Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-22/Arbitration report
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Gråbergs Gråa Sång in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
- The ""reliable sourcing restriction"" as written is problematic; it doesn't allow for the reversion of vandalism, nor for good-faith editors who restore disputed sources without being aware that they have been previously removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like you want to introduce a mens rea "element of the crime", but I don’t think that is necessary. On Wikipedia, blocks are preventative not punishing. Worst case, a well meaning but disruptive editor gets a short block, and finds out about the special sourcing status of this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, I just remember when we used to treat new and good faith editors with a modicum of courtesy and consideration, and would like to return to that ethos. I'm also unclear how changing "no editor may reinstate the source..." to, say, "no editor, once made aware of this restriction (and with the exception of reverting unambiguous vandalism), may reinstate the source..." would lessen its effectiveness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't the decision's wording
Administrators may enforce this restriction
(emphasis mine) already give admins the discretion that they would have with the additional text you just proposed? In other words, "may enforce...with blocks" doesn't mean "must block". In other, other words, if we have admins zooming around blockingnew and good faith editors
, maybe it's an administrator problem, not an arbcom problem. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)- Yes, it does say "may". It says an admin may block a user who restores a disputed link, even if they do so while reverting vandalism, and that an admin may block a novice, good-faith user who restores such a link even while being completely unaware of the restriction. Why would we want to say these things? Under what policy "may" an admin make such blocks? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't the decision's wording
- No, I just remember when we used to treat new and good faith editors with a modicum of courtesy and consideration, and would like to return to that ethos. I'm also unclear how changing "no editor may reinstate the source..." to, say, "no editor, once made aware of this restriction (and with the exception of reverting unambiguous vandalism), may reinstate the source..." would lessen its effectiveness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like you want to introduce a mens rea "element of the crime", but I don’t think that is necessary. On Wikipedia, blocks are preventative not punishing. Worst case, a well meaning but disruptive editor gets a short block, and finds out about the special sourcing status of this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- According to media, the Arbcom decision was heart-wrenching for Grabowski and Klein. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)