Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:45, 2 November 2010

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]]	none	none	27 October 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate change (2)\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate change (2)]]	Motion	none	25 October 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I\|Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I]]	none	none	25 October 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate change (1)\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate change (1)]]	none	none	24 October 2010
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience	none	none	22 October 2010
Request for clarification: DIGWUREN	none	none	15 October 2010

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Initiated by TS at 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notifications of named users are linked after the names
Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), formerly Docglasgow [1]
I would prefer that the clerks make all other notifications.

All admins are affected by this so perhaps the clerks should make a note at WP:AN
The Committee of 2007 should be informed as a matter of courtesy

Clerks please inform me if they would prefer me to perform all relevant notifications.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

A long time ago on an internet far away...

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

(I cut a load of superfluous mumbo jumbo that is better covered by Doc, who knows a lot about what has happened since 2007).

I take the point Carcharoth makes about "tailing off" of enthusiasm in recent months. It's quite noticeable in a graph that has been plotted. Won't it always be a problem moving forward that we'll always have more BLPs than anybody can be bothered to watch over except to jump the hoops they're forced to jump to keep them alive? The answers to those questions must await the arrival of a strategic deletion policy. I wrote something about this about five years ago, must dig it out. --TS 05:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really love Uncle G's suggestion. It answers all of my concerns without upsetting anybody. --TS 13:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thparkth

Contrary to the wording of this request, the issue at hand is not "was the Committee of 2007 wrong?" but rather "what did the Committee of 2007 mean?". Did they mean that any unsourced BLP could be summarily deleted by any admin who might choose to do so? Or did they mean that any unsourced BLP which was contentious or negative could be summarily deleted?

This is the key issue about which it would be helpful to obtain clarification.

The 2007 decision said that administrators might summarily delete a BLP "if they believe that it significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." The relevant policy is, I believe WP:BLP. Nowhere in this policy does it state that merely being unsourced is grounds for deletion of an article. It says that If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step (my emphasis). So my understanding is that unsourced BLPs may be (and should be) deleted summarily if they are signifantly contentious or contain negative material - but the great majority of unsourced BLPs do not.

Obviously I read this in conjunction with WP:BLPPROD which does specifically allow for the deletion of unsourced BLPs created after March 18th this year; but even then it is not a summary deletion.

It would be very helpful if we could have clarification on which interpretation is correct for unsourced BLPs created before March 18th; summary deletion on sight, or summary deletion for problematic articles only? To be fair to all the people involved in this discussion, a significant degree of interpretation is required to determine what the practical effect of the 2007 wording is, and there is room for good faith disagreement at present.

Statement by Scott MacDonald

Pertinent here is the more recent Wikipedia:Summary motion regarding biographies of living people deletions.

I took this to mean that while speedy deleting unreferenced BLPs was consistent with policy, the community would be better served achieving the goal (not having unreferenced BLPs) by "less chaotic means". And that the hope was that this would be secured through a centralised discussion "on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy."

With that in view, speedy deletion were discontinued (indeed as soon as the case opened there was a moratorium - the speedy deletion ended as soon as their was some momentum to find a "less chaotic" way) and I an others worked for an agreed "way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy" ([2] here and elsewhere). After many months the best we got was stickyprod. Stickyprod only deals with new unreferenced BLPS (created since May) - and it took a lot of effort to get through.

It was suggested at that point that the backlog could be fixed. I can't find the diff, but I agreed that we should give this some time (months) to see whether that was realistic. I was not at all sure it would prove the "way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy" arbcom desired. It has turned out not to be.

Ten months later 24,000 articles are still tagged as unreferenced BLPs - that's 24,000 individuals who are written about in this encyclopedia with nothing checked and no quality control or evident maintenance. The rate of decrease has slowed.[3] If the current rate continues, I estimate it will take three years to eliminate the backlog. (And this is only one of many aspects of the BLP problem.) I regularly scan these articles using Google metrics and find serious BLP violations. This is simply not a ""way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".

I agree with arbcom that a "less chaotic" means is desirable - but it also has to be "effective enforcement". I have judged that there comes a point where some chaos may be a lesser evil than continued ineffective enforcement of the BLP policy. That is, after all, the spirit of "if the rules prevent you improving..." which I think arbcom was referencing.

I'm still earnestly, but not optimistically, hoping there can be a better way, which is why I have not resumed any speedy deletions. Any help you can give would be appreciated.--Scott Mac 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ways forward

Two fairly sane solutions have been offered, which ensure a certain end to unreferenced BLPs, but don't entail mass deletions.

UncleG's proposal to blank (and I'd add {noidex}) the remainder. A category can be kept, and they can be unblanked by any user who references them. If more are discovered they can be instantly blanked too. No adim actions.
Set deadline and use stickypod: My own suggestion was set (say) 30 weeks, stickyprod 1/30 of the backlog per week. End deadline, no backlog - but as many saved as possible. (Remember prods can be undeleted if anyone offer to fix them up.)

Both of these are better than mass-deletions (I'm marginally more excited by UncleG's). However, if mass deletions are taken off the table, the thing will stall with filibustering. That's why I suggested a deadline for an agreed process: it focuses minds and says "no" to an endless status-quo.--Scott Mac 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Milowent

TS stated on his talk page that, under this 2007 arbitration decision, "All admins are empowered, on their own cognizance, to kill unsourced articles about living persons."[4] I asserted in response that such a claim was "bullshit," hence TS referenced that term in his statement. But its also true. TS also stated "I have absolutely no intention of ever sourcing an unsourced BLP." TS started this same ill-advised assertion at Wikipedia:AN#Huge_backlog_of_tagged_unsourced_biographies_of_living_persons, and with consensus clearly against him, has now come here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Note: I revised my language slightly once smoke started coming out of my ears.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to request for additional information from Kirill

How large of a problem are we faced with? In other words, how large is the backlog, how quickly is it being processed, and how much new material is added per month?

I believe the backlog of uBLPs was about 50,000 in early 2010 and is now about 23,300. However, about 6,000 of the current number are uBLPs tagged since March 2010, so the original backlog would be down to about 16,000, but we have found more along the way (not surprising, as I am sure there are more to be found).

How effective are the currently available community processes in dealing with the backlog?

Everyone can easily access backlog articles to source them (and can search by topic), or evaluate for prod, afd, or copyright problems, etc. New articles are subject to BLPPROD to prevent new unsourced BLPs for adding to the burden.
Projects which are doing the sourcing such as Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue have found very very few occurrences of defamatory material in the backlog.

Can the existing processes be improved to deal with the backlog more efficiently, and how?

see below

What can we do to clear the backlog by the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding? Do we need some sort of centralized drive to source and/or remove these articles? Is there some other method we haven't tried yet?

Its a simple matter of work that has to be done, and can be done. More volunteers, and the backlog can easily be eliminated by that anniversary -- a centralized drive would be great, if that sort of thing even works. We have 3.5 million articles, attending to 23,300 is a drop in the bucket. Its a shame that those re-raising this debate aren't actually sourcing articles or know what the true landscape is like in the backlog.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snottywong

It is the responsibility of the article's creator(s) (and/or those who argue against the article's deletion) to ensure that reliable sources are cited. If they failed to do so, then the article clearly "significantly violates an aspect of the relevant policy", in particular WP:V. So, per the 2007 ruling, these articles are all fair game for deletion by an administrator. Any deleted BLP's which are actually about a notable person will eventually be recreated by an interested editor who will take the time to cite sources. However, in the interest of preserving some of the work that was put into creating these articles, I think it would be best to set a deadline and delete them in phases, per this proposal. SnottyWong ^gab 23:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Pope

I'd disagree with a few statements made by others that overstate the problem. TS said " the unsourced BLP problem is far greater than it was then". I don't know how bad it was in 2006 or 2007, but we have brought the number down from over 50,000 at the beginning of the year to about 16,000 of them, plus we've found or had created or had tagged another 7000. We have allocated to WikiProjects over 10,000 articles. That is a lot of checking and cleaning that's been done this year.

Scott Mac said "that's 24,000 individuals who are written about in this encyclopedia with nothing checked and no quality control or evident maintenance" This is also plainly not true. The true number of individuals written about in the encyclopedia with no quality control is MUCH HIGHER than 24,000 and includes most referenced stubs and articles. Watchlist stats, other cleanup tags, "Newly created article still tagged from 2009", etc etc show that focussing only on UBLPs is, in a way, pretty stupid and misguided. And lots of the UBLPs do have some form of referencing in them - to IMDB, to related organisations (ie University faculties, sporting organisations) or offline or poorly formatted links. Not good enough, but higher than the "nothing checked and no quality control" that Scott refers to. I would guess that MOST people (not bots) who tag an article with the BLPUnref tag would give it a quick check for unreferenced negative comments.

The bottom line is that we are working on it, and what we need is more involvement from more editors, a better way to stop new articles being created without references (force new editors to edit before creating?) and more involvement from more editors. Deletion by "unusual means" isn't the solution. By all means attempt to delete them, but one at a time, AfD, PROD or BLPPROD please. The-Pope (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

I don't see how this issue is within the mandate of the ArbCom. This decision sets policy. The community should develop policies through the traditional means. I suggest that the decision be withdrawn and parallel language be added to the BLP policy with community input and consent. Will Beback talk 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary to withdraw an old decision to de-emphasize it. What's needed here is more community action, not less ArbCom action. Rather than revisit an old decision it'd be better to update the policy itself. I agree to action on this topic, but this is the wrong venue for it. Will Beback talk 11:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By WereSpielChequers

Deleting unsourced or poorly sourced uncontentious material on notable subjects is very controversial and disruptive to the community, especially when done insensitively and without informing the authors. The shift to a hierarchical and threat driven editing environment with priorities and targets set by deletionist admins has been disruptive and damaging to the whole project. It has also been counterproductive for the BLP project, as the uBLP debates and RFCs have been a major distraction that has diverted attention away from more contentious material elsewhere in mainspace. The drive to focus on articles identified as unreferenced BLPs ahead of various higher risk areas such as unreferenced BLPs not yet identified, and high risk words and phrases, is a classic example of the pitfalls of targeting that which is easily measured above that which is truly important. Arbcom should reaffirm that admins are to respect the work of goodfaith contributors, give a ruling that part of the deletion tagging process is the informing of goodfaith editors, and encourage those who wish to remove unsourced content because it has been tagged as unreferenced BLPs to prioritise unsourced controversial content instead. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

As noted by others, parts of the statements by Scott is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately deceptive. He seeks to portray his pet peeve in the worst possible light in the hopes that Arbcom will overrule community consensus to allow a resumption of the indiscriminate destruction of Wikipedia articles. Indeed, Scott will complain that there are still 24,000 articles in the backlog, but he'll never admit that at the start of the mess he helped create, it was over 50,000. Given the number or articles tagged this year, it means that over 35,000 articles have been sourced in some way in the last 10 months and argues that the process the community agreed upon is working.

For whatever reason, this is not good enough for some, and so they come here in the hopes that ArbCom will once again step outside of its scope and try to behave like a legislative body. ArbCom has no right to dictate policy, and ArbCom frequently makes it clear its mandate excludes content disputes. What to do about any class of article is related directly to content, and as such the 2007 ruling, the 2010 motion and this request are all outside of ArbCom's mandate. ArbCom needs to do the right thing here and vacate all existing decisions that attempt to set policy, and instead show its respect the work of the community, which has already proven that it can deal with the issue. As there is no issue brought forth related to user conduct, there is nothing ArbCom can do to satisfy the wishes of certain editors.

But since it has been raised, now would be an excellent time for ArbCom to fix its past mistakes. Reso lute 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill: "The BLP policy will be enforced, one way or another" The BLP policy is being enforced - unless you can show me that contentious unsourced material is consistently not being removed or sourced once identified. What purpose does your veiled threat serve? Reso lute 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott MacDonald - either solution has potential, but this is not the proper forum to propose or decide upon either. A clean discussion in a centralized location that focuses on presenting ways to ensure the backlog continues to be cleared, done so in a positive rather than thretening way, should achieve a desired result. Certainly the first set of BLP RFCs resulted in good policy changes. Reso lute 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

I propose the following two findings of fact, each of which can be substantiated, and one conclusion:

"Unreferenced BLPs" and "problematic BLPs" are orthogonal classes. No evidence exists that Unreferenced BLPs are more likely to be defamatory than those which claim to have references. Anecdotal evidence from Joe Decker and DGG suggests that the vast majority of unreferenced BLPs are innocuous, sourceable, and appropriate encyclopedic content.
The community has developed a number of mechanisms for dealing with BLPs which do not meet V. The evidence that this has been working is the decline in unreferenced BLPs, despite their ongoing creation, since this issue was last brought up.

Conclusion: While the use of administrator discretion to deal with inappropriate or problematic BLPs on a case-by-case basis should continue unfettered, the use of wide-spread deletion without individual review of potentially problematic BLP articles is harmful to the encyclopedia's content and should be avoided. The Arbitration Committee should remand the processes involved in cleaning up the rest of the "BLP not meeting V" issue to the community, and specifically disallow mass deletions of unreferenced articles for which no specific assertion of a problem exists. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

This is not just about libel. The question of whether or not unreferenced BLPs are demonstrably more problematic than sourced ones is irrelevant. This is about our basic commitment to verifiability, as well as our responsibility to living people in particular to get it right. Some people point out that the 23,000 unsourced BLPs is not our biggest problem. They are correct. However, that is not an excuse to do nothing. The unsourced BLPs are a good place to start, though. After that, we can work on improving the poorly sourced BLPs, of which there are more than 36,000. When you add the number of unsourced BLPs to the number of inadequately sourced BLPs (most of which were unsourced BLPs before this sourcing drive) the total is startlingly close to the 57,000 we originally had, with plenty of room for those BLPs that were discovered later. Just how much has been accomplished, then? I urge Arbcom to uphold the principles behind Badlydrawnjeff, and allow us to handle the problem where the community has failed. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Llywrch

There are a number of biographical articles on living people (referred to in Wikipedia jargon as "unreferenced BLPs") which lack sources. Many of these have been identified, although reportedly more exist. Over the last several months a small group of Wikipedians have worked to reduce the number of known unreferenced articles from roughly 52,000 to somewhere around 23,500. Now comes Tony Sidaway who, instead of complementing these Wikipedians for their diligence, declares this number is unacceptable & wants the remaining articles deleted. He had first gone to WP:AN/I with his demand, but apparently failed to find there a response he was satisfied with, so now he seeks from you his desired response. Based on these facts, I ask that the ArbCom decline Sidaway's request for the clarification he seeks, & ban him from further petitions to the ArbCom in any form relating to these articles, until he has provided sources for a specified number of these biographical articles on living people. I leave it to my fellow Wikipedians Milowent & Jclemens, who have been working on these articles & have participated in this petition, to specify this number -- or anyone they believe should help decide. -- llywrch (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The earlier discussions this year and the processes instituted to remove unreferenced BLPs make this now a "content dispute" where the underlying policy issues have been properly addressed already. Collect (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber

I used to be strongly opposed to mass-deletion, however having some method of indexing removed ones makes it much more acceptable. Uncle G's proposal has merit in that regard.

To carcharoth 'maintenance of wikipedia' is such a non-concrete term as to defy description. To what level? Ask SandyGeorgia about watching medical articles or anyone in any one of many contentious areas. You simply can't assign an absolute and anyone looking for perfection or anywhere near that may as well leave now, as it won't happen. We just try and make the best 'pedia we can.

Statement by Joe Decker

How large of a problem are we faced with? In other words, how large is the backlog, how quickly is it being processed, and how much new material is added per month?

As per Millowent, we've reduced the total backlog size by about 25K from about 50K to about 25K. There were a lot of articles newly tagged in this period, and it was my observation that many of those predated the BLPPROD cutoff date, so I think the actual rate of sourcing was somewhat higher than this. At the present rate, how long it's going to take to catch up is a matter of how much people are willing to put time and effort into it. (I've done my thousand articles and more) I'd guess as little as six months, as much as three years, if nothing at all changes.

As per several folks, in my experience only a tiny tiny fraction of these articles are deeply problematic (BLP attacks, copyright violations, etc.)

How effective are the currently available community processes in dealing with the backlog?

Sourcing articles continues to make progress every month. I suspect BLPPROD has helped, although that's difficult to measure. There was an increase in newly-tagged-as-unsourced-but-unsourced-for-longer articles, or seemed to be, this Summer, which confounds making precise guesses. Would I like the process to be easier and faster? Sure. But it's still making relatively consistent progress, with occasional plateaus but not... yet... .consistently stalled. Still, I understand impatience, I feel impatient too. I think the critical variable for solving this problem is "the number of hands on deck."

Can the existing processes be improved to deal with the backlog more efficiently, and how?

I suppose this depends on what one means by efficiency. As I don't support mass deletion, I won't recommend that option but would have to admit that it's highly efficient. It also probably bites ten thousand relatively unfrequent, many "new" editors, of course, and throws out a lot of content, some of which (by my observation) has been worked on pretty well. There's nothing "efficient" to my mind about throwing out an hour of editing work because someone hasn't spent five minutes searching in Google News. Similarly, there's nothing to my mind efficient about mass BITEing.

What can we do to clear the backlog by the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding? Do we need some sort of centralized drive to source and/or remove these articles? Is there some other method we haven't tried yet?

We have some wikiprojects, I'm not great at marketing so I don't know how we can get people actually excited about doing the "work" that's required to source articles. But, Shell asks:

I strongly suggest everyone commenting here re-read Uncle G's highly relevant comments in the recent AN thread. There are ways to resolve this situation without drama.

I've been enormously impressed by the copyright cleanup effort Uncle G refers to. Enormously impressed. As an initial impression, and realizing I haven't thought out every possible unintended consequence, it seems to me that such an approach might be a very constructive way of getting more hands on deck for sourcing. Leveraging the BLPunsourced tag, or another like it, having it blank the page, etc., might allow for lots of hands to go and put sources on those articles without every step requiring administrator assistance. That seems huge to me, and I would fully support a trial of this solution on a scale of 1000-2000 articles immediately (I think that a smaller set wouldn't really show how effective this tactic was at recruiting new people to the effort of sourcing), with a full rollout a few weeks later if we didn't get bitten by some "surprise" in the process, and assuming that this really did expedite the process of getting those articles well-sourced. In a full rollout, there might be a (completely correct) increase in CSD/PROD/AfD activity, I doubt that would be huge (in my experience the vast vast majority of these articles can be well-rescued), but if it was too large an effect I'd recommend simply throttling the blanking process. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have views on this topic, but will await further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of what would be useful going forward, I largely agree with Kirill's comments (except that I think he meant to refer to SirFozzie rather than Risker). The most useful input will be along the lines he outlines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like productive discussion is continuing in other forums. This should continue and result in further progress. I agree with the comments of several of the other arbitrators. I don't see any need for clarification or action by the Arbitration Committee at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gee. I'm surprised this argument made it from ANI to here. Really I am. (deadpan). I'm going to wait for further statements, but I also have views on this topic. Also, please consider this a fervent request... keep all statements brief, concise and cordial. The Clerks will have full reign to refactor or remove overly lengthy, or flame-fanning statements. SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggestion, not as an arbitrator (we dealt with this in January as arbs, and while the problem has lessened, it's still there), but as a fellow editor. Looking at the WikiCup and the honoring of those who do the most Featured (X)/GA/DYK (and thus, honoring those who do the most to improve the encyclopedia's content), let's create a competition.. starting, say, December 1, and running through Feb 1, 2011 (three months). The top 10 editors who add references to bring articles up to basic Wiki standards get special one-of-a-kind barnstars or banners (I'm thinking the Bronze BLP Barnstar for 10th through 6th, the Silver BLP for 5, 4, 3, the Gold BLP Barnstar for #2, and the Platinum BLP Cup for the top editor who brings them up). Harness Wiki-editors basic competitiveness and creativity while we make sure that we never get in this state again, where the threats of mass deletions are considered necessary. I will participate, either as a judge or as a plain participant, although I certainly do not have any designs on winning one of the prizes myself. I'm going to post this to the ANI Subpage to see what people think. SirFozzie (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to increase efficiency here and for people to work together to both: (a) clear backlogs; and (b) identify the truly problematic areas and prioritise cleaning those areas up (e.g. the metrics Scott MacDonald mentioned). I hate to say it, but more and smarter work, and less discussion, might be better here, with the encouragement of staged batches of BLP prods, but certainly no 'threat' of mass speedy deletions. The backlog may look big, but generate and maintain enthusiasm for good-quality work, and it is possible to tackle such things. The problem here seems to be that the motivation tailed off. Find a way to keep people motivated to continue working on this, and watch the backlog go down. The bigger problem is making sure that the growth of the encyclopedia doesn't outstrip the potential for editors to maintain it, if it hasn't already done so (or at least find ways to counter that problem). But whatever happens, please don't fight and argue over it. There are enough clueful people out there to reinvigorate and drive existing processes, rather than coming over all heavy-handed and full of drama. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself in agreement with ~~Risker~~SirFozzie: I am shocked, shocked to see this come up again.
The question of whether the Badlydrawnjeff decision technically "authorizes" the course of action that Tony is proposing is a bit complicated—note, in particular, that the clause in question is a principle, not a remedy, and thus might arguably better be characterized as stating the Committee's understanding of existing policy at the time—but strikes me as ultimately uninteresting. Whether or not the suggested mass deletions are permitted, I think it's obvious to just about everyone that they are hardly an ideal solution, in that they are difficult to sustain in the long term, and cause significant collateral damage of various sorts.
Rather than continuing to debate the wording of a three-year-old ruling, I would ask that those commenting here submit statements that address the following questions:
- How large of a problem are we faced with? In other words, how large is the backlog, how quickly is it being processed, and how much new material is added per month?
- How effective are the currently available community processes in dealing with the backlog?
- Can the existing processes be improved to deal with the backlog more efficiently, and how?
- What can we do to clear the backlog by the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding? Do we need some sort of centralized drive to source and/or remove these articles? Is there some other method we haven't tried yet?
The BLP policy will be enforced, one way or another; but I would very much like to see this discussion result in an approach that we can all collectively move forward with, rather than resulting in further division within the community. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest everyone commenting here re-read Uncle G's highly relevant comments in the recent AN thread. There are ways to resolve this situation without drama. Shell ^babelfish 03:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An expansion on Uncle G's postings now that the thread has been moved to a subpage is located here. A pointer to this discussion has been placed at WP:VPP. It would be of considerably more benefit to the project if this can be resolved at the community level. I note particularly Uncle G's reference to the "editors with the teaspoons" - and urge everyone to remember that this project is largely built and maintained by such editors. Thinking out of the box is useful in situations like this. Risker (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate change (2)

Initiated by mark (talk) at 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Mark

Tony Sideaways has brought an enforcement request against me for commenting on a discussion at ANI. [5] Although O2RR was blocked for editwarring on a CC related article the discussion at ANI encompassed his history from as far back as 09. I now have two admins seeking a two week block for my commenting on something which i honestly did not see as CC related. I withdrew about 6 weeks before the case even closed when it was requested of me. I would like to know if in fact i have broken the probation? mark (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

So, because others can't keep it in their pants I can't even make comments like this - a comment that your fellow arbitor expressly thought was ok here, when he said that my exiting the discussion was unnecessary? Perhaps you could extend this limitation only to individuals who are bending the rules, as opposed to those of us just trying to move on with our wikilives? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it would be nice if someone were to notify all of the other affected editors of this amendment request - I'm certain that banning us from huge swaths of vaguely related pages is going to annoy the rest of the contributors who are just trying to move on. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell this is another instance where bad behavior by people who I have agreed with about other things will, yet again, bite me in the ass. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd beg you to look at Wikidemon's suggestion below, which prevents someone from banning me from any page or discussion by writing the magic words "Climate Change" on it. To use a recent example, I commented on the reliability of a source at WP:RSN. Could someone have shut me out of that discussion by merely saying "I'd also like to use this source's information on CLIMATE CHANGE BOOOGABOOGABOOGA!" Please don't make life any more difficult for those of us trying to gracefully exit. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

(uninvolved, thank goodness!)... this might be a good occasion to clarify that the topic ban does or does not apply to editors' own talk pages, to address the separate issue relating to WMC. Assuming the intent is that the topic ban does apply to user talk pages the fourth clause of Motion 1 could be expanded to read: "(iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles or the subject of climate change anywhere on Wikipedia, including user talk pages, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues." Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist

Wikipedia:Topic ban.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnWBarber

I assume requests to modify the CC case decision are exempt from this, and discussing on Arb election pages actions by Arbitrators in this case is also exempt. I may do both (if I have the time and the stomach for it), but in recent days I haven't even had time to think about it. Those possible future posts would be discussing actions of arbitrators, but that might touch on behavior of other editors. If I make any statements, it will be clear that I'm focusing on arbitrators and their decision and not trying to coatrack some kind of attack on other editors. If that's disallowed, please tell me now. This case should be brought up in the upcoming elections, and that shouldn't be a part of any topic ban as long as editors aren't trying to use discussions to fight among themselves.

The page Science Apologist links to, above, shows how there could be sincere confusion about the extent of a topic ban. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

This is what WP:AE is for; the admins there can determine whether or not your edit was a violation of the restrictions. We do not preemptively overrule the decisions there. Shell ^babelfish 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Premature. Wait for a decision at WP:AE first, then consider your options. Carcharoth (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I am still following what is happening here. It seems to have moved on to an appeal at WP:AE, with discussion on Marknutley's talk page (and a sideshow at SPI that is now resolved). I also note that Marknutley answered Brad's question, as indicated here. If the initial arbitration enforcement appeal fails, then the options are to wait out the block and/or ask for leave to appeal to ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney and Carcharoth are procedurally correct, but let me see if I can help anyway. In the interests of avoiding further arguments about the borderlines of the restrictions, I think it would be best if you avoided participating in discussions that substantially involve climate-change related disputes, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues. Will you undertake to do this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1

Proposed: That Remedy 3.1 of the Climate change case be amended as follows:

Scope of topic bans (original text)

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles.

Scope of topic bans (amended text)

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia affecting these articles and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

Support:

Roger ^talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am dismayed that this needed to be spelled out. I still cannot fathom how anyone could possibly think that engaging in battleground behavior on their talk page about the topic area they have been sanctionned away from because of that very behavior can possibly be a reasonable interpretation of a topic ban regardless of its exact wording! I note the amended remedy also doesn't mention "deleting pages in the topic area", and "renaming pages in the topic area". Would any consider those to be acceptable? (They are hardly "edits"). — Coren ^(talk) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain:

Motion 2

Proposed: That Remedy 3.2.1 of the Climate change case be amended as follows:

Appeal of topic bans (original text): 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favourably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.
Appeal of topic bans (amended text): 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

Support:

Roger ^talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that provision was there to begin with. It's certainly a very good example of collaborative editing, but there's nothing magical about the FA process that makes it better than, say, categorizing articles or helping to flesh out stubs in areas of poor coverage. — Coren ^(talk) 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion 3

Proposed: That provided they unequivocally accept the spirit and the letter of the amended terms above by message on their talk pages, User:Marknutley and User:William M. Connolley will be unblocked upon the passing of Motion 1 above.

Support:

Roger ^talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I see no reason to overturn, in substance or in principle, the result of a reasonable enforcement request. It's not like it came as a genuine surprise to anyone; and they had been repeatedly warned away from that behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 19:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I

Initiated by Looie496 (talk) at 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looie496 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notice
Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notice
WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notice

Statement by Looie496

This arises from WP:AE#WeijiBaikeBianji, filed by Ferahgo the Assassin, who is currently subject to a topic ban in the R&I domain. I believe that the AE request is an attempt to lawyer around the topic ban, but other admins are divided on this, hence this request for clarification. To keep this simple, I would like to propose that ArbCom endorse the following statement: "An editor subject to a topic ban imposed by ArbCom or resulting from ArbCom discretionary sanctions may only file arbitration enforcement requests that fall into the domain of the topic ban, or comment on such requests, if there is a reasonable possibility that a resulting enforcement action will directly affect that editor." Such a statement would disallow this enforcement request, and it would also disallow the comments that Mathsci has made in the request. Note that the statement as framed would have a scope that goes beyond the R&I case.

Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji

Thanks to Looie496 for raising this issue and for the notice of this request to my talk page. One observation about the policy behind this request is that decisions in cases should generally allow for certainty of disposition and for repose of persons who were not parties to the case. (I have legal training and was once a judicial clerk for an appellate court and then a lawyer in private practice, so these sorts of policy considerations come to mind.) I certainly acknowledge the wikipedian's privilege of any other editor to ask me questions about my editing behavior and especially to insist that my edits and all article edits be verifiable and neutral in point of view. But once an editor is under a topic ban, it seems to me that there has already been a finding that that editor (we hope only temporarily) is misunderstanding what proper sourcing is or what neutral point of view is, so it seems best to hear primarily from editors who are not under such bans about fresh editing disputes on the same topic. Arbiter Carcharoth has pointed out that ArbCom decisions are meant to improve article text. It frustrates the purpose of the arbitration process to have content disputes continually relitigated in ArbCom rather than referred to article, user, and project talk pages for mutual discussion among editors who are not sanctioned. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

I'm not quite sure why Looie496 has made this clarification request.

I will have to admit from the start that I am friendly with some members of ArbCom. I have twice communicated in private when irregularities have occurred connected with WP:ARBR&I. On both occasions the irregularities were not of my making, but I had what I perceived to be useful input to offer in discussions. Wikipedia processes are not covered by my voluntary but binding topic ban.

A member of ArbCom suggested I comment on the first occasion when the topic ban of Ferahgo the Assassin was under discussion (I made 3 postings). I have also had positive feedback about my comments this time, with no objection to what I wrote or the tone (I made only 2 postings).

My topic ban, by mutual consent, covers articles and their talk pages and any content discussion on wikipedia related to race and intelligence, broadly interpreted. It is not a ban that I will ever appeal. I would never remotely consider making any request on a noticeboard connected with this subject area.

But when irregularities in process are concerned that have nothing to do with content and are not of my making, I believe my input has been useful and is not discouraged by either administrators or arbitrators.

As a third example an administrator cautioned Suarneduj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making personal attacks in September. He had not noticed that the user name spelt "Juden Raus" backwards. I pointed this out on ANI and he was blocked indefinitely. He then reappeared as Juden Raus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Separately a CU confirmed him as a likely sockpuppet of Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here. He has also reappeared as RLShinyblingstone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which, with its user page, was a not so nice reference to Slrubenstein.

In the immortal words of the great sage Aervanath: IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT.

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

The way I understand this, every topic ban has a slightly different scope, and that scope is determined by the admin implementing the ban. In my case NuclearWarfare, the admin who topic banned me under the discretionary sanctions, did not intend for the scope of my topic ban to include preventing me from posting about this issue at AE. He has made this clear both when we were discussing his topic ban [6] and in his comments in the AE thread. [7] When he granted me this permission, he was aware of what conduct issues I intended to post about, since his suggestion that I post at AE was in response to me saying I wanted admin attention for these exact issues. Therefore, I don’t think I have violated my topic ban by posting about them there.

That said, if arbcom decides that from this point forward topic banned editors should never have the right to post AE threads like this, then I will accept that decision and will never do this again. However, if arbcom does decide this, this would be a new rule that didn’t exist before, so I don't think I should be punished for having not followed it.

In general, I’m also not sure it’s a good idea for individual admins to lose the power to choose the scope of topic bans they implement under discretionary sanctions. That is the effect that this proposal would have - it would mean that if at any point an admin wants to ban an editor from articles but not from AE, that would not be allowed because all topic bans automatically extend to AE also. This seems like it would go against the spirit of discretionary sanctions allowing admins to implement whatever type of sanction they think is appropriate.

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Topic bans are meant to get an editor to disengage from a topic area. I do not understand how allowing them to file reports related to the topic area serves that purpose. And I certainly do not see the "slew" of AE requests Shell is referring to. T. Canens (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

While the report on AE was not actionable in an administrative way, I for one did not find it entirely without justification. It is a little weird that FtA is not allowed to comment in other venues because a post on WBB's talk page or even a RfC/U would have been more appropriate.

Statement by Captain Occam

I would appreciate it if ArbCom could clarify whether Mathsci’s comments in the AE thread are allowed under his topic ban, because what the rule is about this is something that affects me also. I’ve generally avoided commenting in threads like that one, because I was under the assumption that if the thread didn’t directly concern me and I hadn’t been given explicit permission for it by whoever topic banned me (the way Ferahgo was), participating in it would be prohibited by my topic ban. But Mathsci and I were both given the exact same type of topic ban in the arbitration case, so if participating in these threads is permitted under his topic ban, it’s presumably permitted under mine also. I’d like to know whether that’s the case, or whether neither of should be participating there.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I don't think there's any need for such a sweeping statement. While this may have been a disappointing use of AE by Ferhago, we don't generally prohibit editors, even those that are topic banned, from reporting others; this would certainly invalidate a slew of the recent reports on AE. Whether or not a report is productive, useful or "necessary" can be left up to the discretion of the admins responding. Especially in cases where discretionary sanctions are active, prohibiting an editor from making reports (if they prove to be disruptive) is well within the realm of administrator discretion. Shell ^babelfish 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again T. Canens is right - the ones I was thinking of were people who have been admonished, warned or otherwise involved and ask to disengage but not specifically topic-banned. However, this case is a topic ban set by an administrator rather than ArbCom and should probably be addressed the same way. Shell ^babelfish 13:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Shell. Give some latitude at first, and take steps if repeated WP:AE requests fail and are clearly becoming disruptive. See also my comment elsewhere that topic-banned editors should in general let others comment, and should feel free to politely decline requests to comment themselves, citing a wish to remain disengaged from the topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very reticent to curtail any editor's access to normal dispute resolution channels, even in the case where they would fall under an otherwise very wide topic ban. The rare cases of bad faith, or vexatious filings, can be handled as any other disruption without needing a sweeping statement that would prevent much genuinely needed appeals or enforcement. — Coren ^(talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree with my colleagues. SirFozzie (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate change (1)

Initiated by TS at 00:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [8]
Polargeo 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [9]
Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [10]
Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [11]
~~ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~ Has exercised right to vanish
~~Minor4th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~ Has closed talk page and announced retirement
ATren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [12]
Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [13]
Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [14]
GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [15]
A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [16]
Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [17]
ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [18]
JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [19]
FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [20]

(All notifications linked above)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

The "Remedy 3" comprehensive topic bans are an important part of the case. As I understand it they are intended to give valuable editors a rest from the topic so that they can find ways of improving their collaborative skills and picking up once again the joy of editing.

But that isn't what's happening. I know the arbitrators are aware of the bickering and "toeing the line" that continues and some of them have opined on this [21] [22]. I won't go into my own abortive attempt to have this dealt with by the community, only to see it provide yet another forum for bickering by topic banned editors. Even this request is a gambit that may backfire, but I think arbcom and the clerks could deal with that.

At this point I think it would be useful to have arbitrators revisit this issue and clarify that behavior like this is unlikely to help Wikipedia and that it will be a consideration in any future appeal. This must sound obvious, but obvious it is not to some of these editors (though I hasten to add that most topic banned editors have not continued to obsess). The Committee has spoken, but apparently not firmly enough for some editors. --TS 00:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for clarification, not an attempt to relegislate the arbitration. No evidence will be given or is required. Just a clarification. But as there is an ongoing case [23] perhaps it might help to solidify the issue. --TS 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roger. I do feel quite strongly that an excess of "process" is what led to the polarization in the probation. That measure too was intended to strengthen the admin's discretion, but was quite quickly tamed into a discussion-heavy process that bred the warfare we still see cropping up even now. --TS 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the enforcing admins are listening. Perhaps a new motion is needed. Wikipedia must make it plain to all that all topic banned editors, every single one, should just back away if the topic of climate change appears. They have nothing to gain from it, and Wikipedia has nothing to gain from it. Other Wikipedians exist. --TS 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to say that the community is finally speaking, and the message seems to be that those who continue to search for loopholes in their topic bans had better find a new hobby or risk quite draconian blocks. --TS 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I created this request for clarification again, knowing what I know now, I would not make any personal notifications, but would ask the clerks to use their discretion in notifying in this delicate situation. I don't think the comments of the topic banned editors have been entirely unhelpful, but in some cases a failure to understand that this was a request for clarification and not for further litigation led to some of them indulging in inappropriate interactions. They are still invested in the disputes that went on on the proposed decision discussion, and it spills out here. --TS 14:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved roux

I don't see why ArbCom needs to clarify anything here. A topicban is a topicban. That means stay away from the topic. If people are pushing the envelope, warn them, once. If they keep pushing the envelope, use the block mechanisms included in the decision. → ROUX ₪ 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Yopienso

I very much appreciate Tony's work toward creating a good working environment and his impartiality in dealing with William M. Connelley. William, however, persists in behavior he's been instructed to avoid. When Coren made a kind, constructive suggestion that he work on a maths page, William took offense. It seems he honestly doesn't get the point. Since it cannot be made more clear to him, he simply needs to be banned from the pages where he has been contentious in the past and from other related pages even if he has not caused trouble there. Posting comments on his talk page about points he disagrees with, whether or not he intends for watchers to run "fix" them, should be strictly prohibited.

My understanding is that editors who refuse to comply with administrative decisions lose their accounts. It would be much better if William would accept correction and eventually be able to edit in those areas in which he is so knowledgeable and so passionately interested. --Yopienso (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following was addressed to Count Iblis and was originally posted as threaded discussion. --TS 20:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before posting my uninvolved statement above, I deleted a comment saying that imo William should be allowed to snark to his heart's content on his own user page, and that while it reveals his attitude, if anyone finds it offensive they can simply stay away. I didn't post it because it disagrees with WP rules. I'm certainly not "against" him or wishing him any ill. His behavior, though, has been disruptive to the larger community.

Wrt your statement, "Whether we like it or not, William's notifications on his talk page were necessary," I heartily disagree. First, as insinuated by others, you are confirming he was "editing" from what he and you consider a safe distance, while in actuality he was getting around a ban. More importantly, you are implying Wikipedia, at least in the CC area, cannot function without him. Even if he were a perfect editor, that would not be true. There may well be a temporary void now that so many editors were excluded, but the principle here is that after stress, equilibrium will be restored. WP articles never depend on one editor; that idea is contrary to our whole philosophy. --Yopienso (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved TheGoodLocust

I'm not sure why TS bothered to inform me of this, but I'm been watching things a little bit and here are my observations.

1) ScienceApologist (who should have been topic banned) put up a message on his talk page basically offering to meat puppet for topic banned users - and he knew full well who would ask him. IRRC William Connolley availed himself of this offer.

2) William Connolley has posted at least two diffs on his talk page to get his talk page watchers to meatpuppet for him. Apparently he didn't like the fact that an editor called climate models "estimates." He then proceeded to strike out the diffs (i.e. "done") when his watchers had done his work for him.

3) William Connolley made an edit to a climate related article. Not a climate change article, but it seems to be a pattern with him to push the limits in order to provoke others.

I recommend that William Connolley's main account be banned so he can use the WMC account that was setup to prevent the watchpage temptation.

Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by previously involved LessHeard vanU

Is every single editor listed by TS involved in what I will term "envelope pushing"? If not, then it behooves TS (or another editor aware of such instances) to note who is doing so, and provide an example. Those who are not engaged in such practices should be shown good faith, assuming that they have taken ArbCom's comments to heart. Other editors, and here I agree with TS, may need a nudge or stronger from a Clerk. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by heavily involved Polargeo 2

Remedy 3 encourages a battleground as did CC probation before it. I have argued right from the start that what is needed is a group of editors from differing views working together and encouraged to work together for their common goals, not banned by people who haven't got enough time to go into the intricacies of the case such as arbcom. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more you force editors to take sides the more this turns into an Israel-Palestine situation. Now you may think this is the case already, but it is not, many editors have respondend positively to one another on many occasions, but distilled through the revenge culture that appears to be facilitated by arbcom this becomes a get your enemies blocked and score goals impasse. It is sad that this is the case but it certainly is and will only be resolved when arbcom stops trying to force punitive resolutions and starts helping to get editors to work together. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68

It seems that much, if not all of WMC's entire Internet presence is centered on being an advocate battling to influence the content of Wikipedia's CC articles (also check the comments to that post and WMC's responses to them). It's up to you guys on how to proceed from here, I offer no suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TenofAllTrades, me and the others you mention were invited here by the filing party, Tony Sidaway. If you feel the need to conduct a trial here, I think you're naming the wrong defendent(s). You probably should be examining the actions of the editor who started this thread. I think all of us are willing and able to stay away from discussions of the topic on arbitration pages. I would suggest that the best way to do that is to completely leave us out of these discussions. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, I respect your opinion and take your point. I will really do my best to make this the last time I allow Tony Sidaway to bait me into a response. Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Count Iblis

Whether we like it or not, William's notifications on his talk page were necessary. A day after Scibaby-like edits on a CC page that apparantly isn't checked out by many editors regularly, William put a link on his talk page. AWickert fixed the problem. Some time later a similar problem happened on the same page, and this time it was me who first fixed the problem after seeing William's notification (I didn't have that page on my watchlist). I later saw that the problem had persisted after that and that others were dealing with it. The page was ultimately protected.

Clearly, if William cannot place notifications on his talk page about these sorts of issues (we're not talking about engaging in disputes here), then we also have to make sure all CC pages (not just the most popular ones) are checked out on a regular basis. This would then help William to disengage entirely from the CC area here on Wikipedia.

This reminds me of the eternal dispute between parents and their children as they grow up. Children want to topic ban their parents from parenting on ever more issues. The reactions to William's postings are in fact exactly of the same nature as that of the typical teenager who is caught doing something naughty his mother. Mother: "What is this! Are you smoking pot!? "Son: "Why do you always have to poke your nose in my private affairs, we had agreed you wouldn't do that!" Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Yopienso

Clearly Wikipedia does not function properly right now as far as maintaining all the CC articles is concerned. As you mention, there is a void, but that will probably clear up in one or two weeks from now. It is better to fix the problem constructively by putting CC pages on our watchlists, rather than ignore this and WP:ABF about links posted by William. Count Iblis (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by unindicted co-conspirator Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Section 3.1 of the remedies states that editors topic-banned by the Committee are prohibited "from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." Are the remarks here by topic-banned users User:Thegoodlocust, User:Cla68 and User:ZuluPapa5 consistent with this prohibition? Or was it arbcom's intent that topic-banned editors may continue lobbying for sanctions against one another just as before? Clarification would be helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

Since Cla68 seems to think that we can/should be worried about what an editor is advocating off-wiki, then I suggest we also should have been worried about how Wikipedia Review has been used as a forum to arouse, collate, conspire and advocate for the attack on some of our editors on-wiki. I was angered by 9/11 conspiracy theory advocates using off-wiki forums to attack me or to plot on how to elminate the "official conspiracy theory" (meaning the "mainstream view") from our articles, but there was nothing I could do to stop it, nor did I assume that I could. So long as what goes on off-wiki is kept off-wiki and isn't something that would be brought here by a meatpuppet that would need to be oversighted due to various reasons, then what WMC posts elsewhere is surely beyond our control (it is anyhow). With that said, I encourage all topic banned editors to move on to new topics completely...but remind arbcom that it shouldn't be a surprise that there is going to be a lag time from when a decision is made and "defendents" move forward.--MONGO 18:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TenOfAllTrades

The ArbCom appeared to be extremely explicit in defining the scope of the topic bans in this arbitration. Here is the exact wording, from the unanimously-approved Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Scope of topic bans.

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles.

Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The bounds of this remedy are unusually clear. It appears that there are unsatisfied parties who wish to relitigate the arbitration to significantly widen a remedy less than two weeks after the case closed.

It should be noted that if there are editors who feel WMC should be further restricted from commenting – on his own talk page(?)(!) – about climate-change-related issues, then there are legitimate ways to go about it using the existing Arbitration remedies and framework. If WMC's conduct is deemed disruptive and he fails to respond to appropriate warnings, the case remedies permit uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions. However, those remedies require WMC to be engaged in disruptive or damaging conduct — a condition that hasn't been met. So far, he has identified and intelligently commented on a couple of sources likely to be of relevance and interest to climate change editors, and he has flagged some suspicious article edits (which led to the identification and blocking of sockpuppets working through Tor nodes).

Shifting gears, one thing that this request (and the associated noticeboard discussions) has highlighted is the value to Wikipeda of imposing a mutual MYOB restriction on both WMC and Lar — there's nothing good that has ever or will ever come from letting them pick at each other. Once again, that is a remedy that can be imposed under the extant sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I will note that the insertion of ZuluPapa5, Polargeo, Cla68, and Thegoodlocust into this request may be pushing the limits of their respective topic bans. (Cla68 has also seen fit to involve himself in a WP:AE request concerning Marknutley.) Is this page properly considered a 'Wikipedia process relating to those articles'? I also observe that most of the participants in this request for clarification – and in all the other little storms that have been ignited elsewhere – seem to be the same faces that were criticised or sanctioned in the CC arbitration (add Stephan Schulz to the other four editors I've identified, and note that Lar was the one who decided to open a can of worms about the decision's scope on the ArbCom Announcements talk page now that he is restricted from taking administrative action in this area). If we were to subtract all the players who were responsible for the battlefield of the Arbitration, is there actually anything left that needs to be done here? (That is, is there any ongoing harm to the project that would remain to be addressed?) The only reason, I suspect, that we keep seeing these new 'process' and 'clarification' requests is that these grizzled veterans can't find any other venue in which to keep poking at each other, and they are all restricted from directly seeking or applying sanctions on their own. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Perhaps the committee should consider a motion on the order of "The topic ban extends to the user pages of those named, and to posts concerning Climate Change or articles relating to Climate Change made on any other editor's user pages. Named editors are also reminded that discussing the Arbitration Committee decision regarding Climate Change, or seeking additional editors on the topic, outside Wikipedia may be regarded as violating the topic ban by any uninvolved administrator." Thus removing the "suggested edit" loophole once and for all, and making clear that posts outside Wikipedia which serve to maintain the topic at the boiling point are sufficiently contrary to the legitimate interests of the project that such acts may be considered in determining further bans on such editors. Collect (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZuluPapa5

I've been away (enjoying the refuge) from the topic and other editors, so can't comment on what's happening. However, knowing the battle game players, then coaching and clarifying specific cases of pushing the line might help before a full out site ban. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles may help guide the methods for dealing with a case of an abusive addict. Behavioral_addiction and Internet_addiction Prayers are about all I can offer, unless this case proceeds. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unfair to arrive at a conclusion from this effort that could effect my future appeal,or current Topic Ban, while at the same time keeping me from participating here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short Brigade Harvester Boris are you playing battle games? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

Some clarification to TenOfAllTrades. To wit: My questions were legit, posed as either/ors, with no prejudgment attached, and were found to be useful by many. Further, WMC and I seem to have reached an accomodation. No other comments on this matter, I'm trying to walk away and stay away, and ToaT isn't helping (review his wording choices and see what you think). ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biophys

I think it was a bad idea to bring all these editors here again, as a group. They should be treated on the individual basis in AE. This should apply to all cases. Please do not re-litigate old cases. Biophys (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I think it's common sense that in any appeal, we'd consider among other things whether the editor continued to engage in problematic behavior after the case was over. I would think that would go without saying, but since we've been asked, I'll say it. In particular, any continuation of bickering, name-calling, or other behavior of the types criticized in the decision should have stopped a long time ago, and certainly ought to stop now. (I am not opining on, or characterizing, anyone's specific behavior or comment; I hope it does not become necessary for the committee to do so.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The decision spells out a number of things that the sanctioned editors must not do; there are a number of things beyond that which common sense dictates they should not do. Certainly, remaining engaged in the topic area by "suggesting" edits to do is about as bad as it can get without breaking the letter of the ruling. The point of the ruling is to get those editors to disengage. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, then we'll have no choice but to amend the decision to be more comprehensive and draconian for those editors. — Coren ^(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In concurring with my colleagues, I restate that the purpose of the topic ban was not only to make editors disengage from the articles themselves but also to stamp out the interminable fires breaking out all over the encyclopedia. The discretionary sanctions regime in this case give administrators great leeway in restoring order and even gives guidance matching conduct to appropriate sanctions. These sanctions may be applied by any uninvolved administrators of their own volition, which means no prior process on any noticeboard is necessary. All that is required before an administrator acts is a "cease and desist" message on the editor's talk page. I expect the admin corps are as frustrated as the community at large by the conduct of some CC case editors. They now have the tools and the authorisation to deal with it summarily. Roger ^talk 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the opinions of my colleagues above; they've pretty much covered this from all angles. Shell ^babelfish 20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Shell Kinney, I agree with the responses by Newyorkbrad, Coren and Roger Davies. I would add that the idea that articles will do just fine without those topic-banned also applies to contributions to administration and arbitration discussions. Those topic-banned may be tempted to participate in WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI and arbitration clarification and amendment threads in the aftermath of the case, but unless sanctions are being directly proposed for a topic-banned editor, it would be better for that editor to stay out of such discussions as well, and let others have their say instead. Otherwise it just looks like said editors are unable to stay away. It is perfectly acceptable to limit responses to "no comment, I wish to disengage from this topic area" (or something similar). In response to Polargeo 2's point, while those topic banned cannot do this until they have spent some time away from the topic area and made a later successful appeal, it should be perfectly possible for some form of mediation to be started or undertaken by non-topic banned editors to resolve particularly intractable problems. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

Initiated by Ludwigs2 at 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Directly involved

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)

Others are involved in the conversation and will be notified, but I don't want to commit anyone outside the direct discussion. (General notifications at the two below-noted discussions of this issue - [24], [25].)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Clarification is needed on the use of skeptical sources in general, and the use of Stephen Barrett and QuackWatch as sources in particular. The current dispute centers around assertions of 'expertise' in skepticism. The pseudoscience decision does consider expert editors, but does not deal with similar assertions of expertise by editors about sources.

See the discussions at:

Barrett in specific

In the specific case, ScienceApologist (and others) argue that Barrett can be used to critique the work of a minor historic scientist Weston Price as pseudoscience, despite the facts that:

Price's work would not have been considered pseudoscience at the time he was a publishing scientist.
Barrett's critique is actually aimed at the Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization ostensibly formed around Price's (in current times) discarded theories, but which Price was never to my knowledge directly associated with.
Barrett himself has no special training in the philosophy of science or the history of science, but is primarily notable for running the website QuackWatch.

The argument being used is that Barrett is considered an expert in the "field of quackbusting" ([26] assumedly by virtue of running QuackWatch), and this is defended by reference to the wording of Self-published sources [27], through the assertion that the following phrase:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

implies that Barrett is an expert because he has been published in reliable third-party publications.

The obvious problems with this arguments (from my perspective) are:

There is no scholarly or academic 'field' of 'quackbusting'
There are no objective criteria for determining expertise in quackbusting, even if such a field could be argued to exist.
Publication is reliable sources does not automatically confer the status of 'expert'
There is no reason to assume that Barrett (a retired psychologist) has any particular training or skills that qualify him as an expert at scientific practice or methodology, aside from having once been a practicing scientist.

Barrett is certainly notable (though his notability is largely due to self-promotion and self-publication through his website), and certainly reliable as a noteworthy proponent of the skeptical point of view, but (IMO) should not be defended as an authoritative expert in a non-existent field for which he has no specific training.

Skeptical sources more generally

This type of problem occurs to a greater or lesser degree across a broad number of articles. A variety of skeptical sources - including individuals such as Barrett and collected materials or journals such as The Skeptic's Dictionary or the Skeptical Inquirer - are used as though they were authoritative experts on all fringe topics. I'd like to propose that the following clarifications be made to address this problem:

Skeptical sources can be defined as follows:
- They are sources which advocate against pseudoscience, fringe theories, alternate theories or other viewpoints that they considered unscientific.
  - Different sources may use any of several definitions of the term 'scientific'.
- They are comprised of people, usually with scientific backgrounds, working as generalists rather than working in a particular field for which they are trained.
- They use scientific arguments for refutation and often compile and use scientific research from other sources, but do not generally do research of their own and are not subject to peer review, accreditation, or the other systems that assure accuracy and objectivity in mainstream scientific research.
Skeptical sources should not be taken to be scientific experts, but should be treated (depending on context) as:
- Equivalent to informed journalistic sources.
- As primary sources advocating for a particular viewpoint.

In general, this would mean that editors who use skeptical sources would have a raised bar with respect to clear attribution, specific quoting and verification of claims, neutral and balanced language, and in other ways be obliged to stick more closely to proper encyclopedic methods and style. This should result in a general improvement of the quality of fringe articles across the project. --Ludwigs2 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Just as a response to ScienceApologist's claim that this is beyond ArbCom's remit... A few points:

This is not a mere content dispute on a single article - Barrett's is mentioned in 120+ mainspace articles, QuackWatch in 220+, and The Skeptic's Dictionary in 181. Almost all of those are examples where these sources are used as supposed experts.
The use of these sources is always defended under the ArbCom pseudoscience ruling, citing the need to present mainstream sources as prominent, and then using the specious claims of expertise to argue that a skeptical source represents the mainstream viewpoint.

ArbCom had the remit to deal with sourcing issues in the original ruling, therefore it has the remit (and I would argue the obligation) to clarify its ruling. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist

This seems to me to be a content dispute: mainly beyond arbcom's remit. I include, below, a rationale for why Ludwigs2 is incorrect in specific claims he made above only for completeness as I do not expect arbcom to actually agree to post any clarification on the issue except maybe to clarify that they are not permitted to adjudicate sources (c.f. this amendment to the Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration case).

Click show to see why Ludwigs2 is incorrect

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:SPS gives us a guide as to how to determine whether certain sources can or cannot be used. In particular, primary source documents of experts can be excepted when they are commenting on their area of expertise. Expertise is determined, according to the self-same policy, by publication record and evaluations of the status of the author by external reviewers. In the particular dispute referenced by Ludwigs, I noted that Stephen Barrett could be considered an expert on alternative medicine claims since he has a publication record in the field: [28], [29], [30], and a record of accolades from other experts who have evaluated his work: [31], [[32]. These are only illustrative examples. A more complete evaluation can be read at his Wikipedia biography.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BruceGrubb

In this specific case, the claims of Barrett regarding Price can be shown to be incorrect or out of date using reliable sources.

Barrett's claims regarding what Price ignored are contradicted by Price's own book (published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers) (see Talk:Weston_Price#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words as well as in a 1923 publication by Price called Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic
Barrett's claims regarding focal infection theory are shown to possibly out of date by

Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; pg 188
Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009) Textbook of Endodontology; Wiley page 135-136
Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology, Wiley; Page 33

With the exception of the focal infection none of Berrett's claims regarding Price have a reference.

This for me raises a lot of WP:RS issues regarding the use of Berrett in a biography of a man who died in 1948 when the understanding and state of dentistry and nutrition was much different than it is now. Price's work might have been perfectly good for his time but later research may have showed underlying premises common to his time were flawed or simply wrong. The problem is with no references we can't tell if these claims regarding Price are just Berrett's opinion, were the view of Price's contemporaries, or were the view of later researchers critiquing Price. Coupled with the idea the focal infection statement may be out of date, lack of information as where most of the claims are coming from, and apparent contradiction with Price brings up the issue of "if this is flawed then what else in this article is flawed?" putting WP:RS in the ICU.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by BruceGrubb

I would like to add another reason for ArbCom to reconsider its remit; one editor seems to be using WP:BLP as a Censorship hammer to squelch meaningful challenges to Stephen Barrett's expertise.

It has been used to call another editor a drunk ([33])
It in conjunction with WP:BLP has resulted in apparent Wikipedia:WikiBullying (see Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, Griswaldo and BruceGrubb)
It has been used to claim that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Stephen_Barrett, Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_9#copied_from_Ronz.27_talk_page, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive19#Stephen_Barrett are off topic in the BLP noticeboard (an archive of the BLP Noticeboard is not on topic for the BLP Noticeboard? SAY WHAT?!?)

In short because of a lack of the requested clarification we effectively have possible conduct issues going on and will likely see this kins of problem in the future; I seriously doubt ArbCom had this mess in mind when it made its ruling. We really need to have clarification on how sites like can be used and if owner is the author how WP:BLP applies to them in the talk pages.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard has decided there was a conduct issue (with administrator User:Looie496 saying and I quote "It's a textbook case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, taken to an extreme.") I must again again ask for ArbCom their position.

If it is still ruled that it was only a content issue then we MUST also say if a statement by a living person is shown vis reliable sources to be grossly inaccurate then it cannot be used per WP:V and people cannot throw up WP:OR to keep inaccurate information in an article. Similarly cannot have WP:CRYBLP being used as a amazing magical censorship hammer.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ronz

This is purely a content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Itsmejudith

It seems to me that we reasonable people on FTN rapidly reached a realistic consensus about Barrett/Quackwatch: a useful source in some circumstances but with limitations that need to be respected. That's true of any source, really. Although SA continues to demur from this, we can discuss such sources case by case like grown-ups. I can't see much that ArbCom can add. I agree with Ludwigs that "Quackbusting" isn't an area of expertise. The UK writers like Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh develop the phenomenon beyond Barrett's starting point. They make a point of referring to recognised experts, so we can use them as starting points and follow the cite trail to excellent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Founders Intent

It appears to me from sources in the Price article that Price was quite respected during his time. In fact he occupied a chairmanship position in research with the ADA, is the credit with several major technological breakthrough for his time. Furthermore his research in nutrition among aboriginal tribes in several regions is consider unique and rare due to the fact is could not be reproduced today, simply due to demographic changes. No one has been able to successfully determine that his work is flawed. At the time of his work, two opposing views in dentistry were being debated that of nutrition based the concept that caries were caused by system disease, and due to local infection from bacteria. Caried caused by local infection won the argument, and has guided dentistry for the most part since. Barrett's critique does not account for the context (time) of Price's research, and compares it to modern criteria. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, I may have a potential breakthrough/course of action to discuss with you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Griswaldo

User:Itsmejudith summarizes the situation well from my point of view. It is also unfortunate that it has needlessly escalated to this point. While Quackwatch is probably a good critical source for determining how some contemporary medical practices deviate from the current mainstream scientific consensus, Stephen Barrett is not a reliable source on the history of dentistry, nor is he a reliable source on the cross-cultural history of nutrition (and these facts have been well established in the various discussions of the topic over the last few days). It appears to me that some editors are unwilling to parse the reliability issues of Quackwatch on a case by case basis in line with relevant policies like WP:SPS, and instead choose simply to defend the publication in its entirety at all times. In the end this is a reliability issue which can be settled on the relevant talk pages and noticeboards. I welcome Newyorkbrad and anyone else's input as editors in any of those venues.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

We're not going to rule on what is essentially a content dispute here, I see no conduct issues that need to be looked at. SirFozzie (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Fozzie. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that I don't see any significant misconduct in the history of this disagreement so far. The bad news is that does leave the matter in the category of "content dispute, ArbCom can't help you." If you want my individual thoughts as an editor, feel free to ask me on my talkpage after this request is closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As everyone's said, this is something that needs to be handled via the usual community discussions. Shell ^babelfish 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a content dispute, though reading the comments made here may help. While not commenting directly on this specific content dispute, I will say that it should be obvious that any person's work needs to be considered in the context of the times and places in which they lived, worked and published. There are numerous examples of this in the history of science. Ideally, if it exists, find a published and reliable assessment made by a historian of science (or medicine, in this case), rather than relying on those who write mainly on contemporary issues. Care is also needed to avoid Wikipedians engaging in original research and giving their own opinions on what the verdict of history should be here. But please don't mix up historical issues with contemporary ones. Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: DIGWUREN

Initiated by Petri Krohn (talk) at 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Petri Krohn

I am seeking clarification on whether this edit I made yesterday to Mass killings under Communist regimes a) constitutes edit warring, b) is a part of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or c) is unrelated to any ongoing edit war in the article.

The article is under discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case limiting editors to 1RR per day.

I try to maintain a 0 RR policy on disputed topics – never doing blind reverts and instead finding new formulations to address the different objections. The edit war on the Mass killings under Communist regimes started October 13 and resulted in nine blind reverts by a total of six different editors. A complete list of the edits is available in in my comment on the related arbitration enforcement thread. My edits to the article were intended to stop the ongoing edit war by finding and proposing a suitable compromise wording. In the half an hour it took for me to check that my first edit was supported by facts the article went through two more rounds of edit warring.

I believe both my edits were allowed by WP:BRD, more specifically Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is – a Wikipedia policy that excludes the BRD cycle from edit warring. None of the material I added has ever been disputed; the fact that R. J. Rummel sees a causal link between communist ideology and mass killing is the only thing all editors working on the article have been able to agree on.

Here are three diffs related to my second edit:

The diffs shows three words in common with my first edit and one word in common with the disputed content.

On a general note, I would like the arbitration committee to specify, if the following two statements are a correct interpretation of the relevant policies, Wikipedia:Edit warring and WP:3RR

3RR only applies to edit warring; the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not edit warring and is not subject to 1 / 3RR restrictions.
An edit should be considered part of the BRD cycle and not edit warring, if it addresses a substantial objection raised by another editor (weasel words, BLP violation) – even if it retains a large part of the challenged content.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

I have noticed "BRD" being used to spin-doctor (my perception) reverts as being something else. (Diffs are not material, I'm not here to litigate any particular instance.) Where a BRD sets off an edit/revert war, I can see the original BRD being exempt from the edit revert chain, but only as long as:

the original BRD itself is not re-inserted, substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) from its initial instantiation; and
where there is no initial BRD, "BRD" is not invoked to reinsert substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) content from earlier instantiations of versions which comprise an edit war already in progress.

In either event: reinserting an (initial) BRD in a chain of reverts or claiming BRD within a chain of reverts, the claim for "BRD" is nullified, as to not do so would encourage editors to circumvent #RR restrictions by offering the revert "advantage" to any editor who is first out of the gate to claim "BRD." I would like to know if my interpretation is correct. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The corollary here is that claiming "BRD" to side-step rules on edit-warring may be construed as Wiki-lawyering. Edit-warring trumps BRD, not BRD trumps edit-warring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The proimary issue is that where an article is clearly and multiply marked as "1RR", is it proper to assert "BRD" when the (at least partial) contents of two reverts clearly have been on and off reverted in the past? Where such a warning is not clearly marked (which has certainly been the case in the past) I would think the argument of BRD had merit. However, the case in hand does not have the benefit of that caution at all.

There is another issue -- has "Digwuren" now been excessively stretched? I have just been officially "warned" which means I can not edit anything about the London victory parade of 1946 -- an article I did not even know existed! Where "Digwuren" is thus so stretched, ought Arbcom sua sponte consider limiting that decision which has now been stretched more than a Hefty bag in a commercial? Collect (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Generally speaking, edit-warring is a pattern of conduct; it is difficult to say whether a single, isolated edit constitutes edit-warring. From your description of the context, I would say that you inserted yourself in an ongoing edit war, if nothing else; this may or may not have been a good decision on your part, and may or may not be considered sanctionable behavior by administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions in this area.
As far as your other question is concerned, 3RR (and similar rules) apply to any revert, whether it is part of a BRD cycle, a blind revert, or something else; engaging in BRD does not grant an exemption from revert limitations, and one can still be engaged in edit-warring even if BRD is offered—rightly or wrongly—as an excuse. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the substance of Kirill's comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with the substance of Kirill's comments. Risker (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with Kirill, and on a side-note that article appears to be a perennial dispute. One day, someone should get a list of all the articles that: (a) have far too many talk page archives (indicating incessant discussion); (b) have had protection applied many times; and/or (c) have been the subject of conduct raised in arbitration cases. And then do something about the articles to reduce the amount of conflict around them, and to objectively measure whether the articles are in fact improving over time. And to also look at measures to improve the quality and tone of the associated discussions (whether that be proposing topic bans for certain editors, or constructing a FAQ, or simply improving the article so there is less to argue over). Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 222: / Line 222: @@
 ===Statement by JohnWBarber===
-I assume requests to modify the CC case decision are exempt from this, and discussing on Arb election pages actions by Arbitrators in this case is also exempt. I may do both (if I have the time and the stomach for it), but in recent days I haven't even had time to think about it. Those possible future posts would be actions of arbitrators, but that might touch on behavior of other editors. If I make any statements, it will be clear that I'm focusing on arbitrators and their decision and not trying to coatrack some kind of attack on other editors. If that's disallowed, please tell me now. This case should be brought up in the upcoming elections, and that shouldn't be a part of any topic ban as long as editors aren't trying to use discussions to fight among themselves.
+I assume requests to modify the CC case decision are exempt from this, and discussing on Arb election pages actions by Arbitrators in this case is also exempt. I may do both (if I have the time and the stomach for it), but in recent days I haven't even had time to think about it. Those possible future posts would be discussing actions of arbitrators, but that might touch on behavior of other editors. If I make any statements, it will be clear that I'm focusing on arbitrators and their decision and not trying to coatrack some kind of attack on other editors. If that's disallowed, please tell me now. This case should be brought up in the upcoming elections, and that shouldn't be a part of any topic ban as long as editors aren't trying to use discussions to fight among themselves.
 The page Science Apologist links to, above, shows how there could be sincere confusion about the extent of a topic ban. -- [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)