→Arbitrator views and discussion: 1RR still in effect |
JohnBlackburne (talk | contribs) →Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light: Adding new request |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification]]}} = |
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification]]}} = |
||
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}} |
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}} |
||
== Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light]] == |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' <small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> '''at''' 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|JohnBlackburne}} (initiator) |
|||
*{{userlinks|Brews ohare}} |
|||
=== Statement by JohnBlackburne === |
|||
It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case, {{la|Wavelength}}, because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wavelength&diff=485550591&oldid=485540353 tried to get] rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wavelength&diff=488386825&oldid=486098804 started an RfC] on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wavelength&diff=492684624&oldid=492684196 proposed a version of it yet again], as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wavelength&diff=492743502&oldid=492721325 dismissed] because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again). |
|||
My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by other user === |
|||
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements --> |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
|||
---- |
|||
== Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion]] == |
== Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion]] == |
Revision as of 00:15, 16 May 2012
Requests for clarification
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
Initiated by JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds at 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Statement by JohnBlackburne
It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but Brews ohare has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case, Wavelength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks tried to get rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected started an RfC on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today proposed a version of it yet again, as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be dismissed because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again).
My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Statement by SarekOfVulcan
An article was recently tagged as being under the community 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles. After some discussion, I realized that it was no longer clear that the community restriction was in effect. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions states that "This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community." However, the community authorization was in two parts -- the 1RR authorization, and the discretionary sanctions. On WP:GS, the whole thing is listed as superceded, but I'm not sure that was what was intended. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- According to User talk:Jclemens/Archive 9#1RR, it's probably still in effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Jclemens -- Pregnancy is not the article in question. As Collect points out below, it's Pro-life feminism. I didn't identify the article in my original statement because I wanted to clarify the general principle, rather than its application to this particular case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- And I agree this is a more-appropriate venue, I just thought it was best to link to the previous discussion instead of ignoring it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Roscelese -- I'm trying to keep this on "is there a 1RR in effect", not "should 1RR apply to this article". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
Queries: It the labelling of an article as being subject to being under 1RR properly done by any editor? Specifically, can an editor who is heavily involved in editing an article a fair source for so indicating that an article not previously labelled as being under a 1RR restriction is now under one? Is placement of the "1RR template" properly done by an involved editor who is not an administrator? Hypothetically, if an involved editor in an article which has not heretofore been identified as being "abortion related" adds material which is clearly "abortion related" can such an editor then add a template indicating that the article is under a 1RR "abortion related" restriction? Where the article has not been under such a prior restriction, is it proper for an involved editor to state that another editor has "violated" the 1RR restriction which was not noted at the article or article talk page? Can an involved admin place an article under the 1RR restriction? Does the placing of a restriction require the act of an uninvolved administrator? I apologize for the logical query string, but trust the issue is clear here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I read Jclemens posts somewhat differently than you do, and also note his position that an article on Pregnancy does not intuitively fall under the sanctions, even if the word "abortion" is in the article, unless the article is substantially about "abortion" proper. The case at hand is about "feminism" proper, and not specifically about "abortion" except to the extent that the word appears as a "feminism" issue (specifically "pro-life feminism"). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is Pro-life feminism strictly an "abortion" topic, or is it a "feminism" topic showing that feminists can and do have differing views about topics which happen to include abortion? I would note that in all the time since the abortion decision, this article has never been cited as falling into its purview. This comment, morevover, falls below the specific stated queries above, which I suggest reasonably ought to be answered in any case. In fact, the edit which aroused the ire was to remove an insufficiently sourced insertion of "abortion" into the article. Collect (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Note also that "abortion" is covered in every current political biography (inc. Santorum, Romney, Obama et al, and the campaign articles), pretty much, in the party articles, in the political spectrum articles (including Fascism, etc., and if a strict interpretation of "it says "abortion in it" is used, thousands of articles will be subject to the 1RR restriction. Somehow I doubt this is a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the committee, indeed. IOW, the law of unintended consequences seems to be at work here. Collect (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would note that Sarek views my position stated here [1] as somehow reaching:
- this statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken?
Which I regard as overkill in the context of this discussion. Is it the position of arbitrators that mentioning a search result is a basis for seeking a ban of any editor where I have made zero POV edits about "abortion" on any article whatsoever? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
@R - note that upon receiving the warning, I did attempt to self-revert, as I noted at the time. Thus I am "wriggling out of" nothing at all. What I am concerned with here is what is in my queries, which I would really like answered, instead of having miscellaneous noticeboards brought into this. It is procedure which is the issue, and nothing else, as far as I am concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
@R I am glad you made an edit [2] at 21:20 on 3 April which far better comports with the source, which was what I asked for in the first place. Though it took a BLP/N discussion to show you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
[3] shows my notice of an attempt to self-revert - before 18:26 on 2 April. - thus making some of the "charges" made here a tad irrelevent. I trust this clears the air of the charge that I am "wriggling out" of anything. Collect (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Roscelese
- The article in question is about an anti-abortion movement and is inseparable from the subject of abortion. Past decisions (I'm referring to calls I know Sarek has made, but this may be true of other admins as well) have also held that material related to abortion falls under the sanction even if the article in general is not about abortion, eg. discussion of abortion in a biography of someone whose notability was not as an activist. The applicability of the case to the specific article is not in doubt; the question is whether 1RR is still active. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Sarek: Yes, exactly. I'm trying to bring the discussion back around to the topic, not to Collect's attempts to wriggle out of an edit-warring warning at that article. :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Collect: You're joking, right? April Fools' Day is over. You were edit-warring to remove the classification of O'Brien as an anti-abortion activist in favor of saying her position was representative of Irish women, and the article still calls her an anti-abortion activist and doesn't misrepresent sources to claim she's more representative than she is. I do hope this means you're done edit-warring and misrepresenting sources, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Statement by MastCell
I think the question here is whether 1RR is in effect on abortion-related articles. I think the answer is yes. A community-enacted 1RR restriction was in place before the case. ArbCom found that "All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization." Presumably, "all sanctions" includes the 1RR. It would be good to get a quick confirmation of this from the Committee, since it's apparently a matter of dispute. MastCell Talk 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Sarek, is Pregnancy the article in question? As far as what I said before, I would encourage other arbitrators to look at the question with fresh eyes, because it was certainly never my intent to issue a binding opinion on the matter; this venue is certainly more appropriate than my talk page and its archives. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Recused. Risker (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Has the 1RR restriction been widely enforced since the Abortion case was decided? AGK [•] 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with MastCell, the answer is 'yes', the 1RR is still in place. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Aye, my interpretation of the bit Mastcell quoted is that 1RR still applies. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)