Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:29, 30 June 2015

Ellen Pao

A quick note -- checking in between appointments. There's a good deal of Gamergate chatter today around Ellen Pao, formerly partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, calling on supporters to target her Misplaced Pages page. Pao has, it seems, crossed Gamergate on Reddit. You might want to consider whether those Gamergate sanctions should extend to her, her former firm, and her suit against them; since that suit is a gender-releated controversy, it's not a great stretch, and I notice that Handpolk's already taken an interest in the firm's page. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this an enforcement request against the article Ellen Pao? We can't discipline articles. 104.156.240.150 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering the "broadly construed" language, I would think that her former firm would already be within the penumbra of the GG sanctions. BMK (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor above left this charming message at User Talk:Masem:

Once again, Bernstein can't read a diff or follow a simple contribution history, he attacks the IP and attacks Masem, who's contributed more to the encyclopedia than he could ever hope you. How long will the project tolerate this babbling fool? 104.156.240.150 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)'

and then redacts "babbling fool" for reasons about which I won’t speculate. I've added DS warning templates to both pages; let me know if that's not correct! MarkBernstein (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If these two pages, the law firm and the biography, are covered by GG DS, the talk page notice shouldn't just say that DS are applicable here but that they are Gamergate-related. Mark, because you keep an eye on these things, you are aware of the GG connection but it wasn't obvious to me and if future edits constitute a topic ban violation for Handpolk, this should be made absolutely clear. Liz 21:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As a general principle, I believe that we are better served, and build a better Encyclopedia, if we do not go looking for issues outside Misplaced Pages. If editors are editing articles in breach of our content policies, that should, of course, be addressed; but there is no need, and no value, in seeking out trouble. - Ryk72 04:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, outside conversation in Reddit can be manipulated through a single user with multiple accounts. These claims are very broad, yet Ellen Pao as a target is questionable, although disapproval of Ellen Pao has become a common topic in all of Reddit; As I understand it there have been entire threads deleted for discussing Pao. I don't see any relation between Reddit & their disgruntled Users belonging solely to the #gamergate hashtag. The entire issue is being handled by that site anyway. --j0eg0d (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

American Politics DS template

In order to issue a DS template in the area of American Politics, what template code do I use? (It isn't yet listed in the general instructions for the template.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert, the code is {{subst:alert|ap}}. You can find it at Template:Ds/alert. Liz 22:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I found that after I posted the question, possibly because it was added after I posted the question. Unfortunately, it does appear that it will be necessary to use that template from time to time, which is of course why the ArbCom authorized the sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for just seeing your request for information today. We are down three clerks right now due to trips and vacations and I don't check this talk page regularly. And, as we move into 2016, I think this is a DS alert that will definitely be used. Liz 22:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of AE

A reminder.

In the Eric Corbett closure on WP:AE, an administrator writes that another administrator had blocked Eric Corbett despite there being no apparent consensus on the page. "The purpose of this page (and indeed any concept of consensus on it) now therefore appears to be unclear," the administrator writes.

You don't need to be a great historian of Misplaced Pages to recognise that the purpose of WP:AE has always been to advertise arbitration rulings that may need to be enforced. That's the whole, complete and sole purpose. Administrators are explicitly authorised to take action to enforce rulings of the arbitration committee; the notion that there needs to be discussion and consensus before an administrator takes any action is quite foreign to the way arbitration rulings are set out authorising administrators to act.

I have no particular opinion on the case in question, but the existence of the WP:AE page was never intended to preempt action by administrators to enforce arbitration decisions and must never be used in that fashion. All administrator actions are subject to reversal on review or appeal.

There is a dwindling active administration corps and with each cohort they become more timid and unwilling to deal with active abuse even when authorised to do so by the arbitration committee. It's imperative that admins recognise that it's their responsibility individually as well as collectively to enforce arbitration rulings. --TS 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(comments as an admin not as an arbitrator) That is true, but where there is an ongoing discussion at AE admins should not act to bypass that discussion without there being a good reason to do so, and they must be prepared to explain their choice to bypass the discussion. What admins should and should not do if a discussion has been closed with a consensus is the crux of this case request. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to note that you have some admins saying the closure "is" an admin action, and others saying it "is not." If nothing else, we should settle that issue. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am no expert on how Arb policy is made but I do know that there is a general principle that the committee is not to create new policy - so that may be an issue. With respect to the non-consensual nature of Arb enforcement, that would seem to be based in WP:CONEXCEPT -- the purpose being an institutional bulwark against mobocracy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tony for pointing out what a lot of people seem to not realize. In response to GregJackP's excellent point, I think a closure should reflect what happened, not what should happen. It is not for any admin to decide that an arbcom ruling should not be enforced. Admins are explicitly authorized to enforce these rulings in the absence of any formal procedings. As always any admin action is open to review. Chillum 22:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• DS does allow action when there is a lack of consensus. The question is what happens when there is a claim of consensus not to sanction, and then a DS sanction is placed. Same question when a single admin actively declines to sanction, is forum shopping until you find an admin that will sanction to be encouraged when it comes to DS? (not alleging that happened here, but we could be inviting it) When a sanction is requested there should be 3 possible outcomes: sanction, not taking action, and rejecting the request. Just doing nothing should never bind other admins, but actively rejecting the request should generally, nearly as much so as enacting a sanction. Consider the other possibility, someone who is the target of an enforcement request can never be sure they are out from under the threat, no matter how clearly the request has been rejected at AE, because an admin who disagrees is free to enact a sanction. Monty₈₄₅ 22:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly the point. We need guidance on this, and if it is not for ArbCom to create policy, perhaps an RfC on the issue. GregJackP Boomer! 23:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are something Arbcom created, and are a delegation of the Committee's power, as such, at least as the question applies to DS, it is entirely within the Committee's remit to decide. Monty₈₄₅ 23:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what my thought was in bringing it here. But I thought it was wheel-warring too, I guess based on a comparison with 3RR to 1RR, and if AE could not be changed except under certain conditions, it would be wheel-warring to violate those conditions. So I'm not really sure, so I'm good with whatever is decided, as long as it clears up the confusion. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

List of editors affected by Motion 2 of Arbitration enforcement case Comment

Request to unhat/fix up the MarkBernstein AE

Bishonen had hatted the AE I had placed against Mark on the basis of using a non-remedy as the actionable item, and I admit, that was my bad. I asked Bishonen on his talk page about unhatting it so that I can fix the actionable item (noting that Mark has been topic-banned though lifted from GG before), but Bishonen did not see the immediate relevance of this and suggested I open discussion here, so I am following up on that.

After reviewing a bit more, I believe the sanction I should be filing the AE under is under the discretionary section of the GG findings, which codified the existing community sanctions, which include "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor that edits pages related to the Gamergate controversy, if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.", of which specifically I am concerned on Mark for "expected standards of behavior". As such, I am requesting if the AE can be unhatted so that I can fix the sanction to be enforced. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)