| Revision as of 15:13, 30 August 2011 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,491 edits →too broad a proposal: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:03, 30 August 2011 edit undoDavid Fuchs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,951 edits →too broad a proposal: resp'Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| : The all-BLP restriction is too broad and is effectively a site ban. A ban on editing BLPs of politicians makes sense. Tangential mentions of politicians in other articles should not be included. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) | : The all-BLP restriction is too broad and is effectively a site ban. A ban on editing BLPs of politicians makes sense. Tangential mentions of politicians in other articles should not be included. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :: I have wording in mind for a more tailored alternate proposal regarding "non-NRM BLPs" in case the decision is to take that course. (As you will have seen, I've asked on the proposed decision if other arbs want to move in that direction.) The input in this thread and on the workshop is helpful in this regard, so thank you all for it. ] (]) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC) | :: I have wording in mind for a more tailored alternate proposal regarding "non-NRM BLPs" in case the decision is to take that course. (As you will have seen, I've asked on the proposed decision if other arbs want to move in that direction.) The input in this thread and on the workshop is helpful in this regard, so thank you all for it. ] (]) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::A more limited ban would be acceptable as a remedy as well; if Brad doesn't get to it I'll offer one as well based on sentiment on the decision page. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:03, 30 August 2011
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Query about duration
Hiya, asking a question as an uninvolved admin. On the proposed remedies, I'm not seeing anything about duration. I have no opinion one way or the other, but am seeking clarity: Are these intended to be indefinite bans, only to be changed upon appeal to ArbCom? Or do they have an expiration date? Whichever ArbCom intends, it might be best to spell things out. --Elonka 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions for prior examples. When no duration is mentioned, as has been the custom in recent cases, topic bans are understood to be indefinite. Jehochman 13:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Jehochman's understanding is correct. After an appropriate period has elapsed, a request to lift or modify a restriction may be posted on the Requests for amendment page. (In some recent cases, we have provided more specifics about how much time should pass before any amendment request is made and what sort of factors we take into account in evaluating such requests, which in general are more or less what common sense suggests they would be, such as good editing in other areas of the project.) In this case, I would think that Cirt should plan to spend a very significant period of time working on other areas of the project before he even considers making any such request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
too broad a proposal
- - Request to the committee
With it looking likely with two opposes to the broad BLP editing restriction please consider voting on my proposal instead - Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop#User:Cirt is banned from_editing WP:BLP articles of politicians (broadly construed) - there has been clear evidence of editing violations presented on the evidence page in regards to multiple BLP articles in this sector. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- The all-BLP restriction is too broad and is effectively a site ban. A ban on editing BLPs of politicians makes sense. Tangential mentions of politicians in other articles should not be included. Jehochman 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have wording in mind for a more tailored alternate proposal regarding "non-NRM BLPs" in case the decision is to take that course. (As you will have seen, I've asked on the proposed decision if other arbs want to move in that direction.) The input in this thread and on the workshop is helpful in this regard, so thank you all for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- A more limited ban would be acceptable as a remedy as well; if Brad doesn't get to it I'll offer one as well based on sentiment on the decision page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have wording in mind for a more tailored alternate proposal regarding "non-NRM BLPs" in case the decision is to take that course. (As you will have seen, I've asked on the proposed decision if other arbs want to move in that direction.) The input in this thread and on the workshop is helpful in this regard, so thank you all for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)