This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 16 February 2012 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: fix sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Abortion

Initiated by Steven Zhang at 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Steven Zhang

This is more a clarification on remedy 4.1 of this case. It might seem relatively obvious what the answer to my question is, but the remedy states: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to abortion, broadly construed." I compare this with the closure of the Muhammad images case, where the sanction states: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted."

I was reading over the final decision for the Muhammad case today, in particular the remedy on deciding what to do regarding the images, and noticed this sentence: "Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision".

Now, as the committee is well aware, a structured discussion on the Abortion article titles (see remedy) has been set up. So, I suppose my question is rather simple. Will administrators have the authority to ban users from the discussion in events of disruption under the discretionary sanctions as noted in the Abortion case? It would seem logical to me, but the committee may feel differently. I haven't notified the parties of the case (I feel it's a simple clarification for mainly my benefit) but am happy to do so if required. Steven Zhang 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• @ArbCom, I am probably being a bit pedantic here, but from readings of past cases, the scope of where discretionary sanctions and topic bans apply are normally clearly defined, for example in the Prem Rawat case ("related articles and their talk page"), Tree shaping ("The topic covered by the article currently located at...") and the Muhammad case (linked above) are a few examples. I personally don't mind, but it might be better to be explicit as to the scope of discretionary sanctions in this situation? Steven Zhang 00:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• @Jclemens, I was probably being just a bit anal about my reading of it, perhaps that's how I picked up on it. But knowing the climate of topics like these, I figured it's best to be explicit just in case we have any wikilawyering over the remedy in future ("the remedy says articles only, not X areas") @Roger, sounds good. I'll keep my eye on this page. Steven Zhang 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Whenaxis

Greetings Arbitration Committee. I, too, would like to clarify if administrators will have the authority to ban users from the discussion when disruptive editing occurs. I think the Arbitration Committee should provide this authority to administrators because any uncivil comment can detract from the productivity of the community discussion. At this time, the remedy encompasses articles relating to Abortion, as suggested by Steven above, I think it should encompass the discussion and all pages relating to Abortion. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Moved per NW's request and redacted to make sense. As you'll see at Misplaced Pages:AC/DS#Affected areas, this is a "problem" (not really) for more than just this case. They can really be fixed by a simple copy edit though, as DS have been applied to all pages in a topic area since forever. NW (Talk) 13:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Seems like a fairly common-sense thing to do to me, but I'm still recused on this one. Courcelles 22:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, the admins can apply blocks or bans as needed to editors if they disrupt the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Just as discretionary sanctions that apply to articles also apply to the talk page, so too does the Abortion discretionary provision apply to community discussion related to the article. AGK 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• If my colleagues are minded to explicitly resolve that we consider RFCs to be within the scope of discretionary sanctions for the associated article, then I would be happy to support or propose a motion to that effect. However, in my view the scope is self-evident, and the opinions given in this clarification are sufficient as confirmation. AGK 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, especially as disruptive talkpage editing was a feature of the problems leading to the case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Discretionary sanctions were fully intended to apply to the discussions prompted by the remedy passed in this case. My apologies if the wording didn't make that sufficiently clear. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• To avoid doubt I would support changing it to read "for all pages related to abortion". SilkTork 09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. Yes, it seems to be a slip rather an intention and this has been confirmed by Jclemens above. As we seem to be unanimous, best is probably to handle this as a copy-edit instead of by formal motion, and I will do so in twelve or so hours time (unless anyone objects, of course).  Roger Davies 10:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)