Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) at 12:36, 11 April 2012 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment


Request to amend prior case: Senkaku Islands

Initiated by Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) at 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 3A: Tenmei banned for one year

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Statement by your username

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 committment very few indeed.

Per Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, 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)[reply]


Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}


Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Muhammad images

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Muhammad images arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
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
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

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)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

This week Wikipedia: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 [3] T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]


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)[reply]

Dmitri is correct. I apologize if that was unclear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see [4] for a recent concern about a, perhaps, less than conclusive outcome for part of this RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: BASC:iantresman

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

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

Amendment 1

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, 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 [5] 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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[6] 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)[reply]
  • 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[7]? 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)[reply]
  • 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 [8] 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)[reply]
  • 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"[9], 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)[reply]

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".

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,[15][16] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{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. [17] Cardamon (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia: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 ✔Tea time 13:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
WP:ARBCC
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:ARBCC#Cla68 topic-banned (Remedy 15)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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):
  • Helped significantly expand or improve several other articles, including:
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

On 9 October 2011, Cla68 (talk · contribs) posted on Wikipedia Review:

Fortunately for WMC, Wikipedia doesn't have a "Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule, or he would have been sent on his way long ago.

Here's the thing, I truly don't belive that WMC, Stephan Schulz, Kim Dabelstein Peterson, or Short Brigade Harvester Boris are really scientists, because I can't belive that true scientists would act as deceitfully, dishonestly, or as insecurely and cowardly as they act. If they are really scientists, I would like to know which universities they teach at to ensure that I don't send my kids to those bush league institutions. To be clear, I respect scientists who truly believe in man-made global warming but recognize that they might be wrong. The ones who don't are the ones who try to use Wikipedia to artificially socialize their positions. [26]

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)[reply]

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.[27][28] After being advised this was inappropriate, he added a new section based solely on this source to one of the articles.[29] When I undid this addition,[30] he posted accusations on my talk page,[31] took it up on the article talk page,[32] 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)[reply]

  • 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?"[33] Later, he himself personalises discussion: "Do you belong to any organizations that have established a formal program or agenda to combat ID?"[34]
    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)[reply]
  • 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."[35] 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."[36] 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?" [37] In fairness, Cla68 did not continue the discussion. . dave souza, talk 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On recent misuse of sources. I've hatted this myself, since I had missed that Dave Souza covered this already.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Only a month ago, Cla68 was involved in a content dispute at Irreducible complexity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He added a section to the article that offered a detailed description of the views of a single individual: [38]. (Looking back, it appears that this was carried over from a larger dispute involving Cla68 and others at Talk:Intelligent design and science#Sure looks like a duck.) When his addition to irreducible complexity was reverted, Cla68 opened a thread on the article talk page (Talk:Irreducible complexity#Baylor paper on this topic), 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 ([39]) 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]

Statement by other editor

Further discussion

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)[reply]


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's Advocate (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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] -- Wikipedia:ARBCC#Cla68.27s_battlefield_conduct

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by another editor

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=486809123"