This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by T. Canens ( talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This request is prompted by a recent AE request, in which the practice of naming the applicable discretionary sanctions provision after an editor caused confusion on an editor who is not very familiar with the AE process. The three listed cases are the only cases named after individual editor(s) with a discretionary sanctions provision, according to WP:AC/DS; all other cases are named after the relevant topic area instead.
I recommend that the Committee make a cosmetic amendment that allows these discretionary provisions to be easily referenced using an arbitration case named after the subject area instead of individual editor(s). Not only is the latter approach rather counterintuitive and potentially confusing (if someone unfamiliar with AE wants to look up the discretionary sanctions provision for Eastern Europe, WP:DIGWUREN is not really the most obvious place to look), but it is also rather unfair to the editors at issue to have their usernames perpetuated in literally years of AE requests that usually have nothing to do with them. Digwuren ( talk · contribs), for example, has not edited since June 2009, yet his username has been, and will be, by necessity, brought up in all AE discussions related to Eastern Europe simply because, by happenstance, the discretionary sanctions in this topic area was passed in a case named after him. As Newyorkbrad observed in a somewhat analogous situation, such a situation is "neither dignified nor fair". T. Canens ( talk) 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems like an excellent idea Tim.
I support Tim's proposal to rename these cases. Replacing 'Digwuren' with 'Eastern Europe' sounds good. The acronym
WP:ARBEE is available even though
WP:EE is in use. Another option is
WP:EECASE. We should not worry too much about confusing the proposed name, 'Eastern Europe', with
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, since that case is less well known and there have been no enforcement actions since 2009. Tim did not mention
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys, also known as
WP:ARBRB. If you want to include ARBRB in the reform, then how about 'Former Soviet Union' as a new name.
EdJohnston (
talk) 07:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I would also like for WP:ARBRB to be renamed to something that does not include my username. I see no reason why I should also be required to put up with an Arb case being named (partly) after me, when the issues of the case were deeper than that -- as suggested by Ed above. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 10:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This has been suggested before, IIRC, had some support but because it wasn't seen as urgent at the time no one got around to carrying through. This is a good time to implement it then. I think Tim articulates the reasons for why this is a good idea quite well, so I don't have much to add on that.
All of Timotheus C's and EdJohnston's specific renaming suggestion are good. VolunteerMarek 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This is both long overdue and welcome.
To some of the other comments, I don't see that EEML poses any confusion issue. This does leave us with what I see as one issue remaining regarding the above and all that has been stated so far:
I would like to see a more active approach to renaming cases as soon as their enforcement bounds move beyond the scope of the original case and editors involved. There is no useful purpose to stigmatizing editors on any side of an issue manifesting strong disagreements amongst editors. I trust that actions here will set a positive precedent. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems the previous case that is named Eastern European Disputes was renamed for similar reasons as it was also previously named after a specific editor. However, it appears the Digwuren case has been the only one cited with regards to sanctions in the topic area. Not sure what the appropriate action would be there but several of the same editors are mentioned in those two cases and they involve the same topic area. As far as potential short names I think WP:EEUR or WP:EASTEUR would be good ones as they are regularly-used abbreviations and sufficiently distinct from the existing short names such as EEML.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
2) The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Pseudoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken through, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are stricken through, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Pseudoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion.
The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move.
For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.
Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 12:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Gatoclass ( talk) at 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Although I do not usually adjudicate disputes at WP:AE, I decided to assist on the recently filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article. Since I have had no prior involvement in Azerbaijan-Armenian articles, I assumed I was entitled to participate. However, I have experienced a growing unease about my participation in this case, based on the fact that I have had some involvement (albeit long ago) on East European articles (which I believe are covered by WP:DIGWUREN). While most sources appear to place Azerbaijan and Armenia in Western Asia, some seem to place these countries in Eastern/Southeastern Europe, in which case, ARBAA2 might be considered a subset of WP:DIGWUREN. On the other hand, it appears that DIGWUREN is concerned mostly with disputes between Russians and other East Europeans, while ARBAA2 concerns a national dispute between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. ARBAA2 contains no reference to DIGWUREN that I can see, but nonetheless, I think this issue needs clarification. A quick response would be greatly appreciated since the AE case concerned is still active. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Shall Gatoclass' comments in on the recently filed AE request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article be removed since the community believes that his participation in this and similar cases is objectionable? Dehr ( talk) 02:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I may have come across this too late, as five members of ARBCOM have already shared their thoughts, but nevertheless I feel obliged to point out something ARBCOM may be overlooking. NYB states that Gatoclass may be construing "involved" greater then necessary as pertaining to EE in general. He is probably right, but he and Gatoclass are overlooking the involvement in Arab-Israel related articles, and how his involvement in A-I disputes may effect his involvement in EE disputes.
In addition to regular content disputes at A-I related articles, Gatoclass frequently comments at AE threads concerning editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict (almost always favoring one side of the general dispute). More pertinently, he files AE reports on other editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict and has had reports filed against him by editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict (he was sort of blocked once for edit warring, [1] FWTW).
If Gatoclass never found himself at AE in connection with the Arab-Israel conflict there would be no problem. However as Gatoclass is frequently a participant, the potential for conflict is clear. Gatoclass shouldn't be making determinations together with the same few admins that are arbitrating his disputes in another forum.
To put in a legal framework, a judge sitting on a panel cannot practice before the panel even on matters unrelated to their panel for which they sit together. I am not aware of any editors faced with this similar conflict so I don't know if this came up before. I would like to hear ARBCOM's position on this. Thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. at 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
{{
Warning}}
template has been applied to
Talk:Armenian Genocide with the following text: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war."I seek explicit clarification whether this applies only to that article, or also to other related articles, should the need arise. I raise this question in particular about the article Van cat, especially (as of the article structure right now) the lead, the infobox, and the section Van cat#Naming controversy, recently merged in from Van cat naming controversy, a highly contentious article used for PoV-pushing of all sorts, pro/anti-Armenian, -Turk, and -Kurd. I would like to apply the same Talk:Armenian Genocide warning to Talk:Van cat only if/when necessary; my interpretation of the the ArbCom cases with regard to Armenia-related topics suggests that would be permissible. A housecat article seems an unlikely place for this sort of ethnic feud, and it's been quiet lately in the wake of two ArbCom cases about Armenia-related edit-wars, which involved blocks that put a damper on some participants for a while, but I have no doubt that the issue will come up again. It's an article about a variety of cat that is claimed as a major cultural symbol by all three ethnicities, so it will be targeted for PoV-pushing in the future, guaranteed. I would like to know whether the "1RR" imposed by ArbCom on "Armenia... and related disputes" can be extended to this article when the tooth-gnashing inevitably begins again. I have no political stake in the question; in this, I'm just a WP:CATS editor trying to reduce racialist "noise" in a cat article that's been repeatedly hijacked for WP:GREATWRONGS purposes. The related article Turkish Van has seen some of this too, but but I think the split-off of Van cat and the subsequent merger of Van cat naming controversy into Van cat will "concentrate the fire" on that article when the "its OUR cat!" issue pops up again. Nonetheless, should the need arise, I include the article Turkish Van and potentially also Turkish Angora, and any results of splits, mergers or PoV-forks of any of these articles, and any cat-related sections in other relevant articles (e.g. Turkey, Armenia, Lake Van, etc.), in this request for clarification. I'm posting this because other cases are clearer. E.g. Template:ARBPIA says "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR", but the equivalent for Armenia disputes does not include such "broadly construed" language. PS: Count this as a "vote" for more consistent enforcement and remedies wording. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Ergo, if an editor makes edits to the cat article pushing an ethnic/national POV they can be warned under the discretionary sanction, and if they have already been warned, can be blocked as an enforcement." – That's what I thought. I'm about 80% done preparing and WP:AN/I (or maybe WP:AE would be better in this case) and concomitant WP:SSI case about this, but holding out some hope that further discussion with the user in question will render that unnecessary. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The original remedy covered "all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". [2] Now this was replaced by Standard discretionary sanctions, which cover "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted". In my understanding, broadly interpreted "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" are the same as "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". Am I getting it right? Grand master 10:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Leave this section for others to add additional statements
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ at 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This request for clarification is rather short and straightforward; a discussion about whether or not Jesus is part of the Palestinian people has spilled over to the page about Jesus. For future reference and to avoid misunderstandings: Is discussing and editing "Jesus as a Palestinian" within the scope of the case? Should it be? Thank you.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Timrollpickering ( talk) at 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Is the process for settling the abortion article names binding upon the names of related categories? A good faith renaming of Category:Pro-life movement was recently proposed but withdrawn due to the ongoing RFC. There is uncertainty about whether or not the names chosen for the articles will be binding upon related categories and as one of the regular CFD closers it would be helpful to have clarity on this before it come up again. In my view it is generally undesirable to have the most contentious article naming debates refought at CFD, especially if the option of "go and get the article renamed instead" is unavailable.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by —chaos5023 ( talk) at 16:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In the resolution generating this RFC, a "community vote" with opinions presented was called for. It is not completely clear to participants whether this means an actual vote, as in numeric results tallied and considered binding, or the usual Wikipedia WP:NOTVOTE. Please let us know which is desired. Further, if ArbCom has any feedback on the advisability of the currently open proposal to use Borda count as a vote resolution mechanic, should voting actually be called for, that would be very helpful.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) at 17:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I've been involved at AE recently as an administrator, and I was looking over the current request concerning MONGO because no one seemed to want to touch it. The Devil's Advocate left me a message here indicating I may be considered involved in this dispute. I have occasionally popped in at the September 11th attacks and 9/11 conspiracy theories articles to help tamp down some of the trolling that inevitably goes on there, but I haven't been really involved in the content there (although I did help with one very minor content addition in September 2010 which has nothing to do with conspiracy theories). The edit in question is this, which (as I stated on my talkpage) I remember making because having "conspiracy theories" and "alternative theories" in the same sentence there seemed redundant and unnecessarily verbose. However, I would like to be certain about what, if any, involvement this constitutes; given there's an active AE thread now, I would like to hear back as soon as possible. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Given Blade's comment about September 2010 I looked at the revision history of the talk page around that time and found this additional diff suggesting involvement. I think that one is a little more clearly pointing to involvement. Also, I should note the current AE case concerns edits on the 9/11 article in general, so the various disputes Blade got involved with on the article talk page at that time would have relevance to the question of involvement.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(Redacted) -- DHeyward ( talk) 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Shrike ( talk) at 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
According to rules socks edits are exempt from 1RR as far as I understand.But if sock did some useful edit for example removed word that not in the source
[4] or removed not
WP:RS
[5].Does blanket revert of the sock is OK(Does it considered
WP:TE)?
[6],
[7],
[8].Can other user revert to the sock version if he thinks his version is better?
Ok never mind I withdraw my request Sean have clarified it for me more or less.-- Shrike ( talk) 10:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Ban#Evasion_and_enforcement. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by T. Canens ( talk) at 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Making this request on Alanscottwalker's behalf, who mistakenly filed it at AE. I have no opinion on the merits of this request. T. Canens ( talk) 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This week Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images opened, after mediation to construct the RfC. Of course, no one yet knows what consensus may emerge, if any, but we do know that, although shorter times for leaving the RfC open were discussed during mediation, that did not gain support and it is now shceduled to last 30 days. This takes us past the deadline in the case (two months), please amend. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Copied from [10] T. Canens ( talk) 06:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Silk Tork: I agree that no RfC need be open for 30 days but that's where we are with this RfC. Also, to be exact, the RFC is set for 30 days, and then a three admin close will be requested, and of course they have to take what time they need. And only then will it, hopefully, be able to be implemented (at least on the issues where they find consensus).
AGK: It would seem deadlines are good process, which I assume was the impetus behind the original (as the committee is aware it's probably not a good idea to say, 'go, as long as it takes' in this case). So amending is also good process. (feet to fire and all that) I move 30 days, addition, with automatic additions of 15 days, if progress is occurring. Hopefully, all necessary consensus will be revealed in the RfC, but if that does not occur, either a new RfC or another binding process would need to be explored (on any issues left). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Dmitri is correct. I apologize if that was unclear. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Please also see [11] for a recent concern about a, perhaps, less than conclusive outcome for part of this RfC. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 10:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's my belief that User:Alanscottwalker's intention is more that the timeline of Remedy 1 be amended by the Committee, not that the Committee instructs the community to shorten the length of the RFC. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) at 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Remedy 3A: Tenmei banned for one year
I believe reduction of the ban to the six months already served might be undertaken at little or no risk, and to the great benefit of content, this user, and others.
I keep finding articles and content created by User:Tenmei; this is a list of the articles created by Tenmei; this a complete list of Tenmei's contributions (56,561); this a breakdown of Tenmei's edits (74.22% to articles). I believe that this user, other editors, and the wider public of readers are currently being deprived by the continuation of this ban. Lest "eventualism" be cited, in many of these fields content contributors are few, and those with this user's knowledge, abilities, and commitment very few indeed.
Per Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns:
I understand that User:Tenmei is indefinitely banned from the topic; whatever the arguments about this, I imagine the user too might agree that their involvement in this area (?perhaps also others?) has not had its desired affect. I also understand that User:Tenmei has been advised sometimes to amend his style of communication - while I would not presume to be Mentor to so intelligent, knowledgeable, and experienced an editor, perhaps as one less involved and at a greater distance I might be able to advise in future when their attempts at reasoning seem to be falling upon deaf ears; perhaps also, due to the length of this ban, the user themselves will have concluded that in such instances, whether for right or wrong, their efforts might from now on be better directed to other articles than in prolongation of attempts to reach consensus with other editors with different educational backgrounds, points of view, and approaches to reason.
I would imagine the ban has had its deterrent effect and also allowed sufficient time for 'cooling off'. Please could the one year ban be reduced to the six months already served. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Please consider, as just one example amongst many, the user's efforts here to diffuse a content dispute: 1, 2, and 3; articles were then created a, b, c, d, e, f, g. Presumably you would agree that this is an exceptionally constructive way of proceeding. Would it help if I were to present other, similar sequences? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Cla68 ( talk) at 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to request removal of the topic ban. I was thinking of not ever requesting a return to the topic, but an incident caused me to reconsider.
I am a daily reader of the Japan Times newspaper. One of my WP activities is adding citations to articles, mainly about Japan, related to articles I read in the morning's paper. I think it was this edit using a non-web-available citation, which made me reconsider the topic ban. The citation in question contained some useful information on Japan's response to carbon-reduction efforts, which is related to the global warming issue. Because of the topic ban, I was able to use the citation to add some non-related information to the article, but was unable to add the information related to global warming. I realized that the ban was getting in the way of me being able to improve articles on Japan.
Since the ban was enacted on 14 October 2010, the following is a sample of my contributions to Wikipedia, both in article and admin space:
On 9 October 2011, Cla68 ( talk · contribs) posted on Wikipedia Review:
Fortunately for WMC, Wikipedia doesn't have a "Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule, or he would have been sent on his way long ago.
Here's the thing, I truly don't belive that WMC, Stephan Schulz, Kim Dabelstein Peterson, or Short Brigade Harvester Boris are really scientists, because I can't belive that true scientists would act as deceitfully, dishonestly, or as insecurely and cowardly as they act. If they are really scientists, I would like to know which universities they teach at to ensure that I don't send my kids to those bush league institutions. To be clear, I respect scientists who truly believe in man-made global warming but recognize that they might be wrong. The ones who don't are the ones who try to use Wikipedia to artificially socialize their positions. [21]
That statement raises some doubt in my mind as to whether Cla68 has, in fact, moved past a battleground mentality on climate-change articles.
Regarding the admissibility of off-site commentary, policy clearly states that "personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions... Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." MastCell Talk 19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom's
2010 finding referred to Cla68's "inappropriate use of sources".
Recently, Cla68 ignored talk page discussion showing that a source was fringe and at best questionable, and joined in with suggestions that it be used as a source for other articles.
[22]
[23] After being advised this was inappropriate, he added a new section based solely on this source to one of the articles.
[24] When I undid this addition,
[25] he posted accusations on my talk page,
[26] took it up on the article talk page,
[27] and also took it to
FTN and
RSN. Cla68 received little or no support in these discussions, or in the continuation of the
original discussion.
The links in the Arbcom finding show misrepresentation of a reliable source: this instance is different in being, in my opinion, disruptive pushing of an unreliable fringe source while omitting mainstream context. . .
dave souza,
talk 19:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Replace the CC topic ban by a 0RR restriction for CC related edits originally made by Cla68 himself. This means that when corrected or completely reverted by non-vandals, Cla68 cannot revert back, but he can revert any other edits (and that only once, because once he reverts it counts as his edits, so it amounts to 1RR such a case). Count Iblis ( talk) 02:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I think this is effective is because Cla68 is then forced to think carefully if his edits will stick before making them. Then given that most active editors in this topic edit from the scientific POV that means having to approach editing the topic from that angle, and this may lead Cla68 to read more about the topic from scientific sources. The scientific aspects of the topic are not controversial (at least not within the scientific community, the controversy is far more political in nature), so that may lead Cla68's view on the topic to change in the direction of most of the current editors there. Count Iblis ( talk) 20:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Why not lift Cla68's topic ban for a trial period, say 6 weeks or some fixed number of edits? After that trial period expires, ArbCom can judge better if Cla68's topic ban can be lifted, if some restriction need to be in place, or if it cannot be lifted at all. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Count Iblis' proposal makes sense in this context. Straightforward revert warring is one of those things that can actually be handled reasonably well (in most cases) by existing enforcement processes; a focus on mechanical counting of reverts would seem to miss the point here. While the arbitration case's findings certainly touched on Cla68's edit warring, also mentioned – and arguably more harmful – were his misuse of sources, incivility, and overall battleground mentality.
Above (in his response to MastCell) Cla68 presents his tepid support for an easing of WMC's editing restrictions as evidence of his reformed conduct; he doesn't think that the ArbCom should take notice of his egregious personal attacks on WMC just a few days later, where he calls into question WMC's professional ethics and basic competence, accusing WMC (and other scientists and fellow editors) of behaving "deceitfully, dishonestly...insecurely and cowardly" and regretting the absence of a ""Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule" that would eliminate WMC from this project.
That isn't the mark of an editor who has left his battleground attitude behind; it's an editor who is playing games with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. We get one superficially reasonable comment for the benefit of watching Arbitrators on-wiki; we get egregious personal attacks off-wiki. Does Cla68 believe that WMC (and the other editors he attacked) should be allowed to edit, or not? If so, why make the attacks on Wikipedia Review? If not, why endorse the return of WMC in his comment here? Cla68 is surely well aware that Wikipedia Review is fairly widely read by Wikipedia editors, and he made his attacks there well before WMC's appeal was closed. Was he expecting his comments there to influence the outcome here, or was it just another cheap shot intended to poison the editing environment after WMC's ban was partially lifted, or what? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, it appears that Cla68 was violating the terms of his climate change topic ban by even commenting on WMC's appeal, a point which has been apparently missed so far in this discussion. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
On recent misuse of sources. I've hatted this myself, since I had missed that Dave Souza covered this already. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In those discussions, Cla68's position was universally rejected by the editors who participated. Cla68 nevertheless tried to declare the discussion at WP:RSN closed as lacking consensus ( [34]) and implied that the discussions had been tainted by the presence of non-neutral parties and non-'regular' contributors to WP:RSN and WP:FTN. Arguing strenuously across multiple discussion pages for the inclusion of a dubious source and for content giving undue weight to a non-expert's opinion strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that should ring alarm bells when the ArbCom considers returning an editor to climate change topics. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
I oppose Cla68's request for a blanket lifting of his ban. I would have been prepared to argue for a partial lifting, but I think that the quote MastCell provides is powerful evidence of the disruptive nature of Cla68, and that that his problematic attitudes continue. It is also evidence of his two-faced-ness: on-wiki, he strives for smoothness, but off-wiki the truth emerges. Cla68 attempts to dismiss this as a mere ad hominem argument and fails in any way to address the obvious problems that it demonstrates; I suggest that means any relaxation is inappropriate William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I notice that Cla68 has recently announced his intent to edit for money [35]. Its possible that this is just trolling [36] (which would itself speak against Cla68) but if it is intended seriously, it further argues against easing the restriction due to the high possibility of COI this could cause William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This request here is really a test of ArbCom - not Cla68 who in my opinion is a very good editor with no attachment to the climate change area at all. I find it truly amazing that arbitrators - after lifting the ban of editors as abusive as William M. Connolley (who engaged in battlefield conduct in his own request to have his ban lifted!) - are apparently listening to biased statements by William Connolley and his supporters.
I would like to make some pertinent points:
Since they were both given the same topic ban, it is instructive to compare the quality of evidence in the case of WMC and Cla68.
Evidence for lack of civility
WMC #1: 'you're still a noob in some ways. ... I finally got bored of your repeated errors and told you'. Cla #1: 'Trying to introduce any of these viewpoints into an AGW article in Wikipedia is often extremely difficult because of POV-warring by a group of editors who mainly edits those articles'. (a general statement, not directed at individuals, a perfectly accurate observation, and stated politely.) IMPORTANT NOTE: this is the ONLY diff of Cla68 about civility that occurred outside the ArbCom case itself, where people typically are allowed to speak more freely for obvious reasons.
WMC #2: (in the second edit WMC redacted another editor's comment with 'redacted PA - WMC' because the other editor wrote him 'Hi Will'. Cla #2: (after being accused of misrepresenting suggests "one side" is being "disingenuous").
WMC #3: (after being blocked for 48 hours for blatant violation of talk page rules by editing others' talk page comments, WMC edits the administrator's comment with [pap redacted - WMC] and [pap redacted - WMC]. Cla #3: (Cla68 points out using diffs that an admin claiming to be uninvolved is actually involved. The closest to 'incivility' I find is "Come on!" (Yes, that's right. Cla68 really did use an exclamation mark.)
WMC #4: (after ATren asks why pointing out WMC's incivility is the same as a 'vendetta', WMC directs ATren to his personal blog that makes it clear he is calling ATren a 'fool' and much worse. Cla #4: (criticises an Arb for not looking at the evidence against WMC close enough. In the process, points out that WMC repeatedly violated the BLPs of RealClimate's critics.)
I will stop at #4 but the morbidly curious should review the remaining WMC diffs to see how ridiculous it was to compare the behaviour of Cla68 with WMC in the first place.
Evidence for inappropriate use of sources
This is possibly the silliest of the three claims. Cla68 attempted to use a peer reviewed paper by William M. Connolley himself in an article. Three diffs are given to present the appearance of a pattern of behaviour, but in fact the remaining two diffs are just talk page comments. The totality of evidence given that Cla68 'inappropriately' used sources is a demonstration that he cited a paper by William Connolley.
Evidence for edit-warring
In order to demonstrate edit-warring you typically need to show that 3RR was violated, or in limited cases, perhaps 1RR. The evidence here though simply involves 7 unrelated reverts. It's possible that Cla68 was edit warring, of course; but this evidence doesn't show it.
So let me be clear and state this as politely as possible - the suggestion that Cla68's behaviour was within even the same orbit as WMC's - based on the evidence presented - is sad. Alex Harvey ( talk) 05:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (signature added belatedly.)
One of the possible interim solutions to help Cla68 regain the trust of the community is to allow one talk page entry per day per article in the previously banned topic. The talk page entry could be used to suggest changes to the article. Binksternet ( talk) 08:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I managed to find an online source for the Japan Times article Cla is mentioning. Though it is just a screen capture on Flickr it is sufficiently legible to see what he is talking about. All the article says related to climate change is that the solar power plant would significantly reduce Japan's carbon emissions. It doesn't touch on the general dispute over climate change so his concern about the topic ban in this respect is legitimate. Reducing the topic ban to be a more limited ban as Jclemens suggests would appropriately address that concern about having difficulty improving articles such as this. Perhaps the topic ban should be limited to any edits specifically on the dispute over anthropogenic global warming. In other words, mentioning climate change or matters related to climate change would be permitted so long as the edits do not have the effect of addressing the dispute over anthropogenic global warming.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Cla68 is a very good editor on military and historical articles, but to be honest, his editing over at Intelligent design leaves me seriously doubtful of his competence when it comes to editing on science articles. I can point to one specific incident that crystallized this idea for me. Last January, Cla tagged the intelligent design article as a scientific theory. By itself, this edit should raise a very large red flag. He was reverted by Guettarda, who opened a talk page thread on the revert. Cla responded there, and that's when things really got crazy. Everyone here should go and read that thread in its entirety, because (IMO) Cla's comments there are so bizarre that it makes me seriously doubt his abilities as an editor. He said, among other things, that because Intelligent Design's advocates say that it is a scientific theory, we should simply take their word that it is when categorizing the article. Further, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between reporting on an advocate's belief and sharing that belief. To wit:
He went on to say that Wikipedia should avoid "taking a stand" on issues where there is any disagreement. As I responded to him there: Wikipedia "takes a side" anytime we say anything is factual that anyone disagrees with. Flat earthers claim that the world is flat. Creationists claim the Universe is about 6,000 years old. Holocaust deniers claim that only a few hundred thousand Jews died during World War II. Should be write articles to take these competing claims into account, in order to avoid taking sides? Should we describe the earth as "allegedly round" because doing otherwise would be taking sides in the flat earth "debate"? No, obviously we do not. Obviously, we should not. We have to use our critical thinking skills (*gasp*) to sort out which assertions are true and which ones are not. On Wikipedia, this is done by using reliable sources.
It's worth noting that after my above reply, Cla simply ignored me and continued (three more times) to assert that Wikipedia should avoid taking a stand, a textbook case of wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He also claimed that nowhere in Wikipedia's policies could he find a definition of what does and does not constitute science. (Needless to say, it didn't take me or others long to find such a definition) The discussion only ended when people started losing patience with his tactic of ignoring rebuttals and then bringing up the same debunked talking points two or three comments later. But even the reason he gave to end the discussion is alarming: "Clearly, current consensus is against adding a science category to this article, although I don't think policy supports the majority position." In other words, the dozens of comments by others made no impact whatsoever on his thinking and he was only dropping it because he could not find anyone to agree with him. This is classic tendentious editing. And, all of this happened *after* he was admonished by the arbitration committee about "battlefield conduct". (Cla68 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring,[154][155][156][157][158][159][160] inappropriate use of sources,[161][162][163] and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality,[164][165][166][167] -- Wikipedia:ARBCC#Cla68.27s_battlefield_conduct
Cla is a good editor on military and historical topics, and his failings that I've described aren't particularly relevant to those areas. But he is here asking for permission to be allowed to edit highly contentious scientific articles, when his track record suggests he is clearly not competent to edit them. Raul654 ( talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with Cla68's editing on science-related topics, but I'd like to confirm that he's continued to make first-rate edits to military history articles, and was very helpful in preparing the Battle of Arawe article for its recent successful FAC. He's also made important contributions to the Air raids on Japan article which is currently at FAC, and these edits included adding excellent material on the long-running debate over the morality and legality of the bombing of Japanese civilians. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Noting the suggestions below, I would think that allowing him to edit on Japan-related articles in general including those on CC issues involving Japan and related areas should be reasonable - if he specifically edit wars on CC issues therein (I am not counting typos, sourced corrections, etc. which just happen to be in a CC section, etc.) existing noticeboards should be sufficient to determine the severity of the offence. Wikipedia ought never be a game in which people count the numbers of editors blocked or banned on each side, seeking to get more of "them" blocked than of "us." I suggest that "1.5RR" type rules tend to bring out baiters and the like in profusion. Collect ( talk) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
On the talk page, Cla68 wrote: Committee, is there going to be any more discussion on my amendment request? If not, could you please close it? I was reminded that it was still open when I saw this article in this morning's Japan Times and realized that I still don't know if I can add such information to the appropriate WP article. Cla68 ( talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I will say that I'm not only skeptical about the value of lifting Cla68's restrictions, but I'm skeptical about its supposed basis and the sincerity of the request itself. -- Calton | Talk 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
To check back in here: I would have us decline this request for amendment, with the understanding that we can re-visit in about six months. At that time, I think we will be in a position to remove the topic ban - so long as no new evidence comes to light in the interim. I cannot support a circumscribed topic-ban; if an editor is banned from Climate change, then he is inherently unsuited to even the most incremental restoration of editing privileges, and frankly it's too large a risk for my liking. AGK [•]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — Cirt ( talk) at 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm requesting permission from the Committee to contribute towards a Featured List drive on the page I'd created, Dan Savage bibliography (originally modeled after the WP:FL page, George Orwell bibliography).
May I be permitted to work on this Featured List drive? — Cirt ( talk) 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much to Featured List Director, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs), for offering to help me out in this featured list drive. The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) added helpful comments at the Featured List Candidacy of a prior list page I successfully improved to WP:FL quality status, 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. The offer of help from an editor experienced in the Featured List process, especially coming from a Featured List Director, is most appreciated. — Cirt ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As a featured list director, I'd like to offer my assistance where needed in this drive, I'm happy to provide peer review comments and any other assistance deemed necessary to ensure good and correct progress is made. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
My two cents I'm happy to give my perspective and honored that Cirt wanted to emulate the FL I made. First off, I'm not terribly familiar with the dispute above, but I have interacted with Cirt on a handful of occasions and found him to be a helpful and reasonable editor. If he wants to work on an FL, I think that's in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if he plays nice there and makes quality work in a collaborative spirit, that can give good reason to think that his editing restrictions could be further eased. I see no harm in this and a great potential. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with sanctions is determining the point at which they no longer serve a sensible purpose. I understand that ArbCom may feel that when they say 12 months, they mean nothing less, but I will argue that such a stance is counter-productive. ArbCom enjoys a good deal of support from much of the community and it does not need to be seen to be stern or inflexible merely to reinforce its authority.
In this case, we know Cirt to be a productive editor, and I believe the desired outcome is for him to be able to edit without causing the problems that led to the arbitration case. This amendment is not asking for the restriction to be lifted in general, but for a single, well-defined exception to be made - and that under the guidance of a well-respected mentor. One of the important mechanisms in rehabilitation is for the restricted party to solve their problems in a controlled situation, thereby demonstrating the skills required to have the restriction removed. It seems to me that working a bibliography up to a Featured List within TRM's overview would fit that scenario well.
This amendment is not asking for the restriction to be vacated, and I would argue that allowing an exception to be made for one list in the way proposed has many pros and almost no cons. I hope the members of ArbCom will view this comment sympathetically, and for what it's worth, I would be willing to also offer my help with the Featured List process, should Cirt be allowed to bring the bibliography up to that level. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
1) Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt ( talk · contribs) is granted an exemption in order to edit the article Dan Savage bibliography, its talk page, a peer review for that article, and a featured list candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at anytime, or by further motion of this Committee.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by —chaos5023 ( talk) at 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
One of the options we wound up adding to the RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles#Arguments and policies regarding merging and refactoring into Abortion debate and Abortion debate in RegionName, could use some contextual clarification in two regards:
Thanks! —chaos5023 ( talk) 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk at 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Under Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, any editor could provide warning of the sanctions. The single sentence at WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions is unclear whether the warning must be provided by an uninvolved administrator or whether any editor may provide the warning. WP:AC/DS seems to say any editor can provide the warning. Please clarify. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I also urge the clarification to be made. Including whether an "involved editor" may invoke the sanctions, an "uninvolved editor", an "involved administrator" or an "uninvolved administrator." Collect ( talk) 19:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that anyone can provide a warning -- it's left to an uninvolved admin to impose the actual sanctions. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sarek. The way WP:AC/DS is currently worded, anyone can give a warning. I don't follow Malik's reasoning as to how the ARBPIA wording creates any difference from the usual practice in other cases. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:On reflection it might be OK if *anyone* could warn but the person who warned (if not an admin) would have to ask an admin to log it in the case. That might serve as a quality control for inappropriate warnings.
EdJohnston (
talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
When an editor files an AE report, this is what they are shown.
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> #Warned on [http://Difflink1 Date] by {{user|Name of administrator who imposed warning 1}} #Warned on [http://Difflink2 Date] by {{user|Name of administrator who imposed warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line}}
Note that it says administrator. I think it's fair to say, at least in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, that official notification of the sanctions by an admin and logging of that notification are widely seen as prerequisites to filing an AE report. For example, there is an editor active right now who is probably already way over the line in terms of their behavior towards other editors, although unusually he is being equally obnoxious to people he views as being on opposite sides of the conflict. A practical issue, in terms of operating the discretionary sanctions, seems to be specifying what constitutes the kind of warning that meets the requirements for filing an AE report. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Adding to Sean Hoyland's evidence above, it may also be worth pointing out that ARBPIA's official log of notifications has in practice been reserved IIRC for administrators' notifications. That is further evidence that this power has historically been exercised by uninvolved admins and should probably stay that way. If users in conflict issue official warnings to one another, that could be seen as provocation or harassment. I don't think there is any problem with users issuing unofficial notifications, without use of the template, but use of the notificaton template indicating a formal warning, and logs of such notifications, are probably best left to uninvolved admins. In this way, formal notification can be seen as a first step in the sanctions process, and users (other than uninvolved admins) will be obliged to request a formal warning through the AE process before AE sanctions can be laid, with the usual exception of users who have participated in a previous case and are obviously fully cognizant of the general sanctions process. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
While it seems there is consensus with regards to who can make a notification, no-one yet seems to have addressed the question of whether anyone can also log a notification, or if only admins can do so. I would like to see that issue also clarified before this request is closed. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't have opinion one way or another but any ambiguity should be removed from wording of WP:AC/DS-- Shrike ( talk) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The template at Template:Uw-sanctions has been created for administrators to use to satisfy the "Warning" provision of the discretionary sanctions process.
-- Shrike ( talk) 05:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the EdJohnston's opinion that some quality control procedure is desirable. This template contains a clear and unequivocal description of such a procedure: "the notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here." In connection to that, I propose to elaborate some uniform rule for all DS cases, explaining who concretely can give a warning, where the warning should be logged, and how an inappropriately made warning should be appealed. In addition, if we agree that any uninvolved user can give a warning, then the Template:Digwuren enforcement template should be fixed accordingly. In addition, the word "notice" should be replaced with "warning" to avoid possible confusion.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MBisanz talk at 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In 2005, Pigsonthewing (POTW) was placed on probation and banned for a year by Arbcom for edit warring, harassment, gaming 3RR, and stirring up trouble link. In 2007, part of his restrictions were lifted. Later in 2007, POTW was banned for another year for showing contempt of the Wiki process. Since then he has been blocked five times. Presently, he is not listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. When the original WP:Probation page was transformed in late 2007, his name was not carried over to the WP:Editing restrictions page. I am inquiring if the probation from his first arbcom case survived his second banning and can be thus actioned on upon at requests filed on WP:AE? Thank you. MBisanz talk 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not actually asking Arbcom about the current situation or POTW's work at Infoboxes. I don't believe I've mentioned anything currently going on at ANI or about infoboxes in my statement above. I'm asking what is the appropriate way to handle future disruption by POTW. Should it go to ANI for community discussion or is POTW's behavior of the divisive nature that is better handled at AE pursuant to Arbcom sanctions? MBisanz talk 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this " asking the other parent" (see WP:Administrators' notice board/IncidentArchive748#Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban)? The locus of this is a content dispute across several articles about whether there should be an {{ Infobox person}}, or an {{ Infobox musical artist}}, or an {{ Infobox classical composer}}, or perhaps no infobox at all. The factions involved are displaying a battleground mentality and one group are looking to silence one of their "opponents" rather than deal with his objections to their limited consensus.
If you choose to involve yourselves, you will be faced with ruling on the belief that a consensus developed at a wikiproject can then be rolled out across every article within its scope, without taking the time to answer criticisms that the change in any particular article may be detrimental. I'm prepared to offer diffs to support each of my assertions here, although reading the ANI thread would avoid unnecessary duplication. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Iantresman ( talk) at 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman
On 18 September 2011, the Ban Appeal Subcommitte unblocked me under the condition that a topic ban continues. Now that six months have passed, I would be grateful if this was re-assessed. Please take the following into consideration:
____
Since being unblocked Iantresman has contributed to a number of articles that could be reasonably construed as "fringe science and physics-related subjects".
Many of these edits have been minor spelling/formatting fixes, but some have been more extensive. I leave it to others to decide if these are actionable violations of his topic ban.
He has also commented on discussions of fringe issues on policy pages, [54] [55] though it appears this is permitted by the wording of the unblocking conditions.
The examples of "violations" are humourous in nature I trust. I see no POV presented in them, and that is why any topic ban exists in the first place. Absent anything of import, lift the dang ban. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Supernova does fall within the topic of physics. For those who can't tell this from its content, one clue is that its talk page says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics" with a rating of "FA-class, High-importance". It seems to have been classed as a physics article for more than 5 years. [56] Cardamon ( talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Case link: 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:
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)
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)
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 [57] as somehow reaching:
@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 [58] 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)
[59] 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)
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)
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by T. Canens ( talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This request is prompted by a recent AE request, in which the practice of naming the applicable discretionary sanctions provision after an editor caused confusion on an editor who is not very familiar with the AE process. The three listed cases are the only cases named after individual editor(s) with a discretionary sanctions provision, according to WP:AC/DS; all other cases are named after the relevant topic area instead.
I recommend that the Committee make a cosmetic amendment that allows these discretionary provisions to be easily referenced using an arbitration case named after the subject area instead of individual editor(s). Not only is the latter approach rather counterintuitive and potentially confusing (if someone unfamiliar with AE wants to look up the discretionary sanctions provision for Eastern Europe, WP:DIGWUREN is not really the most obvious place to look), but it is also rather unfair to the editors at issue to have their usernames perpetuated in literally years of AE requests that usually have nothing to do with them. Digwuren ( talk · contribs), for example, has not edited since June 2009, yet his username has been, and will be, by necessity, brought up in all AE discussions related to Eastern Europe simply because, by happenstance, the discretionary sanctions in this topic area was passed in a case named after him. As Newyorkbrad observed in a somewhat analogous situation, such a situation is "neither dignified nor fair". T. Canens ( talk) 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems like an excellent idea Tim.
I support Tim's proposal to rename these cases. Replacing 'Digwuren' with 'Eastern Europe' sounds good. The acronym
WP:ARBEE is available even though
WP:EE is in use. Another option is
WP:EECASE. We should not worry too much about confusing the proposed name, 'Eastern Europe', with
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, since that case is less well known and there have been no enforcement actions since 2009. Tim did not mention
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys, also known as
WP:ARBRB. If you want to include ARBRB in the reform, then how about 'Former Soviet Union' as a new name.
EdJohnston (
talk) 07:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I would also like for WP:ARBRB to be renamed to something that does not include my username. I see no reason why I should also be required to put up with an Arb case being named (partly) after me, when the issues of the case were deeper than that -- as suggested by Ed above. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 10:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This has been suggested before, IIRC, had some support but because it wasn't seen as urgent at the time no one got around to carrying through. This is a good time to implement it then. I think Tim articulates the reasons for why this is a good idea quite well, so I don't have much to add on that.
All of Timotheus C's and EdJohnston's specific renaming suggestion are good. VolunteerMarek 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This is both long overdue and welcome.
To some of the other comments, I don't see that EEML poses any confusion issue. This does leave us with what I see as one issue remaining regarding the above and all that has been stated so far:
I would like to see a more active approach to renaming cases as soon as their enforcement bounds move beyond the scope of the original case and editors involved. There is no useful purpose to stigmatizing editors on any side of an issue manifesting strong disagreements amongst editors. I trust that actions here will set a positive precedent. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems the previous case that is named Eastern European Disputes was renamed for similar reasons as it was also previously named after a specific editor. However, it appears the Digwuren case has been the only one cited with regards to sanctions in the topic area. Not sure what the appropriate action would be there but several of the same editors are mentioned in those two cases and they involve the same topic area. As far as potential short names I think WP:EEUR or WP:EASTEUR would be good ones as they are regularly-used abbreviations and sufficiently distinct from the existing short names such as EEML.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
2) The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Pseudoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken through, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are stricken through, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Pseudoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion.
The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move.
For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.
Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 12:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Gatoclass ( talk) at 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Although I do not usually adjudicate disputes at WP:AE, I decided to assist on the recently filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article. Since I have had no prior involvement in Azerbaijan-Armenian articles, I assumed I was entitled to participate. However, I have experienced a growing unease about my participation in this case, based on the fact that I have had some involvement (albeit long ago) on East European articles (which I believe are covered by WP:DIGWUREN). While most sources appear to place Azerbaijan and Armenia in Western Asia, some seem to place these countries in Eastern/Southeastern Europe, in which case, ARBAA2 might be considered a subset of WP:DIGWUREN. On the other hand, it appears that DIGWUREN is concerned mostly with disputes between Russians and other East Europeans, while ARBAA2 concerns a national dispute between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. ARBAA2 contains no reference to DIGWUREN that I can see, but nonetheless, I think this issue needs clarification. A quick response would be greatly appreciated since the AE case concerned is still active. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Shall Gatoclass' comments in on the recently filed AE request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article be removed since the community believes that his participation in this and similar cases is objectionable? Dehr ( talk) 02:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I may have come across this too late, as five members of ARBCOM have already shared their thoughts, but nevertheless I feel obliged to point out something ARBCOM may be overlooking. NYB states that Gatoclass may be construing "involved" greater then necessary as pertaining to EE in general. He is probably right, but he and Gatoclass are overlooking the involvement in Arab-Israel related articles, and how his involvement in A-I disputes may effect his involvement in EE disputes.
In addition to regular content disputes at A-I related articles, Gatoclass frequently comments at AE threads concerning editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict (almost always favoring one side of the general dispute). More pertinently, he files AE reports on other editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict and has had reports filed against him by editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict (he was sort of blocked once for edit warring, [1] FWTW).
If Gatoclass never found himself at AE in connection with the Arab-Israel conflict there would be no problem. However as Gatoclass is frequently a participant, the potential for conflict is clear. Gatoclass shouldn't be making determinations together with the same few admins that are arbitrating his disputes in another forum.
To put in a legal framework, a judge sitting on a panel cannot practice before the panel even on matters unrelated to their panel for which they sit together. I am not aware of any editors faced with this similar conflict so I don't know if this came up before. I would like to hear ARBCOM's position on this. Thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. at 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
{{
Warning}}
template has been applied to
Talk:Armenian Genocide with the following text: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war."I seek explicit clarification whether this applies only to that article, or also to other related articles, should the need arise. I raise this question in particular about the article Van cat, especially (as of the article structure right now) the lead, the infobox, and the section Van cat#Naming controversy, recently merged in from Van cat naming controversy, a highly contentious article used for PoV-pushing of all sorts, pro/anti-Armenian, -Turk, and -Kurd. I would like to apply the same Talk:Armenian Genocide warning to Talk:Van cat only if/when necessary; my interpretation of the the ArbCom cases with regard to Armenia-related topics suggests that would be permissible. A housecat article seems an unlikely place for this sort of ethnic feud, and it's been quiet lately in the wake of two ArbCom cases about Armenia-related edit-wars, which involved blocks that put a damper on some participants for a while, but I have no doubt that the issue will come up again. It's an article about a variety of cat that is claimed as a major cultural symbol by all three ethnicities, so it will be targeted for PoV-pushing in the future, guaranteed. I would like to know whether the "1RR" imposed by ArbCom on "Armenia... and related disputes" can be extended to this article when the tooth-gnashing inevitably begins again. I have no political stake in the question; in this, I'm just a WP:CATS editor trying to reduce racialist "noise" in a cat article that's been repeatedly hijacked for WP:GREATWRONGS purposes. The related article Turkish Van has seen some of this too, but but I think the split-off of Van cat and the subsequent merger of Van cat naming controversy into Van cat will "concentrate the fire" on that article when the "its OUR cat!" issue pops up again. Nonetheless, should the need arise, I include the article Turkish Van and potentially also Turkish Angora, and any results of splits, mergers or PoV-forks of any of these articles, and any cat-related sections in other relevant articles (e.g. Turkey, Armenia, Lake Van, etc.), in this request for clarification. I'm posting this because other cases are clearer. E.g. Template:ARBPIA says "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR", but the equivalent for Armenia disputes does not include such "broadly construed" language. PS: Count this as a "vote" for more consistent enforcement and remedies wording. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Ergo, if an editor makes edits to the cat article pushing an ethnic/national POV they can be warned under the discretionary sanction, and if they have already been warned, can be blocked as an enforcement." – That's what I thought. I'm about 80% done preparing and WP:AN/I (or maybe WP:AE would be better in this case) and concomitant WP:SSI case about this, but holding out some hope that further discussion with the user in question will render that unnecessary. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The original remedy covered "all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". [2] Now this was replaced by Standard discretionary sanctions, which cover "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted". In my understanding, broadly interpreted "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" are the same as "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". Am I getting it right? Grand master 10:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Leave this section for others to add additional statements
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ at 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This request for clarification is rather short and straightforward; a discussion about whether or not Jesus is part of the Palestinian people has spilled over to the page about Jesus. For future reference and to avoid misunderstandings: Is discussing and editing "Jesus as a Palestinian" within the scope of the case? Should it be? Thank you.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Timrollpickering ( talk) at 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Is the process for settling the abortion article names binding upon the names of related categories? A good faith renaming of Category:Pro-life movement was recently proposed but withdrawn due to the ongoing RFC. There is uncertainty about whether or not the names chosen for the articles will be binding upon related categories and as one of the regular CFD closers it would be helpful to have clarity on this before it come up again. In my view it is generally undesirable to have the most contentious article naming debates refought at CFD, especially if the option of "go and get the article renamed instead" is unavailable.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by —chaos5023 ( talk) at 16:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In the resolution generating this RFC, a "community vote" with opinions presented was called for. It is not completely clear to participants whether this means an actual vote, as in numeric results tallied and considered binding, or the usual Wikipedia WP:NOTVOTE. Please let us know which is desired. Further, if ArbCom has any feedback on the advisability of the currently open proposal to use Borda count as a vote resolution mechanic, should voting actually be called for, that would be very helpful.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) at 17:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I've been involved at AE recently as an administrator, and I was looking over the current request concerning MONGO because no one seemed to want to touch it. The Devil's Advocate left me a message here indicating I may be considered involved in this dispute. I have occasionally popped in at the September 11th attacks and 9/11 conspiracy theories articles to help tamp down some of the trolling that inevitably goes on there, but I haven't been really involved in the content there (although I did help with one very minor content addition in September 2010 which has nothing to do with conspiracy theories). The edit in question is this, which (as I stated on my talkpage) I remember making because having "conspiracy theories" and "alternative theories" in the same sentence there seemed redundant and unnecessarily verbose. However, I would like to be certain about what, if any, involvement this constitutes; given there's an active AE thread now, I would like to hear back as soon as possible. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Given Blade's comment about September 2010 I looked at the revision history of the talk page around that time and found this additional diff suggesting involvement. I think that one is a little more clearly pointing to involvement. Also, I should note the current AE case concerns edits on the 9/11 article in general, so the various disputes Blade got involved with on the article talk page at that time would have relevance to the question of involvement.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(Redacted) -- DHeyward ( talk) 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Shrike ( talk) at 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
According to rules socks edits are exempt from 1RR as far as I understand.But if sock did some useful edit for example removed word that not in the source
[4] or removed not
WP:RS
[5].Does blanket revert of the sock is OK(Does it considered
WP:TE)?
[6],
[7],
[8].Can other user revert to the sock version if he thinks his version is better?
Ok never mind I withdraw my request Sean have clarified it for me more or less.-- Shrike ( talk) 10:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Ban#Evasion_and_enforcement. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by T. Canens ( talk) at 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Making this request on Alanscottwalker's behalf, who mistakenly filed it at AE. I have no opinion on the merits of this request. T. Canens ( talk) 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This week Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images opened, after mediation to construct the RfC. Of course, no one yet knows what consensus may emerge, if any, but we do know that, although shorter times for leaving the RfC open were discussed during mediation, that did not gain support and it is now shceduled to last 30 days. This takes us past the deadline in the case (two months), please amend. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Copied from [10] T. Canens ( talk) 06:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Silk Tork: I agree that no RfC need be open for 30 days but that's where we are with this RfC. Also, to be exact, the RFC is set for 30 days, and then a three admin close will be requested, and of course they have to take what time they need. And only then will it, hopefully, be able to be implemented (at least on the issues where they find consensus).
AGK: It would seem deadlines are good process, which I assume was the impetus behind the original (as the committee is aware it's probably not a good idea to say, 'go, as long as it takes' in this case). So amending is also good process. (feet to fire and all that) I move 30 days, addition, with automatic additions of 15 days, if progress is occurring. Hopefully, all necessary consensus will be revealed in the RfC, but if that does not occur, either a new RfC or another binding process would need to be explored (on any issues left). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Dmitri is correct. I apologize if that was unclear. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Please also see [11] for a recent concern about a, perhaps, less than conclusive outcome for part of this RfC. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 10:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's my belief that User:Alanscottwalker's intention is more that the timeline of Remedy 1 be amended by the Committee, not that the Committee instructs the community to shorten the length of the RFC. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) at 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Remedy 3A: Tenmei banned for one year
I believe reduction of the ban to the six months already served might be undertaken at little or no risk, and to the great benefit of content, this user, and others.
I keep finding articles and content created by User:Tenmei; this is a list of the articles created by Tenmei; this a complete list of Tenmei's contributions (56,561); this a breakdown of Tenmei's edits (74.22% to articles). I believe that this user, other editors, and the wider public of readers are currently being deprived by the continuation of this ban. Lest "eventualism" be cited, in many of these fields content contributors are few, and those with this user's knowledge, abilities, and commitment very few indeed.
Per Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns:
I understand that User:Tenmei is indefinitely banned from the topic; whatever the arguments about this, I imagine the user too might agree that their involvement in this area (?perhaps also others?) has not had its desired affect. I also understand that User:Tenmei has been advised sometimes to amend his style of communication - while I would not presume to be Mentor to so intelligent, knowledgeable, and experienced an editor, perhaps as one less involved and at a greater distance I might be able to advise in future when their attempts at reasoning seem to be falling upon deaf ears; perhaps also, due to the length of this ban, the user themselves will have concluded that in such instances, whether for right or wrong, their efforts might from now on be better directed to other articles than in prolongation of attempts to reach consensus with other editors with different educational backgrounds, points of view, and approaches to reason.
I would imagine the ban has had its deterrent effect and also allowed sufficient time for 'cooling off'. Please could the one year ban be reduced to the six months already served. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Please consider, as just one example amongst many, the user's efforts here to diffuse a content dispute: 1, 2, and 3; articles were then created a, b, c, d, e, f, g. Presumably you would agree that this is an exceptionally constructive way of proceeding. Would it help if I were to present other, similar sequences? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Cla68 ( talk) at 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to request removal of the topic ban. I was thinking of not ever requesting a return to the topic, but an incident caused me to reconsider.
I am a daily reader of the Japan Times newspaper. One of my WP activities is adding citations to articles, mainly about Japan, related to articles I read in the morning's paper. I think it was this edit using a non-web-available citation, which made me reconsider the topic ban. The citation in question contained some useful information on Japan's response to carbon-reduction efforts, which is related to the global warming issue. Because of the topic ban, I was able to use the citation to add some non-related information to the article, but was unable to add the information related to global warming. I realized that the ban was getting in the way of me being able to improve articles on Japan.
Since the ban was enacted on 14 October 2010, the following is a sample of my contributions to Wikipedia, both in article and admin space:
On 9 October 2011, Cla68 ( talk · contribs) posted on Wikipedia Review:
Fortunately for WMC, Wikipedia doesn't have a "Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule, or he would have been sent on his way long ago.
Here's the thing, I truly don't belive that WMC, Stephan Schulz, Kim Dabelstein Peterson, or Short Brigade Harvester Boris are really scientists, because I can't belive that true scientists would act as deceitfully, dishonestly, or as insecurely and cowardly as they act. If they are really scientists, I would like to know which universities they teach at to ensure that I don't send my kids to those bush league institutions. To be clear, I respect scientists who truly believe in man-made global warming but recognize that they might be wrong. The ones who don't are the ones who try to use Wikipedia to artificially socialize their positions. [21]
That statement raises some doubt in my mind as to whether Cla68 has, in fact, moved past a battleground mentality on climate-change articles.
Regarding the admissibility of off-site commentary, policy clearly states that "personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions... Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." MastCell Talk 19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom's
2010 finding referred to Cla68's "inappropriate use of sources".
Recently, Cla68 ignored talk page discussion showing that a source was fringe and at best questionable, and joined in with suggestions that it be used as a source for other articles.
[22]
[23] After being advised this was inappropriate, he added a new section based solely on this source to one of the articles.
[24] When I undid this addition,
[25] he posted accusations on my talk page,
[26] took it up on the article talk page,
[27] and also took it to
FTN and
RSN. Cla68 received little or no support in these discussions, or in the continuation of the
original discussion.
The links in the Arbcom finding show misrepresentation of a reliable source: this instance is different in being, in my opinion, disruptive pushing of an unreliable fringe source while omitting mainstream context. . .
dave souza,
talk 19:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Replace the CC topic ban by a 0RR restriction for CC related edits originally made by Cla68 himself. This means that when corrected or completely reverted by non-vandals, Cla68 cannot revert back, but he can revert any other edits (and that only once, because once he reverts it counts as his edits, so it amounts to 1RR such a case). Count Iblis ( talk) 02:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I think this is effective is because Cla68 is then forced to think carefully if his edits will stick before making them. Then given that most active editors in this topic edit from the scientific POV that means having to approach editing the topic from that angle, and this may lead Cla68 to read more about the topic from scientific sources. The scientific aspects of the topic are not controversial (at least not within the scientific community, the controversy is far more political in nature), so that may lead Cla68's view on the topic to change in the direction of most of the current editors there. Count Iblis ( talk) 20:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Why not lift Cla68's topic ban for a trial period, say 6 weeks or some fixed number of edits? After that trial period expires, ArbCom can judge better if Cla68's topic ban can be lifted, if some restriction need to be in place, or if it cannot be lifted at all. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Count Iblis' proposal makes sense in this context. Straightforward revert warring is one of those things that can actually be handled reasonably well (in most cases) by existing enforcement processes; a focus on mechanical counting of reverts would seem to miss the point here. While the arbitration case's findings certainly touched on Cla68's edit warring, also mentioned – and arguably more harmful – were his misuse of sources, incivility, and overall battleground mentality.
Above (in his response to MastCell) Cla68 presents his tepid support for an easing of WMC's editing restrictions as evidence of his reformed conduct; he doesn't think that the ArbCom should take notice of his egregious personal attacks on WMC just a few days later, where he calls into question WMC's professional ethics and basic competence, accusing WMC (and other scientists and fellow editors) of behaving "deceitfully, dishonestly...insecurely and cowardly" and regretting the absence of a ""Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule" that would eliminate WMC from this project.
That isn't the mark of an editor who has left his battleground attitude behind; it's an editor who is playing games with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. We get one superficially reasonable comment for the benefit of watching Arbitrators on-wiki; we get egregious personal attacks off-wiki. Does Cla68 believe that WMC (and the other editors he attacked) should be allowed to edit, or not? If so, why make the attacks on Wikipedia Review? If not, why endorse the return of WMC in his comment here? Cla68 is surely well aware that Wikipedia Review is fairly widely read by Wikipedia editors, and he made his attacks there well before WMC's appeal was closed. Was he expecting his comments there to influence the outcome here, or was it just another cheap shot intended to poison the editing environment after WMC's ban was partially lifted, or what? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, it appears that Cla68 was violating the terms of his climate change topic ban by even commenting on WMC's appeal, a point which has been apparently missed so far in this discussion. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
On recent misuse of sources. I've hatted this myself, since I had missed that Dave Souza covered this already. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In those discussions, Cla68's position was universally rejected by the editors who participated. Cla68 nevertheless tried to declare the discussion at WP:RSN closed as lacking consensus ( [34]) and implied that the discussions had been tainted by the presence of non-neutral parties and non-'regular' contributors to WP:RSN and WP:FTN. Arguing strenuously across multiple discussion pages for the inclusion of a dubious source and for content giving undue weight to a non-expert's opinion strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that should ring alarm bells when the ArbCom considers returning an editor to climate change topics. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
I oppose Cla68's request for a blanket lifting of his ban. I would have been prepared to argue for a partial lifting, but I think that the quote MastCell provides is powerful evidence of the disruptive nature of Cla68, and that that his problematic attitudes continue. It is also evidence of his two-faced-ness: on-wiki, he strives for smoothness, but off-wiki the truth emerges. Cla68 attempts to dismiss this as a mere ad hominem argument and fails in any way to address the obvious problems that it demonstrates; I suggest that means any relaxation is inappropriate William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I notice that Cla68 has recently announced his intent to edit for money [35]. Its possible that this is just trolling [36] (which would itself speak against Cla68) but if it is intended seriously, it further argues against easing the restriction due to the high possibility of COI this could cause William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This request here is really a test of ArbCom - not Cla68 who in my opinion is a very good editor with no attachment to the climate change area at all. I find it truly amazing that arbitrators - after lifting the ban of editors as abusive as William M. Connolley (who engaged in battlefield conduct in his own request to have his ban lifted!) - are apparently listening to biased statements by William Connolley and his supporters.
I would like to make some pertinent points:
Since they were both given the same topic ban, it is instructive to compare the quality of evidence in the case of WMC and Cla68.
Evidence for lack of civility
WMC #1: 'you're still a noob in some ways. ... I finally got bored of your repeated errors and told you'. Cla #1: 'Trying to introduce any of these viewpoints into an AGW article in Wikipedia is often extremely difficult because of POV-warring by a group of editors who mainly edits those articles'. (a general statement, not directed at individuals, a perfectly accurate observation, and stated politely.) IMPORTANT NOTE: this is the ONLY diff of Cla68 about civility that occurred outside the ArbCom case itself, where people typically are allowed to speak more freely for obvious reasons.
WMC #2: (in the second edit WMC redacted another editor's comment with 'redacted PA - WMC' because the other editor wrote him 'Hi Will'. Cla #2: (after being accused of misrepresenting suggests "one side" is being "disingenuous").
WMC #3: (after being blocked for 48 hours for blatant violation of talk page rules by editing others' talk page comments, WMC edits the administrator's comment with [pap redacted - WMC] and [pap redacted - WMC]. Cla #3: (Cla68 points out using diffs that an admin claiming to be uninvolved is actually involved. The closest to 'incivility' I find is "Come on!" (Yes, that's right. Cla68 really did use an exclamation mark.)
WMC #4: (after ATren asks why pointing out WMC's incivility is the same as a 'vendetta', WMC directs ATren to his personal blog that makes it clear he is calling ATren a 'fool' and much worse. Cla #4: (criticises an Arb for not looking at the evidence against WMC close enough. In the process, points out that WMC repeatedly violated the BLPs of RealClimate's critics.)
I will stop at #4 but the morbidly curious should review the remaining WMC diffs to see how ridiculous it was to compare the behaviour of Cla68 with WMC in the first place.
Evidence for inappropriate use of sources
This is possibly the silliest of the three claims. Cla68 attempted to use a peer reviewed paper by William M. Connolley himself in an article. Three diffs are given to present the appearance of a pattern of behaviour, but in fact the remaining two diffs are just talk page comments. The totality of evidence given that Cla68 'inappropriately' used sources is a demonstration that he cited a paper by William Connolley.
Evidence for edit-warring
In order to demonstrate edit-warring you typically need to show that 3RR was violated, or in limited cases, perhaps 1RR. The evidence here though simply involves 7 unrelated reverts. It's possible that Cla68 was edit warring, of course; but this evidence doesn't show it.
So let me be clear and state this as politely as possible - the suggestion that Cla68's behaviour was within even the same orbit as WMC's - based on the evidence presented - is sad. Alex Harvey ( talk) 05:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (signature added belatedly.)
One of the possible interim solutions to help Cla68 regain the trust of the community is to allow one talk page entry per day per article in the previously banned topic. The talk page entry could be used to suggest changes to the article. Binksternet ( talk) 08:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I managed to find an online source for the Japan Times article Cla is mentioning. Though it is just a screen capture on Flickr it is sufficiently legible to see what he is talking about. All the article says related to climate change is that the solar power plant would significantly reduce Japan's carbon emissions. It doesn't touch on the general dispute over climate change so his concern about the topic ban in this respect is legitimate. Reducing the topic ban to be a more limited ban as Jclemens suggests would appropriately address that concern about having difficulty improving articles such as this. Perhaps the topic ban should be limited to any edits specifically on the dispute over anthropogenic global warming. In other words, mentioning climate change or matters related to climate change would be permitted so long as the edits do not have the effect of addressing the dispute over anthropogenic global warming.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Cla68 is a very good editor on military and historical articles, but to be honest, his editing over at Intelligent design leaves me seriously doubtful of his competence when it comes to editing on science articles. I can point to one specific incident that crystallized this idea for me. Last January, Cla tagged the intelligent design article as a scientific theory. By itself, this edit should raise a very large red flag. He was reverted by Guettarda, who opened a talk page thread on the revert. Cla responded there, and that's when things really got crazy. Everyone here should go and read that thread in its entirety, because (IMO) Cla's comments there are so bizarre that it makes me seriously doubt his abilities as an editor. He said, among other things, that because Intelligent Design's advocates say that it is a scientific theory, we should simply take their word that it is when categorizing the article. Further, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between reporting on an advocate's belief and sharing that belief. To wit:
He went on to say that Wikipedia should avoid "taking a stand" on issues where there is any disagreement. As I responded to him there: Wikipedia "takes a side" anytime we say anything is factual that anyone disagrees with. Flat earthers claim that the world is flat. Creationists claim the Universe is about 6,000 years old. Holocaust deniers claim that only a few hundred thousand Jews died during World War II. Should be write articles to take these competing claims into account, in order to avoid taking sides? Should we describe the earth as "allegedly round" because doing otherwise would be taking sides in the flat earth "debate"? No, obviously we do not. Obviously, we should not. We have to use our critical thinking skills (*gasp*) to sort out which assertions are true and which ones are not. On Wikipedia, this is done by using reliable sources.
It's worth noting that after my above reply, Cla simply ignored me and continued (three more times) to assert that Wikipedia should avoid taking a stand, a textbook case of wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He also claimed that nowhere in Wikipedia's policies could he find a definition of what does and does not constitute science. (Needless to say, it didn't take me or others long to find such a definition) The discussion only ended when people started losing patience with his tactic of ignoring rebuttals and then bringing up the same debunked talking points two or three comments later. But even the reason he gave to end the discussion is alarming: "Clearly, current consensus is against adding a science category to this article, although I don't think policy supports the majority position." In other words, the dozens of comments by others made no impact whatsoever on his thinking and he was only dropping it because he could not find anyone to agree with him. This is classic tendentious editing. And, all of this happened *after* he was admonished by the arbitration committee about "battlefield conduct". (Cla68 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring,[154][155][156][157][158][159][160] inappropriate use of sources,[161][162][163] and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality,[164][165][166][167] -- Wikipedia:ARBCC#Cla68.27s_battlefield_conduct
Cla is a good editor on military and historical topics, and his failings that I've described aren't particularly relevant to those areas. But he is here asking for permission to be allowed to edit highly contentious scientific articles, when his track record suggests he is clearly not competent to edit them. Raul654 ( talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with Cla68's editing on science-related topics, but I'd like to confirm that he's continued to make first-rate edits to military history articles, and was very helpful in preparing the Battle of Arawe article for its recent successful FAC. He's also made important contributions to the Air raids on Japan article which is currently at FAC, and these edits included adding excellent material on the long-running debate over the morality and legality of the bombing of Japanese civilians. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Noting the suggestions below, I would think that allowing him to edit on Japan-related articles in general including those on CC issues involving Japan and related areas should be reasonable - if he specifically edit wars on CC issues therein (I am not counting typos, sourced corrections, etc. which just happen to be in a CC section, etc.) existing noticeboards should be sufficient to determine the severity of the offence. Wikipedia ought never be a game in which people count the numbers of editors blocked or banned on each side, seeking to get more of "them" blocked than of "us." I suggest that "1.5RR" type rules tend to bring out baiters and the like in profusion. Collect ( talk) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
On the talk page, Cla68 wrote: Committee, is there going to be any more discussion on my amendment request? If not, could you please close it? I was reminded that it was still open when I saw this article in this morning's Japan Times and realized that I still don't know if I can add such information to the appropriate WP article. Cla68 ( talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I will say that I'm not only skeptical about the value of lifting Cla68's restrictions, but I'm skeptical about its supposed basis and the sincerity of the request itself. -- Calton | Talk 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
To check back in here: I would have us decline this request for amendment, with the understanding that we can re-visit in about six months. At that time, I think we will be in a position to remove the topic ban - so long as no new evidence comes to light in the interim. I cannot support a circumscribed topic-ban; if an editor is banned from Climate change, then he is inherently unsuited to even the most incremental restoration of editing privileges, and frankly it's too large a risk for my liking. AGK [•]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — Cirt ( talk) at 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm requesting permission from the Committee to contribute towards a Featured List drive on the page I'd created, Dan Savage bibliography (originally modeled after the WP:FL page, George Orwell bibliography).
May I be permitted to work on this Featured List drive? — Cirt ( talk) 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much to Featured List Director, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs), for offering to help me out in this featured list drive. The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) added helpful comments at the Featured List Candidacy of a prior list page I successfully improved to WP:FL quality status, 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. The offer of help from an editor experienced in the Featured List process, especially coming from a Featured List Director, is most appreciated. — Cirt ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As a featured list director, I'd like to offer my assistance where needed in this drive, I'm happy to provide peer review comments and any other assistance deemed necessary to ensure good and correct progress is made. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
My two cents I'm happy to give my perspective and honored that Cirt wanted to emulate the FL I made. First off, I'm not terribly familiar with the dispute above, but I have interacted with Cirt on a handful of occasions and found him to be a helpful and reasonable editor. If he wants to work on an FL, I think that's in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if he plays nice there and makes quality work in a collaborative spirit, that can give good reason to think that his editing restrictions could be further eased. I see no harm in this and a great potential. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with sanctions is determining the point at which they no longer serve a sensible purpose. I understand that ArbCom may feel that when they say 12 months, they mean nothing less, but I will argue that such a stance is counter-productive. ArbCom enjoys a good deal of support from much of the community and it does not need to be seen to be stern or inflexible merely to reinforce its authority.
In this case, we know Cirt to be a productive editor, and I believe the desired outcome is for him to be able to edit without causing the problems that led to the arbitration case. This amendment is not asking for the restriction to be lifted in general, but for a single, well-defined exception to be made - and that under the guidance of a well-respected mentor. One of the important mechanisms in rehabilitation is for the restricted party to solve their problems in a controlled situation, thereby demonstrating the skills required to have the restriction removed. It seems to me that working a bibliography up to a Featured List within TRM's overview would fit that scenario well.
This amendment is not asking for the restriction to be vacated, and I would argue that allowing an exception to be made for one list in the way proposed has many pros and almost no cons. I hope the members of ArbCom will view this comment sympathetically, and for what it's worth, I would be willing to also offer my help with the Featured List process, should Cirt be allowed to bring the bibliography up to that level. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
1) Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt ( talk · contribs) is granted an exemption in order to edit the article Dan Savage bibliography, its talk page, a peer review for that article, and a featured list candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at anytime, or by further motion of this Committee.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by —chaos5023 ( talk) at 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
One of the options we wound up adding to the RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles#Arguments and policies regarding merging and refactoring into Abortion debate and Abortion debate in RegionName, could use some contextual clarification in two regards:
Thanks! —chaos5023 ( talk) 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk at 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Under Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, any editor could provide warning of the sanctions. The single sentence at WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions is unclear whether the warning must be provided by an uninvolved administrator or whether any editor may provide the warning. WP:AC/DS seems to say any editor can provide the warning. Please clarify. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I also urge the clarification to be made. Including whether an "involved editor" may invoke the sanctions, an "uninvolved editor", an "involved administrator" or an "uninvolved administrator." Collect ( talk) 19:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that anyone can provide a warning -- it's left to an uninvolved admin to impose the actual sanctions. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sarek. The way WP:AC/DS is currently worded, anyone can give a warning. I don't follow Malik's reasoning as to how the ARBPIA wording creates any difference from the usual practice in other cases. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:On reflection it might be OK if *anyone* could warn but the person who warned (if not an admin) would have to ask an admin to log it in the case. That might serve as a quality control for inappropriate warnings.
EdJohnston (
talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
When an editor files an AE report, this is what they are shown.
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> #Warned on [http://Difflink1 Date] by {{user|Name of administrator who imposed warning 1}} #Warned on [http://Difflink2 Date] by {{user|Name of administrator who imposed warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line}}
Note that it says administrator. I think it's fair to say, at least in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, that official notification of the sanctions by an admin and logging of that notification are widely seen as prerequisites to filing an AE report. For example, there is an editor active right now who is probably already way over the line in terms of their behavior towards other editors, although unusually he is being equally obnoxious to people he views as being on opposite sides of the conflict. A practical issue, in terms of operating the discretionary sanctions, seems to be specifying what constitutes the kind of warning that meets the requirements for filing an AE report. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Adding to Sean Hoyland's evidence above, it may also be worth pointing out that ARBPIA's official log of notifications has in practice been reserved IIRC for administrators' notifications. That is further evidence that this power has historically been exercised by uninvolved admins and should probably stay that way. If users in conflict issue official warnings to one another, that could be seen as provocation or harassment. I don't think there is any problem with users issuing unofficial notifications, without use of the template, but use of the notificaton template indicating a formal warning, and logs of such notifications, are probably best left to uninvolved admins. In this way, formal notification can be seen as a first step in the sanctions process, and users (other than uninvolved admins) will be obliged to request a formal warning through the AE process before AE sanctions can be laid, with the usual exception of users who have participated in a previous case and are obviously fully cognizant of the general sanctions process. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
While it seems there is consensus with regards to who can make a notification, no-one yet seems to have addressed the question of whether anyone can also log a notification, or if only admins can do so. I would like to see that issue also clarified before this request is closed. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't have opinion one way or another but any ambiguity should be removed from wording of WP:AC/DS-- Shrike ( talk) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The template at Template:Uw-sanctions has been created for administrators to use to satisfy the "Warning" provision of the discretionary sanctions process.
-- Shrike ( talk) 05:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the EdJohnston's opinion that some quality control procedure is desirable. This template contains a clear and unequivocal description of such a procedure: "the notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here." In connection to that, I propose to elaborate some uniform rule for all DS cases, explaining who concretely can give a warning, where the warning should be logged, and how an inappropriately made warning should be appealed. In addition, if we agree that any uninvolved user can give a warning, then the Template:Digwuren enforcement template should be fixed accordingly. In addition, the word "notice" should be replaced with "warning" to avoid possible confusion.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MBisanz talk at 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In 2005, Pigsonthewing (POTW) was placed on probation and banned for a year by Arbcom for edit warring, harassment, gaming 3RR, and stirring up trouble link. In 2007, part of his restrictions were lifted. Later in 2007, POTW was banned for another year for showing contempt of the Wiki process. Since then he has been blocked five times. Presently, he is not listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. When the original WP:Probation page was transformed in late 2007, his name was not carried over to the WP:Editing restrictions page. I am inquiring if the probation from his first arbcom case survived his second banning and can be thus actioned on upon at requests filed on WP:AE? Thank you. MBisanz talk 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not actually asking Arbcom about the current situation or POTW's work at Infoboxes. I don't believe I've mentioned anything currently going on at ANI or about infoboxes in my statement above. I'm asking what is the appropriate way to handle future disruption by POTW. Should it go to ANI for community discussion or is POTW's behavior of the divisive nature that is better handled at AE pursuant to Arbcom sanctions? MBisanz talk 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this " asking the other parent" (see WP:Administrators' notice board/IncidentArchive748#Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban)? The locus of this is a content dispute across several articles about whether there should be an {{ Infobox person}}, or an {{ Infobox musical artist}}, or an {{ Infobox classical composer}}, or perhaps no infobox at all. The factions involved are displaying a battleground mentality and one group are looking to silence one of their "opponents" rather than deal with his objections to their limited consensus.
If you choose to involve yourselves, you will be faced with ruling on the belief that a consensus developed at a wikiproject can then be rolled out across every article within its scope, without taking the time to answer criticisms that the change in any particular article may be detrimental. I'm prepared to offer diffs to support each of my assertions here, although reading the ANI thread would avoid unnecessary duplication. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Iantresman ( talk) at 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman
On 18 September 2011, the Ban Appeal Subcommitte unblocked me under the condition that a topic ban continues. Now that six months have passed, I would be grateful if this was re-assessed. Please take the following into consideration:
____
Since being unblocked Iantresman has contributed to a number of articles that could be reasonably construed as "fringe science and physics-related subjects".
Many of these edits have been minor spelling/formatting fixes, but some have been more extensive. I leave it to others to decide if these are actionable violations of his topic ban.
He has also commented on discussions of fringe issues on policy pages, [54] [55] though it appears this is permitted by the wording of the unblocking conditions.
The examples of "violations" are humourous in nature I trust. I see no POV presented in them, and that is why any topic ban exists in the first place. Absent anything of import, lift the dang ban. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Supernova does fall within the topic of physics. For those who can't tell this from its content, one clue is that its talk page says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics" with a rating of "FA-class, High-importance". It seems to have been classed as a physics article for more than 5 years. [56] Cardamon ( talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Case link: 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:
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)
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)
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 [57] as somehow reaching:
@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 [58] 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)
[59] 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)
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)