m →Result of the appeal by User:Mor2: grammar |
Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) m Fix closing templates |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by [[User:Mor2]]== |
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by [[User:Mor2]]== |
||
{{hat|Appeal granted. While the block has already expired at this time, Mor2's block log and the case page will be annotated to reflect that the block was found unwarranted by consensus of uninvolved administrators. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC) }} |
|||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> |
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> |
||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
***I would also support the idea of reviewing the current official description of the 3RR policy, to make it clear that 3RR/1RR is to be interpreted within the context of stopping or preventing edit wars. — [[User:Richwales|<u>Rich</u>]][[User talk:Richwales|wales]] <small>''(no relation to Jimbo)''</small> 08:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
***I would also support the idea of reviewing the current official description of the 3RR policy, to make it clear that 3RR/1RR is to be interpreted within the context of stopping or preventing edit wars. — [[User:Richwales|<u>Rich</u>]][[User talk:Richwales|wales]] <small>''(no relation to Jimbo)''</small> 08:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
****I'm not particularly sure that's necessary or even desirable; the current wording has the virtue of clarity, and I'm not sure it is even possible to add qualifiers like this without opening up opportunity for wikilawyering and endless headache. (Honestly, I'm not even sure that my own views, which are expressed in what I believe to be significantly more definitive terms than "within the context of stopping or preventing edit wars", are not wikilawyerable; happily, if someone ever tries to wikilawyer, I can always easily revise it.) I think the best approach is still judicious exercise of admin discretion. Regardless, that's a discussion best reserved for another page.<p>Unless any uninvolved admin objects (or gets to it first), I'll close this appeal as successful and annotate the block log and the ARBPIA log accordingly in about 12 hours. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 12:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
****I'm not particularly sure that's necessary or even desirable; the current wording has the virtue of clarity, and I'm not sure it is even possible to add qualifiers like this without opening up opportunity for wikilawyering and endless headache. (Honestly, I'm not even sure that my own views, which are expressed in what I believe to be significantly more definitive terms than "within the context of stopping or preventing edit wars", are not wikilawyerable; happily, if someone ever tries to wikilawyer, I can always easily revise it.) I think the best approach is still judicious exercise of admin discretion. Regardless, that's a discussion best reserved for another page.<p>Unless any uninvolved admin objects (or gets to it first), I'll close this appeal as successful and annotate the block log and the ARBPIA log accordingly in about 12 hours. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 12:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 14:39, 27 December 2012
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Mor2
Appeal granted. While the block has already expired at this time, Mor2's block log and the case page will be annotated to reflect that the block was found unwarranted by consensus of uninvolved administrators. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by User:Mor2
Statement by User:Bbb23I believe that Mor2 agrees that this change to the article was a revert. The change at issue is this one and whether it constitutes a revert under WP:1RR. On its face, it is a revert, i.e., "an[] edit ... that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (WP:3RR) As I understand it, Mor2's claim is they were just improving on language they originally introduced 499 revisions earlier, this one on November 17 and this one on November 20. As I explained to Mor2 on their talk page, even assuming I should take into account those edits from over a month ago, they don't look like material introduced by Mor2 but material that was altered by Mor2. So, perhaps the latest edit (the one at issue) was an "improvement" in Mor2's eyes, but it looked to me like another alteration or "undoing", if you will. I also took into account Mor2's experience and previous block, meaning they were not newbies unfamiliar with arbitration enforcement on this article. Indeed, like many of the frequent editors of that article, they are often more knowledgeable than an admin like me who is merely enforcing the sanctions. All that said, if Mor2 had acknowledged that in hindsight what they did was wrong, that they are well-aware of 1RR but sincerely didn't think they were violating it, I might have considered unblocking them. Instead, I don't see any self-awareness in this appeal. That concerns me because it makes it more likely that similar violations may occur in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Statement by Shrike(involved editor 1)As I remember in the past AE regular editing that changed a text that was already in the article long time ago was not considered a revert and user were discouraged to bring such kind of reverts to consideration.But my personal opinion and the language of WP:3RR is quite clear on this that any change in the article is considered a revert and the time variable shouldn't really matter.The problem that is left for admin discretion, in my view they shouldn't be any grey areas on this matter.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC) @T.Canens:Shouldn't the language of 3RR amended per your comments.Just it will be clear so no grey areas will be left?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Mor2Result of the appeal by User:Mor2
|