User talk:Sue Gardner/sandbox

Hi Sue. I do have a few suggestions/comments. One of my biggest issues often with ArbCom is that it's often geared towards a very small specific group of people who will be the primary contributors to the discussion for it's duration, so I generally suggest adding examples and/or further context to responses, but, perhaps that isn't necessary (I'm not sure it is, and perhaps I'm just using this talk page to whine about that ;) ) . But, things read well and clear, and it will make a good contribution to the workshop page.

Your statement in comparing the comments on the Manning article to stupid comments on the New Testament article are good. We have seen this with the pregnancy and pro-choice/abortion articles debates, and content rarely gets struck, like it does in Articles for Deletion. (It's not rocket science....) I look forward to seeing how that progresses.

The one thing that I think needs help that I didn't quite sort out in my own head:
 * I think there is something (a word/grammar) missing from this section header: "Editors who labeled as transphobic comments such as the ones described above are not admonished."

Other than that, that's all I have to say right now :) Thanks for taking up the fight!!! SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sarah! The syntax in that header is awkward, I know. It's intended to say "Editors-who-labelled-as-transphobic [the] comments (such as the ones described above) are not admonished." But that seems worse not better. "The editors who labeled other people's comments as transphobic should not be admonished." Maybe that is clearer.


 * On the examples/context: There has been a ton of evidence-gathering --- so I think that other people have already done a better job of capturing everything that happened than I could hope to do. Rather than duplicating their work, and maybe omitting stuff that matters, I think I will just consider that part done.


 * Thanks so much for looking at this! I really wanted to get someone's eye on it before I submitted it, so that I don't do anything obviously wrong :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sue, hope you don't mind me adding my own feedback here as well.

I would suggest that in the principles section, you reword the "Editors will not be sanctioned" to something along the lines of "Editors should not be sanctioned". Not only is this more consistent with a "principle", it also recognises that it's not possible to actively regulate the behaviour of each individual on the site. The best that can be hoped for is to set clear guidelines on what should or should not happen and work from there.

I'd also suggest that on a historical basis it would be unusual (if not unprecedented) for ArbCom to pass a motion not admonishing someone. If DG and Morwen acted in a manner consistent with existing policy they would probably simply not be mentioned at all. There is a perception that if you survive AFD without getting at least a slap over your wrist you must be saintly, so I don't feel that this would be needed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC).