User talk:Coren/draft
- I for one welcome this motion for standardized discretionary sanctions. This will make AE more consistent and in line with existing practice; current remedies on some of the older cases tie the Admins hands so that they are unable to enact less sweeping measures, such as a time limited topic ban instead of an extended site wide block. This will (for example) enable us to encourage basically good editors who are a little too close to a subject to continue to edit and learn the ropes here, while protecting controversial articles from being hostage to edit wars and battleground behavior. Thank you for taking the time to write and make this motion, Coren. I don't know of any cases which you didn't list which might benefit from this; it looks to me like you've found them all. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with KC that this is a good change. Some of those remedies (Homeopathy, Free Republic, Ayn Rand) does not seem to be used in practice, though, judging from the logs. Maybe they should just be lifted? This seems to be pretty complete. Thanks a lot, Coren. T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's always difficult to discern whether the editors in a topic area behave well so that there is no longer need for a remedy or if they behave because there is a remedy in place. I agree that reexamining how pertinent some of those remedies may still be is a worthwhile exercise, but I think that's best left to some other time to keep the omnibus motion simpler in substance as "just a freshening up" of older sanctions to modern standards. — Coren (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Extra remedies won't hurt things, after all. As long as this is not taken to express the committee's view either way on the continued need for those remedies, there will be no objection from me. T. Canens (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Nitpick: I'm not sure that the word "supersede" is usually used that way...
- su·per·sede v. 3. to displace in favor of another[1] :-)
- Also, it might be a good idea to make clear the status of existing warnings made under the old DS provisions. Especially in cases where there is no substantive change, there's no reason to require yet another warning. T. Canens (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, I'll add a provision for this. — Coren (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Extra remedies won't hurt things, after all. As long as this is not taken to express the committee's view either way on the continued need for those remedies, there will be no objection from me. T. Canens (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Nitpick: I'm not sure that the word "supersede" is usually used that way...
- It's always difficult to discern whether the editors in a topic area behave well so that there is no longer need for a remedy or if they behave because there is a remedy in place. I agree that reexamining how pertinent some of those remedies may still be is a worthwhile exercise, but I think that's best left to some other time to keep the omnibus motion simpler in substance as "just a freshening up" of older sanctions to modern standards. — Coren (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind me dropping by. I remember that some of your colleagues (at WP:ARBCC/PD in particular) have objected to standard discretionary sanctions in the past. Have you all talked about it on your mailing list since? NW (Talk) 20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well yes, I did a sounding of general support on the mailing list before doing the review. Although, when you think about it, the fact that a standardized discretionary sanction has been used in recent cases makes it no surprise that this review would get good support: the original objections at the time were borne of procedural worries rather than because the cases themselves would not benefit but now that the process exists it's actually easier to refer to it than craft it anew every case.
That said, this is a draft and the real motion (even if it's this one verbatim) will be put to a vote by the whole committee anyways. — Coren (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi NuclearWarfare. I have a feeling you may be referring to me. During the Climate Change case, there was a need to address some other issues as well that did not fit into the usual "discretionary sanctions" finding, which was part of the reason for the much more specific one at that time. Many of those issues have now been resolved in other ways. Personally speaking, I've spent some time following the activities at WP:AE and came away with the impression that this may assist enforcing administrators, particularly in the face of some of the extensive wiki-lawyering that occurs there. That impression is borne out by the posts above, so from that perspective I think this is a net positive. As to Timotheus Canens' point above, I agree with Coren that it is probably better to take care of this aspect of the old cases before worrying about lifting the remedies entirely right now. There remains the potential to do that in the future. Risker (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. I don't spend as much time at AE as the other two who have commented, but I definitely agree with them. NW (Talk) 01:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well yes, I did a sounding of general support on the mailing list before doing the review. Although, when you think about it, the fact that a standardized discretionary sanction has been used in recent cases makes it no surprise that this review would get good support: the original objections at the time were borne of procedural worries rather than because the cases themselves would not benefit but now that the process exists it's actually easier to refer to it than craft it anew every case.
- I agree with Coren's idea to 'freshen up' the sanction provisions of the older cases. Anything that makes these provisions uniform will make them easier to enforce. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- ^ According to Miriam-Webster