Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 59

Request to amend prior case: Discretionary sanctions in cases named after individual editors (March 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  T. Canens (talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) The "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, variously named and numbered.


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * N/A: the suggested amendment is cosmetic.

Statement by Timotheus Canens
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. , 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)
 * @Kirill:
 * For Martinphi-ScienceApologist, my suggestion is to move the entire discretionary sanctions apparatus to the existing . The discretionary sanctions in this area were added by motion simultaneously to both the Pseudoscience case and the M-SA case, so the log is already split across two cases. When the Committee standardized discretionary sanctions, the new phrasing was added only to the M-SA case.
 * For Digwuren, the problem is that we already have the which post-dates this case. Maybe simply "Eastern Europe"?
 * For Abd-WMC, perhaps "Cold fusion 2"? T. Canens (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston: WP:ARBRB doesn't have any remedy targeting non-parties to the case, which is why I didn't include it in the list. T. Canens (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1
Seems like an excellent idea Tim.

Statement by EdJohnston
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 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 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)
 * @Tim: I accept your reasoning for why ARBRB should not be included in the reform.


 * @Courcelles: Keeping 'Eastern Europe' in the revised case name For Digwuren would be a benefit not a disadvantage. The older cases, Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes and WP:EEML, are historical curiosities and they don't need to be referred to very often. It is unlikely that any violations are going to be reported at AE in 2012 under these cases. WP:DIGWUREN is frequently cited at AE but it could logically be renamed to something like Eastern Europe.  EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia
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)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
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. Volunteer Marek 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
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)
 * I would suggest ARB-EE for Eastern European disputes OUTSIDE the Soviet legacy--DIGWUREN is the appropriate basis: the later EE arbitration case actually resulted in some level of amnesty and moving forward; all the sanctions are in the Digwuren case (the one-sided naming has always been a problem as well).
 * I also suggest/second ARB-FSU (Former Soviet Union) for Soviet legacy cases (historic portrayal) as well as current geopolitics, i.e., Russia related to South Ossetia, Transnistria, et al. as well as the wider conflict between official Russia and the Eastern European countries over the Soviet legacy.
 * "EE" is not really the appropriate rename for DIGWUREN, as I believe the sanctions have exhibited considerable scope creep outside the original Baltic purview. It might be more appropriate to consider a name completely outside the EE realm, a bit wordy but ARB-GEOPOLITICS might be what we are really after.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (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.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I see no problems with a cosmetic amendment of this sort in principle. Timotheus, please identify suitable new names for the three cases you mention, and we will proceed from there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also support this proposal. (In the case of Digwuren, we need to be careful not to confuse the new case name with the similar but separate Eastern European mailing list.) AGK  [•] 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As one who spent nine months trying to figure out what DIGWUREN was an acronym for, I fully support more sensible names - Eastern Europe disputes (perhaps abbreviated to WP:EED)) would be so much more intelligible. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're going to do this, can we come up with something for Diguren that doesn't include the phrase "Eastern Europenan"? With EED and EEML already out there, another case title like that is just going to be confusing.  Actually, I've always thought that Digquren and Macedonia having discretionary sanctions was overkill, and could be consolidated, since the area covered by Macedonia's sanctions is just s subset of Eastern Europe.  Might be worth considering while we're here... Courcelles 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The discretionary sanctions provision of Digwuren has the scope of "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I share the view of Ed and the other observers that the similarly-named cases (EEML being the most prominent) are nevertheless infrequently cited. I therefore propose as follows. AGK  [•] 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Martinphi-ScienceApologist discretionary sanctions moved
2) The discretionary sanctions provision at Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist are moved to a new section underneath Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. 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)


 * Support
 * Proposed. Pseudoscience already exists, but counter-intuitively the discretionary sanctions for the topic were put under the Martinphi case. This motion moves the sanctions to the auspices of the case of broader scope, for clarify in future referencing. AGK  [•] 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggested copyedit: change "stricken" to "relocated" or the like. (I think the motion uses "stricken" to mean either "lined through" or "relocated", but it can also have the different meaning of "cancelled altogether" which is not intended here, so it would be good to clarify.) The Clerk who implements this and the related motions to should put an explanatory note at the appropriate place(s) to minimize any confusion resulting from the motions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By "stricken", I mean "stricken through", so I have copy-edited to that effect. To be clear, the strike-throughs were supposed to serve as explanatory notes; the purpose of these motions is explicitly to not cancel any sanction, but to bring them into a more appropriate case. Sorry I wasn't more clear in the first place, and thanks for your suggestion. AGK  [•] 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And per NYB's copyedit suggesstions. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very weakly. I think that cases should be named to what they're about, but not strongly enough to oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but do we mean psuedoscience or pseudoscience, or have I missed something?  Roger Davies  talk 05:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. We mean pseudoscience, of course, and I've copy-edited to that end. (My browser doesn't mark the ue form as a typo, for some reason.) AGK  [•] 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comment by Arbitrators

Request for clarification: ARBAA2 (April 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Gatoclass (talk) at 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
Although I do not usually adjudicate disputes at WP:AE, I decided to assist on the recently filed Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 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)


 * Is there some reason this request cannot be closed at this point? I did request a prompt response, but it is still open well over a week after being filed. I would like to see the request closed before returning to the case which prompted it. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user
Shall Gatoclass' comments in on the recently filed AE request Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement be removed since the community believes that his participation in this and similar cases is objectionable? Dehr (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer
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, 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)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Putting aside the geographical definitions question for a moment, I wonder if the requester might be construing "involvement" more broadly than is necessary. An administrator who is active or who has been involved in editing disputes in a topic-area should avoid AE work in that topic, but that raises the question of defining the topic. In the case of Eastern Europe, I can imagine that some people might be involved in disputes involving that whole part of the world, and hence would stay away from administrator work covering any of Eastern Europe, broadly defined. On the other hand, if I were active in editing Lithuania, I wouldn't feel myself disqualified from helping out in a dispute about Slovakia or Montenegro. Or, for that matter, about Armenia and Azerbaijan. The question is whether the administrator might either actually have, or might reasonably be perceived as having, relevant bias or history that would make it unfair for him or her to help resolve the dispute. In the context of this request it sounds to me like there is probably not a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Brad's comment above. In other words, I wouldn't consider you to be involved. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the autocontemplative nature of the request, but I think NYB has nailed it above. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NYB has this one nailed. Courcelles 15:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Chiming in to agree with Brad. I don't think there's an issue with the case outlined above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (April 2012)

 * Original 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:
 * This is a request for general clarification, not addressing (at this time) any specific editors. I am consequently not notifying any individual users, but will post a notice about this request at Talk:Van cat.

Statement by SMcCandlish
I would like clarification that the WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions update to WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as enumerated on the former page under "Pages relating to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)", applies to topics that are not explicitly and obviously "Armenia-related" on their face but which are nonetheless subject to vitriolic ethnic/racial editwarring and soapboxing/battlegrounding in contravention of our neutral point of view policy, because of their tangential connections to tensions and disputes between Armenians and neighboring cultures. In particular, I note that a template has been applied to Talk:Armenian Genocide  with the following text: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at 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, 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. 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 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)


 * @Elen of the Roads: Re: "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)


 * @All: I consider this question resolved. Any pro-this or anti-that ethnicity POV-pushing that arises at the articles in question clearly within the scope of WP:ARBAA2, since the relevant geographic area is historically Armenian. That the articles are also connected to Turkey, but Turkey wasn't specifically mentioned by ARBAA2 is incidental and irrelevant and doesn't constitute a loophole. The warning template I asked about, however, isn't appropriate at the article talk pages I asked about, because they're about cats, not regional politics, so they'd be a bit off-topic and WP:BEANSish. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so please moderate your edit warring on the Van Cat article - continue and you risk being subject to AA2 sanctions. Meowy 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

 * Arbcom can of course make their own answer to this question, but I think there is no blanket 1RR restriction on the AA articles currently. (The 1RR at Armenian genocide was just for that article and it was imposed by User:Moreschi in 2008). It is my understanding that article-based restrictions such as 1RR can be imposed by any administrator under the provisions of WP:AC/DS, once it's been decided that the editing of the article falls in the domain of an appropriate Arbcom case. The discretionary sanctions are more quarrel-based than geography-based, so if somebody started an edit war on the nationality of the Van cat (Turkish versus Armenian, for example) that should fall under WP:ARBAA2. Nationalist warring involving Armenia on other cat-related articles should also fall under ARBAA2, but it would be wise for administrators only to impose a 1RR on specific articles where a problem appeared to exist and where an article 1RR was a better solution than individual editor sanctions.


 * In answer to the point about ARBPIA: there is presently a blanket 1RR restriction on those articles due to a community consensus in fall 2010. Arbcom did not issue a blanket 1RR remedy on I/P articles in either WP:ARBPIA or WP:ARBPIA2.


 * As to whether ARBAA2 can be broadly construed: See this edit from October 2011 in which the Committee authorized discretionary sanctions for "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted..", which ought to cover it.
 * Extension of an existing remedy to a novel area might fall under item 3 of WP:AC/DS, which suggests "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case". I assume they mean a discussion at the community level. This would suggest that an admin should go to WP:AE or some other appropriate noticeboard if they believe that AA restrictions are needed on cat articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I am here requesting an answer to the "question [of] whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case" for WP:AE purposes. Even just since I posted here, the Van cat article in question has been subject to "Kurdistan does not exist" edits by a pro-Armenian editor under editing sanctions imposed in WP:ARBAA2 (and blocked more than once for violating them). I'm getting the impression that the 1RR notice would not apply to this article, so I'm curious what I should do next other than keep reverting like some edit-warrior every time these anti-Kurd edits are made. The editor making them is not a vandal; highly controversial and blocked many times, but actually does make constructive edits like the recent overhaul of Turkish Van. And this is just the one editor; there are at least two others who have made massively (pro- and anti-Turk, respectively) POV-pushing changes to the now-merged Van cat naming controversy piece who I'm sure will show up any day now at Van cat. I have zero opinion on or interest in Turkey vs. Armenia vs. Kurdistan disputes (and know very little about them). I just want the Van cat and related articles to be accurate and not be used as a venue for pushing ethnic antagonism crap. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, please stop assuming bad faith. I gave an explanation for the removal of Kurdistan in the edit summary, and I have given one in the article's talk page. A cat breed cannot be said to have its origin in an entity that did not exist in any shape or form at the time of that origin. If you can argue against that, then just do it in the talk page. it is a content issue, not some sort of "pro-Armenian" edit issue. I've long past bothering what admins think of me because my opinion of them can't get lower. However, my otherwise rather good opinion of you suffers when I see you making an inaccurate "I'm a pro-Armenian editor" claim. I'm actually just about the only person on Wikipedia you could trust to make a neutral edit in any Armenian-Turkish-Azeri related article. Meowy 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that you aren't. You're very consistently pushing an anti-Kurd viewpoint, and you've been blocked again and again and again over several years, and sometimes for an entire year, for Armenia-related editwarring, and busted for sockpuppetry to push more such edits. I don't understand why you can't leave that topic area alone. Just walk away and pick a different topic to edit on, where you can actually remain neutral. I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm observing that you have a four-year history of no-remorse ethno-political editwarring in many, many articles that touch on sensitive topics with regard to the Near East, especially the region where Turks, Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Kurds rub shoulders, and have been blocked more times than I can count for violating editing restrictions with regard to those articles. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you dig out an old edit I made somewhere in that article or the Turkish Van one, I remember saying "cats don't have an ethnicity"! :) Meowy 04:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Straw man. No one has advanced any such claim about cats, which would be beyond moronic. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:05, 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". 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)
 * The definition "all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" was coined by administrators post AA2, and is a good example of "mission-creep" (let's add "Turkey", let's add "Iran", etc.). The definition that now replaces it actually returns it closer to its original definition. Meowy 04:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, thanks for clarification. But then it would mean that in an article like Van cat, which is generally about a cat, albeit from a certain area, if problematic edits are related to an ethnic conflict, then they are covered by AA remedies, but if edit warring or POV pushing is related to something else, like say length of the claws or color of the fur, then that is covered by general rules. If it so, then whenever edit warring about AA topics spills over to an article that have no direct relation to AA issues, AA related problematic edits will be covered by this particular remedy, and anything else will be not. Is that right, or I'm missing the point again? But then it still leaves open the question whether the topics and subjects related to Turkey and Iran are also covered by this remedy, or they are only covered when Turkey and Iran related topics relate also to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Grand  master  15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting side issue, I suppose, but not relevant to the question I raised; Van cat (formerly Van kedisi and the PoV-fork Van cat naming controversy and Turkish Van clearly within the scope of WP:ARBAA2, to the extent that ethno-political editwarring arises there, because the relevant geographic area, within the present-day political border of Turkey, was historically part of Armenia, and the editing in question is directly related to Armenian vs. other ethnic disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Van cat is within the scope of AA, but it is just one instance of problematic editing in AA area. I feel that AA related remedies may need to be revisited in light of what is going on Nagorno-Karabakh and some other articles. The WP:AE request is left without action for about 1 month now: I think the community has very little interest to what is going on in AA articles, and the issue may need to be raised to a higher level.  Grand  master  23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

 * Ed is correct that discretionary sanctions apply to edits, not articles. Such a scope is by design: when general sanctions like article probation were used in the past, we had a distracting volume of dispute about whether tangentially-related articles (like Van cat) were the subject of oversight by arbitration enforcement administrators. The answer to this clarification therefore seems to be that any edits which relate to "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" will be open to enforcement&mdash;and everything else will not. If I have omitted an answer to any additional line of enquiry, please say so here and I will try to follow up promptly. AGK  [•] 22:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster: No, it means topics or subjects (as written). This means that any edit within the scope of the dispute are subject to enforcement. The point is that the sanctions do not apply to whole articles, because then there is the capacity for wikilawyering that, when the dispute spills over to "unrelated" articles, enforcement cannot take place. AGK  [•] 01:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As Anthony says, it's content/editing that's the dividing line, not necessarily articles. I do agree being more consistent in our verbiage would make intents clearer, and is worth considering for future cases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:37, 14 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:ARBPIA (April 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ at 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Seb az86556
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.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I would say yes, because the only reason to make this kind of edit is to push one side of the Israeli/Palestinian argument. It's not a term of scholarship. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The dispute centres around whether Jesus of Nazareth was peregre (from abroad, an administrative term about Roman citizenship). I would therefore say that, unless the dimensions of the dispute change to be related to Arab/Israel, discretionary sanctions will not apply. The situation would also change if contributors who are active on "ARBPIA articles" become involved. However, for now I am inclined to say the dispute is not subject to arbitration enforcement. AGK  [•] 01:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The nationality of Jesus is a pertinent and appropriate discussion, and there are sources which describe Jesus as a Palestinian Jew. When sources say "Jesus was a Palestinian Jew", are they meaning "Jesus was a Jew and was one of the Palestinian people", or are they meaning "Jesus was a Jew who lived in Palestine"? Some scholarly research into the matter to present an understanding to the general reader would be helpful. Suppressing appropriate discussion of this matter, or engaging in edit warring would not be appropriate, and as the issues relate to WP:ARBPIA, then the sanctions from that could be applied to ensure that an open and neutral approach to the matter is allowed to unfold. I note that the editor who prompted this clarification request, has already been blocked under the WP:ARBPIA sanctions for edit warring, so it may be that this clarification is no longer needed. That use of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions seems appropriate as it appears that the user was using the debate around this "Jesus was a Palestinian Jew" question in order to make a political point.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion (April 2012)

 * Original 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:
 * No specific users so far; this is about scope

Statement by Timrollpickering
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.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not terribly experienced in categorical convention, but I would tentatively say that the outcome of the naming discussion will be binding on directly associated categories (for obvious reasons). AGK  [•] 01:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories generally follow the name of the main article if possible. There would need to be a good reason for a category name to depart from that of the main article. While there is nothing explicit in either the ArbCom wording, nor the RfC wording that would include the relevant categories, it would be implicit, and those familiar with the procedures at Categories for discussion would follow the renaming of the articles. If it is felt, however, that to avoid any potential future disruption, that the related category names should also be included in the binding RfC, then it is worth bringing that up at the RfC, which is a community discussion, not an ArbCom one.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I endorse both my colleagues' above statements. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for comment/Abortion article titles (April 2012)

 * Original 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:
 * No real "involvement", procedural question

Statement by chaos5023
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.
 * Thanks for the feedback. Getting the input of the closing admins seems like an excellent idea. :)  Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting other statements, but I think in cases where we've specified that three uninvolved admins close an RfC, the closing team has more credibility to discount or assign less weight to opinions at odd with pillars or policy, without such relative weighting being derided as a "supervote". After all, we don't need three uninvolved admins to count votes--ScottyWong's bots could do that in our sleep. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is within the community's remit now, but clearly our views will carry some weight in the event of ambiguity so I am happy to clarify. Polling using a preferential voting system like Borda count would, I think, be the best system: the point of the poll is to allow a decisive decision about the proposals made in the discussion, so a straight-vote is clearly not what is needed. The three closing administrators would be well-placed to make a final decision, because it is they who will need to interpret the results of the vote; I suggest you notify them about this request for clarification, and allow them to opine in a statement at their first convenience. AGK  [•] 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments that this is a question for the closing admins and/or those involved in the RfC.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:ARB911 (April 2012)

 * Original 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:
 * (initiator)

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
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)
 * My goodness, I had completely forgotten about those. If those were August 2011, I might feel more inclined to consider myself involved, but 1 1/2 years (that didn't really involve anyone who's at AE now) is a bit vaguer (as is evidenced by not even remembering those, it's safe to say they didn't influence my comments, and they wouldn't now because I was still a fairly new user at the time), so other input would be nice.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've gotten the feedback I need. Sorry for creating a mess of things, I'm still learning to navigate the labyrinth of arbitration pages.  Anyone can shut this down as they desire.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To Blade's response the wording from WP:INVOLVED says: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include . . . disputes on topics, regardless of the . . . age . . . of the dispute." My understanding is that the general idea is that admins should not get involved in cases where they may have a bias towards one position or another. How, when, and where someone edits is just the simplest gauge, though I think it is generally expected that an admin not get involved in a dispute where they have a strong opinion about the subject even if there is no history of editing in the area of the dispute.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
(Redacted) --DHeyward (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your views, but I removed your statement: the issue in question here is the involvement of an administrator, not the subject of the enforcement request. If you have a complaint about TDA you should pursue it in the proper venues - and not by derailing a tangentially-related thread. AGK  [•] 23:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't think questions of involvement need necessarily come to the committee first, even on AE-related matters. I think arbitration is a good alternative if a first approximation by the community is inconclusive, although in such cases the simpler alternative is to pass the torch on to another admin if a substantial minority agree with the person complaining of involvement. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jclemens. We do not usually make a binding decision about administrator involvement in the first instance, and these comments should certainly not be construed as such, but it would be less problematic if TBOTNL would allow another administrator to make a decision - in this request, at least. For future reference, if I were pressed, I would probably say you are involved for the purposes of arbitration enforcement, not least because the threshold for such "involvement" is very low. AGK  [•] 23:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Palestine-Israel articles (April 2012)

 * Original 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:
 * (initiator)

Statement by your Shrike
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 or removed not WP:RS .Does blanket revert of the sock is OK(Does it considered WP:TE)?,,.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)

Statement by other user
See Ban.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you then I want to understand what does this mean " they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons" for example if I think that the source that sock removed is not WP:RS could I remove it too?.
 * I would think so as long as you have your own policy based reasons for making the edit. In other words, you aren't just acting on behalf of the sock. Editors who do that repeatedly can easily look like they are in effect meatpuppeting for the topic banned/blocked editor. For example, removing "alleged" in your first diff looks fine at first glance because it is the case that it isn't in the source (although obviously it is an allegation whether or not "alleged" is used), but then, neither is the rest of the description "denial of service attacks", so why precisely mirror the sock's edit ? It looks odd given that no source said alleged or DoS attack. I know because I wrote it but it made sense to me at the time. So, on the one hand, precisely mirroring the socks edit looks odd, but ignoring the sock and making the edit you would make anyway according to policy seems okay, at least to me. I think the key thing is that NoCal is not allowed to be here or have any influence over the content of the encyclopedia. They are not allowed to make any edits or interact with anyone. Ideally bots would spot socks automatically and revert their edits on sight no matter what they are. In the meantime while Wikipedia doesn't have that technology I guess we are supposed to use our common sense on a case by case basis for edits made by socks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Request to amend prior case: Muhammad images (April 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  T. Canens (talk) at 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1, Community asked to decide issue of Muhammad images


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlanscottwalker&diff=484135884&oldid=484093685]

Amendment 1

 * Extend the deadline for appending the result of the discussion to the case.

Statement by Timotheus Canens
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)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
This week 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=483685484] 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 for a recent concern about a, perhaps, less than conclusive outcome for part of this RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AlexandrDmitri
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)

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.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Whilst I have commented, I don't consider that my brief statement is grounds for recusal --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is anyone going to write a statement in opposition to this? I see no reason to alter the schedule of a functioning community process, even though it may not be going as rapidly as we'd initially asked for and hoped.  For the record, I've already made a few comments at the RfC in my individual capacity, although I don't see any reason that would or should be assumed to sway me on this amendment request. Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not take part in the arbitration case, so there may be issues I'm not aware of, but as an independent arbitrator, I have no objection to extending the deadline now the discussion has started if that is seen as necessary. It should be noted that a RfC does not need to be open for 30 days exactly - 30 days is simply when the RfC bot automatically delists a RfC. A RfC can be closed before or after 30 days. However, if an RfC is seen as important or contentious, then by convention it is generally given at least 30 days, though if nobody has commented for over 7 days and there is a clear consensus then common sense suggests it can be closed. If this RfC has been specifically set up to run for 30 days exactly, then so be it. I would urge participants to reach consensus within those 30 days.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If my colleagues do not disagree, I think the complainant can take this clarification as assurance that we are happy for the RFC to run a few weeks beyond the two-month deadline. Community discussions that operate by ArbCom request inevitably take longer than expected to be completed, and this will undoubtedly be no exception. Within reason, please take as long as you need to reach a consensus. AGK  [•] 11:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take the "deadline" in the case to mean "this will not wander on aimlessly for months on end" rather than a hard cut-off. A few weeks is no big deal at all, better to get the RFC right than rush it. Courcelles 23:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Senkaku Islands (April 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) at 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected : Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands

Remedy 3A: Tenmei banned for one year
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis (initiator)
 * User:Tenmei (on whose behalf this request has been initiated)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * (diff of notification of this thread on User talk:Tenmei)

Amendment 1

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands
 * Lifting of ban

Statement by Maculosae tegmine lyncis
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 BAN, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns:
 * Maximizing the quality of the encyclopedia (I believe further continuation of this ban runs contrary to this principle)
 * Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation to any victims of mistaken identity (N/A)
 * Maximizing the number of editors who can edit Wikipedia (User:Tenmei is a major contributor in areas where few are active; the loss of a valued colleague is also bad for the morale of others (No man is an island))
 * Avoiding conflict within the community over banned editors (see below)
 * Dissuading or preventing banned editors from editing Wikipedia or the relevant area of the ban (a one year ban reduced to six months may serve just as well as a one year ban fully served)

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)


 * Thank you each for your comments; I guess one might wonder whether the "general rule" is absolutely binding; also, would it be possible (1) to give some indication of the likelihood of success of any appeal; (2) to clarify that the perpetuation of any ban is preemptive rather than punitive; (3) to indicate whether a chorus of co-appellants would make any difference. I guess where I'm coming from is the prospect not only of losing a further six months' contributions but also, not inconceivably, that of their permanent departure; a risk that might in part be mititaged by more positive and welcoming steps now sufficient time has elapsed. Many thanks once again, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence
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)

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.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If Tenmei would like to appeal his ban, he is free to contact the Arbitration Committee directly. As a general rule, however, we do not consider ban appeals filed by a third party. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to Kirill's point, the good work done by editors prior to a ban being enacted is already factored in by the committee in deciding whether a topic ban from a problem area or a site ban from all of Wikipedia is a more appropriate outcome. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comments above by Kirill and Jclemens that the appropriate course is for Tenmei to make an appeal to the Committee, during which we would consider information from our own review, such as previous conduct and contributions, and also take into account what Tenmei himself says in the appeal.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above; to respond to Maculosae's question, yes, I would consider it binding, as the result of an appeal depends heavily on the banned user's own comments, conduct, commitment to avoid past issues, etc. While a large number of supporters will generally aid such an appeal, the purpose of the ban is primarily preventative; if the banned user provides no indication that they will stop the previously disruptive behavior, there is no reason to lift or shorten a ban, regardless of how many supporters they have. As it is, without Tenmei's participation in an appeal, you are only able to present evidence which has already been presented to and reviewed by the Committee. The conclusions to be drawn solely from that evidence are very unlikely to change. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill.  Roger Davies  talk 17:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: WP:ARBCC (Cla68) (April 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cla68 (talk) at 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected : WP:ARBCC
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) ARBCC (Remedy 15)
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * Request lifting of topic ban

Statement by Cla68
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:


 * Three featured articles which I co-edited with other editors (primarily Sturmvogel 66 and Dank):
 * Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga (Actually this one passed FA while the ARBCC case was ongoing)
 * Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō (17 January 2011)
 * Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi (4 February 2012)


 * Helped significantly expand or improve several other articles, including:
 * Vermouth (one of WP's top 10,000 most viewed articles and scores above 4 in all its page ratings)
 * Arlington National Cemetery mismanagement controversy
 * Camp Lejeune water contamination
 * 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (many edits since this article started immediately after the incident)


 * Co-certifier on the Cirt RfC
 * WP:V RfC. Although I didn't take part in the final decision, I think it was my push which finally got three admins to buckle down and close it.


 * I was blocked once during this time, for a matter related to the Fae RfC. The majority opinion at the block review was that the block was incorrect, and me and blocking admin don't appear to have any acrimony.  On that issue, I have started drafting an essay on logical fallacies, which I will eventually propose for upgrading to a guideline.  The goal is to influence WP editors to stop using logical fallacies, such as ad hominem or straw man arguments, when debating an issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @AGK, the finding was correct. I did engage in those behaviors while editing the climate change (CC)/global warming topic area.  I won't do it again.  I do have actual evidence of my commitment not to do so. After the case was over, I wrote an essay, called WP:ACTIVIST with help from SlimVirgin and a few others.  The essay was not only, or even primarily, based on my experience in the CC topic area.  After completion, the essay was amended quite a bit, to say the least, by other editors, including some of the climate change regulars.  If you check the edit history, although many editors revert-warred with each other over that essay, I was not one of them.  I made not a single revert.  This is what my original draft looked like.  These are the drastic changes made to it by other editors, including Will Beback and Scotty Berg, who has been revealed recently to have been a sock of Mantanmoreland.  I basically let them have at it even though it had taken me a lot of time and effort to get the essay to where it was.  Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to MastCell: I think MastCell's statement constitutes an ad hominem argument, because it is my behavior on wiki that matters, which he omitted.  For example, when WMC requested that his topic ban be lifted four months ago, although I had some reservations about one statement he made, I supported the lifting of his ban, with one restriction.  Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to Casliber. Your statement, "the WR comment postdates the Activist essay by several months" is not exactly true.  One of the individuals in question revert warred on that essay as recently as 17 October, which was after the WR comment.  I did not agree with that revert or the edit summary, but I let it go.  Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) (WMC notified).


 * Response to Dave Souza. Me and Dave Souza disagreed on the use of that source.  Dave revert warred its use, but I didn't engage in a revert war with him.  I did what you are supposed to do, I started a discussion on it on the article's talk page, and started the threads on both the RS and FT noticeboards, then followed their advice.  Although the majority of uninvolved responders believed that the source should not be used, the opinions were not unanimous.  Intelligent Design is a difficult topic to edit for various reasons, as this incident illustrates, but I will leave it at that for now. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to Count Iblis. Actually, I believe in a higher standard, the "zero revert" way of doing things.  When someone adds text which appears to be reliably sourced, if I or anyone else disagrees with it, we should start a talk page discussion before considering its removal.  If someone reverts something I added, I will start a talk page discussion instead of reverting it back.  BLPs and obvious vandalism would be the only exceptions.  If WP editors would start doing things this way, there would be a lot less acrimony in controversial topics.  I have already started practicing what I preach on this     .  I think giving someone a one revert a day restriction, or some variation of that, sounds like WP's administration is saying that revert warring is ok, within limits.  I think that's the wrong message to send.  Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to Raul654. Intelligent Design is an extremely difficult topic to edit, as a good number of the regular editors there apparently have undisguisedly strong feelings on the topic.  Raul, if you have a concern over my approach to an article talk page dicussion, please next time bring it up with me on my user talk page.  I have no problem talking things over with other editors.  Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
On 9 October 2011, posted on Wikipedia Review:

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)

Statement by dave souza
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. After being advised this was inappropriate, he added a new section based solely on this source to one of the articles. When I undid this addition, he posted accusations on my talk page, took it up on the article talk page, 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)


 * AGK asks if there's something more recent than the example cited by Raul654: in his "Response to Raul654" Cla68 himself pointed to a (less blatant) example. Cla68 says "Intelligent Design is an extremely difficult topic to edit, as a good number of the regular editors there apparently have undisguisedly strong feelings on the topic." The second link points to the start of this discussion, begun by Cla68 with his unsourced allegation that there may be a "scientific/academic campaign" against ID, and his curious understanding that "academics or scientists usually try to keep an objective distance from the subjects they cover, in order to, among other reasons, show that their conclusions or research methodologies weren't unduly influenced by personal feelings or biases" – it's my understanding that scientists and academics are commonly and openly passionate about their topic areas. He then alleges "that a number of scientists/academics appear to have serious heartburn over this ID idea and are engaged in open advocacy to combat it". In that context of borderline trolling, Raul's response is reasonable and restrained. Cla68 responds to reasonable questioning about sources with "we're currently in the "brainstorming" phase in this discussion, are we not? Once we get some ideas and sources out here, and Yopienso has just added some helpful input, we decide what to do from there. And, I'll advise you right now, after watching this page for a couple of years, I have low tolerance for personalizing these discussions as some of the editors here have appeared to have become accustomed to doing. It's not acceptable. Agreed?" Later, he himself personalises discussion: "Do you belong to any organizations that have established a formal program or agenda to combat ID?" Cla68's approach combines "battlefield conduct" with civil POV pushing, and such conduct would clearly be disruptive in the climate change area which he would also find "an extremely difficult topic to edit" in that manner. . dave souza, talk 10:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Raul654 commented below on Cla68's January 2011 arguments that when intelligent design advocates say something, we should simply take their word for it, and Cla68's view that Wikipedia should avoid "taking a stand" or taking sides on issues where there is any disagreement. On 27 March 2012 Cla68 wrote that describing ID as a political strategy "means that Wikipedia would be taking a side on the debate about it. Unless, of course, DI's proponents themselves have acknowledged that it is a political strategy, not a philosophy." Shortly afterwards, he said "There are obviously at least two sides to this topic: DIs and their critics. If we take the critics' side, then we are violating NPOV. I take it you have answered my question, DI has not stated that the idea is a political strategy." and later again, "Actually, wouldn't DI's opinions on ID be considered as also coming from "recognized experts" since they are the ones promoting the philosophy?" In fairness, Cla68 did not continue the discussion. . dave souza, talk 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
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)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades
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)

Only a month ago, Cla68 was involved in a content dispute at. He added a section to the article that offered a detailed description of the views of a single individual:. (Looking back, it appears that this was carried over from a larger dispute involving Cla68 and others at Talk:Intelligent design and science.) When his addition to irreducible complexity was reverted, Cla68 opened a thread on the article talk page (Talk:Irreducible complexity), but escalated to two separate noticeboards less than an hour later – before any other editor commented on the talk page – needlessly fracturing the discussion into three separate locations. 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 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.
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 30
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116

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)

Statement by William M. Connolley
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. Its possible that this is just trolling (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)

Statement by Alex Harvey
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:


 * Cla68 was a model editor in the climate change area. This made him unpopular because he was willing to stand up to the POV-pushing majority in defence of neutrality.  Cla68 is NOT a climate skeptic as far as I can tell.  Nonetheless, in all the time I worked with him, alone of other editors, he was one of the few who never lost his cool while I was present.  He was also perfectly even-handed - he would side with the majority against skeptics if skeptics were in violation of the policy.  Frankly, Wikipedia owes him an award of some kind for the hard work he did mediating in the climate change area - not a topic ban.


 * Evidence presented for Cla68's topic ban fails to show justification. It is fairly obvious that ArbCom did not consider the actual evidence and based their topic ban on unproven allegations.  To make up for this, the present Arbitrators should actually review the so-called evidence now.  I provide some highlights but Arbs can find the diffs themselves by following the link in the previous sentence.

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


 * Number of diffs given as evidence: WMC - 15, Cla68 - 4
 * Side by side comparison 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.)

Statement by Binksternet
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)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654
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:


 * Me: If the New York Times prints the sentence Astrologers maintain that Astrology predicts the future, then by your logic it would be perfectly appropriate to edit the Astrology article to say that Astrology predicts the future
 * Cla68: I would say, "The New York Times says that Astrology predicts the future." Anything wrong with saying that?
 * Me: yes!! The New York Times is not making that assertion! The advocates of astrology are!

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] -- ARBCC

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)


 * Response to AGK - AGK, see Dave Souza's comment above for a more recent example of that kind of behavior. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nick-D
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)

Statement by Collect
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)

Statement by Calton
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)''


 * Some questions, therefore:
 * What, exactly would that appropriate Wikipedia article be for this government news release?
 * What fact will it be supporting or what point is going to be made with this statistic?
 * As it's a government news release about a recent statistic:
 * What's the hurry?
 * Why is it critical that Cla68, personally, is the only person who can deal with it?
 * Given that this story is easily available to anyone with Internet access, what possible special value is Cla68's personal subscription to the Japan Times here?
 * Given the extraordinarily limited intersection of the topics of "Japan" and "climate change", why is did Cla68 feel it necessary to ask for a wholesale reversal on the ENTIRE area of climate change -- for which he compiled a massive track record of problematic editing -- rather than its tiny intersection with Japan?
 * There are many, many Japan-based English-language editors who have ready access to the print edition of the Japan Times -- or who may even subscribe, too -- why is Cla68 unable to ask those editors to include take action whenever the uncommon intersection of "Japan" and "climate change" comes up?

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)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Cla68: In 2010, this committee found that you "engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, inappropriate use of sources, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality". I make no presumption about your current contributions, but we must know: in relation to the subject of Climate Change (and not your - admittedly admirable - edits elsewhere), what has changed? AGK  [•] 00:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Raul, the evidence in your submission is rather outdated. The Intelligent design debacle, for instance, was over a year ago. Is there something more recent we should look at? 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  [•]


 * Given the rationale for the amendment request, as an intermediate or interim step, I wonder whether it would make sense to start with a modification that would allow edits about climate change specifically in the context of Japan. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good first step (lifting WRT Japan articles) the WR comment postdates the Activist essay by several months. I can't see how that attitude is going to avoid clashing horns with someone sooner rather than later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced that the volume of edits currently prohibited by the topic ban merit an outright lifting in terms of the others who raise concerns about it. At most, I would be inclined to support something more limited as a first step. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar to Jclemens above, I'm unconvinced of the need to modify the current restriction which seems to be working well. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Cirt and Jayen466 (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  &mdash; Cirt (talk) at 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 2.3


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * Remedy 2.3
 * Permission 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).

Statement by Cirt
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).


 * 1) I'm familiar with the Featured List quality improvement process, having successfully improved the page 29th Golden Raspberry Awards to WP:FL status. I've also written/significantly contributed to twelve (12) Featured Articles.
 * 2) In June 2011 I'd created the page Dan Savage bibliography, notified multiple WikiProject talk pages about it, put it through a List Peer Review, and implemented suggestions from that Peer Review, see version of my most recent contribution to the list page at link.
 * 3) Another editor, User:DGG, has requested merging the content to the main article. I believe that there are sources and content to justify a notable stand-alone list. I also believe from prior experience with the WP:FLC process that the page can be improved to WP:FL quality.
 * 4) I noted at time of page creation that I'd modeled the page after an existing Featured List, George Orwell bibliography, see diff
 * 5) I'd like to continue my efforts post List Peer Review, to bring the page to Featured List quality.
 * 6) I'd start out by gaining some input from those experienced in the Featured List process, and further trying to model the page after George Orwell bibliography, and reading prior discussions and history at Talk:George Orwell bibliography and getting some feedback by posting about this Featured List drive to related WikiProject talk pages.
 * 7) I'd then like to follow-up with another List Peer Review, and/or consultation with one or more Featured-List-directors as part of a feedback process from those familiar with successfully improving pages to WP:FL quality status.

May I be permitted to work on this Featured List drive? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much to Featured List Director,, for offering to help me out in this featured list drive. 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My thanks to Featured List Director, The Rambling Man
 * Update: Featured List Director has helpfully agreed to act as my mentor for this Featured List Drive, see diff. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
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)

Statement by koavf
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)

Statement by RexxS
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)

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.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The applicable restriction is: "Cirt is prohibited from editing articles that are substantially biographies of living people if, broadly but reasonably construed, (i) the articles already refer to politics or religion or social controversy" The Dan Savage article says that Savage "has often been the subject of controversy regarding some of his opinions that pointedly clash with cultural conservatives". So editing the Dan Savage article would fall within the restriction. The question would be is the bibliography "substantially" a biography. If it were simply a list of books, I would say it was not, and Cirt could edit it; however, the page has been constructed to include comments which require sourcing. Given the structure and content of the page, I would say it is substantially a biography page and so falls within the restriction. The terms of the restriction were that a relaxation could be applied for after one year. I note that the restriction was unanimously supported by eleven Committee members. It would be more appropriate if we followed the terms of that restriction and Cirt applied again in five months time when we could favourably consider it.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to Courcelles' inclination of a one-page-only exception monitored by The Rambling Man. There seems to be community support for such a limited lifting of the restriction.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to grant this as a one-page-only exception to the restriction, and would consider Cirt's conduct on that page to be an important measuring stick if/when e are asked to look at the entire restriction. My only stipulation would be that giving TRM authority to revoke the exemption if he feels it warranted.  Courcelles 05:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion
1) Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, 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  at anytime, or by further motion of this Committee.


 * Support
 * I don't see much downside here, and trust TRM ro act as a safety valve should my hopes for productive editing not be the result. Courcelles 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 05:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With the (hopefully obvious) caveat that should TRM revoke this exemption, the Committee be notified immediately. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will go along with this, but I suggest that Cirt stay away from any "Santorum" related aspects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Request for clarification: Requests for comment/Abortion article titles (May 2012)

 * Original 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:
 * No real "involvement", interpretive question

Statement by chaos5023
One of the options we wound up adding to the RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, could use some contextual clarification in two regards:


 * 1. Is it regarded by ArbCom as a valid outcome for the RFC, in that it calls for a merge of the two articles under consideration rather than specifying names for them as initially requested?
 * 2. In the event that the RFC were resolved in favor of this option, would the binding effect of the RFC upon relevant article titles be seen by ArbCom as indicating that we may or may not create new articles titled Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement, scoped to coverage of the US political movements that use those names?

Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Jclemens: The community was asked to decide the titles of two articles. If we were supposed to make broader decisions about our coverage in this topic area, I gotta say, we should've been asked for that, because people who tried to work on the best possible thing to do with these two articles' titles would then have worked on a different question.  Please see my new essay/rant/screed User:Chaos5023/Why your entire way of thinking about the Abortion Article Titles RFC is wrong for how we're presently at risk of completely screwing up. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Regardless of the RfC outcome, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and their obvious derivatives should at the very least be redirects to sensible and encyclopedic discussions of those various political positions. Whether those are separate articles, and under what formal titles those discussions reside are matters for the community to decide via the RfC process, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was inactive (but not recused) on the case but the Jclemens approach seems sound to me,  Roger Davies  talk 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Recused. Risker (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion was well-attended and exhaustive, and if consensus emerges from it for something a little different than two titles then so be it. I am loathe for us to vacate the decision of the closing administrators, or send the whole process back to square one, on a technicality. AGK  [•] 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In regard to the first question, given the Arbitration Committee doesn't make decisions on content, if the community decides to merge the articles, this would be a perfectly legitimate outcome. In regard to the second question, if that was the outcome, similar to Jclemens, I would suggest the closing admins clarify the redirects should be left in place. PhilKnight (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:AC/DS (May 2012)

 * Original 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:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
Under ARBPIA, any editor could provide warning of the sanctions. The single sentence at WP:ARBPIA 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)
 * Thank you for your responses. I didn't think the rules had changed, but another editor asked me and we agreed it was appropriate to seek guidance. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
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)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan
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)

Statement by EdJohnston
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)
 * @Gatoclass: One reason for the grand DS warning with the big box is to not waste the opportunity of nudging the user in a positive direction. The existing rules, even with their openness to warnings by involved editors, do allow the warned user a moment for well-informed reflection before continuing with the behavior that causes concern. Adding bureaucracy as to who can warn and who can log will probably result in obviously-well-aware people skating from AE with no sanctions because of the lack of proper ruffles and flourishes.

That might serve as a quality control for inappropriate warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @AGK: There are two conflicting goals for the system of notices:
 * (a) Get the information out, so that people are aware of the sanctions,
 * (b) Notify specific people that they might be in trouble, with extra credibility since an admin gives the warning
 * If you insist that only uninvolved admins can issue warnings, you will achieve (b) at the expense of (a).


 * Any system of warnings hopes that early notice may head off later trouble, since the person notified could wake up and alter their behavior. Anything that makes warnings harder to issue will interfere with that.


 * Compare the situation regarding 3RR warnings. No trouble is caused by the fact that anyone can issue 3RR warnings to anyone else. The quality check there is WP:AN3, where an admin can decide if the person reported was fully aware of the situation. Note also that restricting DS warnings to 'uninvolved admins' might mean, depending on interpretation, that three admins who are active on ARBPIA articles as editors would be disqualified from issuing ARBPIA warnings. One of those admins has logged 11 notices in ARBPIA since 2010.  EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Gatoclass: It is simpler if anyone can log. See the arbitrator comments in the currently-open Rfar. Roger Davies stated: "The purpose of a list, as Risker intimates, is for quick reference only and forms no part of the process. The authority is the case page." The same principle could be applied to warnings about DS. A user is warned if someone warns them on their talk page using the Arbcom-recommended language. Editing the case log to add a link to the warning is then a clerical matter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Gatoclass: If somebody starts handing out unjustified warnings of discretionary sanctions, that's a matter that could be reported to WP:ANI or WP:AE. Unjustified 3RR warnings are given out all the time, yet Wikipedia still survives. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
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) :


 * 1) Warned on Date by
 * 2) Warned on Date by

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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass
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)


 * Courcelles makes a worthwhile point about WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, but my concern is that there is arguably a degree of stigma involved in receiving an AE notification - a suggestion that the user in question has not been editing in accordance with policy and thereby has warranted the warning. Also, if any user can notify, one then has to decide whether any user can also log a notification, or only an uninvolved admin. If the former, it's a system likely to lead to chaos IMO, if the latter, then one essentially has two different levels of notification. So this is an issue that I think requires some consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 10:33, 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'd like to believe that logging of notifications was only a clerical matter as you suggest Ed (although it's not clear to me that you mean by that that anyone should be entitled to log a notification). I guess my concern is that adding a name to the notifications log could be seen as a means of well poisoning, if not of outright provocation. Certainly, I think I would be incensed if some notorious POV pusher were to add my name to such a log. Perhaps I wouldn't be so concerned if I was sure that admins reviewing these logs were fully cognizant of the fact that the log is not necessarily evidence of prior misconduct, but that may not be the case. The advantage of allowing only uninvolved admins to log notifications in the past is that it did serve as a genuine indicator of previous problematic behaviour, a function that will be lost if logging is permitted to all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Shrike
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)
 * There also language of WP:AC/DS that should be changed

--Shrike (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Paul Siebert
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)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I think the wording is fairly clear in that Sarek's interpretation is correct. One of the (several) functions of the warning is so that we don't sanction people under a case and rules they've not read before, and anyone can provide a warning of "Here's this case, you're getting close to the line, might want to back off."  Of course, warnings can be used as a club in a content dispute, but that's entirely separate from the question of "does the person who delivers the warning need to have a mop?"   The intent, in my mind, is that the warning giver be neutral/uninvolved, (and especially not the other side of a dispute) but officially requiring that is a road that I can see the side-track and procedural wikilawyering from here. (Not that anyone really asked...) Courcelles 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Sarek's interpretation is correct, but I think the call to have a non-adversary editor provide the warning is inappropriate. All other warnings on Wikipedia are the responsibility of the self-appointed person noticing the (impending) infraction, and I see no other reason this should be different.  Now, such warnings should be provided in a collegial manner, but so should every other bit of advice in Wikipedia, formal or not, from an aligned or opposed editor, etc. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with my colleagues. I'd suggest that one of the administrators who regularly participates at WP:AE and has the necessary experience make a change to the template to ask for the name of the user who provided the warning, rather than the administrator. Risker (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have slight concerns about user warnings which I won't go into on WP:BEANS grounds but, hey, we can cross that bridge if we ever get to it.  Roger Davies  talk 17:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, Notices of Discretionary Sanctions have been used exclusively by uninvolved administrators. I would be deeply concerned if involved administrators or any non-administrators (who cannot pass sanction on another editor) took to using the Notices at any time. I therefore think we should look to amend the standard discretionary sanctions wording, so as to bring it in line with the standard practice of having only uninvolved sysops place editors on Notice. The comments by the community in this section seem to support the view that the Notice system has historically been reserved for uninvolved administrators, and that this should continue to be the case. AGK  [•] 12:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that the Notice system can be used by any editor. If none of my colleagues disagree, I think we can consider the matter clarified and this request ready for archival. AGK  [•] 19:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing (May 2012)

 * Original 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:
 * (initiator)
 * 1

Statement by MBisanz
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 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)
 * To RexxS

Statement by uninvolved RexxS
Isn't this "asking the other parent" (see WP:Administrators' notice board/IncidentArchive748)? 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)
 * To MBisanz: You don't need to ask ArbCom how to react when you perceive a problem with Andy in the future. The answer is always the same: talk to him first as you would to any responsible adult, and try to see his point of view. Andy is not unintelligent, nor is he malicious, and it behoves us to treat him with the same sort of respect that any editor with 80,000 contributions over 8 years deserves. He does, however, seem to become frustrated when his observations on a problem are dismissed or ignored. Andy is capable of excellent contributions to our project, and the key issue is for folks like you to find ways of assisting him to interact in ways that produce positive outcomes. I assure you that we are not so overwhelmed with top-notch contributors that we can afford to throw away potentially valuable skills, just because we're not competent enough to harness the energies of those who don't always agree with the mainstream. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As far as I am concerned, the indefinite probation has never been lifted; the fact that it's not on a list does not negate it. It can go through WP:AE. Risker (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker, I am unaware of any lifting of those previous sanctions. If anyone believes there is a different answer, now would be a great time to bring it up... Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like my colleagues, I see no procedural basis for the probation to have expired. Therefore, requests for enforcement of the sanction can go to Arbitration Enforcement as usual. I appreciate RexxS's concern, but the scope of the clarification is to resolve the omission at Editing restrictions of POTW's sanction, and like this request for clarification any enforcement proceedings would relate exclusively to the sanctioned editor's conduct—not the validity of a legitimate position with regards to Infoboxes or other aspects of content. Pigsonthewing's probation should be added to the list of restrictions (at the latest) upon this thread's completion. AGK  [•] 23:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless they come with an explicit sunset provision, restrictions do not time expire. The purpose of a list, as Risker intimates, is for quick reference only and forms no part of the process. The authority is the case page. Per my colleagues, WP:AE is the proper venue here.  Roger Davies  talk 12:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: BASC (Iantresman) (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Iantresman (talk) at 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Result of Appeal to BASC: "Iantresman is topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined."


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * Result of Appeal to BASC
 * Topic ban lifted

Statement by 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: ____
 * During the past six months, I've created over a dozen well-sourced new articles, |uploaded over 70 new images (plus over 50 images on Commons), and made over 6,000 edits
 * I had previously edited a number of articles (within the current topic ban), which I feel are well-sourced and stood the test of time, eg. Birkeland current, Critical ionization velocity, Double layer (plasma), Heliospheric current sheet, Pinch (plasma physics), etc
 * I do not support nor condone edit warring. I was once blocked for 3RR but which another editor felt was done in good faith because I felt my edit was exempt per WP:LIVING (and said so at the time of the edit), but would now use WP:BLP/N.
 * I also took part in Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. I also do not "support", nor deliberately "push" pseudoscience or fringe science, and in the few subjects I have edited, have merely tried to describe points of view accurately, fairly and with appropriate sources.
 * Nearly 5 years have passed since my Community ban, and Wikipedia is a somewhat different place with different personalities.
 * I am also happy to consider (a) a Mentorship (b) restricting my input to talk pages until consensus is reached, although obviously I'd prefer unrestricted editing, and taking the usual responsibility.
 * Response to PhilKnight. Surely if the topic ban wasn't working, it would be a convincing reason against removing the ban. Isn't good editing a positive step? Otherwise what makes a convincing reason? --Iantresman (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Skinwalker. Rupert Sheldrake is a person (involved with biology), Electrotherapy (cosmetic) is cosmetics and beauty, Supernova is astronomy, and Decimal time is a numbering system (maths?), and I was looking at Galvanism from the biological point of view, but concede that it could be taken as physics, in which case it violates my topic ban. I'll also let others decide whether nearly 6000 other edits, and my contribution as a whole, outweighs my possible misjudgement --Iantresman (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Cardamon. I think we have to be careful with subjects that are part of physics, and subjects that are of interest to physics. If we go merely by the WikiProject Physics template, then the following subjects are deemed to be physics: the whole of astronomy, rainbows, kilograms, many people (eg. the Queen guitarist, Brian May), and a picture of a soap bubble. --Iantresman (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Cardamon [2]. (1) There is no dispute that supernovae are of great interest to physics, but I continue to be a little puzzled that you consider my grammatical edit to the article, to be subversive and outweighing my other 6000 edits. (2) I don't recall any of my edits to redshift and plasma physics including inappropriate references to plasma cosmology (you should be spoilt for choice for diffs?), but I do recall, for example, making significant improvements to plasma physics that together with the contribution of other editors, resulted in it achieving Good Article status. --Iantresman (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Cardamon [3]. Can my Sep 2005 edit to supernovae, be described as "POV pushing" if it is "obviously true" (who's POV)? And where is the "pushing" of an edit that remained in the article for over 2 years? I think there are many valid criticisms that could have been made, rather than the pejorative "POV pushing". --Iantresman (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Skinwalker [2]. In my opinion, a physics-related subject is one that you would learn about in a physics lesson, ie. the physics-related Newton's Laws, but not the man Isaac Newton who is of interest to physicists. I acknowledge that every editor will have their own views, but I don't think that contributing personal information to an article on a biochemist with a double-first-class honours from Cambridge University, was meant to be covered by the ban. --Iantresman (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to PhilKnight [2]. While I feel that the Isaac Newton article would not have be included in the topic ban, the fact is that I did not edit it. It does seem harsh to judge me on my opinion, and not just my actions here. With regard to Sheldrake, you'll also find that my only other edit to his article five years ago, added a citation and quote supporting the statement "his ideas are deemed controversial and are considered by some mainstream scientists to be pseudoscientific", hardly the action of someone trying to be disingenuous, (and hardly the action of someone trying to push pseudoscience). --Iantresman (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Casliber. Excellent point. I have already been involved in some negotiation in some articles, the most notable I can think of being two issues in the article on sushi (a) RfC: Nyotaimori (b) Alleged original research, and (c) a contentious edit on the Authorship of Shakespeare. But I shall further try and seek out improving an article to GA or FA level. --Iantresman (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Update. Just a note to say that I have requested (23 Apr 2012) a Good Article Nomination for an article I initiated, as I felt this would provide better interaction with other editors than either (a) joining in a GA nomination that is on hold during improvement, or (b) reviewing an GA article nomination. I think that the aforementioned (to Casliber) negotiations, where there was actual disagreement, may still be better examples of editor interaction. Unfortunately work commitments have not allowed me more time to participate. --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to SirFozzie. I would be grateful if you could offer some criticisms which would help me improve/address my recent editing over the last 6 months. --Iantresman (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update 2. My GA nomination on Bradwall has failed, and I am addressing the criticisms, though interactions with other editors is non-existent. This would seem to be partly expected as GA nominations are supposed to be fairly stable articles, whereas interaction with other editors would be more likely in more contentious articles. --Iantresman (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to proposal. (1) I would humbly suggest that all contributions to Wikipedia are audited by other editors, not just the Good Article nomination process. My recent 6000+ edits did not generate any major incidents, and my talk page shows no problems with my conduct, and two positive comments (a cookie and a thanks) (2) I have no problem working on Good Article nominations, if only this had been mentioned in my BASC appeal decision, the Wikipedia guide to Arbitration, or indeed anywhere, then I could have saved you all a lot of time, and the need to repeat this process all over again. (3) If my topic ban was lifted, there are already guidelines and mechanisms in place to regulate my conduct and contributions. --Iantresman (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Roger Davies. Good questions. (1) I think it is worth looking at my earlier conduct in context. Nearly all the problems in the past were caused by conflict with just one editor, against whom I lodged the arbitration/Pseudoscience complaint in 2006. While this does not excuse my conduct in the past, other editors with whom I worked within my banned topic area, for example, noted in my Community Ban that "despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him" As the said editor is no longer part of the Project, I do not see the same kinds of issues arising. (2) Nothing prevents me from working outside my topic ban. Not to brag, I have a degree in chemistry, a master's in computer science, and university certificates in astronomy, cosmology and radio astronomy, so like most editors, I have my areas of interest. This extends to some "fringe science" topics too, and only wish to see them described fairly with reliable sources. When another editor "goes so far as removal of well-sourced positive comments he doesn't agree with or "knows" is wrong or the inclusion of negative material without any source or with poor sources" (not my words), again I do not try and excuse my conduct, only to put them into context. (3) Yes, I have been involved in contentious editing that has reached a compromise, see for example two discussions on Sushi, here and . (4) Finally, I would just like to mention that (a) my addition of a source supporting Nature's editor describing Rupert Sheldrake's books as pseudo-science, (b) Creating the article "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience", is hardly the work of someone intent on pushing pseudoscience, and, that many of the science (and fringe science) articles I started (before 2007), have stood the test of time, and consequently have improved Wikipedia. --Iantresman (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update 3. Just a note that since my GA nomination on Bradwall failed, that I have been slowly improving the article, having increased its length from 2200 words [] to 4600 words, and almost doubling the number of citable facts, today.. --Iantresman (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Skinwalker
Since being unblocked Iantresman has contributed to a number of articles that could be reasonably construed as "fringe science and physics-related subjects".


 * Rupert Sheldrake
 * Electrotherapy (cosmetic)
 * Galvanism
 * Supernova
 * Decimal time

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, though it appears this is permitted by the wording of the unblocking conditions.


 * Update: I fail to see how an article about a parapsychologist does not fall unambiguously under a fringe science topic ban, nor am I impressed by the "What is physics?" wikilawyering.  But it appears I'm being humorous and/or unreasonable.  Do what you will.  Skinwalker (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
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.}

Statement by Cardamon
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. Cardamon (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Collect: Minor constructive edits to a topic one has been banned from are not always ignored. Someone once got a 3 month site-ban for a few constructive edits to an article at the edge of a topic he had been told not to edit.


 * @Iantresman: Supernovas have a lot to do with astrophysics. Supernovas are a source of astrophysics problems and puzzles.  (For a quick clue, count how many of the references in Supernova contain the words “astrophysics" or “astrophysical".)  Supernovas have been important to cosmology (often considered a part of astrophysics) by providing (sort of) "standard candles" that have been used to estimate the rate of expansion of the universe, and thus its age, and to provide evidence that this rate is increasing.  Earlier, they were important to cosmology by providing a mechanism for making heavy elements, thus letting the Big Bang theory off the hook of having to explain the production of heavy elements.  Supernova SN1987a seems to have produced a detectable pulse of neutrinos (electron antineutrinos); the fact that their travel time was so close to that of the light from SN1987a put limits on how massive those neutrinos can be, and provided an insight into the physics of neutrinos.  In general, astronomy has considerable overlap with physics.  This isn’t really the place for this particular discussion though, so I’ll stop.


 * @Arbs: As I recall, Iantresman's main areas of fringe POV pushing were physics – related astronomy, and plasma physics. Examples include the articles Redshift, Plasma cosmology, and Plasma (physics).  The connection was his desire to make Wikipedia present the not - at - all - widely - accepted theory of “plasma cosmology” much more favorably than it does.
 * In editing [Supernova]], Iantresman was inside the range of articles he was told not to edit (physics), and at the edge of the range of articles in which he had POV pushed. In fact, long ago, he made a (really quite mild) POV pushing edit to Supernova.  (It made a statement that was obviously true, but didn’t help the article.)  Cardamon (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements. However, as an initial comment, the fact that the topic ban is working well at the moment, allowing Ian Tresman to edit in other areas, isn't as far as I'm concerned, an especially convincing reason to remove the ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to Skinwalker's diffs and Ian Tresman's replies, I'll oppose any motion to remove his topic ban. I find Ian Tresman's comments about Rupert Sheldrake to be entirely disingenuous, and the assertion that under a broadly construed physics ban he could edit the Isaac Newton article to bordering on the absurd. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Cas Liber's comment below, I would be prepared to look more favourably on another request following a GA or FA. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the original ban was in July 2007. It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been placed on Probation in Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. He was unblocked after an appeal six months ago, on condition he refrained from editing fringe science and physics-related subjects, and informed he could appeal that topic ban after six months. Provided he has met the conditions, and nobody provides any evidence of wrong doing in the past six months, then I would agree to the appeal. It would be fair to warn Iantresman that if he is found once again engaging in POV pushing the community are likely to ban him, and after being twice bitten, it would be much more difficult to get unblocked.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  13:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no particular issues with the article diffs listed by Skinwalker; they seem to be both encyclopedia-improving, and outside what I believe a reasonable man would conclude as the boundaries of the topic ban. Leaning towards granting the relief from the topic ban. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Before considering lifting this, I'd like to see Ian Tresman participate in an arena where one has to negotiate with others. An area such as this would be improving an article to GA or FA level. This would best be an article which is unambiguously and clearly not under the scope of current sanctions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not 100% sure this request is still active/ongoing, but right now, I think I would oppose any such motion to lift the topic ban at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with PhilKnight and Casliber on this one. Risker (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Iantresman. Just trying to focus this discussion a little as it does not seem to be best use of everyone's time to have a very similar discussion again in a few months time. Firstly, what I am not seeing is a compelling reason to lift the topic ban. So, how do you think it improve the encyclopedia within the prior area of conflict, while avoiding the problems of the past, if we were to do so? Secondly, what prevents you making valuable contributions outside the prior area of conflict? Why are you so intent on editing again within a topic which has been problematic for you in the past? Thirdly, have there been specific instances in the past six months where you have edited in contentious areas, and where your patience was tested (this amendment request apart) and you negotiated a compromise? If so, please provide diffs.  Roger Davies  talk 12:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

 * In which case I propose we close/archive this and give Ian Tresman a chance to produce some audited content and review at a later date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. AGK  [•] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much okay with this too; I'd just like to give Iantresman an opportunity to answer my just-posted questions before finally making my mind up.  Roger Davies  talk 12:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I thank Iantresman for his comments, I am not completely persuaded that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia to lift the restrictions just yet. So I suggest he applies again once he has the audited content that Casliber's seeks under his belt.  Roger Davies  talk 06:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I think Roger's questions are excellent... but regardless of the answers, the sanctions do not appear to have support for modification absent audited content creation, so there's no pressing hurry to have them answered.  We can keep this open, or we can archive this and start a new one once some audited content has been re-created--I'm not sure there's a substantive process difference between those options. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There appears to be unlikelihood on achieving consensus on lifting the restrictions, but we do have consensus on closing/postponing this request until some audited content is produced so I support this proposal in order to move the matter forward.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked the first available clerk to archive this appeal as unsuccessful. As discussed, this archival is without prejudice to appeal in future. AGK  [•] 10:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Abortion (1RR query) (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Case link: 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:
 * (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. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion 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, 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 &sdot; 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 &sdot; 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 &sdot; 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 Talk 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 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  talk 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 - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision, 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 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  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In short - I support a 1RR sanction for the Abortion topic.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that we are unanimous in support of the 1RR sanction, I have asked the clerks to archive this request. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)