The ""reliable sourcing restriction"" as written is problematic; it doesn't allow for the reversion of vandalism, nor for good-faith editors who restore disputed sources without being aware that they have been previously removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just remember when we used to treat new and good faith editors with a modicum of courtesy and consideration, and would like to return to that ethos. I'm also unclear how changing "no editor may reinstate the source..." to, say, "no editor, once made aware of this restriction (and with the exception of reverting unambiguous vandalism), may reinstate the source..." would lessen its effectiveness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the decision's wording Administrators may enforce this restriction(emphasis mine) already give admins the discretion that they would have with the additional text you just proposed? In other words, "may enforce...with blocks" doesn't mean "must block". In other, other words, if we have admins zooming around blocking new and good faith editors, maybe it's an administrator problem, not an arbcom problem. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does say "may". It says an admin may block a user who restores a disputed link, even if they do so while reverting vandalism, and that an admin may block a novice, good-faith user who restores such a link even while being completely unaware of the restriction. Why would we want to say these things? Under what policy "may" an admin make such blocks? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Arbitration report