. One other approach would be to allow each editor to make an appeal based on a "change in circumstances" for why they should be unsanctioned. With a good explanation of what went wrong and what will be different, and a thoughtful evaluation, that could be a reasonable response and achievable for any of the involved editors. Not perfect, but maybe a possibility. I see in my edit conflict something similar is proposed by Vassyana. Mackan79 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2009 (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
- I absolutely and unequivocally reject any blanket amnesty. Step one in appealing sanctions is fully heeding the sanctions in both letter and spirit. This has not happened in many cases. Productive editing within the bounds of restrictions and/or in other areas is also usually necessary. Similarly, a clear understanding of the problematic patterns that lead to the restriction is also usually a necessity. On the latter, a lack of taking personal responsibility and tu quoque arguments will usually bias the result against an appeal. Both of these are lacking in many instances. I would be open to seeing individual appeals, but be aware that in the absence of any of those three conditions being met, I would encourage the rejection of an appeal. Vassyana (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Asmahan
Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness (talk) at 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Remedies
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Amendment 1
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Scope_of_case
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Remedies
Statement by Supreme Deliciousness
The scope of case as posted above show that Nefer Tweety has been involved in this conflict but no remedy was suggested against him, I had previously posted evidence showing that almost the only thing the Nefer Tweety account is used for is to back up Arab Cowboys edits, do the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy and revert to his edits, now after the case has been closed it has happened again, Nefer Tweety reverted the article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys last edit, not caring about edits made by several people Some of the edits he reverted:
In this reversion he amongst other things reinserted copyrighted material, I had made a copyright violation report and a copyright admin removed the copyrighted material here, the exact same copy righted text was re added by Nefer tweety, personal life, section: I had also corrected the sections according to previous collaborations and it was reverted:
Nefer Tweety disrespect to other peoples edits and inputs in the article, only caring about reverting to Arab Cowboys edit, not about improving the article, I am therefore requesting that Nefer Tweety gets topic banned from the articles involved in this case or banned from wikipedia altogether for being an agenda account with only one purpose.
- Initial editing of above section finished at 20:07, 23 December 2009
- response below was by Supreme Deliciousness to Vassyana, moved here by Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- The case was about the disruption at the Asmahan article and related articles, the disruption continues with no remedy against Nefer Tweety. I have already used efforts to resolve the matter at the community level several times, I have already pointed out the 3O, rfc, mediations and interfering of admin al ameer son at the case, I filed an official plagiarism report and the CV was removed by admin and now Nefer Tweety has re added it, the article is on probation and no admin has interfered against the edit made by Nefer Tweety although I have pointed this out at the talkpage. It is this, the constant destruction of the Asmahan article, the constant going against collaborations by Arab Cowboy and Nefer Tweety. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Statement by other editor
SD and AC have been warring over this article for a long time and SD took it to arbitration. As a result, on 15 Dec, SD was “prohibited from making changes to any article (specifically this one) about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality.” SD’s edits of 20 Dec. are the same as those he had made prior to his prohibition. SD’s latest edits, exactly as before his prohibition, are intended to dilute Asmahan's Egyptian nationality in favor of a Syrian one, which is a violation of his prohibition. He's inviting more edit wars and he should therefore be blocked at least for the remaining period of his prohibition as stated. He has been advised by the admins to leave this article alone and focus on others, but he is not complying. He's also changing his input on the Discussion page after people have responded to it! Nefer Tweety (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Amendment 2
- Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
- Details of desired modification
Statement by your username (2)
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
Statement by other editor (2)
{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
- Just because ArbCom has reviewed an area or examined specific editors in the past does not mean that all related matters are ArbCom business. Even where we have previously intervened, efforts to resolve the matter at the community level are usually required before we will step in. Have you tried utilizing the available dispute resolution options, including requesting admin intervention? Is there any particular reason this cannot be resolved at the community level? Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not clear what change you want other than you want some sort of sanction. Besides, WP:SPI may be a more suitable venue, if you have the evidence to support a filing there. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)