EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Scope of article sanctions: Would leave the ARBPIA tag in place, now that it is there. |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
*I'm happy with the latest proposal, and with NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. My preference is slightly towards the one Doug points to above. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 23:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC) |
*I'm happy with the latest proposal, and with NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. My preference is slightly towards the one Doug points to above. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 23:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
*I agree entirely with NewsAndEventsGuy. Worse, we were promised another comprehensive review of DS over two years ago (the last one we had four or five year ago, in Roger Davies's tenure), and it never happened. While DS may possibly be useful in some perennial content areas, they've been a problematic in internal ones (e.g. [[WP:ARBATC]]), and this template system has been an unmitigated disaster.<p>First, the requirement to deliver templates, which expire after a while, permits any bad-actor to [[WP:GAME]] the system with ease; they simply disrupt to their heart's content in one area, finally get a notice after people try to do something about it and realize that their hands are tied to these stupid template requirements, then the disruptor simply goes and disrupts a different area they haven't receive a notice about, or abandons their SPA and creates another one. This "maybe they're unaware of the sanctions" thing is a harmful, community-self-delusional fantasy. They damned well know exactly what they're doing, and the presence of DS banners on the relevant talk pages makes everyone aware as soon as they start participating in the topic area.</p><p>Second, the wording and appearance of these templates is so menacing, they are {{em|universally}} interpreted as hostile threats, never as neutral notices. I've even twice had people try to ANI me for "harassment" because I left them notices that ArbCom {{em|requires}}.<br /><small>(One of the main things I'd hoped to accomplish in 2018, as an ArbCom candidate, was DS reform. It's irksome that I missed election by less than 3% and actually received more support votes that 50% of the candidates who passed. The voting system we have for this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASMcCandlish&type=revision&diff=816625672&oldid=816591189 is broken].)</small></p><p>All that said, the proposals above are a tiny improvement and I support them, and without a desire to nit-pick over exact wording. But it's like putting a Band-aid on a shotgun wound. At bare minimum, a bot should deliver templates to anyone who edits a page (or talkpage thereof) subject to DS. Better yet, delete the userspace templates and assume, rationally, that "ignorance of the law is no exception" and that people who edit repeatedly in DS-covered topics are aware of the DS. Or just get rid of DS, which is the proximal and sole cause of "adminship is not/shouldn't be a big deal" no longer being true.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 18:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)</p> |
|||
== RE: E.M.Gregory == |
== RE: E.M.Gregory == |
Revision as of 18:34, 22 December 2017
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
Note about these archives In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Updating Template:Ds/talk notice to make it clearer
I've had a few editors tell me that they find the current templates unclear in that it isn't easy to find what pages are actually covered.
At the moment we have two styles: The default is a concise, bold-print message:
{{Ds/talk notice|tpm|brief}}
gives:
Alternatively there is a more wordy and detailed message:
{{Ds/talk notice|saq|long}}
gives:
Error: The code letter saq
for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
Experienced editors and others with good eyesight will probably realise they have to click on the word 'subject' in the first one and 'permitted' in the second one to get to the Final decision, which is itself wordy and full of information that many editors won't want to read, and it isn't immediately obvious which pages are covered.
In March I asked the clerks if they could create something more reader-friendly and Kevin wrote Template:Ds/talk notice/sandbox which changes these to:
Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
We (the Committee) are posting this here as probably the best place to garner comments from those most involved with the process. Do people like this, and do they have any tweaks to suggest?
I myself feel that the long version should be the default, rather than the short version which is the current default. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- There was recently confusion of the wording "is subject to", as the nuance between "ArbCom has authorized the potential use of DS" and "there are active sanctions" isn't properly resolved by "is subject to". How about "Discretionary sanctions can be applied to..."?
- I'm open to other suggestion but I don't think we should sacrifice clarity for brevity. I agree that it should default to the long version. The short verion can be used on articles with overloaded headers (such as ones with active DS sanctions). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete these page templates Rather than fix the page templates, I've long thought they should be deleted, because they serve no useful purpose and imposing DS based on them violates the DS procedures. Under the new system, DS can only be imposed if an editor is has actual "awareness" DS applies. The rules explicitly define how we measure "awareness". Per those instructions, page templates do not meet the "awareness" pre-condition necessary to impose DS. Moreover, this is a failed proposal. During the redesign, one ostensible reason for changing the DS notice from a fault-implied/badge of shame warning to a no-faul/FYI comment was to de-stigmatize the giving of notice. I argued strongly that the best way to do this was through ubiquity... give everyone in the subject area the same notice the moment they arrive. I thought we could do that with page templates connected to a bot programmed to template users at their talk page. This idea was shot down, in part due to the scenario that a given edit might be topical even though it appears on t a page which is not (e.g., comments about gun control on the Tea Party pages). Since under the current rules page templates are insufficient to give an editor "awareness" for purpose of imposing DS, I'd like to see them just be deleted. Alternatively, the simplest thing to do is to revise them so they mirror exactly the template that would be posted on an editors talk page. That way, there is only one thing to maintain over time. In addition, since we are able to identify key pages for a page notice, it should be a simple matter of programming to tie these notices to a bot that would dish out one subject matter alert every 12 months for people editing those pages and talk pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. According to my understanding of the current rules, editors need to be individually notified on their talk pages before discretionary sanctions against them are possible. Talk page templates can't do that. They are therefore superfluous and should be deleted. Sandstein 12:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- What about an argument by new users that I didn't know that the page belong to DS area especially in border cases.--Shrike (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Either they know because they received a talk page alert, or they should be issues a talk page alert. According to DS rules, that's the only "awareness" marker than counts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- One may say Hadera don't belong to I/P conflict because it doesn't have template and its just article about city in Israel and most of the material is not about a conflict. Could AE case could be filed against a user for editing this article?--Shrike (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Of course an AE case could be filed, and over the course of the AE case one of the elements that would need examination will ve whether AE is even applicable. Just like everything else, stuff can be discussed. I'll note that there is also an open ARCA currently to add in the DS instructions exactly how and where to "dispute" the inclusion of an article under a specific DS topic area (such as "should Hadera full under ARBIP"), and the result will probably be a discussion at AE anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- One may say Hadera don't belong to I/P conflict because it doesn't have template and its just article about city in Israel and most of the material is not about a conflict. Could AE case could be filed against a user for editing this article?--Shrike (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would want to know if something is under discretionary sanctions or not--for new editors this is not a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. It isn't about whether or not we get to ban hammer them, it is about the editor: giving them a tool to know it is under special protection. It also gives editors on that talk page something to point to easily to refer those new users. It isn't about allowing excuses, it's about giving information in the easiest way possible, and the talk page banner does that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- If page templates remain as an FYI/reminder sort of thing they should also have a link to the "awareness" criteria and text that saying more or less do not call this banner to new editors' attention. Instead, use the usertalk template designed for that purpose NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let's be honest with ourselves, the usertalk template is not typically used as a friendly gesture to help a new user. It is most commonly used as a warning and because the person leaving the template is preparing (perhaps threatening) to take the recipient to AE, and the template is proof of prior notification. It can be used for many reasons, but most commonly it is used as a shot across the bow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I leave notices all the time, and I follow up with a subsection for discussion, and in the subsection I point out the notice is FYI and that I also gave the same notice to myself. Per the original goal of the overhaul, our intention is to destigmatize the notice. So I treat them that way, and I expect others who are in the know to AGF when I do that and also pull on the oars for prevention of problems. If others in the know can not or will not do that, then the battle mentality may reside in the minds of experienced eds as well as newbies. And I'm not implying that anyone in this conversation does this, just speaking in the abstract. We have the B&W text that says these things are FYI. Everyone should treat them as such, whether they are giving them, getting them, or are a third party observing them being given.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let's be honest with ourselves, the usertalk template is not typically used as a friendly gesture to help a new user. It is most commonly used as a warning and because the person leaving the template is preparing (perhaps threatening) to take the recipient to AE, and the template is proof of prior notification. It can be used for many reasons, but most commonly it is used as a shot across the bow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- If page templates remain as an FYI/reminder sort of thing they should also have a link to the "awareness" criteria and text that saying more or less do not call this banner to new editors' attention. Instead, use the usertalk template designed for that purpose NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that changing the templates as suggested (including the suggestion from Salvidrim!) is a good idea. I also agree that adding something about the awareness criteria is also a good idea (maybe link in the brief version and a sentence or two in the long version). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- These sounds like good ideas. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Something like:
- These sounds like good ideas. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hm? (adding pings: Doug Weller, Callanecc, L235). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looks great In addition, destigmatization of the DS Alert notice would be enhanced if everyone editing pages with this tag triggers code on the server that automatically templates their talk page with DS Alert if there is no record of a prior alert in the prior twelve months. Since even an FYI no-fault template is annoying, we may want to add a threshold such as the number of bytes in an edit, or more than just one or two edits.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hm? (adding pings: Doug Weller, Callanecc, L235). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with the changes. I would maybe copy-edit down some of the wording of the long-form notice. "Wikipedia" is already implied when referring to administrators. "On editors of pages" is an awkward sentence. It implies belonging but it's not clear how that's established, whether through affiliation (to a newcomer), or simply by the act of editing the article (which is what we mean). I'd also propose to change the last sentence to the following, "Provided the awareness criteria is met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." Just a few suggestions on my part. Mkdw talk 16:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- So:
- Criteria is the plural form, and there are multiple, so I'm sticking with "are met" and not "is met", Mkdw. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for including some of my suggestions. Yes, you're right. I'm used to the colloquial form but I might have to wait another 20 years before it's accepted as written formal. One thing I noticed that wasn't transferred over above is a preposition between " may be used" and "editors who repeatedly or seriously fail". Previously versions had "against". It's debatable whether "any" needs to be repeated since, as you pointed out, criteria is plural, but it doesn't really affect the meaning of the sentence one way or another. Mkdw talk 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- fixed ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for including some of my suggestions. Yes, you're right. I'm used to the colloquial form but I might have to wait another 20 years before it's accepted as written formal. One thing I noticed that wasn't transferred over above is a preposition between " may be used" and "editors who repeatedly or seriously fail". Previously versions had "against". It's debatable whether "any" needs to be repeated since, as you pointed out, criteria is plural, but it doesn't really affect the meaning of the sentence one way or another. Mkdw talk 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Criteria is the plural form, and there are multiple, so I'm sticking with "are met" and not "is met", Mkdw. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mkdw, Dennis Brown, Salvidrim!, L235, Callanecc, NewsAndEventsGuy, Shrike, and Sandstein: is the latest version suitable now so that we can make the change? At the moment, if you need to add 2 separate DS notices they look identical, which is clearly a bad thing. I realise that a couple of you don't like these but as it stands they are required. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I like plain Texas talk when it comes to templates. Something that says "Editors who edit disruptively in any way or violate the restrictions are likely to be prohibited from editing in this topic area or blocked from editing altogether." The last paragraph ("Provided....") is so watered down as to be vague to a newer editor. My sentence grabs their attention, tells them we are serious, and is in fact, more fair to them since it spells out exactly what will happen. They need to be cautious. I think we are trying to be too politically correct / nice / political or something. They need plain spoken facts that any 12 year old can understand. I don't think the awareness part is needed anyway, that is an issue for enforcement only. We don't need to tell them that this only applies if we tell them. They are already reading it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown has a point with regard to simplicity. However, we do occasionally see people at AE who request sanctions even when it is far from clear that the editors at issue were made properly aware of possible sanctions. Including the awareness requirement in the template helps prevent pointless enforcement requests. I agree with the most recent drafts above. Sandstein 12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm OK with proposal, but I'll toss out another to compare. This version is a little wordier, but explicitly sets DS in context of our overall Blocking policy, and it tries to put the right "spin" on the topic (prevention to enhance smooth editing). I don't know template formatting so I'll just italicize it
- 'Editors at this page may be subject to Discretionary sanctions
- Everywhere in Wikipedia, editors are expected to follow our policies and guidelines and those who don’t may be blocked from editing. Because some topics have proven especially contentious, the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (a faster enforcement process) to help keep things running smoothly in those areas. Before requesting or imposing such sanctions on another editor, please verify that the mandatory awareness criteria have been met.
- It's wordier, but in my view, the only people likely to actually read the template are those who don't already know about DS and therefore extra words help make it more clear. But like I said, I'm also fine with the Doug's latest proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mkdw, Dennis Brown, Salvidrim!, L235, Callanecc, NewsAndEventsGuy, Shrike, and Sandstein: is the latest version suitable now so that we can make the change? At the moment, if you need to add 2 separate DS notices they look identical, which is clearly a bad thing. I realise that a couple of you don't like these but as it stands they are required. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the latest proposal, and with NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. My preference is slightly towards the one Doug points to above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with NewsAndEventsGuy. Worse, we were promised another comprehensive review of DS over two years ago (the last one we had four or five year ago, in Roger Davies's tenure), and it never happened. While DS may possibly be useful in some perennial content areas, they've been a problematic in internal ones (e.g. WP:ARBATC), and this template system has been an unmitigated disaster.
First, the requirement to deliver templates, which expire after a while, permits any bad-actor to WP:GAME the system with ease; they simply disrupt to their heart's content in one area, finally get a notice after people try to do something about it and realize that their hands are tied to these stupid template requirements, then the disruptor simply goes and disrupts a different area they haven't receive a notice about, or abandons their SPA and creates another one. This "maybe they're unaware of the sanctions" thing is a harmful, community-self-delusional fantasy. They damned well know exactly what they're doing, and the presence of DS banners on the relevant talk pages makes everyone aware as soon as they start participating in the topic area.
Second, the wording and appearance of these templates is so menacing, they are universally interpreted as hostile threats, never as neutral notices. I've even twice had people try to ANI me for "harassment" because I left them notices that ArbCom requires.
(One of the main things I'd hoped to accomplish in 2018, as an ArbCom candidate, was DS reform. It's irksome that I missed election by less than 3% and actually received more support votes that 50% of the candidates who passed. The voting system we have for this is broken.)All that said, the proposals above are a tiny improvement and I support them, and without a desire to nit-pick over exact wording. But it's like putting a Band-aid on a shotgun wound. At bare minimum, a bot should deliver templates to anyone who edits a page (or talkpage thereof) subject to DS. Better yet, delete the userspace templates and assume, rationally, that "ignorance of the law is no exception" and that people who edit repeatedly in DS-covered topics are aware of the DS. Or just get rid of DS, which is the proximal and sole cause of "adminship is not/shouldn't be a big deal" no longer being true.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
RE: E.M.Gregory
I've never heard of Naomi Klein, but I was curious to see if I could trace down the source for the alleged "the most democratic country in the Western hemisphere" quote. It appears that this quote is not from Klein, but from an article published by The Nation. Her only connection to this article that I can see is that she Tweeted it.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a discussion about building tools for managing Editing Restrictions
The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to build and improve tools to support the work done by contributors who set, monitor, and enforce editing restrictions on Wikipedia, as well as building systems that make it easier for users under a restriction to avoid the temptation of violating a sanction and remain constructive contributors.
You are invited to participate in a discussion that documents the current problems with using editing restrictions and details possible tech solutions that can be developed by the Anti-harassment tools team. The discussion will be used to prioritize the development and improvement of tools and features.
For the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Scope of article sanctions
- Linda Sarsour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Arbitration sanctions imposed on articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict have been added to talk page at Linda Sarsour. [2] Does this article properly warrant being covered by such sanctions? I'm dubious. If so, then a host of persons, perhaps thousands, will be covered. Perhaps they should be, but I wanted to be clear. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Adding pages requires them to be logged as an AE sanction by the administrator that imposed the sanction. Then, those admins are the proper place to ask questions. If they aren't logged on the AE/DS log by an admin, the notice can be removed as just placing the notice doesn't cut it. --DHeyward (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- DHeyward Thanks for your response. To clarify, do you mean it needs to be logged as an AE sanction before the notice is placed? Where would the log be for Arab-Israel arbitration sanctions. I'm not clear. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- User:Coffee has placed the article under EC protection and logged the action in WP:DSLOG. If you disagree that it's an I/P article, you could ask Coffee and if necessary appeal at WP:AE. In my own opinion it's reasonable to be considered ARBPIA. She is a supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and has been in the news due to that support. Clearly BDS is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You could also argue that Sarsour's article falls under WP:ARBAP2. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- The log is at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Palestine-Israel articles. The article Linda Sarsour was added by User:Coffee but it appears the notice was placed by someone else before he added it. Coffee is responsible for putting the page under DS and you would need to discuss with him first. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate the responses, I just wanted to find out what the procedure is in such things for future reference. I believe that once I placed such a notice on a page (I forget which one), but it was not logged in anywhere. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- The tag Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement was placed on the talk page by User:Huldra on 21 December. Since the presence of this tag causes 1RR to become active for the whole page, it's my opinion that such tags should only be placed by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Now that Coffee has logged his EC protection in DSLOG I think the ARBPIA talk page banner ought to remain, regardless of the general rule. The status of the page (whether ARBPIA or not) is now up to Coffee, unless it is appealed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- The tag Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement was placed on the talk page by User:Huldra on 21 December. Since the presence of this tag causes 1RR to become active for the whole page, it's my opinion that such tags should only be placed by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate the responses, I just wanted to find out what the procedure is in such things for future reference. I believe that once I placed such a notice on a page (I forget which one), but it was not logged in anywhere. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- DHeyward Thanks for your response. To clarify, do you mean it needs to be logged as an AE sanction before the notice is placed? Where would the log be for Arab-Israel arbitration sanctions. I'm not clear. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)