Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:40, 26 April 2012

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Cirt and Jayen466

Initiated by — Cirt (talk) at 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Cirt and Jayen466 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 2.3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

Remedy 2.3
Permission to contribute towards a Featured List drive on the page I'd created, Dan Savage bibliography (originally modeled after the WP:FL page, George Orwell bibliography).

Statement by Cirt

I'm requesting permission from the Committee to contribute towards a Featured List drive on the page I'd created, Dan Savage bibliography (originally modeled after the WP:FL page, George Orwell bibliography).

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

May I be permitted to work on this Featured List drive? — Cirt (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Featured List Director, The Rambling Man

Thank you very much to Featured List Director, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), for offering to help me out in this featured list drive. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) added helpful comments at the Featured List Candidacy of a prior list page I successfully improved to WP:FL quality status, 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. The offer of help from an editor experienced in the Featured List process, especially coming from a Featured List Director, is most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Featured List Director The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has helpfully agreed to act as my mentor for this Featured List Drive, see diff. — Cirt (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man

As a featured list director, I'd like to offer my assistance where needed in this drive, I'm happy to provide peer review comments and any other assistance deemed necessary to ensure good and correct progress is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by koavf

My two cents I'm happy to give my perspective and honored that Cirt wanted to emulate the FL I made. First off, I'm not terribly familiar with the dispute above, but I have interacted with Cirt on a handful of occasions and found him to be a helpful and reasonable editor. If he wants to work on an FL, I think that's in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if he plays nice there and makes quality work in a collaborative spirit, that can give good reason to think that his editing restrictions could be further eased. I see no harm in this and a great potential. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

One of the problems with sanctions is determining the point at which they no longer serve a sensible purpose. I understand that ArbCom may feel that when they say 12 months, they mean nothing less, but I will argue that such a stance is counter-productive. ArbCom enjoys a good deal of support from much of the community and it does not need to be seen to be stern or inflexible merely to reinforce its authority.

In this case, we know Cirt to be a productive editor, and I believe the desired outcome is for him to be able to edit without causing the problems that led to the arbitration case. This amendment is not asking for the restriction to be lifted in general, but for a single, well-defined exception to be made - and that under the guidance of a well-respected mentor. One of the important mechanisms in rehabilitation is for the restricted party to solve their problems in a controlled situation, thereby demonstrating the skills required to have the restriction removed. It seems to me that working a bibliography up to a Featured List within TRM's overview would fit that scenario well.

This amendment is not asking for the restriction to be vacated, and I would argue that allowing an exception to be made for one list in the way proposed has many pros and almost no cons. I hope the members of ArbCom will view this comment sympathetically, and for what it's worth, I would be willing to also offer my help with the Featured List process, should Cirt be allowed to bring the bibliography up to that level. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

I would not be opposed to Courcelles' inclination of a one-page-only exception monitored by The Rambling Man. There seems to be community support for such a limited lifting of the restriction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Motion

1) Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt (talk · contribs) is granted an exemption in order to edit the article Dan Savage bibliography, its talk page, a peer review for that article, and a featured list candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at anytime, or by further motion of this Committee.

Support

I don't see much downside here, and trust TRM ro act as a safety valve should my hopes for productive editing not be the result. Courcelles 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the (hopefully obvious) caveat that should TRM revoke this exemption, the Committee be notified immediately. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will go along with this, but I suggest that Cirt stay away from any "Santorum" related aspects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Request to amend prior case: BASC:iantresman

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

Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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 [1] because I felt my edit was exempt per WP:LIVING (and said so at the time of the edit), but would now use WP:BLP/N.
I also took part in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. I also do not "support", nor deliberately "push" pseudoscience or fringe science, and in the few subjects I have edited, have merely tried to describe points of view accurately, fairly and with appropriate sources.
Nearly 5 years have passed since my Community ban, and Wikipedia is a somewhat different place with different personalities.
I am also happy to consider (a) a Mentorship (b) restricting my input to talk pages until consensus is reached, although obviously I'd prefer unrestricted editing, and taking the usual responsibility.

____

Response to PhilKnight. Surely if the topic ban wasn't working, it would be a convincing reason against removing the ban. Isn't good editing a positive step? Otherwise what makes a convincing reason? --Iantresman (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Skinwalker. Rupert Sheldrake is a person (involved with biology), Electrotherapy (cosmetic) is cosmetics and beauty, Supernova is astronomy, and Decimal time is a numbering system (maths?), and I was looking at Galvanism from the biological point of view, but concede that it could be taken as physics, in which case it violates my topic ban. I'll also let others decide whether nearly 6000 other edits, and my contribution as a whole, outweighs my possible misjudgement --Iantresman (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cardamon. I think we have to be careful with subjects that are part of physics, and subjects that are of interest to physics. If we go merely by the WikiProject Physics template, then the following subjects are deemed to be physics: the whole of astronomy, rainbows, kilograms, many people (eg. the Queen guitarist, Brian May), and a picture of a soap bubble. --Iantresman (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cardamon [2]. (1) There is no dispute that supernovae are of great interest to physics, but I continue to be a little puzzled that you consider my grammatical edit to the article, to be subversive and outweighing my other 6000 edits. (2) I don't recall any of my edits to redshift and plasma physics including inappropriate references to plasma cosmology (you should be spoilt for choice for diffs?), but I do recall, for example, making significant improvements[2] to plasma physics that together with the contribution of other editors, resulted in it achieving Good Article status. --Iantresman (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cardamon [3]. Can my Sep 2005 edit to supernovae, be described as "POV pushing" if it is "obviously true" (who's POV)? And where is the "pushing" of an edit that remained in the article for over 2 years[3]? I think there are many valid criticisms that could have been made, rather than the pejorative "POV pushing". --Iantresman (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Skinwalker [2]. In my opinion, a physics-related subject is one that you would learn about in a physics lesson, ie. the physics-related Newton's Laws, but not the man Isaac Newton who is of interest to physicists. I acknowledge that every editor will have their own views, but I don't think that contributing personal information [4] to an article on a biochemist with a double-first-class honours from Cambridge University, was meant to be covered by the ban. --Iantresman (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to PhilKnight [2]. While I feel that the Isaac Newton article would not have be included in the topic ban, the fact is that I did not edit it. It does seem harsh to judge me on my opinion, and not just my actions here. With regard to Sheldrake, you'll also find that my only other edit to his article five years ago, added a citation and quote supporting the statement "his ideas are deemed controversial and are considered by some mainstream scientists to be pseudoscientific"[5], hardly the action of someone trying to be disingenuous, (and hardly the action of someone trying to push pseudoscience). --Iantresman (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Statement by Skinwalker

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

Many of these edits have been minor spelling/formatting fixes, but some have been more extensive. I leave it to others to decide if these are actionable violations of his topic ban.

He has also commented on discussions of fringe issues on policy pages,[11][12] though it appears this is permitted by the wording of the unblocking conditions.

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

Statement by Collect

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

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

Statement by Cardamon

Supernova does fall within the topic of physics. For those who can't tell this from its content, one clue is that its talk page says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics" with a rating of "FA-class, High-importance". It seems to have been classed as a physics article for more than 5 years. [13] Cardamon (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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