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

• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [1]

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

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]

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 [2] T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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]

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

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)[reply]

• 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]

---

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

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

• Result of Appeal to BASC
• Topic ban lifted

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 [3] 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]

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 [4]
• Electrotherapy (cosmetic) [5]
• Galvanism [6]
• Supernova [7]
• Decimal time [8]

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,[9][10] though it appears this is permitted by the wording of the unblocking conditions.

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.}

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

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.

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

• 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]
• 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]

---

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

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

• Request lifting of topic ban

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 [12] (one of WP's top 10,000 most viewed articles and scores above 4 in all its page ratings)
• Arlington National Cemetery mismanagement controversy [13]
• Camp Lejeune water contamination [14]
• 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)[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 [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. 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]

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. [20]

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]

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.[21][22] After being advised this was inappropriate, he added a new section based solely on this source to one of the articles.[23] When I undid this addition,[24] he posted accusations on my talk page,[25] took it up on the article talk page,[26] 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?"[27] Later, he himself personalises discussion: "Do you belong to any organizations that have established a formal program or agenda to combat ID?"[28]
  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]

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]

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: [29]. (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. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Baylor paper on Irreducible complexity Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116#Baylor paper 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 ([30]) 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

• 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]

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Martinphi-ScienceApologist arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A: the suggested amendment is cosmetic.

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. Digwuren (talk · contribs), 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)[reply]

@Kirill:

• For Martinphi-ScienceApologist, my suggestion is to move the entire discretionary sanctions apparatus to the existing Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). 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 Eastern European disputes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Seems like an excellent idea Tim.

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

@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, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.VolunteerMarek 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is both long overdue and welcome.

• 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.

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:

• "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.

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)[reply]

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's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 4 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.}

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

• 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)[reply]
• I agree with Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

2) The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. 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)[reply]

Support

1. 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)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. PhilKnight (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. 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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

7. And per NYB's copyedit suggesstions. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Courcelles 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. 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)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support but do we mean psuedoscience or pseudoscience, or have I missed something?  Roger Davies ^talk 05:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comment by Arbitrators