Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 123: Line 123:
=== Clerk notes ===
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*Although I commented on the AE request cited here, the motion is on a broader subject and I don't see any reason to recuse from enacting it. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
*Enacting below motion. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===

Revision as of 22:31, 15 November 2012

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Motion regarding Iantresman Motion none 11 November 2012
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Clarification request: Motion regarding Iantresman

Initiated by My76Strat (talk) at 06:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by My76Strat

On November 4, 2012, Arbcom enacted the following motion:

1) The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [7] is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.

IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Iantresman on November 9, 2012, requesting enforcement of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases, an outdated page that Iantresman is not sanctioned under. Furthermore, IRWolfie cites this talk page discussion[8] as impetus for seeking WP:AE. Nothing in that discussion rises to a violation of the enacted motion. Instead IRWolfie alleges that Iantresman should be topic banned under existing provisions of the discretionary sanctions in place for the topic being discussed. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) both indicate support for the topic ban. I mentioned that nothing Iantresman had done was a violation and that WP:AC/DS points 2. and 4. were clear that a warning was required first. EdJohnston (talk · contribs) then stated that since "Iantresman was a named party of the WP:ARBPS case. A party should not require a special notice that the discretionary sanctions of that case can apply to them." I am seeking a clarification to this prevailing premise. It does not follow that Iantresman should be subjected to an immediate ban without warning simply because he formerly was. Especially when no action was a direct violation of the sanction in place. I thank the committee for giving their attention to this matter. My76Strat (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf Your comment belies a tangential relation, actually elucidating the core of this request. Being aware of a potential for sanctions does not imply one would know they are encroaching the "event horizon". It seems intuitive that including the requirement (to warn) is a reasonable measure to alleviate this anticipation of uncertainty. Such a view is further indicative when considering the subsequent requirements that, "warnings should be clear and unambiguous", and they should "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". Instead of clarity, thoughtful editors are expected to accept misconduct happened without being shown where the transgression manifest. I would seriously like to know what specific action of Iantresman equivocates the crossing of an acceptable line. Was it when he asked the question, or when he offered his opinion? And if there is no right to be informed of this, failing to follow point 5, "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process" become rather moot and seem a waste of effort to proffer. One day I suppose I'll learn my place, and quit asking questions myself. Until then, just ignore my prose, and be thankful the servers can accommodate the wasted bytes necessary to publish my babel. Regards, My76Strat (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by iantresman

  • I am equally stunned, that an editor can be banned:
  1. Under a discretionary sanction that has nothing to do with topic concerned. The connection seems to be: (a) Although the reference book states otherwise, we feel that the book is actually about plasma cosmology (even though we haven't read the book, and can't provide a single quote to back this up). Now, the article on plasma cosmology once had a particular category tag added, and although it was removed because it was incorrect, it was a sub-category of the category "pseudoscience" which was also incorrectly added in the past.[9]
  2. Without attempting any other form of dispute resolution.
  3. Who has not edited the article concerned since 2006.
  4. For discussing an academic reference book republished in 2012.
  5. For making an effort to ascertain it suitability.
  6. For answering concerns about a source politely, reasonably and with extensive evidence.
  7. Who acted with civility throughout, while other editors openly claim that I am a liar on several occasions.
  8. While other editors state that it is unreasonable for them to provide any independent source at all, to support their concerns.
  9. While the same reference book has been used as a source for over 6 years without question, in other articles.
  10. The same author is cited in at least one article that has gone through two successful Good Article reviews.

I see why Wikipedia loses editors, and new editors do not want to join a framework where (a) calling someone a liar is acceptable (b) discussion is criticised (c) unfounded opinions are unchallenged (d) and the most contrived associations are upheld.--Iantresman (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @IRWolfie I can't believe that you have just said that. You've implied that all the thousands of professional scientist working in minority and obscure subjects (ie fringe subjects) should be grouped under "pseudoscience", and treated as such. As Adlai Stevenson once said, "All progress resulted from people who took unpopular positions". Science is a collaborative exercise, not one person putting down criticism. --Iantresman (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IRWolfie Your diff suggesting that Aarghdvaark is "claiming the Physics of the Plasma universe has nothing to do with the Plasma universe", is contradicted by the contents of the diff supplied.[10] You could find out why Aarghdvaark changed his description of the book, by having the courtesy of asking him, before jumping to conclusion. I suspect that after reviewing the discussion, he realised that it needed correcting. --Iantresman (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PhilKnight To this day, I have not edited the dusty plasma article since 2006, [11] so I could not have edited or pushed any view into it. I did discuss adding a cition to an academic reference book in the talk pages, and I welcome your comments on how I could have been more constructive, after providing book reviews and peer-reviewed articles in support of my responses to every concern, including enquiring at WT:IRS. The citation itself referred to an appendix on the subject of "dynamics of dusty plasma", a competely mainstream subject, to support a section in the article on the same mainstream subject. --Iantresman (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @T. Canens (TC) Since the category "fringe" includes "pseudoscience", you are giving exactly the same offence, by so labelling a subject. Since the labelling is often subjective (there is no scientific definition, and often no WP:V and WP:RS), we now have articles which are labelled as pseudoscience based on the opinion of a handful of editors, without even having to explain themselves in an article. That doesn't make the article a very good reliable source. --Iantresman (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Courcelles I think you need to give this a much wider discussion with the community. It doesn't look good that a handful of editors have decided this among themselves. (1) Due process (2) Transparency. --Iantresman (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf When I was unblocked on 18 September 2011,[12] I had no reason to believe that a month later, the Discretionary sanctions would be changed a monthly later on 27 October 2011.[13] --Iantresman (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @T. Canens (TC) I would be grateful if you could clarify the following, which seems to be missing necessary information. The "fringe physics" tag in "Plasma Cosmology" seems to fail Wikipedia:Category#Articles on five counts (1) Categorization of articles must be verifiable (2) It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories (3) Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. (4) Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial (5) A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define. --Iantresman (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Courcelles Absolutely correct, editors have no business defining these terms, nor to which articles they apply. Editors and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. WP:V via WP:RS is the core policy, and applies irrespective of the subject. So why pick on pseudoscience and fringe subject? Conduct applies equally to all areas of Wikipedia. --Iantresman (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Enric Naval The terms are uncommon, not indicators of Plasma Cosmology. I would suggest that your read the book introduction (which states that it is not about cosmology), the two book reviews, and 20 peer-reviewed articles I linked to, where I could not find any hint that the book was about cosmology. You have provided no reliable sources of any kind, even though they are readily available. --Iantresman (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Enric Naval There is no dispute that Peratt has written about plasma cosmology (reliable source [14]). His own book is not one of them, as stated in its introduction, and as you, and anyone else, can check in the two book reviews I cited. --Iantresman (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IRWolfie Thank you for taking time out from discussions on changes to Remedy 13, to tell me that this is really about Strat's request to clarify the issue any issue with the notification. --Iantresman (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRWolfie-

I agree with the opinions of the arbs here and the admins at arb enforcement, and I'm not sure why this was filed. Iantresman has been blocked twice before under the ARB PS sanctions and was a named party in the original case and was notified of discretionary sanctions [15].

  • Perhaps one related clarification would be to specify that discretionary sanctions fall under fringe science specifically as well as pseudoscience? The issues surrounding both on wiki are generally the same, and the two are so closely related that it causes unnecessary issues when something falls on the boundaries. I think it's pretty much already the case that discretionary sanctions falls under all fringe views; conspiracy theories, pseudoscience/Fringe science, the paranormal, denialism etc. I don't know if this has already been done, but is there a way to unify all the separate rulings Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases into one clear set of rules? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Iantresman I don't see the issue. This is merely for administrative and arbitration purposes regarding user conduct. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • While this amendment has been open (and rather than bureaucratically going to enforcement or elsewhere);

Another Plasma universe/cosmology editor, Aarghdvaark, has turned up at Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration. He/She has argued that the book has nothing to do with the Plasma Universe fringe theory [16]. This is despite having created the original article about Peratt himself, mentioning in his/her own words that the book is about plasma cosmology [17]: "He is influential in Plasma cosmology, having written a book on the subject, Ref: Peratt, A., Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer, 1992, ISBN 0-387-97575-6". He tried to hide this prior to commenting on the discussion [18]. Can this editor be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions as well? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC) I will inform the editor of this comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Iantresman, Strat's request here was to clarify the issue any issue with the notification, and whether there was any issue with discretionary sanctions scope. We aren't here to re-discuss what has already been closed at Arbitration enforcement, This isn't an appeal of the arbitration enforcement decision. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to your discussion about the arbitration enforcement case, not the motion, which has a separate discussion and the 7 necessary votes. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TC

I just realized that I made a couple mistakes in the part of my reasoning in the AE thread that dealt with whether plasma cosmology is within WP:ARBPS: I overlooked the possibility that the 2006 arbcom may have meant for the category membership to be determined by reference to the present state of the article rather than the article at the time of the decision, and I also overlooked the fact that Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation was not made a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience until January 2007. Happily, however, those mistakes did not affect my conclusion.

From the phrasing of WP:ARBPS#Tommysun banned, it is clear that the arbcom that decided the case originally on 3 December 2006 intended the term to cover the subject of all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories, and I see no indication that the arbcom that passed the discretionary sanctions in 2008 intended to limit the definition. It is unclear whether the 2006 arbcom is referring to the article at the time of the original arbcom decision or at the time of the AE request, but this question is immaterial to this case. At the time of the decision the article was in Category:Protoscience, which was, at that time, a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Currently, the article is in Category:Fringe physics, which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudophysics, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Therefore, regardless of whether membership in the pseudoscience category or its subcategories is to be measured at the time of the original decision or at the time of the AE request, plasma cosmology plainly falls within that group.

As to the merits, I found the diffs provided by IRWolfie- and Enric Naval in the AE thread to be quite persuasive. I think the misconduct sufficiently obvious that I will not elaborate on my reasoning further unless requested by the committee.

That said, I wouldn't object to expanding discretionary sanctions to cover fringe science as well as pseudoscience, as the boundary of "pseudoscience" is rather ill-defined, and this invites wikilawyering over whether something is "pseudoscience" or merely "fringe". T. Canens (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB: I would prefer not having to figure out whether something is pseudoscience or merely "fringe" (especially not having to do it by divining the intent of the 2006 arbcom...). The area comes up sufficiently infrequently at AE that it's not a big deal, but being able to quickly proceed to the merits would be nice.

Also, many people understandably take offense that their beliefs have been labeled as "pseudoscience", a term that has more derogatory connotations than "fringe science", and I think that also increases people's tendency to dispute whether the "pseudoscience" label applies to their favored theory. I think it's best if we can avoid causing unnecessary offense in resolving a purely jurisdictional matter, as whether a particular viewpoint is pseudoscientific or merely fringe generally does not affect the merits analysis. T. Canens (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming, Iantresman, that you were somehow caught unaware by the October 2011 motion which is essentially a purely cosmetic amendment?

The point I'm making is that the topic unambiguously covers this subject, even on a very cramped reading of the scope of the topic (notice how I didn't comment on the "broadly construed" in the discretionary sanctions? Or the "but not limited to" in the 2006 decision?). Arguing about whether something should be in the category or a subcategory is neither here nor there. If it's in the category or a subcategory, it's covered by the discretionary sanctions. And I think you are being entirely disingenuous: you must know that plasma cosmology is within the scope of the case, not the least because, as several people pointed out, editing related to plasma cosmology is a large part of what led to the original arbitration case - which you, Iantresman, filed.

Thryduulf, you make some good points, all of which are inapplicable in this case. Iantresman was banned from this area until something like a week ago when he managed to get arbcom to lift it on a 7-4 vote. This isn't your hypothetical editor who edited in the area four years ago, got a notice and then never touched the area again until recently, nor someone who has been surprised by an unexpectedly broad reading of the reach of discretionary sanctions. I gave the topic the most technical and cramped reading I can without doing violence to the meaning of the original decision, and the subject he was editing still fits comfortably within it. T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

This is possibly tangential to this case, but I think it important that the interaction between warnings and "broadly interpreted" is entirely fair. By this I mean that where a topic is subject to sanction (either generally or for a specific editor) but a reasonable person acting in good faith may not be aware of this, even if they are aware of the general case, then they should not be subject to more than a warning. For example, if a user is aware that discretionary sanctions are authorised for topic X, but they are not aware that article Y falls within this topic, then they should be warned of this before any action is taken against them for breaching the sanctions, especially if there was debate about whether the article was within the topic area or not. If the debate was consequential to (or even just post-dated) the actions of the user concerned should not be sanctioned for their edits ex post facto without clear evidence of bad faith.

Equally, consideration must be given to the age of warnings. Editors are human, and as such have imperfect memories. If a user was made aware of the existence of e.g. discretionary sanctions several years ago, and they have not been involved with the topic area since then, then it should not be held that they are automatically aware of the continued existence of sanctions. Other evidence may of course show they are aware, but the existence of an ancient warning on an archived (user) talk page does not indicate awareness on its own. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aarghdvaark

Regarding the book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Anthony Perrat, I did not read the book but originally wrote in the article on Perrat that it was a book on plasma cosmology. That seemed a reasonable pigeon hole for it then. Recently I followed the discussion at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration and my conclusion from that discussion was that the book was not about plasma cosmology but was a text book on plasma. As John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" So I changed the article to say the book was a text book on plasmas (N.B. Perrat is not a fringe scientist on plasma, in fact he is a distinguished scientist).

The reason I changed my mind was based wholly on the discussion at Dusty plasma. Iantresman had put forward a proposal, or hypothesis actually, that the book was a text book on plasma and not a book on plasma cosmology. Following the scientific method, this hypothesis should be trivial to disprove - it is a published book after all, and furthermore has recently been republished by Springer, a major scientific publishing house. All it needed was some quotes from the book. However, these were not forthcoming. The discussion soon veered off into a discussion on cold fusion. I'm surprised that Wikipedia editors thought these arguments by analogy or Google were good enough, but they cannot be considered reliable sources to establish what a book is about. So Iantresman's hypothesis has been tested and has not been disproved. Ergo, the book is a text book on plasma and is not about plasma cosmology, and that stands until it is disproved.

Iantresman provided some sources to back up his hypothesis, but no sources were provided by editors arguing the counter-hypothesis that the book was about plasma cosmology. Since no direct quotes were provided by the editors arguing against Iantresman, he asked for a source saying the book was on plasma cosmology - and got accused of wikilawyering! This is Kafka-esque: editors with clear POVs, and who refuse to back up their arguments with reliable sources have managed to get an editor banned who has been consistently civil and provided sources. Rather than being banned I think Iantrsman should be commended for how he has conducted himself at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration.

Extracts from the Dusty plasma talk page showing POV bias against the book's author Peratt:

  • No, it's not a reliable source to be linking as it's clearly fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The Plasma universe is a fringe viewpoint and it will not be getting space in this non-fringe article per WP:ONEWAY. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we should insist i n using problematic books [Peratt's] when there are non-problematic books available. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Iantresman took this issue to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Academic textbook assessment as a reliable source where he argued that the book is fringe, but how could he show it was fringe. This seems to have confused some people, some appearing to think that this indicates Iantresman believes the book is about plasma cosmology and therefore he lied, including ironically The Devil's Advocate! I rather think he was trying to do the work of the editors at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration and showed good faith, if poor judgement.

I would also like to clarify the position of plasma cosmology in plasma physics. It is non-mainstream science now, but previously had support by some plasma physicists. There is nothing unscientific about it (being out-of-date does not mean something automatically becomes pseudo-science). The people who know about plasma are plasma physicists, so it is not surprising that there is considerable cross-over between people who support or supported plasma cosmology and current and previous work on plasma. Trying to expunge the record of the contributions of these people is I believe something which is against the ideals of Wikipedia.

I think the book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" should be allowed as a source for Dusty plasma, as the argument against it has not succeeded on rational grounds but rather by getting Iantresman banned. And on the evidence of the discussion at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration I think it was perverse banning Iantresman for his contributions to the discussion. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Enric Naval - have a look at Hannes Alfvén. It says there: "A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934)". This is presumably why Peratt included those topics in his book, and he seems to have been vindicated because the book is being republished. As regards your question on the relationship between astrophysical plasma and plasma cosmology, a lot of current day astrophysical plasma theory (e.g. our understanding of the aurora) comes from the people who did plasma cosmology, so actually astrophysical plasma is a subset of plasma cosmology - but of course that particular historical fork has been air-brushed from history as being much too embarrassing! Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Enric Naval - p.s. the section Astrophysical plasma#History only talks about Birkeland and Alfven, so point proved I suppose. There was also Sydney Chapman (mathematician), but his theories were found to be incorrect in the end. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Enric Naval

@Aarghdvaark. Iantresman himself gives the most damning evidence: "*Go and find yourself a book on "Astrophysical plasmas"; I doubt very much you will find mention of "double layers", "Critical ionization velocity", "Birkeland currents", and "Plasma circuits", let alone any discussion of their application to astronomy."[19]. Out of 4 topics mentioned, 3 appear in the index content of the book. So, according to Iantresman's own definition, this is not a book on astrophysical plasma.

Iantresman again treating "plasma universe" as a synonim of "plasma cosmology". Bonus points for mentioning the book and its author in the same comment. "Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist,[20] but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe)[21], his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in (...)"[22]

(By the way, Astrophysical plasma doesn't mention plasma cosmology anywhere, it only cites Alvén for his less-fringe work. The relationship to plasma cosmology should be explained.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Although I commented on the AE request cited here, the motion is on a broader subject and I don't see any reason to recuse from enacting it. NW (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enacting below motion. NW (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I see no motion or statement that the discretionary sanctions in that case were superseded or relaxed. Absent that, they would still be in force, and parties to that case would be well aware of the possible sanctions and as such should require no notification that these sanctions could be placed against them. And while I am not unduly surprised, I do have to note my disappointment that a week after having a topic ban relaxed, we're finding new issues already. SirFozzie (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What SirFozzie said, in full, especially the last sentence. This is being appropriately dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. No notification is required of a previously sanctioned editor. Risker (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirded, a party to a case is expected to have read the decision, and should know the DS exist. There are no need for warnings when someone has already been sanctioned; the warning is there to serve as a "stop and think", and that was served by the case itself. And, well, even though I opposed the motion to lift the topic ban, I'm stunned to see Iantresman causing problems this quickly. Courcelles 08:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "pseudoscience" or "fringe" issue seems to be a serial source of strife. I wouldn't mind a motion that clearly places both under the DS system, and ending the wikilawyering on this point. Courcelles 18:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the admins at WP:AE have interpreted this correctly, however I agree a motion to clarify this wouldn't be a bad idea at all. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire point of lifting the topic ban was to allow Iantresman an opportunity to edit constructively in this area. However, almost immediately after the ban was lifted, he started pushing a fringe view in a mainstream article. Consequently, the topic has been reinstated, which is the correct outcome. Under which precise mechanism the topic ban is reinstated is quite frankly less important, however as SirFozzie notes, the topic ban was applied correctly. For the avoidance of doubt, if it had been applied incorrectly, then either the community could have topic banned him, or we could have by motion. Finally, I echo SirFozzie's disappointment - we gave Iantresman a second chance, and he squandered it. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe any action is needed on this request, though I'm not adverse to a motion to clarify if there is any genuine confusion or need for expansion of the sanctions authority in this area (I'd welcome further input from the administrators active at AE on this point). If Iantresman wishes to appeal the discretionary sanction that was imposed on him (reimposition of the topic ban), he may do so, though I am not suggesting such an appeal would be likely to be successful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Asking AE to decide whether something is pseudoscience or merely fringe science is a waste of time; the concepts are so closely related that having the applicability of the sanctions turn on deciding which term applies to an article is a distraction at best, and pure wikilawyering at worst; this nullifies the issue, and puts the focus back on conduct, and not terminology. Courcelles 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Just in case there is any doubt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Also, I've added two sentences to the motion: I've copy-edited this motion so that it says any previously-authorised discretionary sanctions that are subsumed by these new ones may simply be stricken and marked as redundant (in the usual way). If we think separate motions to deprecate those sanctions are needed (Homeopathy and Cold fusion are mentioned below as two decisions that this motion would deprecate), then please revert my copy-edit—but as this is a matter of keeping our records in order more than anything else I think it might be sufficient for us or the community to use common sense in deciding how to implement this motion vis-a-vis existing decisions. AGK [•] 20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 09:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrators' comments
  • So this would have the effect of making all fringe science pseudoscience, and vice versa, for all Wikipedia purposes? I've just got a very bad feeling about unintended consequences of doing that, especially in light of past POV-warring in various areas. I worry that the motion, despite the best intent, might end up with some poor outcomes, although I can't put my finger on any at the moment... Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the intent is not so much to say that "pseudoscience" is the same as "fringe science," as to make it unnecessary to argue about whether a given topic represents one versus the other. But I would like to leave this open in case any members of the community have more input on how this motion might affect editing in these areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, NYB, I know full well they're not the same concept; but the behavioural issues are quite similar as the topics occur on WP, and the time of the AE admins is wasted in dealing with arguments over which label an article deserves, rather than cutting right to what they are really being asked to do; evaluate conduct. Courcelles 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Community comments on proposed motion

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures states: "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made." I think modifying an "area of conflict" qualifies as "significant or substantive modifications" and believe the prescribed steps should be followed as outlined. My76Strat (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a procedure. Risker (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This isn't a change to Arbitration Committee procedures, so the policy My76Stat cites isn't really relevant; nonetheless, I'm definitely glad to wait a couple of days for any additional community input before voting on the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thank both esteemed members for correcting my perspective. It would be great if either of you would have linked the relevant guidelines that do govern best practices for adding or modifying an area of conflict, but I am aware that you could not; because there are no such guidelines. I have reviewed the guidance available, and the closest prose I could find are shown in my original comment. I didn't pull it from thin air either, but followed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions, which seems to imply it is a "procedure", giving credence to "modification of procedures" as an appropriate clause. I guess that makes me a "wikilawyer" too, because I'm curious enough to seek guidance, humble enough to ask for help, and bold enough to state my opinion. It does not sit well with me, seeing Iantresman silenced by a discretionary topic ban for identical conduct, nor that he has been adorned with a compliment of labels that arguably rise to incivility. Some of the rhetoric has been echoed here, by esteemed members who are apparently comfortable wielding a rubber-stamp opposed to examining the merits of an action at their fore. Therefor, allow me to correct my original statement to reflect the policy that is relevant; Wikipedia:Ignore all rules where we are encouraged to not only ignore the rules, but to ignore them "beautifully". So much so, that there is no pressing need to even write them anymore. If someone does ask, call them a wikilawyer and show them the door. Regards, My76Strat (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not modifying how the sanctions work, they are just applying them on more articles. That's not a modification of Arbcom's procedures. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks, My76Strat (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this will really make it apply to more articles than originally intended; rather it just clarifies edge cases from doubt. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An "edge case" is by definition is uncertain (ie. sitting on the fence). So while there may be good sources and attribution suggesting one side, and likewise for the other side, you're going to (a) decide for them (b) and then ban everyone who disagrees. That doesn't seem like (a) an accurate representation of the various views, (b) a good way to deal with them. --Iantresman (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may contain other relevant cases: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases (though it hasn't been updated recently). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=523226604"