User talk:Timotheus Canens/GS draft

Comments

As I am unfamiliar with the listed cases I would be somewhat reluctant to comment on them individually. However, I don't see much harm in replacing the older "article probation" remedies with standard discetionary sanctions, and in principle I can't see much of a problem with lifting sanctions in topic areas that are no longer problematic or which are unlikely to become problematic once again. It does raise the question however of how sanctions might be reimposed if a previously sanctioned area flares up once again - would a full ARBCOM case be required, or could ARBCOM simply reassert the old sanctions by motion? Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally agreed. In my experience at AE (roughly 2011 and 2013), all the topics listed here have not come up (or very seldom) for enforcement. I'm not sure whether that means that the sanctions can be lifted, or whether it is precisely their presence that has contributed to the lack of perceptible problems. That may be something about which the editors active in the respective areas could be queried. If it were up to me, in general, I'd err on the side of caution and retain the sanctions, if there is no evidence that their presence has caused problems (which I am not aware of). I think it is a good idea, though, to standardize the older topic-level remedies on the basis of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  11:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that having a big "this article is under arbcom sanctions" banner plastered on the talk page does actually scare editors off, and therefore I don't want to keep sanctions around if they aren't doing much work. If any area flares up again, we can reimpose the old sanction by motion - there won't be a need for a full case. Or maybe we can suspend those sanctions for a year, at the end of which they will be vacated, unless reinstated by consensus of uninvolved admins at AE or the committee. T. Canens (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the lack of hard data about the effect, either beneficial or detrimental, of discretionary sanctions (or similar topic-level restrictions) is problematic.Rather than making decisions such as the one you propose here on the basis of assumptions about how the presence or absence of sanctions may affect editing, I suggest starting a RfC to ascertain the practical effect sanctions have on editing in these areas before deciding whether to lift or maintain these sanctions.  Sandstein  16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen both - editors stating they avoid articles under sanctions, and preferring articles under sanctions (most recently from the current Tea Party movement mess, on the ANI subpage, an editor stated that they preferred Troubles articles to TPM articles, because on Troubles people watch their behavior, but TPM is too toxic. "The difference is night and day""[1]) That said, I agree with T. Canens that we should avoid having articles under sanctions if it isn't necessary. As one wag recently opined, if we do that, we might as well place all articles under probation and disband ArbCom - and that is the Wrong Direction. KillerChihuahua 10:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal by EdJohnston

1. Any cases which already have standard discretionary sanctions should keep them: e.g. Ayn Rand.
2. Newer cases (those which have had enforcement in the last five years), if they have any kind of article probation, should have it converted to standard discretionary sanctions: Waterboarding, Asmahan, Liancourt Rocks, Mantanmoreland, Lapsed Pacifist 2, Bluemarine,
3. Old cases (those which have had no enforcement in five years) should have their probation lifted: Vivaldi, Election, Brahma Kumaris, Free Republic, Neuro-linguistic programming. The last of these is still an active dispute, but I notice that T. Canens still believes it can be handled from now on under WP:ARBPS.

I agree that any extant sanctions or article-level restrictions (such as 1RR) in the listed cases should remain unaffected by the motion but they should become appealable at WP:Arbitration enforcement even if they were not originally. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ed, why do you feel articles such as Ayn Rand need to keep the DS? I support indefinite, but it seems to me that some if not all of these articles have passed the need for such sanctions, which is why I don't generally support indefinite becoming infinite. May I suggest also that should an article be removed from sanctions and it transpires that this was opening the gates to a return of the troubles which caused the sanctions to be put in place, that reinstating the sanctions via motion is a good possibility? We could poll ArbCom regarding that last, of course. KillerChihuahua 22:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither the AE admins nor Arbcom have any crystal ball which can tell us whether the Ayn Rand problems will start up again. I am still concerned that removing the old restrictions could open Pandora's box. There is no evidence of a concrete benefit from removing the old sanctions. The issue is not the same as when we consider lifting the ban on an editor when that person's trouble is well in the past. In that case we can look forward to the concrete benefit from resumption of the person's normal edits. The argument that Tim provided was that "the banner plastered on the talk page does actually scare editors off". We have trouble even getting people to *see* those notices, so I don't get the force of that argument. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you're right about that last bit - those notices are apparently nearly invisible. :-/ However, the default should be Unprotected, NonDS, yes? Just like the default is "anyone can edit" (until you lose that privilege). While there are some articles which will probably always be problematic, and will stay under DS (*CoughTroublesCough*) there are others which are more... seasonal. Ayn Rand is currently the de facto Libertarian author, and is becoming very popular with Republican politicians too. That may mean that Rand will have to stay under DS... but like protecting articles, we do it for a bit and then see if the article remains more or less stable when protection runs out. Or like Kwanzaa, which must be protected each and every holiday season, to prevent people from rewriting the article so the bulk of it is how Karenga is a felon and it's a "made up" holiday and only (racial epithet)'s celebrate it. Rand may be fine now that the hoopla is dying down about the movie, etc. It might be best to take off the DS and protect every four years if needed. I agree it might end up being a mess, and we may have to put back the sanctions - but why not give it a try? KillerChihuahua 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)