Eisspeedway

User:Gerda Arendt/ACE 2014

For 2013, see User:Gerda Arendt/Vote ACE 2013

In 2014, let's keep it simple. In my Wikipedia life, I was involved in one case, called Infoboxes (which was not about infoboxes, as I learned in a process that showed me how vulnerable I am). At times, Clarification and Enforcement were tried.

Question for the candidates: How would you have responded in this case:

Request concerning Pigsonthewing

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing_and_infoboxes : "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes"
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 18 July 2014 - editor adds an infobox template
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was asked to self-revert and declined to do so.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive153#Pigsonthewing if you want to study what some future colleagues said.

Answers

Candidate Answers Date Precious No Experience
Calidum common sense says fixing a malformed infobox isn't the same as adding one 17 Nov common sense 11-20 arb cand
Courcelles 3 I see the changing of a free-form infobox, one that was already there, to one that uses an infobox template. This is not a violation of the remedy (or in any way disruptive whatsoever). 18 Nov arb
DeltaQuad 5 Ultimately, he was helping a new editor improve an article and it's not technically worded into the restriction, so I would take no action, and say there is no violation. 19 Nov admin
DGG 2 ... or the sanction is meaningless. 4th 18 Nov keep articles 453 admin
Dougweller 1 The template exists for convenience and consistency. So no violation. 21-23 Nov watchful eyes 484 admin
Dusti Something that we should all be happy to see. 15 Nov love and commitment to the community 11-24
Euryalus 7 no harm, no foul 18 Nov endeavour 04-29 admin
Geni abstain, 2nd admin
Guerillero 8 ... it does not break the ban of "adding" an infobox, 2nd 20 Nov Toil, tools, tradition and trust 01-28 admin
Hahc21 (withdrawn 7 Dec) what Andy did was modify the already existing infobox to use the appropriate template 18 Nov Latin American performer 01-09 admin, clerk
Kraxler case dismissed 16 Nov arb cand
Ks0stm "The previous editor wanted there to be an infobox, ... Potw helped him finish the job.". 20 Nov arb cand
Salvio giuliano 4 No foul, play on. 19 Nov unblock decision 76 arb
Stanistani Decline 17 Nov "What will Wikipedia leave behind in the end?" 01-05
Technical 13 There was no restriction in place preventing him from repairing a malformed infobox. 10 Nov technical progressive brilliant kind 11-21
Thryduulf 9 No case to answer 18 Nov thinking of options 576 admin
Wbm1058 So this leads to unnecessary drama when another editor files a complaint after the sanctioned editor makes a valid and helpful edit. 17 Nov bot help 11-19
Yunshui 6 The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better 17 Nov harmonious acting 501 admin

Yunshui matches my own evaluation best. My favourite response in the actual proceedings was by Floquenbeam who was an arb then, repeated by Salvio giuliano: no foul, play on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Results

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gerda_Arendt/ACE_2014