Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Organization

Is listing primarily by case the best approach here? I would think that a listing by user:

UserX Case1 Restriction1
Case2 Restriction2, Restriction3

would be more useful to people trying to determine what a particular editor was subject to. Kirill 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the expiration date may be of more immediate interest than the date when the restriction was imposed. Kirill 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. What about restrictions on use of alternate accounts? Where do we want to record those? Jehochman Talk 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is probably as good a place as any. Kirill 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done December and November 2007, and will resume working on this tomorrow. Jehochman Talk 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
September and October 2007 are done.Jehochman Talk 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expiration date

I'm working on adding the list of users from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. How should I handle expiration dates, when none was specified? Just leave it blank? --Elonka 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite. Jehochman Talk 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

I went ahead and added in the list of editors from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. It was a complex case with many editors, and sanctions listed in two different cases, so I'd appreciate if someone could doublecheck my list and tweak as needed. --Elonka 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work. The names of some of the remedies have changed. The list of possible values is at the top. "Supervised editing" is now "Probation". The other ones you want to use are "Revert limitation" and "Civility restriction". I can make adjustments later, but I am heading AFK right now. Jehochman Talk 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is much duplication in the Armenia-Azerbaijan remedies. Can an arbitration or clerk look at that and confirm if we can collapse those to just the three point list? Jehochman Talk 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to trim older restrictions in cases where they're superseded by more recent ones. Kirill 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status

Everything back to April 2007 appears to be done. As we go back to 2006, the workload will be less because only indefinite sanctions will still be in effect. Jehochman Talk 06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bug

Sort table and rowspan are incompatible. We must decide which feature to lose. I am not so fond of sorting because it is easy enough to search for a particular username with the browser. Jehochman Talk 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the sorting would be useful to grab subsets by type and expiration date, though. Kirill 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. We can remove the rowspans and the cells, there aren't many of these, and then everything will work. Jehochman Talk 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 done

All restrictions from 2007 are now logged. Before making effort to log 2006, I suggest determining whether it is worth the additional effort. I recommend that the committee consider placing a sunset date on all remedies. Of course, if an editor returns to old ways, a quick appeal to the Committee should be sufficient to reinstate any lapsed remedy. Perhaps the Committee can agree to terminate all remedies more than one year old, subject to speedy reinstatement if problems resume. Jehochman Talk 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organization (2)

Three items relating to organization of this page:

  • As noted above, how about combining multiple sanctions for the same editor?
  • This page does not appear to be in any useful order. Is there a good reason for that, or do we all just have better things to do with our time than alphabetize?
  • There are a couple of red-linked editors. Is it worth maintaining them on this page?


Matchups (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old community sanctions

Please see Wikipedia:Community sanction/Log. There is an old sanction there for Gene Nygaard and disagreement over whether the sanction is still in place or not. I suspect if it is, then it should have been moved to here. Since it wasn't, what should happen? My view is that the sanction is now very old (18 months) and is no longer needed and should be formally lifted. The underlying problem is that it is unclear who should lift an indefinite sanction placed by the community. Does it require another full community discussion or what? I can dig up links to the old history and the current mini-flare-up of this dispute, and will notify Gene Nygaard and Husond, but want to get this uncertainty sorted out one way or the other. Current state of the discussion (as of this timestamp) is here. There was also an ANI thread archived here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some old ANI threads are here and here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't belong here.
Nothing should happen; it is what that pages says it is—something kept for historical purposes only, a historical record of a failed procedure with no consensus, and one which had no basis whatsoever at the time of the original action:
✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained for historical archive. A historical page is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.
Furthermore, Husond, who remains the only one making these claims, has already unsuccessfully made his claims and they have been answered at ANI. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. I'd view sanctions as surviving the obsolescence of the process that put them in place. ANI no doubt is the proper place to discuss whether they should still be in force or should be lifted, but I would not be so cavalier as to dismiss them purely on legalistic grounds as you appear to have done. ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, it isn't even a matter of surviving obsolescence; that process was both after the fact and rejected. And no, ANI is not the proper place in any case, and even if it were, it has done so last November. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Responding to Lar: it certainly seems this is the wrong place. Husond has seemingly ignored or forgotten my note, Lar arrived very late, Gene took a day or so to arrive. I suspect no-one is actually watching this page. What should be done? I would like to petition for Gene's sanction to be formally lifted, but that is a weakness of the community sanction process. Blocks can be undone by single admins. Bans and topic sanctions seemingly require a full debate, unless the sanctions are limited by a time period. No productive editor (as Gene is) should be under indefinite sancions forever. At some point they should be reviewed and lifted. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I've just bumped into this, I hadn't noticed your message on my talk page. In my view, Gene's probation is still in force unless lifted by the community. Gene keeps bringing on the "this page is inactive" sign at the top of the community sanctions page, but he forgets that "historical" does not mean "revoked". In fact, as he should have pasted along, his probation is under section "Current sanctions" (not "former sanctions") and as one reads "Gene Nygaard is banned from non consensual article moves until further notice". Further notice has not occurred, therefore the probation remains unchanged. It can only be lifted following community consensus for such, most likely at ANI. Húsönd 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
ANI really really is the place to take this for resolution. This sanction IS in place at this time as far as I am concerned. I would certainly look favourably on a request for a lifting of this sanction if the request acknowledged that the sanction was in place, and that there was a valid matter of concern, and if it demonstrates that things have changed, and that the behaviour that caused the sanction to be imposed has changed. On the other hand, if the argument is advanced that "the sanction is not in force" or "there was no basis for it", or "ANI isn't the place to discuss it", or "the behaviour never occurred" I'll be among those voices arguing strongly that the sanction be maintained in force without change, or strengthened further. Because, make no mistake, the revert/move warring that was occurring was disruptive, and needs not to recur. That's the basis to discuss this... that the disruption isn't going to continue, not any procedural wankery. Any ruleslawyering will hold zero (or less) water with me. I am but one voice and perhaps others will feel differently but somehow, I suspect not. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expired restrictions

How are we handling expired restrictions? Just delete them off the page, or move them to an archive? Also, one of the affected editors, Skyelarke, recently changed names to Scott Free (talk · contribs). They're no longer under their initial 3-month ban, but other restrictions continue to apply even after the original ban. How should this be notated? --Elonka 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)