Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Protonk: I had to redact a lot of language from this statement |
→Result of the appeal by Protonk: decision |
||
Line 551:
*Noting that the sanction applied here is not just a 24 hour block but also a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2015#GamerGate|3-month topic ban]]. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] for this case are very expansive and include not only any edits related to GamerGate but also any edits related to "any gender-related dispute or controversy" and are not limited to GG articles. Also noting that HJ Mitchell [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=644762804&oldid=644761722 posted his interpretation] of the applicable issues on the talk page of the relevant article. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 05:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
* As a retired admin who saw this mentioned on Twitter, I came by to see what the story was. If this sanction is justified, the admin involved has done a very poor job of making that clear. Despite attempts to keep up with the saga, and despite reading everything from ArbCom on this, and despite a decade of inside knowledge the heavy-handedness of Protonk's ban is incomprehensible to me. Wikipedia is already getting a black eye with the public on this, so any ban like this should be, at minimum, explained so clearly that the general public can easily understand. -- [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] ([[User talk:William Pietri|talk]]) 05:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decision of appeal''': There is pretty uniform consensus that, while Protonk's edit likely did cross the line into BLP territory, the sanction is excessive for the nature of the offense. Therefore, the block is converted to time served and the topic ban is lifted. <p>Protonk made an unnecessarily inaccurate paraphrase of information that has repeatedly been discussed; that Wikipedians (most in good faith, a few not so much) seem to feel the need to keep repeating this information is unhelpful in maintaining the integrity of the project, at a time when every activity related to this topic area is being carefully watched by those who may interpret any editorial action in a manner that would be out of step with the interpretation of experienced users. We can all afford to be a bit more careful here. At the same time, within the last 24 hours the sanction regime has changed for this topic area and everyone (including patrolling administrators) could benefit from starting at the lowest reasonable level of behavioural remediation. In this case, a redaction and warning/explanation of the problem with the edit by a longtime contributor (as opposed to a reanimated but previously dormant account) would likely have resulted in the editor taking a step back; if not, then the bigger sticks of blocks and topic bans would remain available. It is difficult to go wrong in starting off with lighter interventions. <p>TLDR: Protonk, you can do better, please don't paraphrase, and especially don't paraphrase incorrectly. HJ Mitchell, your identification of the edit as being problematic is supported by your colleagues, but the consensus is that the administrative action taken is more than is appropriate to the sanctionable activity. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 06:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Please notify the appellant in the event of a successful appeal, in addition to logging it on the case page. [[:Template:AE sanction]] informs users that "If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful."-->
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
| |||