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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 151: Line 151:
*Roma locuta, causa soluta. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*Roma locuta, causa soluta. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
----
----
*I don't know Greek or Latin, so I'll just say it in English: that wasn't adding an infobox. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


== Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience ==
== Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience ==

Revision as of 00:36, 22 July 2014

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Pseudoscience none (orig. case) 21 July 2014
Clarification request: Infoboxes none (orig. case) 21 July 2014
Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience none (orig. case) 13 July 2014
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control|Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control]] none none 15 July 2014

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification request: Pseudoscience

Initiated by jps (talk) at 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision

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


Statement by jps

I have never liked the fact that ArbCom included content rulings in WP:ARBPSCI, but we have, in the past, simply let this slide as it never seemed to be problematic. However, now it does seem to be problematic in a conversation I'm having about a proposed name-chase for a list: [1], [2].

I respect John Carter's position, and I think he has a point with regards to how Wikipedia tends to enforce jurisprudence in practice, but I also think I have a point that ArbCom is not supposed to make content decisions. There is no other way, in my opinion, that these principles can be interpreted except as content decisions.

The easiest thing would be for ArbCom to vacate the offending Principles as outside of ArbCom remit. Alternatively, a statement that these principles should not be used to trump discussion about content could be done.

jps (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is precedence for changing this part of the ruling: Wikipedia:ARBPSCI#Modified_by_motion. jps (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

This rather dovetails with recent discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, which I asked @Adjwilley: to review and summarize. He summarized it in the following table

When an article's subject is generally considered to be pseudoscience in reliable sources... Example 1 Example 2
Must the word pseudoscience be used in describing the article's subject, or are alternate wordings acceptable? "<Subject> is pseudoscience" "<Subject> is rejected by mainstream scientists"
If the label pseudoscience is used, how prominent should it be? Does it need to be in the first sentence of the Lead, or should the first sentence be a general definition of the subject? "<Subject> is a pseudoscientific idea that <definition of subject>." "<Subject> is <definition of subject>...<Subject> is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scholars."
Should the assertion that a subject is pseudoscience be attributed, or can it be stated in Wikipedia's voice? "<Subject> is pseudoscience." "<Subject> is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars."

He went on to say, “I think the clause that needs clarification would be: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. In my opinion, some good questions to ask the committee would be:

These suggestions were made here. As can be seen in the recent request for clarification regarding chiropractic, I personally have had no reservations about wikipedia using the word, and it was only after a comment by NYB that I saw "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW. I do believe it would be very useful for this to be addressed. Also, with the possibly annoying (to you arbs anyway) regularity that this particular decision gets brought up here and elsewhere, maybe it might be useful to ask for some guidelines specific to pseudoscience be prepared.

Other points perhaps worth addressing are how to, if at all, differentiate between philosophical hypotheses and the generally woo theories based on them, and maybe specific indications as to how this might be relevant to the social sciences. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re iantresman's comments below, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles lists the articles and named subarticles in the encycopedic parts of two encyclopedias of pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB and arbs: should the questions of the use of the word "pseudoscience" in the title and lead as per WP:WTW and other matters be raised separately, or are the existing two current requests regarding that single decision here perhaps enough page area regarding that decision? Both matters seem to me anyway to relate to the unmodified use of the word pseudoscience itself. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by iantresman

The problem as I see it, is as follows:

  1. Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience.
  2. Yet Wikipedia gives the impression that there are gifted editors who are able to make this judgement using WP:SYNTH and a handful of often dubious sources (rarely peer reviewed).
  3. Wikipedia sets a high bar for contentious material, requiring several SECONDARY sources. Yet we readily label subjects as "Pseudophysics", and even as "fringe", when there are ZERO sources that may describe a subject as such, contrary to the requirement that the "Categorization of articles must be verifiable"
  4. Even where we have additional sources, eg. Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, editors cherry pick those subjects to fit their own agendas[3], and exclude subjects that are "inconvenient".
  5. In reality, in the outside world, individuals have their own opinions and reasons why they consider a subject to be pseudoscience. In general, mainstream science does not, and leaves the matter to the philosophers of science.
  6. Statements such as "<Subject> is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars" is untestable, unverifiable nonsense, pretending to be science. Where have we heard that description before?
  7. For the record, I have no problems attributing a description of a subject as pseudoscience, but consider the general label to be wholly inappropriate as it generally fails WP:V and WP:RS.

--Iantresman (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Second Quantization. I have no problem with classic examples of pseudoscience, such as astrology, where there are books and a preponderance of quality secondary sources. My issue with the more modern examples, where editors take a handful of primary sources, often from personal blogs, and judge for themselves (ie. WP:SYNTH) that they feel that a subject meets certain criteria, and that the editors decide that this means that a subject is considered pseudoscience. And then based on a dearth of sources, they write that "mainstream science considers...", or "the majority of academics consider..." where no such consensus is verified in reliable sources. Hence we should not be claiming that a list of subjects are considered pseudoscience, just because you and I may think that a subject meets some vague and subjective criteria. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't do it, and no science dictionaries do it. That Wikipedia does it uniquely, raises red flags. --Iantresman (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Second Quantization

  • ArbCom made no content decisions that I can see nor have they set any policy. They have some principles that underlie their decision, but that is not a content decision. We are not obliged to follow, read or care about their principles they operated under. There is no reason any editor should pay one iota worth of attention to what is written there since it's not indicative of what editing policy we should operate under. Some editors under the misapprehension that arbcom dictates content policy put undue emphasis on the ideas of some arbitrators some time ago. So this is a non-issue; we are under no obligation with respect to that behavioural decision. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the specific text Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy_and_precedent: "The Committee does not rule on content". They can suggest ways of seeking remedies, but they can not provide remedies. This is policy, Second Quantization (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iantresman "Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience." Demarcation is one of ongoing philosophical research but is an issue for the borderlands between science and non-science, not for the obvious cases. There are certain examples that meet most criteria of philosophers, and are recognised by the scientifically literate as obviously pseudoscience. Astrology, Time Cube etc are obviously pseudoscientific. Care to provide a specific example of point 4)? For 7), on the contrary, where I've seen it used it's generally well sourced. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by dave souza

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience identified four groups, two of which could apply to intelligent design (ID):

From the outset, it was obvious to experts on science and science education that ID is not science, but creationist religious views relabelled as science. That said, it clearly had and to some extent still has a following outwith science, essentially among creationists or proponents of its predecessor creation science.
The scientific community, educators and philosophers of science have clearly shown that ID is a religious view presented as science and is not science, failing to meet the methods an standards of science. Several mainstream sources have specifically described ID as pseudoscience.

In talk page discussions there has been clear consensus that ID is pseudoscience, but continuing wrangling over wording in relation to sources determining that ID is not science without specifically using the word "pseudoscience". I therefore propose the following additional group:

  • 5. Non-science claimed to be science: Arguments or beliefs presented by proponents as science, such as intelligent design, but which are specifically described by the scientific community as not being science or as pseudoscience, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Once a topic has been categorised as pseudoscience, the article should conform to WP:PSCI policy including "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." This is policy. . . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter draws attention to the point that "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW which is a guideline, not policy, and as it says at the top, is "a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Common sense clearly indicates that pseudoscience is a well established term, one which forms part of Wikipedia policy, and is a word which may be necessary in clearly describing a topic as pseudoscience.
The boxes included in John Carter's comment appear to invite Arbcom to set specific wording for articles, determining article content in a manner going beyond the WP:ARBPS decision and beyond policy. This prescriptive proposal is wholly inappropriate, and unnecessary given the clear policy. Obviously the best way to achieve the policy is a matter for article talk page discussion to achieve consensus. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The background principles adopted in this arbitration decision (which dates from 2006) do not govern how lists in mainspace are organized in 2014. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Infoboxes

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by Sandstein

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing and infoboxes, "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

At WP:AE#Pigsonthewing (permalink), administrators, including myself, disagree about whether this recent edit by Pigsonthewing violates this restriction. Pigsonthewing argues that they did not violate the restriction because they edited, rather than added, an infobox. I am not persuaded by this because the edit added an {{Infobox}} template that wasn't there before.

I ask the Committee to clarify whether or not that edit violated the previously mentioned sanction.  Sandstein  13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Montanabw

This is really hair-splitting. Andy's first edit was here. No infobox. The article in question had a manually-created "infobox" made out of an image template that in terms of syntax, was this. Andy then took ONLY the existing parameters plus one very logical addition -and put them into a template here. In essence, he took an improperly formatted infobox and made it into a proper one. I really find it absurd that the someone wants to take this to a drama board. Criminy. Montanabw(talk) 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boing!

Sandstein seems to be on his own on this one with his over-literal definition of what an infobox is - there's a clear consensus that Andy was simply fixing an existing badly-formed one. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't know Greek or Latin, so I'll just say it in English: that wasn't adding an infobox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience

Initiated by 84.106.11.117 (talk) at 03:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
original ruling: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision

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

Statement by 84.106.11.117

While supported by article content at the time the pseudoscience label was dropped from the Cold Fusion article some time before October 2011.

In the wild it looks like this. Any admin may now ban the Nobel laureate? This is how it should be? It makes no sense to me. What is this doing on my talk page? What does it even mean? Is this the new welcome message?

I've posted one on User_talk:Sandstein talk page to see what happens. Surely he needs such helpful information as much as I do?

further informations

Sandstein, a remarkably productive editor I should add, just demonstrated how the sanctions are being used to ban non-skeptical editors, applicable in one direction only.

Sandstein did not read my deletion review request. My request talks about the one sided nature of these Discretionary Sanctions[4], he responds by posting an info box on my user talk page[5] informing me about these same sanctions. He used imaginary guidelines and retaliates with victim blaming.

I am not the topic of this Request for clarification, is about cold fusion not being pseudoscience while still subjected to pseudoscience sanction.

If the Sanction would work both ways, Sandstein should now be topic banned. This strikes me as a completely idiotic way of doing things, typical skeptic methodology. I would argue the Sanctions themselves are not useful to the project.

My split request was disposed of by skeptical consensus, rather than edit guidelines. I ignored this consensus per Notability guidelines. Notability is the only type of guideline that skeptic teams can not kill by consensus.

Rather than so much as lift a finger to help split the article team skeptic used every possible method and every excuse other than the split criteria to troll the process while crying about the way I avoided "scrutiny". Of course I did! If we look at Sandsteins edit log he has soooooo many contributions he effectively avoids scrutiny himself. I cant possibly read all that? Or can I?

AFD is suppose to be the point where the team of anti-pseudoscience crusaders have to use edit guidelines. In stead the admin deleted by consensus. (he was trying to clean up the backlog we should add) Asking for clarification, from the closing admin (we used irc), and by means of a deletion review is entirely sensible. Not reading it and requiring an account is not. Specially not in that order.

This is not to defend myself but to illustrate the victim blaming routine. How can Sandstein, being an administrator, need further tools to dispose of IP editors? Look how his argument is that I edited fringe topics, as if this should be sufficient evidence of my wrong doings?

If this is how the sanctions are being used, then it is not worth having them in general, in this specific case, using them outside the scope of pseudoscience seems even less useful.

note: It strikes me as odd for the committee to try to rule if something is pseudoscience or not. I think, if you have some precognition about a topic you should use the article talk page and provide reliable sources that make your vision evident.

Thanks for your time.

response to Robert McClenon

Sandstein explained why he mistakenly (but understandably) assumed I have an account, AFTER THAT you write this: [6]

The IP editor who filed the arbitration clarification request states that he or she has an account but edits from the IP address. There is no requirement to create an account in order to edit Wikipedia (except that editing semi-protected articles such as [[cold fusion]] requires an auto-confirmed account). However, Wikipedia policies do state that intentionally editing logged out is inappropriate, as it avoids scrutiny, and may be a means for topic-ban evasion or block evasion. I will ask a two-part question. First, do any of the IP addresses editing this talk page have accounts? If so, why are you editing logged out? Second (as I have asked before), is there a good reason why any IP addresses who do not have accounts choose not to create accounts (which would permit editing a semi-protected article)?

I repeat: I don't have an account. This is not what the article talk page is for and not what this request for clarification is about.

"A request for amendment or clarification was filed with the ArbCom, requesting a clarification that cold fusion is not pseudoscience and so not subject to discretionary sanctions. Since a Request for Comments is currently open on this page, the ArbCom request appears to be an effort to bypass the consensus process. The proper vehicle for determining whether cold fusion is, within Wikipedia, considered pseudoscience is the RFC.

In the comment before that you write:[7]

"The choice of those categories was not a trick nor an effort to steer the result, because it is exactly what is defined by ARBCOM."

You are trying to have it both ways.

"The article has been under semi-protection due to disruptive editing by unregistered editors for a long term."
21:20, 18 June 2012‎ Dennis Brown Protected Cold fusion: Persistent sock puppetry See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist

Staged by skeptics?

It is argued that the 400 skeptics, with watchlist and forum shopping is not enough to protect a locked article from lone newbies. Skeptics who evidently don't even read what the editor writes anymore and refuse all outsider contributions. I'm not here to be persecuted without reason, neither is anyone else. That is why I request clarification.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

84.106.11.117 is an IP address active since 16 June 2014 with few contributions, mostly relating to fringe-y topics such as alien abduction. On 11 July, they requested a deletion review of the article Fleischmann-Pons experiment, which relates to Cold fusion, which is in my layperson's understanding a fringe science topic. In the review request, 84.106.11.117 wrote that "I should note I'm not a new user, I just edit from my ip." As an administrator working at WP:DRV, I summarily closed the review request, suggesting that in discretionary sanctions topic areas where sanctions such as topic bans have been imposed, in view of WP:SCRUTINY, established editors should not make undeletion requests while logged out. I also alerted 84.106.11.117 about the discretionary sanctions applying to pseudo- and fringe science topics. In response, 84.106.11.117 copied the same alert notice onto my talk page and made this request for clarification, the point of which I don't quite see. In view of subsequent statements by 84.106.11.117 such as [8], it appears likely to me that we are being trolled by a returning, possibly previously sanctioned editor.  Sandstein  07:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as long as we are here already: Would it be an appropriate use of discretionary sanctions, under these circumstances, to restrict the person using the address 84.106.11.117 from editing pseudo- and fringe science topics except with their main account (if they are not banned or blocked from doing so already)?  Sandstein  07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies and Seraphimblade: I was probably unclear. I agree that editing only as an IP is allowed and that we shouldn't force anyone to create an account. But I understood the statement by 84.106.11.117 to mean that they already have an account. My question was whether they might legitimately be directed to use that existing account when editing in the topic area covered by sanctions. Otherwise they might be able to avoid any sanctions that might apply to them under their existing account.  Sandstein  11:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I watch Cold fusion and there is often commentary at Talk:Cold fusion regarding a possible new development—something which in the future may validate CF as a new energy source. Wikiversity was mentioned and I had a very quick look and found recently-edited pages like these:

Wikiversity is nothing to do with Wikipedia, but the activity suggests to me that discretionary sanctions in the CF area need to continue. Whether of not CF should properly be called "pseudoscience" can be debated elsewhere as that is not relevant to whether the topic should be subject to discretionary sanctions. Any new energy source with many enthusiastic supporters but no usable power should be treated as if it were pseudoscience at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I oppose any request for the ArbCom to intervene and remove the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions from cold fusion. The article has been under semi-protection due to disruptive editing by unregistered editors for a long term. The talk page has been also disruptively edited, including personal attacks on skeptical editors, by unregistered editors. (There was also an edit war on the talk page, something unusual, where an unregistered editor began adding archived material, which was removed, and a revert war ensued.) I have also been watching the article and its talk page, and it has been more civil since editors have been templating the participants as to discretionary sanctions. The unregistered editors have been repeatedly asked if there is a reason why they choose not to create accounts. The usual response is either no response or incivility. This is to the point where the requirement to assume good faith is stretched, and there is reason to think that the unregistered editors are editing logged out either to create the appearance of greater numbers or because they are sockpuppets of a blocked or banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Request for Comments at Talk:Cold fusion in process to determine consensus as to which of the four ArbCom-defined categories cold fusion should be categorized as. This request, to ask the ArbCom to intervene, may be an attempts to bypass the consensus process, which is going against the unregistered editors who are proponents of cold fusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this clarification request be denied, because the RFC is the proper way to determine whether cold fusion is pseudoscience, but that the incoming boomerang be allowed to return, and that the filing party, who has been properly notified, be either topic-banned from cold fusion, or blocked, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP in question states that they do have a registered account, but choose to edit logged out, the remedy proposed by User:Sandstein is appropriate. There is no requirement to create an account (although creating an account would permit editing the semi-protected page), but there is a policy against intentionally editing logged out when one has an account, and the IP admits to doing exactly that. That statement is relevant to the concern stated below of two arbitrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On further reading, I have comments about the statement by the OP: "I should note I'm not a new user, I just edit from my ip." First, that statement was apparently misunderstood by Sandstein and by me. If the OP did not mean that he was an existing registered user, then he does have a right to edit from the IP address. Second, however, that statement that he is not a new user is incorrect. He has made 32 edits since 16 June, which qualifies as a new user compared to experienced editors. I will still ask, as I have at Talk: Cold fusion, whether there is a compelling reason why unregistered editors at Cold fusion choose not to create accounts (which would permit them to edit the semi-protected article) and instead persistent in making edit requests (sometimes amounting to edit demands) on the talk page. If the IP does not have a registered account, then the IP is permitted to edit. In any case, the request for a clarification by the ArbCom appears to be an attempt to game the system by asking the ArbCom to bypass the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cardamon

84.106.11.117 is likely the same individual as 84.104.135.141, 84.106.9.95, 84.106.26.81, 84.107.128.52, and possibly others, going back to at least 2009. I notice 84.104.135.141 was blocked [9] in December, 2009, and that 84.106.26.81 has two blocks [10].

This series of IPs has POV - pushed on a number of fringe topics, including on Cold fusion since April, 2009. Cardamon (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the IP, as 84.107.128.52, was warned of the existence of discretionary sanctions on fringe/pseudoscience subjects by Robert McClenon [11], on June 23, 2014. This was a few weeks before the warning by Sandstein of which the IP complains above. Cardamon (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Second Quantization

I'm not following the full case or what has preceded this, but I gently remind the arbitrators that I already brought up the ambiguities in an older wording of the text 2 years ago, and the text was clarified by motion after that [12]. Arbitration enforcement in the area of WP:FRINGE does not in any way hinge on something being viewed as pseudoscience rather than fringe science (or pathological science in the case of cold fusion), Second Quantization (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC) (formerly IRWolfie-)[reply]

Although I haven't looked at edits in the last 3 months, I think its worthy of note that in general over the years 84.* has made few if any useful edits or contributions ever (almost every edit being biased and being reverted etc). Second Quantization (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Noren

The same basic dispute as to what extent the prior Pseudoscience case applied (along with some other issues) was heard in 2009, and the Committee decided that "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." It no longer matters whether Cold Fusion is included in the Pseudoscience case as the committee has ruled separately that Cold Fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions without regard to the Pseudoscience case. The committee later decided to merge the logging of that case with the pseudoscience case, but to my knowledge has not declared the 2009 ruling void.--Noren (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


While I share Robert's concerns about the editing patterns of IP users on that talk page, I think that we do have to make some effort to distinguish between IP users. The IP who filed this request and was banned geolocates to the Netherlands and appears to have a static IP. There is also a more prolific, longer term IP user(s) from Romania who uses a dynamic IP. That was the IP user who has been edit warring to dearchive stale discussions over the last six months or so. The Romanian IP as 188.27.144.144 asked about this filing on Talk:Cold Fusion, I don't think he's the same person as the filing IP. Other recent IP addresses that geolocate to Romania include 94.53.199.249, 82.137.14.68, 82.137.14.162, 193.254.231.34, 82.137.9.180, 82.137.9.236, 82.137.8.198, 5.15.53.36, 5.15.181.68, 86.125.186.149, 86.125.167.74, 5.15.53.167, 5.15.37.240, and 5.15.35.32. From April 1 to June 20, all the but one of the IPs who edited the Talk:Cold Fusion page geolocated to Romania. A country location is, of course, not proof that all of these IPs are the same person, but there does appear to be some quacking involved.--Noren (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acroterion

I've blocked 84.106.11.117 for 48 hours for edit-warring at Talk:Cold fusion. The block is solely due to the edit-warring by 84, I was led here afterwards by a review of their contributions. It is not intended to prejudice or pre-empt AE, but communication with them will have to take place on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: Hi Sandstein. There's no requirement in policy for people to create accounts to edit with. What they are not allowed to do is evade scrutiny by editing from an IP when they have an account. It is possible to be an established IP editor.  Roger Davies talk 07:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandstein; I don't think the IP topic-ban you suggest would be appropriate at all. As I said before, nothing in policy requires anyone to create an account before they can edit.  Roger Davies talk
  • I agree with Roger. It's forbidden to edit anonymously to evade scrutiny on one's account, but it's allowed to just not have an account and edit anonymously. There's no precedent for forcing someone to create an account and I don't like the idea of creating such a precedent in this way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sandstein: If the editor is sanctioned under their account, and is editing to evade the block, they could be sanctioned as normal for block evasion, among other things. But otherwise, there's no rule against logging out, and DS doesn't currently have any mechanism to force an editor not otherwise subject to sanctions to log in. I would echo Newyorkbrad's request that the IP answer at least "yes" or "no" as to whether they have an account, and whether such account is subject to any restrictions or sanctions. If that needs to be done via email for privacy reasons, please do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been reviewing the language of the case. The current remedy authorizing DS reads as follows:

    14) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

This remedy, and the accompanying principles outlined in the case, make it clear to me that it is appropriate for cold fusion to be considered subject to this decision. I see no need to amend or clarify the remedy or other aspects of the case.
As to The IP editing, I can't see that we can do anything about that unless we knew for a fact that the person operating from the IP was also the operator of a named account that was subject to sanctions already. I suppose a case could also be made that if they do have an account they are using a good hand/bad hand strategy to avoid scrutiny, but again without having at least some idea of the identity of the named account I don't know how we could arrive at any sort of actionable conclusion. On a personal level I do believe that one of these two scenarios is the most likely explanation, but without further evidence I don't see what we can do about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask the 84... IP to advise us if he or she has ever been subject to any sanctions or warnings for editing in this topic-area. This information can be provided via e-mail if a serious privacy issue is involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, in short: cold fusion is covered by discretionary sanctions (thanks Noren) and I'd say there appears to be no appetite on our part to revoke them. So, probably, this request can be closed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control

Initiated by Gaijin42 (talk) at 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control


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


Statement by Gaijin42

I am currently topic banned from Gun control per the ArbCom case above. Recently there has been two cases brought at ArbEnforcement resulting in two additional topic bans and warnings (including a boomerang topic ban for the filing party). During these cases I was explicitly mentioned at least twice, and implicitly mentioned several more. (As well as mentioning other affected users in the same boat as myself) (snips below). I did not comment due to my topic ban. However, it seems poor form to be discussing the actions and statements of those who cannot reply or clarify. For the current two cases, one is already closed, and the other appears that it will close shortly but in the future if a similar situation comes up, are topic banned editors allowed to reply on administrative boards where they are being discussed? I had asked some of the administrators at AE about this and Callanec replied that they could not grant an exception to the TB since it was applied by ArbCom.

  • "Removing the entire Background section and Legal challenges sections I added (which even now topic-banned Gaijin42 did not dispute) to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page."
  • "The third link [30] is to a nearly 8-month-old ANI that nearly boomeranged [31] on the editor who brought it against me. (It is also another example of pro-gun editors - three of whom are now topic banned - talking about my behavior, without diffs.)"
  • "Perhaps one of the topic-banned pro-gun editors is harassing me." (An accusation, without evidence, against people who can't respond)
  • "My frustration right now reminds me of that I felt when I was a new editor to gun-control and in a "discussion" with about 10-12 experienced editors using jargon I'd never heard and referring to processes I knew nothing about."
  • " And the 1 (Gaijin42) who voted "complicated," and mentorship-else-ban is topic banned for Battleground conduct. Is it possible that I (1 new editor against numerous experienced) was the victim of battleground conduct at the article I brought up at ANI?"

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

In my opinion as one of the admins active at WP:AE, the policy-level exceptions to topic bans described at WP:BANEX also apply to Committee-imposed topic bans. Therefore, a topic-banned user may make such statements as are required for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". In the context of enforcement requests, this means that they may briefly respond to direct accusations of misconduct against themselves, especially as concerns allegations of topic ban violations. However, in view of the purpose of a topic ban, they should be as brief as possible, or they risk being blocked if an administrator decides that the seventh reply in an angry back-and-forth of mutual recriminations is no longer part of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Also, in order to help topic-banned editors respect their topic bans, administrators should suppress and, if needed, sanction allegations of misconduct against topic-banned editors if these allegations are not supported by useful evidence in the form of diffs (see WP:ASPERSIONS), or if the allegations are not helpful for resolving the problem at hand. This may often be the case because the topic ban will have made the allegations moot.  Sandstein  15:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Sandstein's analysis is about right. Unless explicitly prohibited from doing so by the specific applicable t-ban, t-banned editors may respond briefly and circumspectly in DR fora to accusations directly concerning them. Indeed, doing so will often assist the process. They may not however use the door that has been partially opened to launch into sweeping and tangential counter-accusations against all and sundry. That said, there's probably not much more to add here.  Roger Davies talk 07:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree in part; if an editor has been banned from a topic area, it means that his participation there has been so disruptive that it has been deemed necessary to expel him from it. The necessary conclusion is that all exceptions to limited bans need to be construed restrictively. For that, I interpret the "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" exception to only apply when an editor's actions are being discussed and not when they are merely mentioned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=617919807"