This is an old revision of this page, as edited by My very best wishes (talk | contribs) at 15:49, 19 May 2012 (→Statement by uninvolved My very best wishes: must tell this). 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: Speed of light (Brews ohare)

Case link: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Initiated by JohnBlackburne_deeds at 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

• JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notification

Statement by JohnBlackburne

It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but Brews ohare has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case, Wavelength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks tried to get rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected started an RfC on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today proposed a version of it yet again, as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be dismissed because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again).

My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?--JohnBlackburne_deeds 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare: the RfC was the place to discuss content. This is neither the time or the place. I made my comments on the content during the RfC, there is no point doing so again. You closed the RfC, after only a week, so it seemed you were happy that the discussion had run its course and consensus had been reached. It's your continuing to argue again and again after that that's the problem. It was the RfC that drew me in, as a site-wide notice on a topic I'm interested in. As always if you find fault with my contributions please provide diffs not vague accusations. The link to find them is in my signature.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare You do know that posting off-wiki information about editors that they have not volunteered themselves is considered harassment, don't you? If I cared to keep my identity private I would not use my real name here but it is still strictly forbidden.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon

The problem is not so much "incorrect material", but tangential, poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information, and a few bits wrong, too, combined with refusal to hear or understand objections. When I was defending the Wavelength article against his bloat and nonsense in the summer of 2009, I thought he was probably an overreaching grad student; turns out he's a prof emeritus and fellow of the IEEE, so no dummy. But in the years since, he demonstrated repeatedly an inability to collaborate, or to even understand the objections of other editors to what he is trying to do. This blew up more at Speed of light because there were plenty of other serious editors there. I'm very happy that JohnBlackburne and a few others have been recently helping out at Wavelength, because I don't have the time or energy to take on that defense again. I have no idea how to convince Dr. Brews to take on a workable style, but this is a drag. The arbitration was supposed to help put him back on a tolerable track; I hope the arbs will look at how to help here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the technical argument is Brew's claim that "the Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that". That's nonsense. The Fourier series is one tool used to analyze periodic functions, primarily in the context of linear systems for which a decomposition into sinusoids allows easy solutions and characterizations of behaviors. This is not the case in the situation where he is introducing the Fourier series into the wavelength article; none of the (relatively few) sources that mention the connection show any way that it is useful. It is a red herring, a dead-end tangent. Decomposition of waves into sinusoids is indeed important, but least so in the context of periodic-in-space waves; the wavelength article is hardly the place to get into this. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

Not this crap again... that's all I have to say. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brews_ohare

The gist of Blackburne's complaint is that I have attempted to insert "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths". The text so-described is presented on Talk:Wavelength as a proposed addition as follows:

If the direct quote from the cited source fails to convince, here are three others:

• Ariel Lipson, Stephen G. Lipson, Henry Lipson (2010). Optical physics. Cambridge University Press. p. 94. ISBN 0521493455. Fourier's theroem states that any periodic function f(x) can be expressed as the sum of a series of sinusoidal functions which have wavelengths that are integral fractions of the wavelength λ of f(x){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Andrew Putnis (1992). An Introduction to Mineral Sciences. Cambridge University Press. p. 65. ISBN 0521429471. Fourier analysis is a mathematical method of expressing any periodic function with wavelength λ as a sum of sinusoidal functions whose wavelengths are integral fractions of λ (i.e. λ, λ/2, λ/3, etc.)
• Alexander McPherson (2009). "Figure 4.1". Introduction to Macromolecular Crystallography (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 78. ISBN 0470185902. This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.

I believe this sets aside Blackburne's claim that I attempt to "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths", and also Dicklyon's claims that this text represents "poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information" or of inserting "bloat and nonsense". It also refutes mistaken arguments by Dicklyon that "wavelength" is not applicable to functions periodic in space ("And your statement that ‘The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself ’ is contrary to typical usage of the term ‘wavelength’ " Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2012).

At this point, it is established that content is not the issue here, and smearing this proposal as an example of bloat, flawed understanding, and idiosyncrasy is wide of the mark, and reflects poorly upon the grasp of the text by its critics. As Dicklyon is a self-professed "research engineer in Silicon Valley" and Blackburne a mathematician, one may wonder how these basic misconceptions have arisen. If further support for the content presented is required, I can supply an unending list of texts describing Fourier series and its application to periodic functions, and a case can be made that Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that.

What remains is the general claim that my Talk-page discussion insists too much on adding this aside to the reader, over "objections" of other authors. I'd suggest that these objections have been largely based upon misconceptions about the content of the proposed text and its purpose. My attempts to explain that this is an aside pointing out the applicability of the mathematical machinery of periodicity to the topic of spatially periodic waveforms has been addressed by Dicklyon using the argument that Fourier series is not useful for this purpose, which seems to me to be patently absurd. The entire history of functional analysis begins with Fourier series applied to periodic functions, and it is the subject of innumerable textbooks.

On any other WP article a minor sourced quotation making a connection between one topic (wavelength) and others (Fourier series) on WP would attract no attention whatsoever. I am forced to speculate that the primary source of the extreme response here is that Dicklyon and Blackburne have a prior history with me, and it is their lingering objections to my contributing to WP that drives them to bizarre claims contrary to sources, not this particular content. Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My interchange with Dicklyon on Talk:Wavelength extends over several topics, and not just this particular point. Sometimes such discussion gets somewhere, and sometimes it doesn't. That is what Talk pages are for. Brews ohare (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example of a fruitful outcome, a discussion on Talk:Wavelength led to my authoring of the article Envelope (waves) when it appeared that this topic could not be addressed within Wavelength itself. Other discussions led to the inclusion of the topic of local wavelength and a figure, the inclusion of the section on crystals and the notion of aliasing with another figure, and to the sections on interference and diffraction with two more figures (all figures created by myself). In fact, seven of the figures in Wavelength were contributed by myself and accompanied by additional text and sources arrived at through discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the comment by Count Iblis. I believe he has a point in a way. I recognize that most of my interactions with Dicklyon prove difficult, and the proposed text was clearly one of those. I modified my proposal several times to make it a more and more minor addition, hoping to get some recognition that Fourier series in some form should be mentioned in Wavelength. Some formulation of this point could be acceptable to all if the point were developed jointly in a constructive manner. But the practical approach is for me to keep in mind the limitations upon what is possible with Dicklyon and Blackburne, and recognize that Blackburne will adopt every opportunity to drag AN/I or some Administrator into what would otherwise settle itself. Brews ohare (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: Thanks for the added remarks. Dealing with Dicklyon at length has succeeded sometimes, but Blackburne's intolerance makes this more unlikely than in the past. My efforts to widen opinion using RfC hasn't worked. Your recommendation of Wikiproject physics as an alternative mechanism to get other editors involved, and to limit my own participation, is worth trying in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to My very best wishes, I gather that you pose a query to me that can be narrowly expressed something like this: "Assuming that Brews_ohare is completely correct in stating that a sourced quotation has pertinence to the article Wavelength, and assuming further that opposition to its inclusion is not well founded, would you, Brews_ohare, nonetheless agree to desist from pursuing this particular attempt to include this material in Wavelength?" I'd answer that the posited assumptions reflect how I think about this matter, but, as stated above in my response to Count Iblis, I also see that there is little point in pursuing the issue on Talk:Wavelength under the prevailing circumstances. So, yes, I'll move on. Your question, however, is posed more broadly, not restricted to this episode on Talk:Wavelength. In a broader context, regarding discussion in general, I'll have to consider carefully to what extent Dicklyon is open to discussion should he appear on another Talk page. I'd point out the paragraph above detailing positive outcomes for Wavelength in interaction with Dick. These were the result of useful but difficult discussions with Dick. Now a further difficulty to weigh in future is that any extended discussion with Dick will draw in Blackburne, who will use any detailed discussion as an opportunity to invite Administrator attention, even using a pretext such as this supposed query about "clarification" of an expired sanction. I will doubtless be more careful in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Thanks for the remarks. Yes, there is no general answer to these kinds of problem. The answer appears in this case to depend upon my exercising more care in dealing with these two, regardless of the topic or the merits. Brews ohare (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I interpret your added remark as a suggestion that I be topic banned to reduce clamor on Talk:Wavelength. If your suggestion is a page-ban, it is hardly necessary, as it is clear to me that the present discussion is over. If your suggestion is more general, I would strongly object that such a serious action goes far beyond anything suggested by Talk:Wavelength. Brews ohare (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I'd add to these remarks that many past prolonged discussions on Talk:Wavelength have proved productive, as evidenced by the discussions attached in Wavelength to the seven figures I have contributed there. Not all prolonged, and even heated, discussions are useless, although they may not generate a glow of satisfaction. Of course, the atmosphere on Talk pages is not always ideal (to say the least), and results often stem from debate as much as from collaboration. However, if the discussions on Talk:Wavelength had been inhibited by the threat of sanctions, the article Wavelength would not be as good. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Srleffler, the proposed text in the green box is not merely rehash. The proposal narrowed in scope and purpose over time to become what it now is, a simple cross-reference between Wavelength and Fourier series, a much more limited reference than that found in the four sources cited above. However, your objections never addressed this change, as explicitly pointed out to you. Brews ohare (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved My very best wishes

I am not quite sure why the overall atmosphere in Physics is significantly more hostile than in Biology and Chemistry. It could be that articles in this area are better developed and therefore more difficult to improve, or it could be that some editors want everything to be described exactly as in their favorite textbook (although there are alternative interpretations) and in their favorite version of article, so they should be reminded of WP:NPOV and WP:own. In this particular situation, I do not think that returning to old subjects was necessarily a problem because consensus can change, but Brews must carefully avoid to be engaged in WP:DE. I do not see an obvious WP:DE by anyone at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. Please consider the following situation. There is certain perfectly sourced information that you think must be included, but there is also a couple of other people who do not want it to be included, and they are wrong. Would you agree to drop the issue and edit something else? Please read WP:TE before response. (Just to clarify, I am not telling here that "opponents" of Brews are wrong). My very best wishes (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. Thank you. I think there is no general answer to this, and it well could be that the "other guys" are engaged in WP:DE, paid advocacy, or a personal crusade against an editor, even if they form majority (once again, I am talking generally here, not about people in this particular incident). This is a situation when WP:Consensus sometimes comes in a contradiction with WP:NPOV and improving the content. But unfortunately, there is no other choice, but to follow WP:Consensus if we do not want to be sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. No, I do not have an opinion that people who continue civil discussions even when they are in minority should be topic-banned. But I am not sure about our policies in such cases and therefore asked to clarify. In a couple of cases I looked at (Pythagorean_theorem and Wavelength), I think that your suggested changes do not really improve these pages for a reader with basic knowledge of Physics and Math, so could spend your time more efficiently by switching to other articles in the area of Physics, as you did during the initial period of your editing here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• This looks to me as prolonged disputes on numerous talk pages, such as here some time ago and now here. The arguments by all sides are not unreasonable, and everyone provides some valid sources. At the same time, I can agree that such discussions are frequently fruitless, distract people from making productive contributions, and therefore can lead to sanctions. But we have much longer and even less productive discussions in many other subject areas, for example here. Should not we just look who contributed most in such discussions and topic-ban the leader? Please clarify. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis

Brews is making the mistake of trying to get his way by posting more RFCs. Thing is that being right on the issue doesn't give you the right to edit your way. The first time, I did see the RFC Brews posted, and I wanted to comment, but I abandoned that due to lack of time. I did not agree with Brews' proposal, but I had an idea about an alternative text that would mention Fourier transforms.

What struck me also was the lack of such contructive efforts, because obviously, Fourier transforms does in principle have a place in an article about wavelengths, regardless of how flawed Brews' proposal was. So, there is also something wrong about the general editing climate if the issue isn't properly debated. If editor X raises an issue and he has a point, then one should discuss the point that does exist and steer the discussion toward that, and not focus on opposing by ignoring the real points that exist and only focussing on where the editor goes wrong. Because then that editor will eventually correct himself and you end up dancing around the central point for a long time, causing everyone to get irritated.

So, I would suggest Brews to limit the time he spends online here editing and arguing on the talk page. Try to get it (almost) right the first time you propose something, or when you edit something in an article. To the others, I would say that they should be more positive about any proposals. This doesn't mean that you have to accept something that is bad, just that you would in that case end up rejecting in a way that would more likely conclude the debate. E.g. on the Tachyon page I see too much opposition for proposed edits while in the end you had to accept the proposal. Surely, that could have been agreed to weeks earlier by acknowledging that the proposer did have a legitimate point here? Count Iblis (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Brews, by limiting the time spend here, what I meant was the time you spend here in some uphill effort to get something into the article. I would recommend that as soon as you experience any difficulties like in this case, you drop a line at Wikiproject physics instead of letting the issue fester for many weeks. But then, after briefly explaining your point, you should let others take a look while you reduce your input significantly. There is, of course, nothing wrong with spending a lot of time editing and arguing constructively on Misplaced Pages.

Don't think that everyone at Wikiproject physics is going to oppose you, because of the past history. I remember that Headbomb asked for input there because he was having difficulties editing the Planck law article last year. He got support on some points, but on some other points he did not get support. So, this isn't some rubber stamp procedure where the people who you got difficulties with in the past, always get their way.

I think this is better than posting RFCs, because this is more likely to lead to new editors actually getting involved in the article. What matters in the end is if some text is going to be seen to be appropriate for the article by the larger community and eventually by the readers of Misplaced Pages, not by any particular editor. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Srleffler

The fundamental problem here is Brews' persistent, tendentious style. In June 2009 Brews introduced some weak material relating to nonsinusoidal waves and Fourier series decompositions of them. After much discussion, some of his ideas got reworked and put into the article and others did not. He just can't let go of the concepts that didn't make it in, though. No matter what arguments are raised or how many other editors object, he just keeps bringing forward the same ideas over and over and over again, with slight variations of form. Every now and then he files an RfC, and when his proposal is rejected he immediately resurrects it in yet another slight variation and starts all over again. It is tiresome, and a waste of time that could be put to better use editing other articles.--Srleffler (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Other

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements, particularly from Brews Ohare. At first (brief) sight, any sanctions have expired; no discretionary sanctions were authorised; and the original case was sufficiently long ago (autumn 2009) to be left to lie. If there is misconduct, and if it very closely mirrors the 2009 case, and obviously I'm not expressing an opinion on either of those points, it might be possible to persuade arbitrators to re-open the 2009 case as it is within ArbCom discretion to re-open any prior case at any time.  Roger Davies 05:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• I have concerns that Brews is returning to WP:DE, but if that is the case, we can probably resolve this with a motion re-restricting him from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Having reviewed this dispute, like SirFozzie I am concerned. However, I am minded to open a review of the original case, and would be uncomfortable with remedying this dispute by motion. We need a proper case (if an abridged one) with suitable mechanisms for evidence submission—not a Pop-Up Hearing on this page. AGK 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abortion (1RR query)

Case link: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

An article was recently tagged as being under the community 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles. After some discussion, I realized that it was no longer clear that the community restriction was in effect. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions states that "This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community." However, the community authorization was in two parts -- the 1RR authorization, and the discretionary sanctions. On WP:GS, the whole thing is listed as superceded, but I'm not sure that was what was intended. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

According to User talk:Jclemens/Archive 9#1RR, it's probably still in effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens -- Pregnancy is not the article in question. As Collect points out below, it's Pro-life feminism. I didn't identify the article in my original statement because I wanted to clarify the general principle, rather than its application to this particular case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And I agree this is a more-appropriate venue, I just thought it was best to link to the previous discussion instead of ignoring it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese -- I'm trying to keep this on "is there a 1RR in effect", not "should 1RR apply to this article". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Queries: It the labelling of an article as being subject to being under 1RR properly done by any editor? Specifically, can an editor who is heavily involved in editing an article a fair source for so indicating that an article not previously labelled as being under a 1RR restriction is now under one? Is placement of the "1RR template" properly done by an involved editor who is not an administrator? Hypothetically, if an involved editor in an article which has not heretofore been identified as being "abortion related" adds material which is clearly "abortion related" can such an editor then add a template indicating that the article is under a 1RR "abortion related" restriction? Where the article has not been under such a prior restriction, is it proper for an involved editor to state that another editor has "violated" the 1RR restriction which was not noted at the article or article talk page? Can an involved admin place an article under the 1RR restriction? Does the placing of a restriction require the act of an uninvolved administrator? I apologize for the logical query string, but trust the issue is clear here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I read Jclemens posts somewhat differently than you do, and also note his position that an article on Pregnancy does not intuitively fall under the sanctions, even if the word "abortion" is in the article, unless the article is substantially about "abortion" proper. The case at hand is about "feminism" proper, and not specifically about "abortion" except to the extent that the word appears as a "feminism" issue (specifically "pro-life feminism"). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Pro-life feminism strictly an "abortion" topic, or is it a "feminism" topic showing that feminists can and do have differing views about topics which happen to include abortion? I would note that in all the time since the abortion decision, this article has never been cited as falling into its purview. This comment, morevover, falls below the specific stated queries above, which I suggest reasonably ought to be answered in any case. In fact, the edit which aroused the ire was to remove an insufficiently sourced insertion of "abortion" into the article. Collect (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note also that "abortion" is covered in every current political biography (inc. Santorum, Romney, Obama et al, and the campaign articles), pretty much, in the party articles, in the political spectrum articles (including Fascism, etc., and if a strict interpretation of "it says "abortion in it" is used, thousands of articles will be subject to the 1RR restriction. Somehow I doubt this is a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the committee, indeed. IOW, the law of unintended consequences seems to be at work here. Collect (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would note that Sarek views my position stated here as somehow reaching:

this statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken?

Which I regard as overkill in the context of this discussion. Is it the position of arbitrators that mentioning a search result is a basis for seeking a ban of any editor where I have made zero POV edits about "abortion" on any article whatsoever? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@R - note that upon receiving the warning, I did attempt to self-revert, as I noted at the time. Thus I am "wriggling out of" nothing at all. What I am concerned with here is what is in my queries, which I would really like answered, instead of having miscellaneous noticeboards brought into this. It is procedure which is the issue, and nothing else, as far as I am concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@R I am glad you made an edit 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)

shows my notice of an attempt to self-revert - before 18:26 on 2 April. - thus making some of the "charges" made here a tad irrelevent. I trust this clears the air of the charge that I am "wriggling out" of anything. Collect (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

• The article in question is about an anti-abortion movement and is inseparable from the subject of abortion. Past decisions (I'm referring to calls I know Sarek has made, but this may be true of other admins as well) have also held that material related to abortion falls under the sanction even if the article in general is not about abortion, eg. discussion of abortion in a biography of someone whose notability was not as an activist. The applicability of the case to the specific article is not in doubt; the question is whether 1RR is still active. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sarek: Yes, exactly. I'm trying to bring the discussion back around to the topic, not to Collect's attempts to wriggle out of an edit-warring warning at that article. :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Collect: You're joking, right? April Fools' Day is over. You were edit-warring to remove the classification of O'Brien as an anti-abortion activist in favor of saying her position was representative of Irish women, and the article still calls her an anti-abortion activist and doesn't misrepresent sources to claim she's more representative than she is. I do hope this means you're done edit-warring and misrepresenting sources, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I think the question here is whether 1RR is in effect on abortion-related articles. I think the answer is yes. A community-enacted 1RR restriction was in place before the case. ArbCom found that "All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization." Presumably, "all sanctions" includes the 1RR. It would be good to get a quick confirmation of this from the Committee, since it's apparently a matter of dispute. MastCell  22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

With two inactive arbitrators (Xeno and Hersfold) and one recused (Risker), an absolute majority is seven.

• Sarek, is Pregnancy the article in question? As far as what I said before, I would encourage other arbitrators to look at the question with fresh eyes, because it was certainly never my intent to issue a binding opinion on the matter; this venue is certainly more appropriate than my talk page and its archives. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It was not my intent as drafter in the referenced case to end the community's 1RR on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Recused. Risker (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question: Has the 1RR restriction been widely enforced since the Abortion case was decided? AGK 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments offered above (and to my colleagues for responding). My own view is that the community's 1RR sanction is obviously still in force. (If its retention in this topic area is undesirable, ANI or another noticeboard should be used to rescind the sanctions: what the community giveth, the community may taketh away.) AGK 15:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with MastCell, the answer is 'yes', the 1RR is still in place. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Aye, my interpretation of the bit Mastcell quoted is that 1RR still applies. Hersfold 00:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, I think they are in place as well. (Apologies that this is very far from the 'quick confirmation' sought here.)  Roger Davies 06:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed with my fellow arbs that it still applies. SirFozzie (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry for delay in answering - and also apologies for the response being long and complex! The wording is: "This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community. 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." Slightly awkward wording which could mean that ArbCom take over the community sanctions so that they are treated as ArbCom sanctions, though it could also mean that the new ArbCom sanctions replace the community sanctions (so that the old sanctions no longer apply) but that the records of actions performed under the community sanctions are merged with the records of the ArbCom sanctions. Looking at the Proposed decision page, there was some discussion on the matter - Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions, and the option which made it clear that ArbCom was taking over the community sanctions was not supported in favour of this wording. My reading of those comments makes it appear as though the intention was to replace the community sanctions with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. As there is some doubt regarding the wording, would it be worth looking at the community sanctions, which essentially only differ from the Discretionary sanctions by the use of a 1 Revert Rule, and seeing if the Committee wishes to take that over as an ongoing sanction, or replace it completely with the standard sanctions? Personally I think that we should all follow a one revert rule as standard, so I would support a one revert rule in any problematic area and would consider opening a discussion to include such a rule in the Discretionary sanctions. SilkTork 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In short - I support a 1RR sanction for the Abortion topic. SilkTork 15:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)