Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
::Floq-we make clarifications without motions, but this actually alters a previous decision from last year, hence the vote. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC) |
::Floq-we make clarifications without motions, but this actually alters a previous decision from last year, hence the vote. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
== Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience == |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' [[Special:Contributions/84.106.11.117|84.106.11.117]] ([[User talk:84.106.11.117|talk]]) '''at''' 03:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
;Case or decision affected: |
|||
:{{RFARlinks|Pseudoscience}} |
|||
:original ruling: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision]] |
|||
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|84.106.11.117}} (initiator) |
|||
*{{admin|Sandstein}} |
|||
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. |
|||
Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed, |
|||
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. |
|||
The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. |
|||
--> |
|||
=== Statement by 84.106.11.117 === |
|||
While supported by article content at the time the pseudoscience label was dropped from the Cold Fusion article some time before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=458280177 October 2011]. |
|||
In the wild it looks like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brian_Josephson#Cold_fusion this]. Any admin may now ban the Nobel laureate? This is how it should be? It makes no sense to me. What is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.106.11.117&oldid=616521792 this] doing on my talk page? What does it even mean? Is this the new welcome message? |
|||
I've posted one on [[User_talk:Sandstein]] talk page to see what happens. Surely he needs such helpful information as much as I do? |
|||
=== Statement by {other user} === |
|||
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements --> |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
|||
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
|||
* |
|||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 03:56, 13 July 2014
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Clarification request: Argentine History | Motion | (orig. case) | 10 July 2014 |
Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience | none | (orig. case) | 13 July 2014 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Clarification request: Argentine History
Initiated by MarshalN20 Talk at 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Topic Ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by MarshalN20
Hey! I'd like to take the article United States to featured status (current sandbox, with pictures and new lead section, is at User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). Over the past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the Peru national football team and Pisco Sour, and will soon have a third one with the Falkland Islands.
I was not sure if editing the US history section would be an issue, due to the topic ban that prevents me from editing Latin American history topics (non-cultural) prior to 1980. US history is tangentially related to Latin American history. David recommended me to take the question here in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
I'd like to work in this article to keep demonstrating my true value as an editor. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's worth clarifying that I will use the WP:SUMMARY rule when writing the history section. The only two major topics that I can currently think about (related to Latin America that I will certainly mention, in one or two sentences) are the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. The Monroe Doctrine (and its related practices) and Cuban Missile Crisis will probably only be part of a larger sentence, the former related to hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and the latter to the Cold War. There certainly are more, but I currently cannot imagine going into detail into any of it.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by The ed17
Speaking as a participant in the previous discussion, opposed to MarshalN20, I think that a limited exception for the United States article is appropriate. Nearly all of the history section will not infringe on areas that caused the ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- It would be impossible to put together a complete history of the United States without touching multiple times on its interactions with Latin America. Many of those historical interactions would be before 1983, so those portions of the article would be encompassed by the ban. However, I would be willing to consider a limited exception for that particular article similar to the previous Falklands exemption, to be revoked in the event of misconduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Seraphimblade and would support an exemption to MarshalN20's topic ban in this case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Me three. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban exemption
- For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Proposed:
- Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
- Support
-
- Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't this kind of thing used to be decided without having to have an actual motion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- This seems pretty low risk to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- With the expectation that the issues that led to the original decision will not recur on this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Per brad. NativeForeigner Talk 00:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Comments by arbitrators
- Floq-we make clarifications without motions, but this actually alters a previous decision from last year, hence the vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience
Initiated by 84.106.11.117 (talk) at 03:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- original ruling: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- 84.106.11.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Statement by 84.106.11.117
While supported by article content at the time the pseudoscience label was dropped from the Cold Fusion article some time before October 2011.
In the wild it looks like this. Any admin may now ban the Nobel laureate? This is how it should be? It makes no sense to me. What is this doing on my talk page? What does it even mean? Is this the new welcome message?
I've posted one on User_talk:Sandstein talk page to see what happens. Surely he needs such helpful information as much as I do?
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).