Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 19 November 2019

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Question

Hi, Sandstein - when DS are imposed (post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people), and noted on the TP of the article, where is the link that describes what DS/restrictions have been imposed? IOW - 1RR consensus required, etc.? _Talk 📧 21:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

All discretionary sanctions should be logged at WP:AELOG. Sandstein 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio on Trapiche emerald article

Hi, I would like to sincerely apologize for the copyvio and my in-expertise in editing the wiki article on Trapiche emerald. I have now learnt the proper process from my supervisor and would not make this mistake again. Thank you for understanding and sorry for the inconvenience. Harsimar21 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Something strange in Pullman-land

Hi, I don't quite know why, but the various His Dark Materials pages you AfD'd, all seem to link back to only the one discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Races and creatures in His Dark Materials. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is intentional. This allows all of these articles to be discussed together. Sandstein 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Note on ArbCom/Poland sourcing restrictions

The phrase "reputable institutions" was added to cover in-house publications by dedicated research institutions, such as the USHMM and Yad Vashem (and to a lesser extent IPN). See comment by Arb here. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

(I came here to comment about Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MyMoloboaccount, but this is a relevant issue so I'll reply here). First, re your question. That comment does not exclude reliable newspapers. You have used newspapers yourself as a source (ex ). In fact, in that diff I see even youtube as a source. Is Youtube a better source than course notes? I thought that course notes are borderline, but if they are out, I don't think YouTube acceptable, neither. And about course lectures: you created this article, which uses - just like the Cienciala's coursenotes that Sandstein ruled as 'bad sources' in Molobo's AE report, this appears to be an article by a reliable scholar but not peer reviewed or otherwise published by a reliable source. I wonder what would Sandstein say about them if they were to be discussed at AE? But I specifically don't want to bring them there, because they show that even experienced editors in this topic area are unsure what is allowed or not, the ArbCom ruling is not very clear (also per your disagreement with Sandstein here re reliable newspapers, which I certainly consider fine). But sources like Cienciala's notes or your are case in point, I'd have considered them reliable - until the current ruling. This should be discussed first, and the ArbCom ruling should not be 'weaponized' to bring editors one disagrees with to AE on the off chance that they will get blocked for an edit that was 'ok' few months ago, or worse, on a borderline source that an admin has interpreted as not good enough anymore. Which is why I find the speedy one week block of Molobo problematic. Per my comment at Talk:Home Army (which ocurred pre-block and pre-AE report, which was I think all reported and resolved in few hours I was asleep at), I concur one of the diffs he restored was problematic, but I disagreed about the course notes. Nonetheless I thought that we can discuss it on talk, over few days, per WP:BRD. Instead, bam, we have an editor banned for a week, with a note that topic bans can be applied. Does that new ruling superceeds BRD? Can an editor be indeed blocked for adding/restoring a single bad source without a prior warning that said source is bad and no evidence that he chose to ignore such warnings before?? This is not a healthy attitude - it will encourage battleground reports, and may end up with almost everyone active topic banned in few weeks, particularly if they don't follow such incidents. I'd therefore suggest de-escalation. Molobo should be unblocked and WARNED, not blocked. We should also create a list of source examples that are problematic, to which we could refer editors from such warning. An editor who adds or restores a bad source should first be warned. Then we can enter into a territory of escalating blocks and eventually topic bans. But I think it would be very, very bad if the warning step is bypassed. Sandstein, please advise if I should bring this to ArbCom for clarification (and please reconsider Molobo's block vs a warning; I'd have no objections to a block or such post warning, but I am pretty sure he doesn't understand why one diff is enough to get wa block...the rule envoked here is new and we must tread with caution or, as I said, everyone involved will get blocked soon on similar technicalities). PS. A technicality, but was Molobo actually notified of that particular ruling? His DS 'reminder' I see on his talk page was from May, so preceding that sanction. Are editors responsible for checking what new areas/topics are added to DS on a daily basis? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount has decided to appeal the block. I will address their concerns in the context of that appeal once it is copied to the appropriate forum. Sandstein 06:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How can a banned editor copy anything to any 'more appropriate' forum? Anyway, do you have any other thoughts concerning the more general issues here, not concerning this specific bloc? Like other sources mentioned, advise for editors on how they should behave, necessity for the warnings before blocks, etc.? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A blocked editor can't do the copying, but an admin who reads the unblock request can. As an enforcing admin, it's not really my job to have an opinion about the merits of this remedy. That's ArbCom's job. My role is to apply the remedy as it is written and as I interpret it. Sandstein 08:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Then as a blocking editor, can you comment on whether Molobo was sufficiently warned about the existence of this remedy before a block was applied, and what constitutes a sufficient warning before an editor can be reported for violating it to the ArbCom? Also, as a blocking admin, why did you chose a week, instead of let's say a month, a day or just a warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The question you raise is whether I correctly blocked MyMoloboaccount. But only the blocked editor may appeal an arbitration enforcement action. You are not the blocked editor. I will therefore comment on this matter only in response to an appeal. Sandstein 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Asking whether a block was correct is not the same as appealing it. I am not appealing his block, I am just asking you to explain the technical rules behind it. First, I repeat my question: "what constitutes a sufficient warning before an editor can be reported for violating it to the ArbCom AE" in the case of the ruling discussed here. Or are you saying that the answer to it is some sort of a secret? Second, why did you chose the length of a week for the first infraction. Or, again, is this some sort of a secret that cannot be divulged and discussed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The whole point of the sourcing restrictions was to exclude non-academic, non-peer-reviewed sources, non-scholarly sources from discussions of historical affairs (in particular WWII-related), and that includes newspapers. That's why the Rzeczpospolita piece, which was used to support historical claims, is unusable; while the Haaretz article, which was used to discuss current affairs, is. In fact, the entire article is about events from 1998 onwards, with some 85% of the content from 2018 onwards. Funny thing is Molobo removed that source twice, stating it " not fulfilling required criteria", but now he support using Rzeczpospolita for wartime events, stating it's "generally reliable". François Robere (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Given the lack of consensus here about this, this may warrants an ArbCom clarification request. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, the remedy does not require any particular notification or proof of awareness. I read it therefore as applying and therefore enforceable whether or not an editor was aware of it. If an editor credibly argues that they were not in fact aware of the restriction, that they understand what they did wrong and that they will henceforth observe the restriction, I may choose to apply only a warning instead of a block. But no such assertion was made in this case. Sandstein 13:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this entire ruling needs a clarification request before AE is swamped with a bunch of reports that require admins to make RSN like rulings. I thought that in general arbitration tried to steer away from content rulings and such, but this seems to be muddying those waters a lot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the length of the unblock log (~4 months waiting for some editors), can you copy Molobo's request to AE yourself before the block expires making his request moot? He noted this himself in his recent comment. I think it is not fair and not in the spirit of how things should be handled to just defer the unblock request to a chance it will or won't be copied to the forum before it expires. The blocked editor asked for a review on that forum, as its within his rights, and we should not ignore it. I would copy it myself but since I am not admin I don't believe I can do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)