 | This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
When a user (who is not blocked or site banned) is subject to an editing limitation by community consensus that prohibits the user from editing in the Wikipedia: (or project) namespace, that restriction will be subject to the following exceptions, unless the statement of the restriction which gained consensus explicitly says otherwise.
- When an article which the restricted user created or was a major contributor to is nominated for deletion at AfD, the restricted user may edit the AfD page to comment in a civil and non-disruptive manner, and shall not be blocked for such comments.
- When an article which the restricted user created or was a major contributor to is nominated for Featured article status, the restricted user may edit the relevant project page to comment in a civil and non-disruptive manner, and shall not be blocked for such comments.
- When on any project notice board (such as WP:ANI, WP:COIN, WP:SPI or the like) the restricted user is mentioned by name, the restricted user may edit the relevant noticeboard thread to respond in a civil and non-disruptive manner to comments concerning his or her actions, and shall not be blocked for such comments.
In all cases such comments are expected to be brief, succinct, civil and focused on the specific issue under discussion. If these conditions are violated, for example if the user begins extensive line by line rebuttals of every comment, then the user will first be notified and if they fail to modify their behaviour the normal enforcement process will apply.
When the ArbCom includes a restriction as part of a decision in a case, or otherwise enacts a restriction, these exceptions do not automatically apply, but the ArbCom is urged to consider whether to include them in fashioning restrictions, and may include them by reference if it chooses.
In the case of the AfD and to a lesser extant the FA exception, article creators and major contributors are particularly likely to have relevant information and views, and it will aid the decision process if those views can be heard and form part of the discussion. While it is true that such views could be expressed on article talk pages or elsewhere, participants in the discussions are much less likely to see them there, and so will have a reduced chance to take the views into account.
In the case of noticeboard discussions, it seems only fair to give users a chance to defend or explain their actions or rebut comments about them, if possible.
In all cases the incentive of allowing comment where the user may particularly wish to comment can perhaps induce the user to comment in a civil and non-disruptive manner. This might just become a habit, to the benefit of all concerned.
This page has been proposed and has not yet received consensus. Please discuss reasons for supporting or opposing it, or for modifying its contents on the talk page. DES (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
When a user (who is not blocked or site banned) is subject to an editing limitation by community consensus that prohibits the user from editing in the Wikipedia: (or project) namespace, that restriction will be subject to the following exceptions, unless the statement of the restriction which gained consensus explicitly says otherwise.
- When an article which the restricted user created or was a major contributor to is nominated for deletion at AfD, the restricted user may edit the AfD page to comment in a civil and non-disruptive manner, and shall not be blocked for such comments.
- When an article which the restricted user created or was a major contributor to is nominated for Featured article status, the restricted user may edit the relevant project page to comment in a civil and non-disruptive manner, and shall not be blocked for such comments.
- When on any project notice board (such as WP:ANI, WP:COIN, WP:SPI or the like) the restricted user is mentioned by name, the restricted user may edit the relevant noticeboard thread to respond in a civil and non-disruptive manner to comments concerning his or her actions, and shall not be blocked for such comments.
In all cases such comments are expected to be brief, succinct, civil and focused on the specific issue under discussion. If these conditions are violated, for example if the user begins extensive line by line rebuttals of every comment, then the user will first be notified and if they fail to modify their behaviour the normal enforcement process will apply.
When the ArbCom includes a restriction as part of a decision in a case, or otherwise enacts a restriction, these exceptions do not automatically apply, but the ArbCom is urged to consider whether to include them in fashioning restrictions, and may include them by reference if it chooses.
In the case of the AfD and to a lesser extant the FA exception, article creators and major contributors are particularly likely to have relevant information and views, and it will aid the decision process if those views can be heard and form part of the discussion. While it is true that such views could be expressed on article talk pages or elsewhere, participants in the discussions are much less likely to see them there, and so will have a reduced chance to take the views into account.
In the case of noticeboard discussions, it seems only fair to give users a chance to defend or explain their actions or rebut comments about them, if possible.
In all cases the incentive of allowing comment where the user may particularly wish to comment can perhaps induce the user to comment in a civil and non-disruptive manner. This might just become a habit, to the benefit of all concerned.
This page has been proposed and has not yet received consensus. Please discuss reasons for supporting or opposing it, or for modifying its contents on the talk page. DES (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)