Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban	none	none	12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort	none	(orig. case)	13 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Climate change

Initiated by Prioryman (talk) at 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedies 3.1, 3.2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

• Request lifting of topic ban

Statement by Prioryman

I wish to request a lifting of the ARBCC topic ban on myself. I don't particularly wish to return to the topic area in a major way, but I would like to be able to contribute the occasional new article (filling in red links and suchlike) and the odd bit of wikignoming on existing articles in the topic area.

I acknowledge the validity of the case findings that I had edit-warred and made incivil comments. I recognise that I responded badly to the battlefield conduct of others. In so doing I helped to reinforce the battlefield mentality that existed at the time. This was due to frustration with incredibly blatant BLP violations, persistent tendentious editing and a lack of outside intervention to deal with either problem. I don't believe such problems are likely to arise again in the foreseeable future due to a combination of the current arbitration sanctions, a stronger focus by the community on BLP enforcement, and the topic- or site-banning of the worst offenders. I've not followed the topic area at all since 2010, but the case sanctions log suggests that things are pretty quiet now.

For my own part, I have resolved to take a calmer and more considered approach in future. I have no previous or subsequent sanctions for either edit-warring or incivility and since the case I have been extremely busy as a content contributor: I have had three Featured Articles on the Main Page in the last six months alone, as well as contributing a Good Article, 63 DYKs and over 270 images to Commons. My contributions have been widely recognised by others, with 16 barnstars in the last 18 months (see User:Prioryman). I have been described as a "model Wikipedian" for my contributions. Remedy 3.2.1 provides that "Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors." I believe this record shows that I've met the requirements of 3.2.1 several times over and that I'm more than capable of re-engaging in the topic area without further problems. As a way of demonstrating that I had changed my approach, I specifically sought out a highly charged topic area area to bring an article up to FA standard - namely Battle of Vukovar - and entirely avoided conflict, dealing in a sensitive way with the complexities of the issues involved, for which I was widely complimented (and was awarded five barnstars). It is 18 months since the case so I can hardly be accused of making a premature request.

For the record: I was briefly blocked in March 2012 for an inadvertent violation of the topic ban, which was logged here.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia. Please don't fall into the same trap that I did! Prioryman (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: No, Jimbo didn't hire me as a professional editor, but thanks for the compliment (I think!). In the interests of full disclosure, though, I should add that I've been working closely with Wikimedia UK, who generously provided a grant of £300 (=$500) to support the development of a series of articles to commemorate the Titanic centenary weekend earlier this month. This has so far resulted in one featured article and sixteen DYKs, with the new and expanded articles attracting nearly 1 million page views over the weekend of April 14-15. I think this speaks well for my ability to work constructively with others and demonstrates my commitment to the goals of Wikipedia (per remedy 3.2.1) and illustrates that I'm both highly regarded and trusted by my peers. Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@Casliber: Yes indeed (don't forget the featured articles!). The lifting of sanctions on Jayjg in January 2011 is a directly comparable case, and in fact I've pretty much followed the same approach as Jayjg. See [1]. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Prioryman's editing record begs the question: Did Jimbo hire Prioryman as a professional editor? Obviously, Prioryman should not have any editing restrictions; if he isn't a good enough editor to edit somewhere, who is? Count Iblis (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. I am neutral, leaning oppose on the request, but I'm willing to listen to comments either way before I make a formal "decision" on which way I'd go. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment we've used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one's belt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: BASC:iantresman

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

Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

• Result of Appeal to BASC
• Topic ban lifted

Statement by iantresman

On 18 September 2011, the Ban Appeal Subcommitte unblocked me under the condition that a topic ban continues. Now that six months have passed, I would be grateful if this was re-assessed. Please take the following into consideration:

• During the past six months, I've created over a dozen well-sourced new articles, 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 [2] 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)
• Response to Skinwalker. Rupert Sheldrake is a person (involved with biology), Electrotherapy (cosmetic) is cosmetics and beauty, Supernova is astronomy, and Decimal time is a numbering system (maths?), and I was looking at Galvanism from the biological point of view, but concede that it could be taken as physics, in which case it violates my topic ban. I'll also let others decide whether nearly 6000 other edits, and my contribution as a whole, outweighs my possible misjudgement --Iantresman (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Response to Cardamon. I think we have to be careful with subjects that are part of physics, and subjects that are of interest to physics. If we go merely by the WikiProject Physics template, then the following subjects are deemed to be physics: the whole of astronomy, rainbows, kilograms, many people (eg. the Queen guitarist, Brian May), and a picture of a soap bubble. --Iantresman (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Response to Cardamon [2]. (1) There is no dispute that supernovae are of great interest to physics, but I continue to be a little puzzled that you consider my grammatical edit to the article, to be subversive and outweighing my other 6000 edits. (2) I don't recall any of my edits to redshift and plasma physics including inappropriate references to plasma cosmology (you should be spoilt for choice for diffs?), but I do recall, for example, making significant improvements[3] to plasma physics that together with the contribution of other editors, resulted in it achieving Good Article status. --Iantresman (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Response to Cardamon [3]. Can my Sep 2005 edit to supernovae, be described as "POV pushing" if it is "obviously true" (who's POV)? And where is the "pushing" of an edit that remained in the article for over 2 years[4]? I think there are many valid criticisms that could have been made, rather than the pejorative "POV pushing". --Iantresman (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Response to Skinwalker [2]. In my opinion, a physics-related subject is one that you would learn about in a physics lesson, ie. the physics-related Newton's Laws, but not the man Isaac Newton who is of interest to physicists. I acknowledge that every editor will have their own views, but I don't think that contributing personal information [5] to an article on a biochemist with a double-first-class honours from Cambridge University, was meant to be covered by the ban. --Iantresman (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Response to PhilKnight [2]. While I feel that the Isaac Newton article would not have be included in the topic ban, the fact is that I did not edit it. It does seem harsh to judge me on my opinion, and not just my actions here. With regard to Sheldrake, you'll also find that my only other edit to his article five years ago, added a citation and quote supporting the statement "his ideas are deemed controversial and are considered by some mainstream scientists to be pseudoscientific"[6], hardly the action of someone trying to be disingenuous, (and hardly the action of someone trying to push pseudoscience). --Iantresman (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Response to Casliber. Excellent point. I have already been involved in some negotiation in some articles, the most notable I can think of being two issues in the article on sushi (a) RfC: Nyotaimori (b) Alleged original research, and (c) a contentious edit on the Authorship of Shakespeare. But I shall further try and seek out improving an article to GA or FA level. --Iantresman (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Update. Just a note to say that I have requested (23 Apr 2012) a Good Article Nomination for an article I initiated, as I felt this would provide better interaction with other editors than either (a) joining in a GA nomination that is on hold during improvement, or (b) reviewing an GA article nomination. I think that the aforementioned (to Casliber) negotiations, where there was actual disagreement, may still be better examples of editor interaction. Unfortunately work commitments have not allowed me more time to participate. --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Response to SirFozzie. I would be grateful if you could offer some criticisms which would help me improve/address my recent editing over the last 6 months. --Iantresman (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Skinwalker

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

• Rupert Sheldrake [7]
• Electrotherapy (cosmetic) [8]
• Galvanism [9]
• Supernova [10]
• Decimal time [11]

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,[12][13] though it appears this is permitted by the wording of the unblocking conditions.

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

Statement by Collect

The examples of "violations" are humourous in nature I trust. I see no POV presented in them, and that is why any topic ban exists in the first place. Absent anything of import, lift the dang ban. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Statement by Cardamon

Supernova does fall within the topic of physics. For those who can't tell this from its content, one clue is that its talk page says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics" with a rating of "FA-class, High-importance". It seems to have been classed as a physics article for more than 5 years. [14] Cardamon (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

@Arbs: As I recall, Iantresman's main areas of fringe POV pushing were physics – related astronomy, and plasma physics. Examples include the articles Redshift, Plasma cosmology, and Plasma (physics). The connection was his desire to make Wikipedia present the not - at - all - widely - accepted theory of “plasma cosmology” much more favorably than it does.

In editing [Supernova]], Iantresman was inside the range of articles he was told not to edit (physics), and at the edge of the range of articles in which he had POV pushed. In fact, long ago, he made a (really quite mild) POV pushing edit to Supernova. (It made a statement that was obviously true, but didn’t help the article.) Cardamon (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. However, as an initial comment, the fact that the topic ban is working well at the moment, allowing Ian Tresman to edit in other areas, isn't as far as I'm concerned, an especially convincing reason to remove the ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Further to Skinwalker's diffs and Ian Tresman's replies, I'll oppose any motion to remove his topic ban. I find Ian Tresman's comments about Rupert Sheldrake to be entirely disingenuous, and the assertion that under a broadly construed physics ban he could edit the Isaac Newton article to bordering on the absurd. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Regarding Cas Liber's comment below, I would be prepared to look more favourably on another request following a GA or FA. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• It seems the original ban was in July 2007. It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been placed on Probation in 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)
• I see no particular issues with the article diffs listed by Skinwalker; they seem to be both encyclopedia-improving, and outside what I believe a reasonable man would conclude as the boundaries of the topic ban. Leaning towards granting the relief from the topic ban. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Before considering lifting this, I'd like to see Ian Tresman participate in an arena where one has to negotiate with others. An area such as this would be improving an article to GA or FA level. This would best be an article which is unambiguously and clearly not under the scope of current sanctions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Not 100% sure this request is still active/ongoing, but right now, I think I would oppose any such motion to lift the topic ban at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

---