Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alanyst (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 11 November 2010 (→Climate change case amendment: the example given does not meet the standard proposed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arbitration motions regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PHG

Original announcement

• This motion is unecessarily broad. I would like to ask for a narrowing of restrictions to simply the relations between the Mongols and the Crusaders. I do a lot of work on the Middle-Ages, the Renaissance and Asian subjects (literally 100s of articles ), and often the simple appearance of the word "Crusade" or "Mongol" in an article blocks me from contributing to it (like... History of Japan, History of China etc...). I feel it would be legitimate to adjust the restrictions to precisely "articles related to interraction between the Crusaders and the Mongols", which is really the crux of the matter we've been discussing. Thank you Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Original announcement

Climate change case amendment

Original announcement

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Misplaced Pages particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Misplaced Pages, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

The bolded part makes this a problem by bringing this in conflict with WP:IAR. There always has to be a safety valve allowing compromized articles to be repaired. There has been an issue with the monitoring of all the CC articles by the non-topic banned editors. It was precisely one of William's notifications of an unnoticed problem that led to him being blocked. Count Iblis (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Mister WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, apparently you missed point. This modification was made make it clear that the back door is not open. In case you didn't notice, that block was upheld. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dense? What happend to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the back door locked is a violation of WP:IAR. The issue is simply that if a page is vandalized and it hasn't been noticed in a reasonable time, a topic banned editor should at least be allowed to notify someone. In fact, the Misplaced Pages rules on topic ban allow topic banned editors to correct vandalism themselves. But that isn't necessary to maintain Misplaced Pages, a mere notification suffices.

Having some experience in the CC area, I really do not see how this could lead to trouble. Let me do my best and imagine an editor who I typically disagree with on CC, say Cla68. Suppose he notifies me about a problem on an article, e.g. suppose that on a BLP article an edit is made labeling a sceptic to be a "kook" and that this edit has gone unnoticed. Then even if I agree that this person is a indeed "kook", I can still see that this is a BLP violation that needs to be corrected. Leaving such an edit uncorrected is not good for Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are deliberately ignoring the message here. These users have been told repeatedly that they are a net negative in the CC area and that their contributions in that area are not welcome regardless of their merit. If we are violating IAR with that then we can invoke IAR and ignore it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he is ignoring the message. He is pointing out that the message is inconsistent with normal Misplaced Pages processes, not to mention antiproductive and unwise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be what you two think, but it is not what ArbCom or the community at large has said. Those who violate the topic ban will be blocked. Most of them have accepted this and moved on. Those who cannot or will not do so can expect to longer and harsher blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"The community at large" does not even know of this case. ArbCom has made bad decisions before. Sometimes they were wise enough to correct them,sometimes not. And replacing civilised decision with robot-like repetition of block threats really is helping consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a threat, it is an accurate interpretation of the meaning of this decision. If you want to appeal for yet another amendment that reflects what you and the count want, be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• The banning policy recognizes exception to topic bans for reversions of obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations (obvious as in something no reasonable person would disagree with) unless they are explicitly included in the ban, and I personally would not block for those (again, unless they are explicitly included within the ban). That said, banned users perform those edits at their own peril: often their perception of obviousness is different from that of a user not involved in the topic area, which is why it may not be a good idea. There's your safety valve. T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• The best thing would be for topic banned editors to remove the relevant pages from their watchlists. They don't need to be looking for vandalism to repair.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been beating that drum for a while, but certain involved persons have relentless advocates who believe that those certain persons are too important to these topics to be subject to the full breadth and scope of the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Admins should really follow best practices. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doing climate change for the moment, but I've noticed with some dismay that people are still claiming or implying that only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol the climate change articles. This is nonsense; I'm not topic banned and I used to do it myself without much effort.

Just pop the articles into your watchlist or use my list at User:Tony Sidaway/Articles under climate change probation. The talk pages are also listed so using related changes on the list gives something very similar to a watchlist. Remember to set the option "Enhanced recent changes (requires JavaScript)" in the Recent changes tab of your preferences.

Add articles (and their talk pages) to the list as desired. As long as you keep the list up to date you won't miss a single edit. --TS 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"I've noticed with some dismay that people are still claiming or implying that only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol the climate change articles." - to help your dismay, I don't think that that is correct. I don't think anybody is claiming or implying that - I'm certainly not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I must have misunderstood the following sentence: There has been an issue with the monitoring of all the CC articles by the non-topic banned editors. (Count Iblis (talk) on 10 November)

This was, I thought, the reason why the strong topic ban was held by some editors to be bad for Misplaced Pages. If no such issue exists then I don't see what problem remains. --TS 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do believe that over-aggressive topic bans and enforcement are bad for Misplaced Pages. However, I believe this on general principles of reducing friction and drama, enabling efficient communication, and reducing friction. Also, of course, there is a big difference between "only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol" something and "every article is patrolled as effectively as possible". In particular, it's perverse if any editor is prevented from listing factual errors and vandalism in a non-disruptive way. As CI correctly pointed out, one of our five pillars explicitly says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project. This principle passed during the Durova case, and applies even more to this one. The current bans may not be in line with normal Misplaced Pages practices, but there is no viable alternative. Everything else has been tried, so now we simply have to say "Leave this topic area, we don't want you here. No exceptions." The Wordsmith 16:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Everything else has been tried" - wanna bet that I can come up with 10 things that have not been tried, at least one of which is reasonable? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can come up with a viable alternative to draconian topic bans for everyone (that will still solve the problem) then I will endorse your request for an amendment. I do not think any such alternative exists. We tried warnings, community-based general sanctions, article probation, sourcing restrictions, page protections, asking nicely, and even requesting that certain editors voluntarily recuse from the topic area. None of that worked. The community is tired of the drama, and we will end it by any means necessary, even if that means excessive force. The Wordsmith 19:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me propose this very minor proposal: Editors topic banned under remedy 3 are allowed to notify non-topic banned editors about an unambiguous problem on a CC article, if the problem has not been corrected in 24 hours time. The notification must be limited to a single sentence and can be posted on talk pages (e.g. the editor's own talk page). A maximum of two editors may be notified by posting on their talk pages. Discussions about the issue the notification is about are not allowed. Editors who use this as a loophole to engage in disputes will have this notification right revoked and may face further sanctions.

The reason why we need this is evident if you look at the recent problems on the Global climate model page. This page did not appear on TS' list. There was a subtle Scibaby-like edit on that article that William noted on his talk page. Such notifications got William blocked. The large number fo voices at AE saying that "William should move on, he should stop watching the CC pages", let me to believe that from that moemnt onwards all the CC pages would now be watched (a bit disingenuous as William did notify about uncorrected problems, but ok. if other people start to watch the CC pages, William doesn't need to notify anyone anymore).

The Global climate model would obviously be the last page I would have expected to see any new problems on. However, when I checked a week ago I saw to my surprise exactly the same type of subtle problem that at that moment was uncorrected for about 6 days. That page is now on my watchlist, but the same problem can occur on many pages. Count Iblis (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Those edits to Global climate model would not have qualified as "unambiguous problems" though, since by your description they were "subtle" (insertions of the word "estimate", which is not unambiguous vandalism or POV pushing). Is there a better example you can give as evidence why this is needed? alanyst 23:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)