Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) m →Statement by Francis Schonken: other example |
Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →Statement by {other user}: waste of time |
||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
* Note that I have more examples of somewhat ill-advised splittings, with retrospect also probably only for the same reason of creating infoboxes on the splits, and not in the interest of better (or more ''even'') quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. Above I rather chose to elaborate one example than bore you all with multiple examples of the same (I was thinking e.g. of the [[Missa (Bach)]] split-offs). |
* Note that I have more examples of somewhat ill-advised splittings, with retrospect also probably only for the same reason of creating infoboxes on the splits, and not in the interest of better (or more ''even'') quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. Above I rather chose to elaborate one example than bore you all with multiple examples of the same (I was thinking e.g. of the [[Missa (Bach)]] split-offs). |
||
* For Gerda I hope also if such improvement of her editing conditions were possible, she'd feel less restricted in editing for the wider benefit of the encyclopedia ''as a whole'', not only for the articles on which she can leave a more prominent mark. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
* For Gerda I hope also if such improvement of her editing conditions were possible, she'd feel less restricted in editing for the wider benefit of the encyclopedia ''as a whole'', not only for the articles on which she can leave a more prominent mark. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by Gerda === |
|||
I think this is a waste of time. I came to love my restrictions, kafkaesque as they are, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {other user} === |
=== Statement by {other user} === |
||
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. |
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. |
||
Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} |
Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} |
||
=== Statement by {yet another user} === |
=== Statement by {yet another user} === |
||
Revision as of 22:26, 22 October 2014
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Pseudoscience
Initiated by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) at 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Statement by Squeamish Ossifrage
My apologies in advance if I've botched the maze of templates involved with this process in any way.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience establishes standard discretionary sanctions as its final remedy. It has, shall we say, an interesting history of amendments. Its current form authorizes sanctions "for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" (emphasis mine). Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions lists the areas to which discretionary sanctions currently apply, including "Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science" (emphasis mine); this wording is also used in the discretionary sanction alert template for the associated case.
It is my assumption that this is a distinction without a difference, and that the sanctions apply regardless of namespace. I inquired with Sandstein to ensure I was correct in my reading, as he appears to be among the more active arbitration enforcement administrators. He suggested that I refer the issue here for more explicit clarification. And so, I have.
Statement by Sandstein
The reason why I recommended that Squeamish Ossifrage ask here is that I'm not so sure that the answer is all that obvious. As Salvio giuliano writes, discretionary sanctions apply to all pages, not only articles, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise", but – it seems to me – that is precisely what the remedy in question does by specifying that sanctions apply to ""all articles relating to pseudoscience", underlining mine. If that is (as I suspect) not what the Committee intended, I recommend that the remedy and others like it are amended to read "for the topic of pseudoscience" or similar. Sandstein 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Salvio giuliano's opinion in opposition to the proposed motion. The wording "authorized for pages related to ..." would exclude edits about the subject on pages that are not about the subject, such as noticeboards or list articles. This conflicts with the DS procedure which talks about "topics" or "topic areas", but would take precedence over it as a newer decision. The wording should be reconsidered. Sandstein 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Thryduulf re motion
With the exception of the Falun Gong case, these are all simple clarifications that do not affect the scope of the remedies' intent and I struggle to think of any way they could be controversial.
The Falun Gong case is slightly different, in that it changes from affecting articles that are "closely related" to pages "related [...], broadly construed". I don't know if this broadening of the scope is either significant or relevant? There are no recent sanctions listed on the case page, but that's the extent of my knowledge of the current state of the topic area. The change is probably immaterial but arbs should be aware that it is a change. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Changing (ex post facto) rulings by motion is a bad idea. There should be wider community input and and RFC about such matters.
Why? Because the Arbitration process is set up to at least have an appearance of inviting community input. Using motions to change the results subverts the community. Arguably amendment of one ruling through motions though this has always seemed a clunky and ill-conceived technique) where at least the motion is sufficiently similar to the amendment requested is reasonable. But essentially the use of motions outside a very limited scope in terms of the Arbitration Committee's power to make changes to purely procedural aspects of the arbitration process itself is ulta vires.
Moreover in this case the amendment request pertains to the "Pseudoscience" case, and, one assumes, that at least the parties to the case, and those under warnings within the last 12 months have been advised that an amendment has been tabled (or in American parlance, proposed). Those affected by the other eleven cases, which the motion proposed to change, have presumably not been notified, so no due process has been followed. (Again for American members, there are US laws relating to quasi-judicial processes, which may be relevant, no doubt NYB can advise.)
However if the committee is determined on this path, the phraseology of the motion might at least repay a little careful thought. For example do we really want to apply discretionary sanctions to a user over a page they are developing in their user-space? Might we, perhaps, wish to include the Pseudoscience ruling itself in the motion?
I refer the committee to the a previous example where the then committee instructed that administrators must place a "Arbitration sanctions" template on all talk pages of articles related to, I think it was, "Abortion, broadly construed", and only when I had scoped this task and reported on the enormity and non-necessity of it did they reword it to making the placing of the sanction notice optional. (They also had no business attempting to compel administrators to perform actions.) It is better, where possible to get these things right the first time.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC).
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Your interpretation is correct. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions, the rules that are to be applied to determine whether an edit is covered by discretionary sanctions are the ones outlined in the topic ban policy, i.e. this section. As a result, unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, [discretionary sanctions apply to] all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sandstein, in my opinion, you're reading too much in what's but a bit of anachronistic wording. After all, while it's true that there really is no uniformity in the wording of the provisions authorising discretionary sanctions (which, going forward, is something we may want to fix), our intention is generally clear.
Looking at previous cases, I see "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with X", "pages related to the Y, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions" and "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Z"; however, I don't doubt that, irrespective of the different formulations, all these mean the same thing: all edits concerning X, Y and Z are subject to discretionary sanctions, regardless of namespace.
Then again, we could pass a motion amending all provisions authorising DS to read "for all edits" rather than "all articles or pages", but, if I can be honest, this looks like a waste of time to me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sandstein, in my opinion, you're reading too much in what's but a bit of anachronistic wording. After all, while it's true that there really is no uniformity in the wording of the provisions authorising discretionary sanctions (which, going forward, is something we may want to fix), our intention is generally clear.
- I agree with Salvio. By "clearly and umambiguously specified otherwise", I'd expect some sort of phrase such as "but not in project space" or "for articles only". It's pretty clear to me that the discretionary sanctions extend outside of article space. I'm happy to support a motion, but I don't see that it's necessary. WormTT(talk) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- The intention was to cover everything related regardless of namespace. I think a motion to clarify this won't hurt. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd support a motion that would resolve the ambiguity here. AGK [•] 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would also support a simple motion correcting the language to be more clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Motion
This motion amends the wording of existing discretionary sanction remedies to make clear that they apply to all pages related to the topic, regardless of namespace.
1) The following remedies are amended by striking the word "articles" and inserting the word "pages" in its place:
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Discretionary sanctions
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Standard discretionary sanctions
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Discretionary sanctions
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Standard discretionary sanctions
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions
2) Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is amended to read as follows:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the Monty Hall problem, broadly interpreted.
3) Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is amended to read as follows:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Gibraltar and its history, people, and political status, broadly interpreted.
4) Clause (b) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Motions is amended to read as follows:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Falun Gong, broadly interpreted.
Any existing sanctions and restrictions remain in force and are not affected by this motion.
- Support
-
- T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- For the reasons discussed above. Thryduulf's observation is well-taken, but I don't see it as a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I understand Salvio's concerns, but believe this clarifies it sufficiently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that "edits" is the right word at all, pages seems more appropriate to me. WormTT(talk) 08:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed with Worm on the diction here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- The various provisions should be amended to read "edits" (and not only pages) instead of articles. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Abstain
-
- Comments by arbitrators
Amendment request: Infoboxes
Initiated by Francis Schonken (talk) at 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
- Gerda Arendt (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
- Information about amendment request
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted
- "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted... They may ... include infoboxes in new articles which they create." doesn't work very well. It leads to illogical split-offs, for the purpose of creation of infoboxes, with a lot of cleanup left to others. Let me take you step by step through an example:
- BWV 243 and BWV 243a used to be on a single page named Magnificat (Bach)
- (Gerda) preparing split [1] (moving existing Magnificat article to BWV 243)
- (Gerda) Starting BWV 243a article with infobox.
- (Gerda) in BWV 243a article adding a lot of content with references to sources that only speak about BWV 243.
- (Francis) cleaning up on BWV 243a [2] and moving BWV 243 related content to BWV 243 [3]
- (Gerda) speaking about "merg(ing) the (BWV 243 and BWV 243a) articles (back) to Magnificat (Bach), or separate the movements to a third (i.e. splitting one more off)" [4], suggesting she gets more recognition for her work that is now in the other article [5] while not wanting to contribute to that article [6]
- (Francis) obliging and working out the "partial inclusion" solution with updates of the content appearing in the BWV 243 article while technically only editing the BWV 243a article. [7] [8] - while this involved removing refs to sources not related to the BWV 243a article, putting up an {{original research}} template.
- Despite promises by Gerda [9] she has not found time to add references for the description in the BWV 243a article (which was well-referenced as long as it was in the BWV 243 article)
- "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted... They may ... include infoboxes in new articles which they create." doesn't work very well. It leads to illogical split-offs, for the purpose of creation of infoboxes, with a lot of cleanup left to others. Let me take you step by step through an example:
Statement by Francis Schonken
See step-by-step above:
- A lot of unnecessary counterproductive work not tailored on the optimal path to improve the encyclopedia, but jumping through hoops (also by those not by far ever involved in the infobox case) in order to have an infobox without infringing the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case.
- What I'd propose would more look like Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)#Survey on infobox or Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Infobox on an article-by-article base, where once there is consensus on yes-or-no an infobox for the concerned article it doesn't matter who adds or removes it. Also, no longer a who created the article "owns" the infobox decision reasoning, which in the long run is only counterproductive.
- So I'd move to replace the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case by "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes unless as a consequence of a clear talk page consensus; restoring an infobox that has been deleted unless as a consequence of a clear talk page consensus; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction
, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create." - Note that I have more examples of somewhat ill-advised splittings, with retrospect also probably only for the same reason of creating infoboxes on the splits, and not in the interest of better (or more even) quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. Above I rather chose to elaborate one example than bore you all with multiple examples of the same (I was thinking e.g. of the Missa (Bach) split-offs).
- For Gerda I hope also if such improvement of her editing conditions were possible, she'd feel less restricted in editing for the wider benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole, not only for the articles on which she can leave a more prominent mark. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Gerda
I think this is a waste of time. I came to love my restrictions, kafkaesque as they are, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Statement by {yet another user}
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).