Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Current requests

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions

Initiated by Iberomesornix (talk) at 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Iberomesornix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fritzpoll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Fritzpoll
• Kwamikagami

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried.

• Kwamikagami has recommended me to go for arbitration ([1]).

Statement by Iberomesornix

Introduction
a. Page Iberian-Guanche inscriptions was put up in English Wikipedia by me.
b. T_L_Miles says that this is mainly one single group's study.
c. Trigaranus suggested deleting the page, but with "no doubt, inscriptions exist".
d. Iberomesornix showed that the study was a result of several groups:

• Wermer Pichler collected the inscriptions as "Latin", without noticing they were written in Iberian.
• Renata Springer studies again Pichler's "Latin" inscriptions.

We edited the page questioning the Arnaiz-Villena translation, as suggested.
e. We stated in the discussion the [2]authors who follow Arnaiz-Villena's Basque-Iberian interpretation. [3]
f. Iberian-Basque theory has nothing to do with the page, but was brought up to be dismissed only 60 years ago. Since 16th Century, all scholars agreed it was right, including Humboldt.
g. dumu eduba says that Basque has nothing to do with any other language. This has nothing to do with the page, which was further edited to make it clear.
h. Iberomesornix dismissed dumu eduba's arguments with references. Even Ruhlen (Proffesor at Stanford University) and Bengston had supported them.
i. Trigaranus brings about a reference which he says dismisses the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions page. However, the reference is unrelated, because there was another Pichler reference showing what he calls "Latin inscriptions" and we call "Iberian-Guanche incriptons" [4].
j. However, this reference was completely deleted[5] by Kwamikagami and later restored by me.
k. We think that this deletion is unjustified because permission was never criticized by anybody, and it might have been done for avoiding comparison with the key reference which was used to delete the page. We had permission to use it, which was asked by nobody.
l. Trigaranus and dumu eduba decided to tagging this page for deletion.
m. Reference given by Trigaranus is irrelevant for the page. The first ones are about Lybic inscriptions, and this page is about Latin or Guanche inscriptions. Please check the in both references and see they have nothing to do with each other.
n. This spureous reference was used as an argument for deletion by Fritzpoll [6].
o. In Deletion discussion it was made clear by me that discussion was unrelated to the page itself. It was brought about that Arnaiz-Villena had been persecuted and censored because of a Palestinian paper years ago, and that persecution is still ongoing by the same people that censored the Palestinian paper [7]. Deletion discussion was balanced and repeating the same non-applying arguments.
p. Another distinct page with more documents (scanned Iberian-Guanche inscriptions on the rocks themselves) [8], [9] and much editing, doubting about translations. As the critics did not like the term Guanche, the new page was renamed Iberian-Canarian scripts.
q. This new page was deleted by Kwamikagami arguing "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" [10]. [11]

'Summary'
1. Content of the page itself has not been criticized.
2. They have centered criticism on Basque-Iberism and translations (these matters were avoided, as explained in the Canarian-Iberian page discussion. Arnaiz-Villena is probably being persecuted again.
3. There is a conflict of interests about Iberian-Basque relationship. This has nothing to do with the page, and particularly with the fact that 2000-years-ago Iberian-Guanche inscriptions have been found in the Canary Islands since 1980's at least and they are silenced by scholars who feel damaged by these findings.
4. Trigaranus, Fritzpoll, and Kwamikagami have ignored common sense when following this case, in spite of perching to some Wikipedia regulations that are doubtfully appliable to about 2000-years-ago facts: the writing on Canary Islands rocks of Iberian scripts.
5. I am seeking a way out for keeping this important 2000-years-ago information in the Wikipedia. Arnaiz-Villena seems to be the target for deletion, instead of my page's contents; I would suggest either to reduce his references to the minimum.

Statement by Fritzpoll

Just to say, this has all caught me off guard - I had a request to explain the close some days ago, I responded and commented that WP:DRV was the next step if the party was unsatisfied. Beyond closing the AfD and deleting recreated pages, I've had no interaction with these editors or their pages and was, until this evening, nothing to do with this dispute. I am suitably bemused.

I did it before the diff that an arbitrator supplies below - see my archive. User_talk:Fritzpoll/Archive_4#Please__restore_Iberian-Canarian_scripts_page:not_a_single_argument_to_remove_it. I heard nothing back (that I can recall, I will check) between then and this request for arbitration. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also entirely unaware of all of the other actions including one related to references that I have not seen or used in any argument anywhere - the diff provided does not demonstrate that I had any knowledge of such a source - that are attributed to me beyond closing an AfD, deleting another page per WP:CSD#G4 that was identical beyond the title, and recommending deletion review to the filing party. I am unaware of everythig else that has transpired until this request, and I don't believe that there are any diffs that can demonstrate otherwise. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/2)

• Comment What steps in WP:DR, if any, have been tried already? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have forwarded commons:File:Iberian-Guanche inscriptions.pdf to the arbitrators. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Could we have a link to where Fritzpoll previously explained the deletion and recommended DRV? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The AfD I am reading now and the DRV recommendation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Decline. There is no evidence of misconduct warranting an arbitration case. The parties should follow the advice given by FayssalF just below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline Iberomesornix, I believe you are a relatively new user and need some guidance and the best one is the one Fritzpoll has suggested to you —which is WP:Deletion Review. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process and yet this looks more than a disagreement about the deletion of the material you brought in than a real conflict. And in order for you to follow that path, you have to limit your participation in the topic to one single account because sockpuppetry is not allowed. You have stated above that user:Kwamikagami has recommended [you] to go for arbitration. In fact, the recommendation was suggested to user:Virginal6. If that is correct please ask any administrator to block your other account before moving forward. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - I agree with Fayssal's comments. Risker (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Fayssal. Wizardman 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

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

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

Statement by Hipocrite

SirFozzie "clarified" this case here. Is this valid? How could an outside user looking in know this was valid? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Tznkai

I find your statement an elegent and persuasive answer to my question zero ("Should this be valid"), which leads you to a request that Arbcom clarify my question one ("Is this valid?") with a "yes." I feel, however, that it does not adress my second question ("How could an outside user looking in know this was valid?")

Imagine I were to go edit the page to add a clarification that said "Tznkai is banned from WP:ANI, because that's what I think ArbCom meant." Obviously, I'm wrong. Is it my lack of Sysop flag, or the fact that I'm involved that makes it so? Perhpas it's because I'm a hothead prone to flying off the handle? No, that can't be it, because then User:17Drew could do it, and, arguably, that would be less valid. (Sorry 17D, you were the first admin on the list I don't know), because, well, he's wrong, but he might be taken seriously, unlike me. This is why the Orangemarlin action was so over the top - because not only was it invalid, but it was taken quite seriously and presented with the full pomp and circumstance.

If the only way to tell if something is correct is to verify that it's correct, then that's not a process that works. If a clarification is to be made to ArbCom, it needs to be made by ArbCom, not by someuser. Not even if that user is a sysop, or a clerk, or an arbcom member. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to other parites

This request is focused on the specific clarification that SirFozzie made to the case, and if that clarification is valid and proper. If you reread your comment and determine that you're adressing something else, consider entering your own request for (more/less) sanctions? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Concurrance with SBHB

Right or wrong, SirFozzie should not be sanctioned. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The topic ban placed on ScienceApologist has proven highly problematic. It has lead to intense wikilawyering and campaigning for blocks on WP:AE.[12][13][14][15] The Arbitration Committee was appointed to decide difficult cases. Decide. Don't fob your responsibilities onto the admin corps. No two users seem to agree on what the topic ban covers. Does it cover a simple article on plants, such as Atropa belladona? Can SA work on an article like Gamma-ray burst? If SA finds unsourced WP:OR in that article, can he remove it? SA has many antagonists who are ready to jump in and claim that SA is violating the topic ban. The decision in this case has made a total mess at WP:AE. You've made the situation worse rather than better. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie can't be sanctioned because impersonating ArbCom isn't a crime. Everybody knows he's not ArbCom and that he doesn't have the power to modify a remedy. He can certainly express his common sense view on what a remedy means, which I think he did quite well. The sanction handed down was naive because it failed to understand how heated and wikilawyerish the fringe science area is. Either you ban somebody completely or you topic ban them in a way that leaves little doubt. SA is a science editor. Virtually all science articles have some sort of fringe component. The ban as currently written might was well be a siteban if it is going to be construed that broadly. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

There are two basic ways to interpret SirFozzie's action. First, as part of the normal discretion implied and neccesary in having to interpret terms such as "broadly construed" and the generally wide berth that admins are given to enforce arbitration remedies, or 2. as an extra-procedural, but I would argue correct modification to an Arbitration remedy.

The exact wording of the remedy is as follows: "3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles."

The key terms are "any article" and "broadly construed" The simplest and plain text reading of the remedy would allow any administrator to block ScienceApologist if he edits on any article that has any relation to fringe science, no matter how minute the relationship. This would include any edit on any such article, even the most uncontroversial. In other words, un-watchlist and walk away, you don't belong here. What others have interpreted it as is articles only tightly related to fringe science, or which the subject is fringe science - paranormal activity, UFOlogy, and so forth. Unfortunately, confounding the issue, some science is "fringe" in that it is generally not considered science, and some science is simply unpopular or in legitimate dispute (is my position that Pluto is a planet "fringe?"). In addition, this would also mean that edits that in themselves concern fringe science, are not restricted. Thus, an edit to Chinese culture is not restricted, even if it is to say "Chinese medicine is a pseudoscientific fraud" - which is clearly related to fringe science topic, but is not a fringe science article.

Fozzie's interpretation more accurately addresses what I believe was the intent of the committee: to keep ScienceApologist from editing on topics he has shown a history of problematic behavior, and thus the edit itself should also fall under the microscope. Otherwise, in order to make the restriction effective, we must go with the plaintext reading, leaving ScienceApologist topic banned from any article that touches the subject of fringe science or fields that are pseduoscientific, or have been related to fringe science in present or past, because of the wording of "broadly construed" - or we can use a common sense approach in reading the topic ban. Excessive obsession over wording minutiae leads us away from the obvious, but I will indulge anyway to point out this: both Bainer and Coren referred to the "topic area" which implies it is the content itself, not the title of the article, that is the problem.

It is my opinion that SirFozzie's clarification serves an obvious purpose: he is essentially publishing his interpretation of the remedy's intent and wording, and thus putting upfront under what conditions he as an administrator will block under - and other admins can endorse his opinion (as I do now) as the interpretation they will use.

If it is the opinion of the Committee that SirFozzie's action was confusing or distressingly extraprocedural, the solution is to quickly come to a clarification, preferably one endorsing SirFozzie's interpretation. Let me remind the Committee however, that Aribtration Enforcement is a difficult matter, and the administrators need a great deal of support, and as this request for comment has shown, the administrators are not getting it. It is the natural result of this situation that AE admins are left to make interpretations on the fly and on the ground - and that overriding such a decision should only be done when there is significant need. If the Committee chooses to disagree significantly and say so, it should also be the first of many acts showing the dedication of the Committee to become more responsive and involved in the administrator work done to enforce Arbitration decisions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Hipocrite

The workings of Arbitration Enforcement are poorly understood by outsiders to begin with which is one of many criticisms I and others have of the process (although not sure if I ever wrote that one down) - but those of us familiar with AE tendencies would understand it as an act of normal administrator discretion - or so is my belief. As for the perspective of a total outsider, I believe you're right that this section of the arbitration process is rather broken and confusing so it is difficult, but not impossible for an outsider to see the validity.

First, you have to step away from the notion that process=authority=validity. Wikipedia functions more on persuasion rather than structural authority. Process is useful in that it keeps everyone on the same page speaking the same language -not just to say XXX users get to make decrees. In this case, Arbitration remedies are directives that allow administrators to step in under certain circumstances, thus procedural authority to take action with ArbCom's implied blessing. Yet, all directives require at least a little interpretation - English is not as precise as say, mathematics or computer programs (how broad is "broadly construed?"). What these remedies are really, is not the admin-bitted authority to make a binding interpretation of , but a procedurally sanctioned platform from which to make a case for an interpretation. This is the real nature of the discretion in "discretionary sanctions" - and all sanctions are discretionary, just some more and some less.

Thus, SirFozzie's action was correct not just because of the implied discretion found in the remedy, but in making an interpretation that was compelling to others, particularly admins who will be asked to use their bits to enforce the remedy. Does this potentially confuse an outsider? Yes - but I'm not convinced the outsider will have to care. Remedies are meant to have the gravitas of Arbitration behind them when they are enforced by an administrator - otherwise what would be the point of having arbitration remedies? So long as someone doesn't stray off into left field, I think its generally fine - and if they do, someone should bring them RfAr and ask for a clarification.

This is an admittedly arcane way of explaining the situation - but its probably more compelling than saying "because he was right." For those of you who were all TL;DR: nearly all remedies imply discretion, AE is a process in need of fixing. --Tznkai (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC) A clerk or another user may want to trim my now very lengthy statement.

Statement by ScienceApologist

One solution may be to simply lift the topic ban. There was another proposal called "3.2" that was gaining traction (maybe) but the arbitration closed before all arbitrators had a chance to consider it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

I almost posted to the ArbCom decision page to ask how on earth some random admin thought he had the authority to rewrite the text of one of the conclusions and present it as if it were valid. ArbCom should be the ones doing that stuff. He is certainly within his rights to suggest a rewording to ArbCom, but it should be explicitly agreed upon by all the people who voted for the conclusion or else it has no validity. I don't care what the issue is, it's a matter of principle and simple functioning of this site in general. The reason I didn't post originally is I figured it's probably what Arbcom intended and they could certainly object to it when they saw it, so this specific issue isn't my concern. Admins can't just unilaterally rewrite ArbCom decisions, and especially not admins with histories on conflict with the person it'd affect, and I can't believe it's even necessary to have to clarify that to people, but I guess it is. Admins who pull things like this should be firmly warned and removed if anything similar happens again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd be very helpful if some of the people responding here took a minute to read and realize this is not an arbitration request on ScienceApologist. It's a request to clarify a single admin can take it upon himself to rewrite an ArbCom decision. Whether the text of the rewrite itself makes sense is a side issue (people can agree that it would make a good clarification without agreeing on whether it the edits were made properly), and everything else is a completely off-topic tangent that doesn't belong here. 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Middle 8

What Chillum said. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And this gem from ScienceApologist himself. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

Sir Fozzie's action is an obviously valid interpretation of the arbcomm remedy. I thus fully endorse the first five paragraphs of Tznkai's comment.

Instead of the sixth paragraph, I note that the sort of boundary pushing and rules lawyering evidenced in the recent WP:AE threads is 1) what we've been seeing for months in this topic area, 2) therefore utterly unsurprising, and 3) the reason why some of those engaged in it are likely to end up permanently site or topic banned due to a demonstrated inability to edit productively in a collaborative environment. I think the encyclopedia would be better off if those caught up in battleground behavior change their editing habits and edit collaboratively with those with whom they disagree, but this sort of behavior, unchanged, is likely to end up with some of them site banned.

I also think Chillum's suggestion is likely what is needed to change this user's current behavior pattern - the boundary needs to be made very clear and any crossing of that boundary needs to result in sanctions. Currently the boundary we have is an article space topic ban, and Sir Fozzie's interpretation makes the boundary clearer so is a good step toward implementing Chillum's suggestion. The next step is enforcing it. GRBerry 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed

The edit which brought this "clarification" is [16]. It's a typical edit for ScienceApologist, where he changed "a homeopathic mixture may have few to no molecules" to "there is none" and it obviously relates to fringe science, broadly construed. It's a fairly pointy and trivial edit; I don't see why this clarification is necessary. Other post-ArbCom edits include removing a reference that sodium lauryl sulfate is associated with canker sores [17]. That's not a spelling correction, and is more debatable. I think SA thinks it's fringe science. I would revert him on it, but I don't want to get into an edit war. The fact that I'm reluctant to contest this sort of thing, even though 3 studies have shown an association with SLS and canker sores (PMID 7825393, PMID 8811135, PMID 9656847 -- 2 research teams) while 1 has not (PMID 10218040), gives an indication of the degree to which: 1) ScienceApologist is willing to edit-war and 2) how willing he is to remove scientific studies which do not support his POV. Even if I were to present the balanced picture, there's a good chance SA would revert. Actually, the above is all false. Looks like he was just removing it from the lead. My apologies.

In other news, ScienceApologist has now decided to up his campaign of false allegations and bad faith:

• He recently called for a community ban of me and called me a POV pusher and "terrible editor", but the only diff he was able to provide was of me noting through a source that casualty insurance, which includes liability as well as property insurance, is problematically defined.
• He has said that "it is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic", and he seems to think that I'm one of those people [18].
• The above allegations ignore the fact that I have probably done as much or more to suppress fringe science than he has, because I use references and clarify the facts. For example, I added the first critical reference on chelation therapy for heart disease [19] and recently summarized what the past studies have found [20], I used an old Science reference to shed some light on the origin of the laetrile controversy, I supported the categorization of alternative cancer treatments which put most of them into "disproven" or "scientifically implausible", based mainly on references, I suggested putting the systematic review of multiple chemical sensitivity which found no support that it's a physical condition in the lead, and I've clarified exactly what the National Research Council found on fluoride's toxicity -- which largely entailed showing that toxic effects to DNA and organs seem to occur, if at all, at a much higher dose than one will get in any dose from fluoridated water.
• Most recently I've faced opposition from ScienceApologist for using references to show that one of orthomolecular medicine's pet therapies, high-dose vitamin E for heart disease, was debunked by two RCTs, one in 1950 and one in 1974 [21] and also, in that edit, clarified that the epidemiological studies finding lower heart disease among high vitamin E consumers was not orthomolecular, but mainstream. No explanation has been provided for removing the material, but it appears that I will have trouble working it into the article.

While no evidence has been provided of problematic editing on my part, people nevertheless feel entitled to assume bad faith of me because of ScienceApologist's unjustified mudslinging. The widespread misinformation campaign and frequent attacks has led to administrators who are afraid to enforce the Arbitration Committee's ruling, for fear of being tarred and feathered as fringe science promoteres and apologists. There is a widespread misconception that ScienceApologist does a lot of good work, when most of his edits are actually controversial not because they are good science, but because they are pointy and non-neutral. Good editors who combat fringe science such as User:Eubulides do not have major issues because they use references and present both sides. They are highly effective.

Since ScienceApologist feels so comfortable calling me a "terrible editor", I can honestly say that I can't recall ever seeing him add a reference, and I haven't been able to find any in a search of his contributions I've noticed that he very rarely adds references. If he wants to combat pseudoscience, using references is the way to go. A review of his contributions also shows that he has been editing fringe health science topics exclusively yesterday and today, although he also proposed Elonka for deletion. On the other hand, I add probably an average of 1-2 peer-reviewed journal references, often reviews, per edit. II | (t - c) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass

Unless I've missed something here, I must endorse Dreamguy's position. Administrators cannot just alter Arbcom decisions willy-nilly according to their own interpretations. Surely such actions are reserved for this very "Clarifications" section! Whether SirFozzie's interpretation is right or wrong, it's a breach of process to go about it this way and that needs to be made clear. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

Speedy close. And as a side question, how many fairies fit on the head of a pin? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

This is a rather rough situation. The case involved, Fringe Science, closed about ten days ago. Since then, AE has been flooded with the same people, who are still fighting the same wars, in the same ways. We have a user, who's openly declared that he intends to push the boundaries of his topic ban in every way, shape and form possible.

ScienceApologist knew exactly what he was doing in his edits on the article Atropa belladonna. The plant itself may not be part of a strict reading of his topic ban, since a majority of the article wouldn't be considered "fringe science". However there is two mitigating factors in this. First of all, there is no doubt that his edit (on the homeopathic use of the plant ,or supposed homeopathic use), would generally fall under his topic ban. Secondly, he had been sanctioned under the Homeopathy ArbCom case as an AE action previously for this very same article, for the very same reasons. Now, admittedly, the sanction had been placed on him by an administrator he has a good amount of antipathy towards, but there is no doubt that he knew (or should have known) that this was either a violation of his topic ban, or at the very least, something he should have gotten clarification on before doing.

I decided that a firm clarification was necessary to ensure that the boundary was made clear. I made it clear that I did not speak for the Arbitration Commitee, or any of its members (In the interests of full disclosure, I did briefly discuss the situation with one member of the Arbitration Committee, but that was little more then a "I'm sure this will be kicked up to you" notice".)

I did not block SA, although many would argue I had good reason to at this point. Instead, I issued a clarification from myself as an AE admin, to make it clear where the boundaries are, to avoid him or his supporters claiming that I had "moved the goalposts on him" if a block had occured. I submit to the Committee that this is utterly uncontroversial. I did not re-write the decision, as people above me are claiming. I logged it in a section marked "Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.". That is what I did. I stated it was an AE action, not a "Speaking for ArbCom" action.

ScienceApologist has stated in various ways that he will continue to defy his topic ban. He made a statement as an announcement on his talk page that This user ignores all arbitration rulings made about him. and I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring. (From AE, diff coming shortly).

I apologize to the Committee for the length of my statement, and if anyone wants to summarize, I will move the remaining part of mystatement off this page

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The issue at hand is whether individual administrators have the authority to make interpretations of Arbcom's intent that are binding on other administrators. It is up to Arbcom to decide whether they want to allow this, but in either event they should make it clear. The specific concerns about SA's behavior should be dealt with separately after the larger issue is clarified, and there should be no sanction against the muppet Knight Batchelor for taking initiative in a gray area. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:William M. Connolley

If SA corrects a spelling error (or reverts clear and blatant vandalism) on a "fringe science" article, and someone blocks him for it, that will be stupid. If he does the same, and someone reports him to AE for it, they should be cautionned for being vexatious, and blocked for repeat offences William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse, will be making a statement.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Right, thanks for bringing it to our attention SirFozzie, clarification will be forthcoming. I was concerned this may happen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As stated on the proposed decision page, I have recused on issues relating to ScienceApologist because of his role in helping set up the New York meet-ups and Chapter meetings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Recused. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

---