| Revision as of 07:18, 19 January 2010 editTiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits Archive to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits dpuble redir | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| = {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} = | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| == Request to amend prior case: Speed of light == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">]_di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">]</sup> (formerly Army1987) '''at''' 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Speed of light}} | |||
| ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested | |||
| # Remedy 4.2 "Brews ohare topic banned" | |||
| ; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment | |||
| * {{userlinks|Brews ohare}} | |||
| ; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request | |||
| * (diff of notification of this thread on Brews ohare's talk page) | |||
| ===Amendment 1=== | |||
| * ] | |||
| * I, A. di M., hereby request that the following sentence be added to the end of the remedy: "The topic ban is temporarily suspended until ] regarding ] is closed." | |||
| ==== Statement by A. di M. ==== | |||
| Brews ohare is the author of three of the pictures currently on the article ]. None of these pictures are directly related with the debates which led to the arbitration case, which dealt with the implications of defining the metre in terms of the speed of light in vacuum. On the ], initiated by me, constructive criticism has been expressed about the pictures; such criticism is also totally unrelated to the definition of the metre. While Brews ohare is still technically allowed to improve the pictures (as they are hosted on Commons) he is not allowed to participate in discussions about them, as that might be construed as transgressing his topic ban. I do not think that this is helpful, so I propose that Brews ohare is temporarily lifted from his topic ban until the FAC closes. ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">]_di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">]</sup> (formerly Army1987) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to Steve Smith: It could, but that should be worded in a sufficiently clear way: Brews ohare said he's "not interested in a month of squabbles over sanctions", and I think that discussions about whether the wording did or did not allow a comment of his on that page wouldn't be helpful, either. ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">]_di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">]</sup> (formerly Army1987) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Tznkai ==== | |||
| In order for this amendment to be effectuated I (or another admin, or the committee) will have to suspend or lift the supplemental ban that I placed on Brews ohare previously. (Its in the case log) I have some ideas on how to word the amendment that I haven't committed to words yet, as I am still deciding whether or not to support this request. | |||
| :I failed to timestamp the above. Whoops. Anyway, after considerable discussion on Brews ohare's talk page, I've decided that on balance, Brews ohare is a potential asset, and further has earned his shot at loosening restrictions. I intend to lift my supplemental ban after brief discussion at AE, and I support the motion below that will allow Brews ohare to participate in the FAC process to discuss the relevant images. I further recommend an excemption for editing the relevant images. --] (]) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Finell ==== | |||
| It would be helpful to the project if Brews' physics topic ban were modified to permit him to participate in discussion of graphics that he created, and that are used in the ] article, during that article's current FAC. It is not necessary that his topic ban be temporarily lifted, only that it be amended for this specific purpose. Recently Brews has been peacefully and productively editing math articles and his behavior has not been problematical in any way, so far as I am aware.—] 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Count Iblis ==== | |||
| Brews Ohare's topic ban should be temporarily modified to allow him to participate in the discussions about the diagrams he made. To answer Kirill's concerns, I think the whole point of Arbcom requests is to look at each case individually, we don't argue on the basis of precedents. Finell has pointed out above that brews has been contributing in a positive way. If there is an issue with diagrams and it is found that some modifications are needed, then it could be extremely inconvenient for someone else to do that. In practice this could mean that someone else would have to make new diagrams from scratch. This has to be weighed against the potential of disruption of wikipedia given the reason of Brews topic ban (endless arguments about speed of light, domination of talk pages). I don't see this potential for disruption given what Brews has been doing recently. As I said, precedents are irrelevant. In similar cases where someone has been topic banned from some politics page which is up for FA review, you may well conclude that despite that editor having made considerable contributions, the potential for disruption is very real. ] (]) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by TenOfAllTrades ==== | |||
| As far as I know (and I would welcome any correction if I am mistaken), there have been no problems related to Brews' edits of images on Misplaced Pages/Commons. Further, I am aware of no major problems with Brews' participation in the project for the last couple of months — and I will say that stands in contrast to (and in spite of) the overzealous and...spirited actions of some of his self-appointed defenders. | |||
| On the other hand, I must also note that (per Tznkai's comments) a broadening of Brews' original topic ban to include ] was required in late November in order to get him back on a productive track. There was also at least one violation of his physics topic ban in late December: . | |||
| While the proposed amendment is far broader than necessary, I am inclined to say that that on balance the likelihood of disruption from a more narrowly-crafted exception is low and indeed would be beneficial to both the project and to Brews — and ''might'' form the eventual basis for future relaxation of his topic ban terms. An opening to allow Brews to participate in discussions regarding his images in the article (which are, as far as I know, uncontroversial) would probably be worthwhile. Further, allowing him to participate in (a part of) the featured article process should – hopefully – expose him to some of our most dedicated editors working to achieve some of Misplaced Pages's highest standards and goals. | |||
| That's the carrot; here's the stick. While I hope and expect such a condition shouldn't be required, I would also suggest that the amendment explicitly be revocable by a consensus at ] if Brews' editing should stray into the tendentious or disruptive. | |||
| The exact wording of such a temporary amendment is up to the ArbCom. ](]) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by other editor ==== | |||
| {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} | |||
| === Further discussion === | |||
| :''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.'' | |||
| ==== Statement by yet another editor ==== | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| :''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| *Would a narrower suspension applied only the pictures be useful? ] (]) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Barring any substantial objection from other editors or arbitrators, I do not see why this cannot be handled by way of a simple motion providing a specific exception for Brews to discuss his images in this specific FAC. Barring any major objections, I will propose such a motion in the near future. ] (]) 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * I am uncomfortable with waiving a topic ban purely because some of the editor's work is being discussed at FAC, as it's an arrangement we've rejected in the past, and with editors responsible for even greater volumes of work. Is there some reason why Brews's direct involvement is necessary (rather than merely convenient)? ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *I said when the case closed that I'd be willing to support a change to the topic ban to allow Brews Ohare to contribute images and to discuss images (narrowly construed). I would, though, prefer that Brews Ohare himself make such an appeal. I would in principle support a motion like that Vassyana intends to propose, but only if Brews Ohare indicates that they support the appeal being made here. I would even support a complete relaxation of the ban to allow any image work, not just a single FAC discussion. i.e. making an exception for all image work would make more sense than making an exception for FAC alone. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Motions ==== | |||
| 1) Exception to topic ban | |||
| {{user|Brews ohare}} is permitted to participate in the ] discussion for "]" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (]). | |||
| ; Support | |||
| :# ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]) 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; Oppose | |||
| :# | |||
| ; Abstain | |||
| :# | |||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012
Redirect to: