Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:30, 22 May 2012 editTbhotch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers312,447 edits transcluded← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,038 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
==Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (Rich Farmbrough) ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
'''Initiated by ''' '']&nbsp;]'', <small>22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Rich Farmbrough}}
]

]
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Remedy 2

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Rich Farmbrough}}

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
N/A

===Amendment 1===
]
* Append:
Rich to be allowed to use his talk page archiving task.

====Statement by Rich Farmbrough====
Note: Editors who have gathered that I am a loose cannon, may be interested to note that the BRFA for this task was almost turned down, since no BRFA is generally needed. However I preferred to have written authorisation. Much good it did me. {{Smiley}} '']&nbsp;]'', <small>00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />


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

:It has to be asked: why aren't the existing archive bots that everyone else uses good enough? &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 01:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

====Clerk notes====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

====Arbitrator views and arbitrator discussion====
*'''Decline'''. ''']''' ''']''' 09:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* An archival service like MiszaBot will be adequate. ] ]] 10:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Decline as existing tools will suffice''' ] (]) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (Nobody Ent) ==
'''Initiated by ''' <small>]</small> '''at''' 15:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Rich Farmbrough}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Remedy 2

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Nobody Ent}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Rich Farmbrough}}

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
*
===Amendment 1===
]
* Change to:
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using AutoWikiBrowser and any custom automation he has created whatsoever on Misplaced Pages. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be AWB or custom automation shall be assumed to be so.

==== Statement by Nobody Ent ====
<s>Restriction as currently written is overly broad and vague and unnecessary to address the behaviors the community has found to be disruptive. What is "automation" in the context of a internet hosted web server? An absurd-for-explanatory-purposes example: the ''ping'' utility tells me that my client is currently using ip address 208.80.154.225 to access en.wikipedia.org, but I don't put that in my browser address bar because ] automates the process of converting domain names to IPs. The case revolved around customization RF created himself, not standard tools many users use, such as spell check or twinkle. Even a template is a type of automation and is therefore included in the scope of the remedy as currently written.

@JClemens Committee member's interpretation of the current wording are inconsistent , ,
, and RF's rollback privilege has been removed by arbcom clerk <small>]</small> 16:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
...and restored by arbcom member with their interpretation <small>]</small> 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@AGK ya'll can talk about ] all you want but the diffs above clearly indicate ArbCom has issued a remedy without the individual members actually knowing what it meant. Bureaucratic quibbling over whether this oversight should be pointed out to you via request for amendment, request for clarification, ], trouts on all your userpages, email, IRC or smoke signals is contrary to the ] pillar. It is ArbCom's responsibility to ''resolve'' disputes, not ''create'' them, and this ill conceived remedy is causing churn on ], ], and ]. <small>]</small> 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)</s>
:Withdrawn, ain't worth the drama. <small>]</small> 00:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Hammersoft ====
I don't think this request is a strawman at all. Already two arbitrators have felt that rollback could be reasonably concluded to be automation. Already arbitrators are disagreeing to the point of revoking/restoring his rollback rights because of this disagreement. The evidence here is already plain; if ArbCom can't figure out what automation is or is not, I dare say the community won't either. The restriction isn't so clear as Jclemens seems to think it is. There's apparently still uncertainty as to whether Twinkle or Huggle qualify as "automation". I have to agree with the filer of this request; the restriction as currently written is overly broad and vague. It can readily be used as a bludgeoning tool to generate an insane amount of drama. At a minimum, it should be modified such that any question regarding whether something is or is not automation should be addressed to ArbCom, and ArbCom required to respond via consensus before any block is applied for violation of that restriction. --] (]) 20:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Sladen ====
Rather than ArbCom trying to decide ''"is Rollback automation?",'' it might be more useful if ArbCom simply decided '''is Rich allowed to use Rollback'''. This would solve the case-in-point, without getting side-tracked. —] (]) 22:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Headbomb ====

Back on the proposed decision talk page, ]. But it's been ignored. Maybe now it will get some attention:

<blockquote>Rich Farmbrough is banned from '''mass editing''' regardless of the method, broadly construed, for a period of <INSERT PERIOD>. That is, RF is banned from both running bots and from behaving like a ]. This does not cover script-assisted vandal fighting (such as the use of rollback), neither should it prevent the use of assisted-editing to make improvements to specific articles, such as putting the finishing touch on an article after a rewrite/expansion, provided RF took part in the rewrite/expansion himself.</blockquote>

<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 01:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

:Bolded the part that's actually important. Automation itself wasn't the problem. Mass-editing like a ] was the problem. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 01:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Anomie ====
In , SilkTork stated "There are some that it would be highly unlikely would be a cause for concern if Rich used them (such as the one that with one click closes an AfD and does all the tedious stuff very efficiently)". I don't know whether Rich would do so, but it is certainly possible to use that script in a manner that would cause concern. Recall that {{user|Fastily}} recently retired in the face of accusations that he was closing so many deletion discussions so rapidly that he was not exercising due care in doing so.

I think the problem some have with Rich is that he obviously likes to make mass edits of various sorts, to the point where it seems he doesn't pay enough attention to whether the edits are needed or are being done right. The hope behind the automation ban, in my opinion, is that he will direct his skills to making a few quality edits rather than large numbers of sometimes-controversial edits, and possibly that he will use his technical skills to assist others who will be able to make assisted edits in a manner more in-line with community consensus <small>(in this, though, I doubt any sanction would succeed; there are enough editors around who would be happy to boost their edit count by making questionable edits, and enough others who would be happy to be proxy for Rich if they thought they could get away with it)</small>.

This amendment is proposing change in exactly the wrong direction. Opening up the gigantic loophope that Rich could go back to his old tricks as long as he uses automation created by someone else is an awful idea. If you Rich supporters really want to do some good, let Rich decide what he wants to do and let him apply for amendments. ]] 02:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Rich Farmbrough ====

@Jclemens: That is a valuable clarification, thank you for that. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />

@SilkTork: Since it was demonstrated neither that I was "not editing responsibly" nor concomitantly that "using automation either encouraged, caused or multiplied" the hypothetical, it is not surprising that this becomes ever more Kafkaesque. I prefer here Jclemens approach that at least addresses the myth, to the suggestion, however true, that I might be banned due to vexatious wiki-lawyering, and should edit accordingly. I have avoided the discussion about what does and does not constitute automation for two reasons, firstly it is facile ''per se'', secondly it gives credence to the tottering edifice upon which the ruling is founded. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>10:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br />

==== Statement by Beyond My Ken ====
I believe Headbomb's suggested change is a good idea, except that it should stop after the word "rollback". The remaining text might provide a potential loophole to justify editing behavior which the community has clearly had problems with. I see no need for the use of automated tool to put the finishing touches on articles, this can be done quite adequately by hand. ] (]) 03:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* All parties are reminded to comment in their sections only. ] (]) 15:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*This is a strawman. We can deal with specific requests for clarification that pose ''real'' problems. In the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession. ] (]) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
**Note that the content of the amendment request has been substantially expanded since it was posted, and my "strawman" comment applied to the less refined request. ] (]) 02:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* Per Jclemens' first two sentences. ] ]] 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
*I would be interested in an amendment to clarify "automation" as it is becoming a cause for concern that there is no consensus on the matter. I don't feel, though, that this amendment is helpful as the focus is too narrow. The concern regarding Rich is that he was not editing responsibly, and that using automation either encouraged, caused or multiplied the lack of responsibility. Principle 3 says "An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually." Any script or gadget or tool that makes a series of edits for the human, can be seen as automated. There are some that it would be highly unlikely would be a cause for concern if Rich used them (such as the one that with one click closes an AfD and does all the tedious stuff very efficiently), but I would say for the benefit of avoiding doubt, avoiding arguments, avoiding wikilayering, and avoiding having to ban Rich from the project, that we should have a simple and clear bright line - no automated tools, and if in doubt if the tool is automated, then it should be regarded as automated. My hope is that 12 months of unproblematic edits would lead to a lifting of the restriction. ''']''' ''']''' 22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
::@Rich Farmbrough. It would be helpful if you acknowledged the concerns that people have about your editing, and gave some thought as to how you might address those concerns. You say above that it has not been demonstrated that you were not editing responsibly. It was found that you have two community restrictions on your editing - , and that you had violated those restrictions - . ''']''' ''']''' 09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* I don't have any problem at all with Headbomb's proposal and think it addresses the problem very well. If there's any support for this, I'll propose that text as a replacement, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 11:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
*Disagree with Roger, and would oppose that replacement. The need here is a '''total''' break from automation. Finding of fact 3 in the case shows why any wiggle-room is a bad idea, and why, in my mind, the remedy had to be so broad. ] 03:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
**Aomie said it better than I did. There's no reason, like the recent Cirt/Jayren466 amendment, that for good cause, specific tasks can't be approved by motion down the line. ] 03:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
----

===Amendment 2===
]
* Change to:
Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of , ).

==== Statement by uninvolved (?) Ncmvocalist ====
I am uninvolved in this case as far as I am aware, but I am still making this request. Frankly, the finding of fact leaves the Community with more to speculate about (and is prejudicial to the subject). I ask that if there is support for this amendment, that this be amendment be passed without delay (before more people read finding as it is currently written). ] (]) 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Hammersoft, the current finding is a meaningless observation which only encourages others to further speculate; this amendment somewhat narrows down the reason of why arbs were concerned. Of course, there is no doubt this amendment is also somewhat vague, and clearly, had the drafter of this original finding taken the time to workshop and specify the entries that were especially problematic, this would have been useful to several users - including the subject of the case. But that did not happen; in fact, although the drafter made an observation in his proposing comment, he did not manage to fully incorporate that into the finding. It may not have been intentional, but it's just how it is. Still, at least Jclemens, Silktork and Philknight noticed that more specificity would be beneficial ''before'' the case was closed. It may so happen that some other arbitrators did not even notice, or if they did, were 'not fussed either way' that any further specificity was needed (be it before the finding was passed in its current wording, or as you might note from a comment below, in its aftermath) - I think it's a natural consequence of frequently pontificating, but maybe it's just that further evolution is necessary. ] (]) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Beetstra ====
:I would suggest to tie it down further, to specify for ''which'' specific unblocks this is a problem - this now suggests that ALL unblocks performed by Rich were problematic under the description of this (unless of course the committee wishes to say that ALL unblocks were really problematic and did not resolve the issues for which the block was applied). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Hammersoft ====
Since ArbCom is not required to show a tie between evidence and findings of fact (in my opinion, a serious failing in the structure we've asked them to follow), they can vaguely wave at block logs and say there was a problem without actually identifying what the problem was. This is akin to someone in court over a speeding ticket, and when the accused asks for evidence the prosecution says "look at your driving record". Such a response is woefully inadequate, but this is the construct we've asked ArbCom to perform within.

In this particular case, ArbCom could not seem to get its case straight as to what the problem actually was vis-a-vis the unblocking of bots. Evidence was presented which showed admins routinely unblock their own bots and that policy does not address this case. There is ]. This amendment makes a statement not connected to evidence nor in anyway showing how Rich's behavior violated policy. As such, it is void. --] (]) 13:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
* Hard to oppose my own proposed wording, which had two contemporaneous supports. It appears we never got around to modifying the principle, and I unsurprisingly agree that this wording better reflects the issue in this case. ] (]) 02:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* I am minded to uphold this amendment in order to clarify the meaning of that finding, but all things considered I am not fussed either way. ] ]] 10:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* Yes. Supported the wording on the case. It looks like we just didn't get around to doing the modification as Jclemens says. I think we could encourage and support Clerks to be bold when checking through a case before closing, and to raise matters such as this, even if they look trivial. Better to delay the close of a case by a couple of days than to have to go through a post-case Amendment. ''']''' ''']''' 11:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: R&I review (Mathsci)==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
"Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct in respect of editors he perceives as ideological opponents."

to be amended to:

"Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and battleground conduct towards editors whom he perceives as being engaged in proxy editing"

(or any minor variant containing the phrase "proxy editing").

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlink|Mathsci}}

==== Statement by Mathsci ====
This proposal is a minor change, resulting from a very late change in the emphasis of the R&I review. Tabling a request for amendment of this kind was suggested to me by the drafting arbitrator, Roger Davies. Although my intention is to stay away from matters connected with ], this rewording would prevent any possible misunderstandings concerning any possible future reports of sockpuppets (or, in circumstances which I think now would be very rare, proxy-editing). At the time the case closed, this FoF did not look likely to pass. I had already recorded my uneasiness with use of the wording "perceived ideological opponents" a while back. The new findings on proxy editing changed in a radical way the emphasis of the case and my actions or reactions under consideration in this review should probably be considered within that context. The proposed rephrasing accurately reflects what happened since December 2010 and takes into account the views expressed in the three oppose votes (I note that Newyorkbrad has not been available for comment on wikipedia for some time now).

'''In slightly more detail:''' On 6 May 2012, while I was occupied in professional matters in the USA (which continued until my return to France on 12 May 2012), the thrust of this review changed radically: new findings and remedies were added supporting a long-standing charge of proxy-editing, which Shell Kinney had suggested from long back. Aside from my evidence in this review based on on-wiki conduct in October-November 2010, on 26 November 2010 and 30 November 2010 I passed on evidence in private to Shell Kinney which unequivocally confirmed SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 as proxy-editors. With my permission, she passed that evidence on to arbcom. Having contacted Captain Occam, she later commented on this proxy-editing on wikipedia, as reported in my evidence. Almost 18 months later, following further edits in the topic area by SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2, arbcom once again examined this so-far unresolved issue. They confirmed Shell Kinney's conclusions, but this time, instead of contacting Captain Occam, they conferred directly with Ferahgo the Assassin. She supplied relevant off-wiki information. These new developments fundamentally changed the direction of this case, in line with the evidence I had presented. That in turn forcably affected the previously posted findings and remedies. As I have written to Roger Davies in private, this is a grey area. There are few precedents and my own unwillingness to let the matter drop, knowing about the unambiguous off-wiki evidence, could be taken as either a vice or a virtue. That is reflected in the modified statement above. In the end I acknowledge my persistance here. I also very much appreciate that arbitrators came round to this particularly tough decision in what were very difficult circumstances—very much untrodden ground. Their decision provides a useful precedent and hopefully also a guide for the future. ] (]) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@ '''Roger Davies:''' That change would also be OK, although, as others have written, it still omits the context. At this stage I hope that the opinions of those arbitrators active on the review that opposed the finding, particularly Newyorkbrad, can be heard, even if that means waiting one month.

@ '''Jclemens:''' The identification of SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 was not guess work. It was confirmed by Shell Kinney and all the on-wiki and off-wiki evidence passed on to the arbitration committee. It was not very different from what arbcom has looked at second time round with their off-wiki investigations. Shell Kinney described the first round findings on wikipedia in December 2010. (She already said some time back that her correspondence with me could be passed on to the arbitration committee: arbitrators will have already seen an excerpt from an email from September 2011.) Shell Kinney thanked me several times for my help in working out what was going on and she had no doubts about the identification. At no stage did she make any suggestion that my help might be motivated by some kind of ideological differences. Is Jclemens sugesting that now? The two people who have made outspoken statements of that nature, on-wiki and even more vociferously off-wiki, have been Occam and Ferahgo. In the last diff Occam refers to "the root problem of Mathsci’s behavior towards ''everyone'' he hates" and wrote that "Mathsci is always going to be up someone’s ass". My editing history does not show any ideological stance. It shows that I approach proxy-editing no differently from sockpuppetry. It just happens to involve more people and be several orders of magnitude harder to fathom. Many times it relies on on-wiki mistakes. Neither type of editing is permitted on wikipedia. I hope that as Shell Kinney did, arbitrators will use that as their frame of reference. Proxy-editing is almost invariably reported in private. My email correspondece with Shell Kinney started in mid-October 2010 when I pointed out to her to the anomolous editing of SightWathcer and Woodsrock and suggested possible sockpuppetry. Shell Kinney had already independently run a checkuser on the two accounts, so had already ruled out sockpuppetry at an early stage. SightWatcher was identified a month later because of logged-off edits from Houston, Texas, and because he added the same information on films to his WP user page, his DeviantArt page and his amazon.com review page. Very recently he has started using his WP username elsewhere. TrevelyanL85A2 has written his real life name and AIM account on his wikipedia userpage. This mess was created by Occam and Ferahgo. I noticed it and reported it. No different from noticing and reporting the sockpuppetry of Mikemikev. If arbitrators want to use language that is neutral, they should take a refresher course in ]. I don't think it is reasonable of Jclemens to make any comparisons between me and the DeviantArt tag team. They have indicated their own ideology, but I have said nothing either on-wiki or off-wiki. These are users who have been involved in a calculated act of deception. I have been involved in no such acts, either on-wiki or off-wiki, so please ]. Yes, I dispprove of their acts of deception, continuing even now through SightWatcher (see below). Many thanks, ] (]) 09:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
=====Comments on SightWatcher's sudden reappearance following Ferahgo's site ban=====
'''Re DeviantArt team:''' I am not sure any good faith can be directed towards SightWatcher. after months of silence he has now miraculously found his tongue and become the spokesperson on wikipedia for two site-banned users. If he persists in proxy-editing like this, employing the same loopholes and wikilawyering as Ferahgo and Occam to circumvent his topic ban, then probably the site-bans of Occam and Ferahgo should be extended coterminously to him. At no stage, in particular below, has he accepted any responsibility for his own role in this calculated long-term act of deception, which has wasted hours and hours of time.

SightWatcher's comments seem confused but seem to be his first public admission to arbitrators that he was involved in the off-wiki attack pages and fake account for Mathsci and Muntuwandi on FurAffinity. The fake account for me was registered on 26 November 2010, but unused until 1 April 2011. By a strange coincidence, his DeviantArt identity was discovered by me on exactly the same day and emailed to Shell Kinney. She graciously thanked me for that information and, having asked my permission, forwarded that message on to the arbitration committee. The event SightWatcher is referring to is the off-wiki joke/attack page on FurAffinity on 1 April 2011. He seems to be identifying himself as one of the perpetrators, unless I have misunderstood what he wrote. SightWatcher has evidently been in contact with Ferahgo, otherwise he would not know the about content of the single wikipedia email I sent her in May 2011. Is there any other vaguely plausible explanation? After all, according to SightWatcher's version of events, he only became aware of the discussions of his own proxy-editing very recently. That version of events is not credible at this juncture. My on-wiki evidence shows collusion with Ferahgo and Occam, that cannot be explained otherwise. Off-wiki evidence provided to Shell Kinney in November contradicts SightWatcher's version of events. His account adopts the same tone as Ferahgo's statements on-wiki and also in the small amount of private "evidence" that I was shown at an extremely late stage. The names of SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 have been mentioned in AE requests (January), requests for amendment (January-March) and on the evidence page of the review (since 25 March). Knowing that the arbitration committee is aware of his friendship with Ferahgo, does SightWatcher think it is reasonable to expect arbitrators to believe that he was unaware that his editing was being discussed? A more likely explanation is that Ferahgo preferred to be the sole spokesperson for the DeviantArt crowd while she still could, to maintain consistency. With SightWatcher's comments here, there is no longer any consistency. ] (]) 07:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

* Apart from acting as the mouthpiece of the site banned users Occam and Ferahgo, SightWatcher does not seem to be here to improve this encyclopedia. I have had almost five months of my time wasted because of behind-the-scenes lobbying and ] by Ferahgo. Her repeated claims that her real life has been affected were not accepted by the arbitration committee; after that disruption, where she acted as a proxy for the site banned user Occam, it will be a little while before I resume my normal editing patterns. In the most recent SignPost article, there are quotes from Roger Davies giving some indication as to what Ferahgo has been up to behind the scenes. SightWatcher's version of events here has serious inconsistencies and, because of the timing of his first appearance on wikipedia in October 2010—with all the views of Occam at his fingertips—and his miraculous reappearance on wikipedia, it has zero credibility. It is the same worn out old yarn that Ferahgo has been telling, namely that his real life has been affected in some way that he cannot quite articulate. The majority of arbitrators active on the review found that he had been involved in proxy editing with Occam, Ferahgo and TrevelyanL85A2. He seems to be denying that here. In view of the findings there seems to very little doubt that the detailed RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianji that SightWatcher produced in one single edit in his userspace was prepared by Occam and Ferahgo. His postings here continue the pattern started by Occam (interrupting threads where he is not really concerned). I think, in the circumstances, there is very little doubt that he conferred off-wiki with Occam and Ferahgo before commenting here. That seems to have been the way edits were coordinated in the past. One of the arbitrators active on the case privately informed me that if there is continued harrassment by any of the DeviantArt team, as seems to be the case here, then that should be brought to the attention of the arbitration committee. ] (]) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
**Incidentally SightWatcher's second of set of comments is a very good illustration of how a disruptive user, in this case SightWatcher, can misuse the FoF that is being discussed for possible amendment here. In addition, why does he talk about re-opening the case when, as stated in the original request, it was Roger Davies who suggested that I request an amendment in this way? Is that what Ferahgo told him to write? Why is he even bothering to comment here? Topic ban appeal is thataway, third door on the left. Please wait at least one year and knock before entering. ] (]) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

=====Inactive arbitrators=====
Sir Fozzie was inactive during the case and. from what I can tell. he has not been following it. I understand that he has not been in the best of health and I sincerely hope that he is on his way to a full recovery. In the circumstances, however, it is not clear why he is commenting here.

Please could arbitrators wait for comments from arbitrators who have been active during the case, like Newyorkbrad. Knowing wikipedia, that will probably not happen overnight. During the review, as Roger Davies has explained, Ferahgo the Assassin was granted a large amount of latitude in presenting her case—far more than is usual given the circumstances. In the end it was not justified by the outcome. I saw only tiny snippets of her "evidence" and at a very late stage. For that reason, there seems to be no need to rush to a decision particularly before established arbitrators active on the case have had a chance to respond. ] (]) 17:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

=====Boothello, also apparently a proxy-editor for Ferahgo the Assassin =====

* Boothello/David.Kane has been warned on previous occasions that commenting here breaks the terms of his extended topic ban. Here is a previous warning he received from Aprock and pointedly ignored; and here is an explicit warning from Timotheus Canens about a similar intervention when he violated the terms of his topic ban. Boothello/David.Kane is under stringent arbcom restrictions; he is prohibited from commenting on wikipedia in matters related to ] unless his own actions are being discussed. That is not the case here, where he has attempted to hijack this request for amendment. His latest request for a repoening of the review or a new case would appear to be similar to the disruptive conduct of Ferahgo immediately prior to her site ban. It is a stunt aimed at ]. Boothello could theoretically make a separate request for an arbitration case on the request page if he believes he has any new evidence or diffs to present. That would seem ill-advised given the nature of his current topic ban which resulted from "tendentious editing" and being a "single purpose account". ] (]) 00:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

*'''Update''' Boothello's insistance on a request for a new case, following the same lines as Occam and Ferahgo, seemed very fishy indeed. It made me look a little more closely into his edits, to compare his style with that of David.Kane. While puzzling over that, I discovered one diff by chance where a stray piece of text "ixerin:" had accidentally crept in. That stray text shows beyond any reasonable doubt that he was editing the article ] and its talk page while communicating on his computer with Ferahgo the Assassin. I have passed on that information with a more detailed explanation by email to arbitrators. I was very surprised to find it, but it fits into the general picture of "calculated deception" which appears to have been taking place on a larger scale than first imagined. Whether or not Boothello might be a sockpuppet of David.Kane (still a possibility) seems irrelevant now that this new evidence has come to light. ] (]) 03:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

=====Editing history of Requests for amendment=====
This has now disappeared following the merge. Please can this be corrected?

===Statement by SightWatcher===
Since this request mentions me by name, I hope it's okay that I comment.
I've just noticed I'm topic banned now, and I don't understand why. I understand what the accusation is, what lead to it, and how it might be considered questionable, but directly I fail to see how I acted improperly. The arbitrators are right that I got involved in R&I articles because of a discussion in Ferahgo's blog, but she didn't ask me to. Silktork said here that there's nothing wrong with getting involved in Misplaced Pages because of a discussion somewhere else. I don't care about R&I anymore and haven't for several months, but as a matter of principles I believe that I shouldn't be punished if I didn't do anything wrong.
Has anyone here even considered that I didn't want my friends and family to know I was editing R&I articles? I didn't want Ferahgo to know who I was, and I picked a name she wouldn't recognize. But when Mathsci figured out my off-wiki identity, he emailed Ferahgo about it right away! I stopped editing the articles after Ferahgo got suspicious about who I was and because I couldn't deal with the stresses of dealing with such a heated argument. But for more than a year after that, Mathsci kept talking about my off-wiki identity, without any thought about how it affects her friendship with me.
It's bad enough that nobody thought I wouldn't want my friends and family to know I was involved here. But calling what I did "proxy editing" is just a terribly false accusation. Proxy editing would be if Ferahgo asked me to get involved and told me what to post. I chose to get involved, and all posts I made I did by my own choice. Mathsci it would seem can't tell the difference between proxy editing and what actually happened. I will not sit down and allow my integrity to be put under attack simply because of who I choose as my friends.-] (]) 03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

*Mathsci's trying to reopen all of these issues after the review is closed seems to show he hasn't changed his battleground attitude. I understand Mathsci was admonished because his dispute with Occam and Ferahgo got so personalized, and he spread it to other areas of the project after they left the R&I topic. His comments above suggest he's going to do this to me next. I don't want to have to leave the project to get away from him, but I also know I shouldn't try too hard to stop his behavior, because trying too hard is why Ferahgo and Occam got banned. Can arbitrators please give an opinion about how to deal with Mathsci's continued battleground behavior, after an admonishment wasn't enough to stop it?-] (]) 03:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Professor marginalia===
Not again!!

SightWatcher was topic banned by arbcom, not by Mathsci. It is worth noting that SightWatcher's re-entry to the conflict piggy-backs Mathsci's seeking to reword his own sanction, and that SightWatcher framed his response as seeking remedy how to deal with "Matschi's continued battleground behavior". Here Mathsci's simply citing the arbcom findings to back his argument how his sanction should be worded. While SightWatcher's response seeks a return to Day One: "Make Mathsci keep his nose out of it and allow me and/or my proxy-of-the-week to return to R/I". This solution made little sense in the first arbcom go-round, and makes <u>demonstrably</u> less sense now.

If SightWatcher wishes to Amend his sanction, I believe it warrants a separate filing. But I think it's best for everybody involved (especially SightWatcher) to just move on. ] (]) 07:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Krod Mandoon-thanks for so beautifully demonstrating the fun and games genuine editors must field to endure here. ] (])

===Statement by Boothello===
Why is the committee turning a blind eye to Mathsci's continued battleground behavior? He's just added over 2,000 words of text attacking other editors, including some of the arbitrators who aren't giving him what he wanted. After the review closed, he only stopped for long enough to make 3 inconsequential article edits before launching into this. It's abundantly clear that being admonished for his battleground behavior is causing ''more'' battleground behavior from him, not less of it.

This isn't only a nuisance, it also disrupts the functioning of the project. It means none of the editors he regards as adversaries can ever make a request related to R&I without the discussion being bogged down by Mathsci's walls of text. It means I can never appeal my topic ban unless I want to endure this again, and neither can anyone else. If you want to restore normalcy to the topic, or if you want to reduce the amount of drama plaguing every discussion about it, the problem is staring you right in the face.] (]) 02:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

:Re : I want to point out that Mathsci has '''never made an SPI report about me.''' He eschews the proper channel for accusing me of being a sock, in favor of trying to prove it to other editors on various pages where I comment. ] seems intended to address this behavior, but Mathsci is disregarding it. Less than a week after the end of the review, does arbcom intend to let him show he will continue all of the same behavior he was admonished for?] (]) 05:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

::Yes, in the AE diff you posted, in lieu of starting an SPI you researched Ephery's real-life address and brought it up in public. And now, you continue linking to the comment where you did that to try and prove your accusation about me. Do you really still think there was nothing wrong with doing that?] (]) 06:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

====Request====
If Mathsci's continued battleground behavior can't be addressed in this thread for procedural reasons, I'd like to request that another case or review be opened. If that also can't be done in this thread, I can make a separate arbitration request for it. Two factors have led this:

A: It's become increasingly clear since the review closed that arbcom's admonishment is not changing Mathsci's battleground behavior.

B: It's also clear this issue can't be handled by the community. If it could, it would have been addressed in any of the 20 or so AN/I reports about Mathsci since 2008 (not all of which involve race and intelligence).

I should point out that the whole time I've been registered at Misplaced Pages, Mathsci's battleground behavior towards me has made my involvement so frustrating, I no longer have any interest in staying part of the project if the problem isn't addressed. This is why I'm semi-retired now. So I'm not afraid of my own behavior being examined in a review. The best-case scenario is that the situation improves, while the worst-case scenario is that I have to leave the project, which is what I'd be doing anyway if the problem can't be resolved.] (]) 22:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Vecrumba ===
When I first arrived at R&I, Mathsci assaulted me for no reason whatsoever. I can dig up the diffs. I see no reason to limit Mathsci's combativeness as applying only to perceived proxy accounts. Every editor Mathsci doesn't agree with is a proxy for some enemy editor. Just watching from the sidelines, I'm exhausted by Mathsci's endless conspiracy theories and attempts to turn R&I into a Mathsci police state. ]<small> ►]</small> 04:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Further discussion ===
:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*I don't think that the difference is material enough to be worth changing. You believe them to have been engaged in proxy editing? Fine. They're also editors with whom you've disagreed. The nuanced version that you prefer seems to enshrine your view of the facts in the committee's findings. The intent of "ideological opponents" was to be neutral: they don't see things your way, nor your theirs, and we're not taking sides in the finding on who is right or who is wrong, in large part because the issue isn't about the disagreement, but the conduct surrounding it. ] (]) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
* Substantially per Jclemens, though if there is consensus to modify this, I'd support it being cut right back to just read: "Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct" &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
* Agree with Jclemens - this isn't a substantial enough change to be worthwhile. Otherwise, I'd be ok with Roger's suggested amendment. ] (]) 09:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
* I think it's minor quibbling (either change) and wouldn't be willing to support any change. ] (]) 14:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
*Support Roger's suggested amendment which cuts to the essential point and avoids speculation regarding motive (which we can't really know, only attempt to surmise from the actions). ''']''' ''']''' 22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
* I was inactive on this case and will leave the decision to my colleagues. ] ]] 10:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
*Per Roger, that's likely the cleanest. ] 03:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Speed of light (Brews ohare) ==

'''Case link: ] '''

'''Initiated by ''' <small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> '''at''' 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|JohnBlackburne}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Brews ohare}}

=== Statement by JohnBlackburne ===
It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but ] has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case, {{la|Wavelength}}, because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today , as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again).

My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: the RfC was the place to discuss content. This is neither the time or the place. I made on the content during the RfC, there is no point doing so again. You the RfC, after only a week, so it seemed you were happy that the discussion had run its course and consensus had been reached. It's your to argue and after that that's the problem. It was the RfC that drew me in, as a site-wide notice on a topic I'm interested in. As always if you find fault with my contributions please provide diffs not vague accusations. The link to find them is in my signature.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@] You do know that about editors that they have not volunteered themselves is ], don't you? If I cared to keep my identity private I would not use my real name here but it is still strictly forbidden.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@]: the problem is suggesting something to Brews ohare doesn't work. Asking politely doesn't work. Asking pointedly with links to relevant policies doesn't work. It's not that he doesn't understand such suggestions and requests: he just refuses to accept them, and has instead written essays saying ] and ]. Even arbitration didn't work. The only thing that stopped him disrupting talk pages and wasting many editors time by creating multiple RfCs
(
, all this year)
and was a block.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dicklyon ===
The problem is not so much "incorrect material", but tangential, poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information, and a few bits wrong, too, combined with refusal to hear or understand objections. When I was defending the ] article against his bloat and nonsense in the summer of 2009, I thought he was probably an overreaching grad student; turns out he's a prof emeritus and fellow of the IEEE, so no dummy. But in the years since, he demonstrated repeatedly an inability to collaborate, or to even understand the objections of other editors to what he is trying to do. This blew up more at ] because there were plenty of other serious editors there. I'm very happy that JohnBlackburne and a few others have been recently helping out at ], because I don't have the time or energy to take on that defense again. I have no idea how to convince Dr. Brews to take on a workable style, but this is a drag. The arbitration was supposed to help put him back on a tolerable track; I hope the arbs will look at how to help here. ] (]) 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the technical argument is Brew's claim that "the Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that". That's nonsense. The Fourier series is one tool used to analyze periodic functions, primarily in the context of linear systems for which a decomposition into sinusoids allows easy solutions and characterizations of behaviors. This is not the case in the situation where he is introducing the Fourier series into the wavelength article; none of the (relatively few) sources that mention the connection show any way that it is useful. It is a red herring, a dead-end tangent. Decomposition of waves into sinusoids is indeed important, but least so in the context of periodic-in-space waves; the wavelength article is hardly the place to get into this. ] (]) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Headbomb ===
Not this crap again... that's all I have to say. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Brews_ohare ===
The gist of Blackburne's complaint is that I have attempted to insert "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths". The text so-described is presented on ] as a proposed addition as follows:
{| cellpadding="2" style="border: 1px solid darkgray; background:#E6F2CE;" align="center"
|The wavelength, say &lambda;, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself. Sinusoidal waves with wavelengths related to &lambda; can superimpose to create this spatially periodic waveform. Such a superposition of sinusoids is mathematically described as a ], and is simply a summation of the sinusoidally varying component waves:
|-
|.. "''Fourier's theorem'' states that a function ''f(x)'' of spatial period &lambda;, can be synthesized as a sum of harmonic functions whose wavelengths are integral submultiples of &lambda; (''i.e.'' &lambda;, &lambda;/2, &lambda;/3, ''etc.'')."<ref name=Schaum group=Note/>
|-
|'''References'''
{{Reflist |group=Note|refs=
<ref name=Schaum group =Note>
{{cite book |title=Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Optics |publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ZIZmyOG-DxwC&pg=PA205
|page=205 |author=Eugene Hecht |year=1975 |isbn=0070277303}}
</ref>
}}
|}
If the direct quote from the cited source fails to convince, here are three others:
*{{cite book |title=Optical physics
|author=Ariel Lipson, Stephen G. Lipson, Henry Lipson |page=94 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2010 |isbn=0521493455
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aow3o0dhyjYC&pg=PA94 |quote= Fourier's theroem states that any periodic function ''f(x)'' can be expressed as the sum of a series of sinusoidal functions which have wavelengths that are integral fractions of the wavelength &lambda; of ''f(x)''
}}
*{{cite book |title=An Introduction to Mineral Sciences |page=65 |quote=''Fourier analysis'' is a mathematical method of expressing any periodic function with wavelength &lambda; as a sum of sinusoidal functions whose wavelengths are integral fractions of &lambda; (''i.e.'' &lambda;, &lambda;/2, &lambda;/3, ''etc.) |url=http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mineral-Sciences-Andrew-Putnis/dp/0521429471#reader_0521429471 |isbn=0521429471 |year=1992 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |author=Andrew Putnis}}
*{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=o7sXm2GSr9IC&pg=PA78&dq=%22As+Fourier+demonstrated,+complex,+but+periodic%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Aw-1T8PdOcqsiAK0jomzAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22As%20Fourier%20demonstrated%2C%20complex%2C%20but%20periodic%22&f=false |title=Introduction to Macromolecular Crystallography |chapter=Figure 4.1 |page=78 |author=Alexander McPherson |isbn= 0470185902 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |year=2009 |edition=2nd}} This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.

I believe this sets aside Blackburne's claim that I attempt to "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths", and also Dicklyon's claims that this text represents "poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information" or of inserting "bloat and nonsense". It also refutes mistaken that "wavelength" is not applicable to functions periodic in space ("And your statement that ‘''The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself'' ’ is contrary to typical usage of the term ‘wavelength’ " ] (]) 23:29, 15 May 2012).

At this point, it is established that content is not the issue here, and smearing this proposal as an example of bloat, flawed understanding, and idiosyncrasy is wide of the mark, and reflects poorly upon the grasp of the text by its critics. As is a self-professed "research engineer in Silicon Valley" and a declared mathematician, one may wonder how these basic misconceptions have arisen. If further support for the content presented is required, I can supply an unending list of texts describing Fourier series and its application to periodic functions, and a case can be made that Fourier series ''is'' the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that.

What remains is the general claim that my ''Talk-page'' discussion insists too much on adding this aside to the reader, over "objections" of other authors. I'd suggest that these objections have been largely based upon misconceptions about the content of the proposed text and its purpose. My attempts to explain that this is an aside pointing out the applicability of the mathematical machinery of periodicity to the topic of spatially periodic waveforms has been addressed by Dicklyon using the argument that Fourier series is not useful for this purpose, which seems to me to be patently absurd. The entire history of functional analysis begins with Fourier series applied to periodic functions, and it is the subject of innumerable textbooks.

On any other WP article a minor sourced quotation making a connection between one topic ('']'') and others ('']'') on WP would attract no attention whatsoever. I am forced to speculate that the primary source of the extreme response here is that Dicklyon and Blackburne have a prior history with me, and it is their lingering objections to my contributing to WP that drives them to bizarre claims contrary to sources, not this particular content. ] (]) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My interchange with Dicklyon on ] extends over several topics, and not just this particular point. Sometimes such discussion gets somewhere, and sometimes it doesn't. That is what Talk pages are for. ] (]) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example of a fruitful outcome, a discussion on ] led to my authoring of the article ] when it appeared that this topic could not be addressed within ] itself. Other discussions led to the inclusion of the topic of ''local wavelength'' and a figure, the inclusion of the section on ''crystals'' and the notion of aliasing with another figure, and to the sections on ''interference and diffraction'' with two more figures (all figures created by myself). In fact, seven of the figures in ] were contributed by myself and accompanied by additional text and sources arrived at through discussion. ] (]) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the comment by Count Iblis. I believe he has a point in a way. I recognize that most of my interactions with Dicklyon prove difficult, and the proposed text was clearly one of those. I modified my proposal several times to make it a more and more minor addition, hoping to get some recognition that ] in some form should be mentioned in ]. Some formulation of this point could be acceptable to all if the point were developed jointly in a constructive manner. But the practical approach is for me to keep in mind the limitations upon what is possible with Dicklyon and Blackburne, and recognize that Blackburne will adopt every opportunity to drag AN/I or some Administrator into what would otherwise settle itself. ] (]) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Count Iblis: Thanks for the added remarks. Dealing with Dicklyon at length has succeeded sometimes, but Blackburne's intolerance makes this more unlikely than in the past. My efforts to widen opinion using ] hasn't worked. Your recommendation of ] as an alternative mechanism to get other editors involved, and to limit my own participation, is worth trying in the future. ] (]) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@Count Iblis: You raise the very practical question "''how can you actually get something done here while facing opposition?''", and suggest an approach bases upon aggressive revision of the article Main page that, if properly crafted, will force Talk page objections into a productive framework. It is unfortunate that so often Talk pages must be viewed in this light as struggling against opposition, instead of joining collaboration. In particular, if some of the editors interested in a page perhaps do not share even the same concept of what a WP article should be, or view exchange of ideas as survival of the fittest, or see WP as a venue to establish who counts, that is the result. ] (]) 23:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
:::@Count Iblis: I believe you are right that where I have made new articles or added large sections I have been more successful. For example, ] developed when arguments by Dicklyon and others prevented exploration of periodic envelopes on ]. By creation of a new article, these editors were faced with a wide open argument about deletion, which they did not attempt. Likewise, with Blackburne on ], as you mentioned. In that case he tried for deletion and lost in the wider community. Also, ] avoided the controversy portions of this topic caused on ]. Any approach that widens the number of editors that might become involved in a dispute proves beneficial. ] (]) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to ''My very best wishes'', I gather that you pose a query to me that can be narrowly expressed something like this: "Assuming that Brews_ohare is completely correct in stating that a sourced quotation has pertinence to the article ], and assuming further that opposition to its inclusion is not well founded, would you, Brews_ohare, nonetheless agree to desist from pursuing this particular attempt to include this material in ]?" I'd answer that the posited assumptions reflect how I think about this matter, but, as stated above in my response to Count Iblis, I also see that there is little point in pursuing the issue on ] under the prevailing circumstances. So, yes, I'll move on. Your question, however, is posed more broadly, not restricted to this episode on ]. In a broader context, regarding discussion in general, I'll have to consider carefully to what extent Dicklyon is open to discussion should he appear on another Talk page. I'd point out the paragraph above detailing positive outcomes for ] in interaction with Dick. These were the result of useful but difficult discussions with Dick. Now a further difficulty to weigh in future is that any extended discussion with Dick will draw in Blackburne, who will use any detailed discussion as an opportunity to invite Administrator attention, even using a pretext such as this supposed query about "clarification" of an expired sanction. I will doubtless be more careful in the future. ] (]) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:@''My very best wishes'': Thanks for the remarks. Yes, there is no general answer to these kinds of problem. The answer appears in this case to depend upon my exercising more care in dealing with these two, regardless of the topic or the merits. ] (]) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@''My very best wishes'': I interpret your added remark as a suggestion that I be topic banned to reduce clamor on ]. If your suggestion is a page-ban, it is hardly necessary, as it is clear to me that the present discussion is over. If your suggestion is more general, I would strongly object that such a serious action goes far beyond anything suggested by ]. ] (]) 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
::@''My very best wishes'': I'd add to these remarks that many past prolonged discussions on ] have proved productive, as evidenced by the discussions attached in ] to the seven figures I have contributed there. Not all prolonged, and even heated, discussions are useless, although they may not generate a glow of satisfaction. Of course, the atmosphere on Talk pages is not always ideal (to say the least), and results often stem from debate as much as from collaboration. However, if the discussions on ] had been inhibited by the threat of sanctions, the article ] would not be as good. ] (]) 14:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Srleffler, the proposed text in the green box is not merely rehash. The proposal narrowed in scope and purpose over time to become what it now is, a simple cross-reference between ] and ], a much more limited reference than that found in the four sources cited above. However, your objections never addressed this change, as explicitly to you. ] (]) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Blackburne's objections to my "outing" him: I was unaware that referring to a link to your photo would prove upsetting, as it is immediately available from the posted on your . My apologies. I also was unaware of any policy in this regard. I have removed the link. ] (]) 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Blackburne: I'm gratified to see you read my two essays , though surprised at the tone of your reaction and your invented titles for them. You now are using this "clarification" as a foot in the door to squeeze in a smear campaign. ] (]) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved My very best wishes ===
I am not quite sure why the overall atmosphere in Physics is significantly more hostile than in Biology and Chemistry. It could be that articles in this area are better developed and therefore more difficult to improve, or it could be that some editors want everything to be described exactly as in their favorite textbook (although there are alternative interpretations) and in their favorite version of article, so they should be reminded of ] and ]. In this particular situation, I do not think that returning to old subjects was necessarily a problem because consensus can change, but Brews must carefully avoid to be engaged in ]. I do not see an obvious WP:DE by anyone at the moment. ] (]) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:@Brews. Please consider the following situation. There is certain perfectly sourced information that you think must be included, but there is also a couple of other people who do not want it to be included, and they are wrong. Would you agree to drop the issue and edit something else? Please read ] before response. (<small>Just to clarify, I am not telling here that "opponents" of Brews are wrong).</small> ] (]) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::@Brews. Thank you. I think there is no general answer to this, and it well could be that the "other guys" are engaged in ], paid advocacy, or a personal crusade against an editor, even if they form majority (once again, I am talking generally here, not about people in this particular incident). This is a situation when ] sometimes comes in a contradiction with WP:NPOV and ]. But unfortunately, there is no other choice, but to follow WP:Consensus if we do not want to be sanctioned. ] (]) 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:::@Brews. No, I do not have an opinion that people who continue civil discussions even when they are in minority should be topic-banned. But I am not sure about our policies in such cases and therefore asked to clarify. In a couple of cases I looked at (Pythagorean_theorem and Wavelength), I think that your suggested changes do not significantly improve these pages (although there is nothing wrong with your materials to be included), so you could spend your time more efficiently by switching to other articles in the area of Physics, as you did during the initial period of your editing here. <u>However, in , you were absolutely right</u> , and there is now a constructive discussion on this article talk page. ] (]) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
*This looks to me as prolonged disputes on numerous talk pages, such as and now . The arguments by Brews are not unreasonable, and he provides some valid sources. At the same time, I can agree that such discussions are frequently fruitless, distract people from making productive contributions, and therefore can lead to sanctions. But we have much longer and even less productive discussions in many other subject areas, for example . Should we just look who contributed most in such discussions and topic-ban the leader? Please clarify. ] (]) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis ===
Brews is making the mistake of trying to get his way by posting more RFCs. Thing is that being right on the issue doesn't give you the right to edit your way. The first time, I did see the RFC Brews posted, and I wanted to comment, but I abandoned that due to lack of time. I did not agree with Brews' proposal, but I had an idea about an alternative text that would mention Fourier transforms.

What struck me also was the lack of such contructive efforts, because obviously, Fourier transforms does in principle have a place in an article about wavelengths, regardless of how flawed Brews' proposal was. So, there is also something wrong about the general editing climate if the issue isn't properly debated. If editor X raises an issue and he has a point, then one should discuss the point that does exist and steer the discussion toward that, and not focus on opposing by ignoring the real points that exist and only focussing on where the editor goes wrong. Because then that editor will eventually correct himself and you end up dancing around the central point for a long time, causing everyone to get irritated.

So, I would suggest Brews to limit the time he spends online here editing and arguing on the talk page. Try to get it (almost) right the first time you propose something, or when you edit something in an article. To the others, I would say that they should be more positive about any proposals. This doesn't mean that you have to accept something that is bad, just that you would in that case end up rejecting in a way that would more likely conclude the debate. E.g. on the ] page I see too much opposition for proposed edits while in the end you had to accept the proposal. Surely, that could have been agreed to weeks earlier by acknowledging that the proposer did have a legitimate point here? ] (]) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Brews, by limiting the time spend here, what I meant was the time you spend here in some uphill effort to get something into the article. I would recommend that as soon as you experience any difficulties like in this case, you drop a line at Wikiproject physics instead of letting the issue fester for many weeks. But then, after briefly explaining your point, you should let others take a look while you reduce your input significantly. There is, of course, nothing wrong with spending a lot of time editing and arguing constructively on Misplaced Pages.

Don't think that everyone at Wikiproject physics is going to oppose you, because of the past history. I remember that Headbomb asked for input there because he was having difficulties editing the Planck law article last year. He got support on some points, but on some other points he did not get support. So, this isn't some rubber stamp procedure where the people who you got difficulties with in the past, always get their way.

I think this is better than posting RFCs, because this is more likely to lead to new editors actually getting involved in the article. What matters in the end is if some text is going to be seen to be appropriate for the article by the larger community and eventually by the readers of Misplaced Pages, not by any particular editor. ] (]) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne, you have been de-facto patrolling Brews edits the last few years. You do this with the best of intentions (and that not necessarily actively, you may simply see Brews' edits on your wachlist), but in practice this leads to problems of the same type we've seen in quite a few other ArbCom cases. Your Wiki-philosophy is too much at odds with Brews'. Where there are two completely opposite but legitimate points of views regarding edits, you two end up preferring the different options, and ].
If you then also find yourself having to cite Wiki-policies to Brews on other occasions when its more serious and you intent to go to a noticeboard if he doesn't listen, he may not take you serous, even though the issue may now not ambiguous, i.e. Brews is wrong and you are right.
I guess Brews also needs to see examples of how you can actually get something done here while facing opposition, instead of only being told not to do something here whenever there is opposition. The example given by My very best wishes is a good thing to explore. So, the lede of the Fourier transform article now says that:
"The '''Fourier transform''' is a mathematical operation with many applications in ] and ] that expresses a mathematical ] of time as a function of ], known as its ]; ] guarantees that this can always be done."

I have to say that I find this definition mentioning time completely unacceptable too. The question is then how to go about changing this definition, without having to fight some uphill battle on the talk page. If I imagine how things are likely to go wrong with Brews insisting on the relevant issue on the talk page, it's actually because Brews will be "too nice" at the start. He will make the most minimalist of proposals you can imagine. He thinks by doing that he can avoid stepping on people's toes. But then, because he went out of his way with such a proposal, he will argue fanatically for it, ending up annoying people after a while.

My style of editing is completely different, I would completely rewrite the introduction of the article to make room for a more general definition. That creates far more room to deal with legitimate opposition than some minimalist proposal affecting only one or two sentences. I would not engage in arguments with people who oppose me but have no good arguments, who have ] issues. I gave them less room to exploit other issues to argue about. So, my starting position is much stronger than that of Brews. But this does require more work, as you have to rewrite a lot more of the article. ] (]) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews, for the articles you have been involved in it looks like that way. Now, I'm not saying that you have always been right in disputes, just that you have ended up being opposed with what you wanted to do quite often. Then, you can look at what you have been successul at doing here. I think that the larger editing efforts by you have been more productive, like the large sections of some classical mechanics articles (e.g. about curvelinear motion). I have the impression that whenever you engage in editing well developed articles here on more minor points, that this leads to problems.

So, perhaps you should think about creating new articles, or edit complete new sections in articles. That will automatically move you toward articles that are not well developed yet, and then you are less likely to encounter editors with strong ] feelings, plus you have all the benefits I wrote about above. My editing here is more focussed on these sorts of articles, see e.g. my recent edits to ].

If someone were to object to these edits, and start a discussion about that, then the ball would be more in his court than mine, because the formula and the proof should be in either this article or somewhere else. So, simply reverting and deleting the edits because, say, it is too textbook like, or because no sources are given, isn't really an option. These are issues that can be fixed by including sources or rewriting to make it less textbook like. But such discussions are less likely to happen in the first place.

Note that when you created the Idee Fixe article, it was put on PROD and then on AFD, so the opposer of that article had to argue with the larger community, not you, and he lost his argument. While you also argued a lot on the AFD page, you could have left only a brief comment there and then completely ignore the opposer. ] (]) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Srleffler ===
The fundamental problem here is Brews' persistent, tendentious style. In ] Brews introduced some weak material relating to nonsinusoidal waves and Fourier series decompositions of them. After much discussion, some of his ideas got reworked and put into the article and others did not. He just can't let go of the concepts that didn't make it in, though. No matter what arguments are raised or how many other editors object, he just keeps bringing forward the same ideas over and over and over again, with slight variations of form. Every now and then he files an RfC, and when his proposal is rejected he immediately resurrects it in yet another slight variation and starts all over again. It is tiresome, and a waste of time that could be put to better use editing other articles.--] (]) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Looie496 ===

I am a bystander with no involvement other than being appalled at how much disruption one editor can cause. I would like to note that Remedy 2 of the case was ''Brews ohare is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Misplaced Pages.''. If that remedy has any specific meaning at all, it ought to mean that Brews ohare is subject to sanctions via some sort of expedited process. ] (]) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Other ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* '''Awaiting statements''', particularly from Brews Ohare. At first (brief) sight, any sanctions have expired; no discretionary sanctions were authorised; and the original case was sufficiently long ago (autumn 2009) to be left to lie. If there is misconduct, and if it very closely mirrors the 2009 case, and obviously I'm not expressing an opinion on either of those points, it might be possible to persuade arbitrators to re-open the 2009 case as it is within ArbCom discretion to re-open any prior case at any time. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
* I have concerns that Brews is returning to ], but if that is the case, we can probably resolve this with a motion re-restricting him from the topic area. ] (]) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
* Having reviewed this dispute, like SirFozzie I am concerned. However, I am minded to open a review of the original case, and would be uncomfortable with remedying this dispute by motion. We need a proper case (if an abridged one) with suitable mechanisms for evidence submission—not a Pop-Up Hearing on this page. ] ]] 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
:: Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. ] ]] 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
*Too soon for another case or motion, and would encourage other dispute resolution first. If via dispute resolution there is clear consensus of ], and Brews Ohare is warned and clearly ignores the warning, then it could be returned to us and we might be able to deal with this by a motion rather than a full case. I would suggest to Brews Ohare that it is OK to raise an issue once, but if consensus is against him, then he needs to wait 12 months before raising the same issue again. I think all of us will admit to having areas where we feel our views are the right ones, but consensus is against us. It can be frustrating, but it would be very damaging to the project if we all repeatedly raised the issue, so we move on, in the greater interests of the project as a whole. ''']''' ''']''' 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Climate change (A Quest For Knowledge) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Climate change}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Remedy 18

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|A Quest For Knowledge}} (initiator)

===Amendment 1===
* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
* Removal of topic ban

==== Statement by A Quest For Knowledge ====
I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at ]. The main reason is I am not the same editor I was back then. Mainly, I no longer get that involved in content disputes that don't concern me. (In fact, I rarely get too involved in content disputes on topics that do interest me.) At the time I stumbled into the CC topic area, I was a relative newbie and had no idea content disputes like that existed or that it had lasted years. Now, when I encounter contentious articles, I prefer to stay on the sidelines, either by avoiding the dispute or providing advice at a distance such as ] or Seamus (dog). <p>Since the case concluded, I've maintained a clean record despite working in a number of contentious areas such as ], ] and ] to name a few. (I dropped out of Astrology after Ludwigs2 was topic banned and dropped out of Mass killings under Communist regimes after the article was locked.) I either WikiGnomed and performed other minor changes, or I attempted to provide advice to other editors. The only topic space that is contentious that I do involve myself in is ] where I'm happy to say I (along with other fine editors) were able to resolve a long-standing content dispute over how fringe theories should be covered. See . Some other recent examples of me collaborating effectively with other editors include ] and the new header instructions at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
<br />
<br />
'''@William M. Connolley:''' FWIW, CC is not a topic I'm interested in and I have no plans to return to it in any substantive way. (Believe me, if I had known that a simple curiosity would turn into what it did, I never would have gotten involved.) As I said, I now prefer to offer advice as a distance. If someone posts something at one of our noticeboards or opens an RfC, I'd like the option to comment, but I don't plan on getting any more involved than that.
<p>
To your first point, I said ''relative newbie''. Yes, I was familiar with our main content policies but completely naive in thinking I could single-handedly fix the CC topic-space. I would never try to do that now. Also, I was completely unfamiliar with all the nuances of our various policies and guidelines which you only learn with experience.
<p>
Since you brought it up, yes, I edit-warred and referred to editors in groups ("faction", "cabal", etc.) which contributed to a ] atmosphere. I don't agree that I was uncivil. The lone diff in the finding on civility has me saying "Please don't waste our time" which IMO is not worth a finding-of-fact in an ArbCom case.
<p>
To be honest, the topic-ban is a black mark hanging over me, and I'd like a sense of closure. Thanks. ] (]) 18:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
<p>
'''@Jclemens:''' I think that my biggest mistake is that I just simply argued too much. Misplaced Pages's rules encourage discussion, but at some point, that discussion becomes deadlocked or counter productive. Since the close of the case, I've learned not to repeat a point more than once or twice. If an argument fails to sway someone the first couple times, repeating it 20 more times isn't going to convince them. If anything, it's more likely to make the discussion more polarized.
<p>I've learned that sometimes it's a good idea to slow down a dispute. That is to say that if I'm a discussion, and someone posts something in a thread, rather than respond immediately, I'll wait a few hours or even limit myself to one post a day.
<p>I've learned that when in a dispute to try to come up with alternative solutions that might be mutually acceptable. For example, at ], I objected to the use of the phrase "reputable astrologer" in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather than insist on the One True Way, I offered 3 possible solutions and asked that editor if any of them were acceptable.
<p>I'm much better at judging whether a proposal has a chance at reaching consensus. If I don't think something has a realistic chance at gaining consensus, I'll say my peace and move on.
<p>I have better perspective now and don't take things as seriously. I think this is best exemplified by . I used to be ''that guy''.
<p>There's more, of course, but hopefully that's a good start. If you'd like more details or have any more questions or concerns, I'd be happy to provide more details for you. Thanks. ] (]) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
<p>
'''@SirFonzie''': I'm genuinely confused by your commment. I thought I did explain what I learned and why I won't do it again. My reply to Jclemens gave of what I learned and how I handle things differently now. ] (]) 15:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
<p>
'''@AGK''': I think that you can see improvement during the case itself. Most of the diffs about battleground behavior were close to a year old by the time that the case concluded, leaving the remaining finding a single incident of edit-warring (I broke 3RR on a 1RR article) that was six months old. It was a temporary lapse of judement and one I have never repeated, proving, I think, that I learn from my mistakes. I now try to follow ] and ''rarely'' even get to 2RR let alone 3RR. Thanks. ] (]) 17:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by William M. Connolley ====

As currently formulated, I oppose this request. AQFK attempts to minimise his errors by asserting that he was a newbie then. But he wasn't. Furthermore, I can see none of what has been required of previous requests - viz, specific acknowledgement of errors and a promise not to repeat them (edit warring, incivility, promoting battleground, etc) ] (]) 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


==== Statement by Youreallycan ====
Willing to consider reintroduction to the topic area without ] edits to see how it goes for a few months, <s> living people were attacked.</s> - After a nudge - I have struck the last part - it wasn't meant specific to this user - it was more of a general comment in regards to what was going on prior to the CC case and this user has pointed out to me that he was never judged to have committed any ] violations. I support a halfway house for all these users reintegration into the topic area, non BLP first to see how it develops. <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 04:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Count Iblis ====
Similar to Youreallycan, it may be a good idea to let AQFK back into the topic area without restrictions for a while and then evaluate how things are going. Instead of a fixed time, it may be better to re-evaluate after some number of edits. There may be some problems which may not surface within a few months if he doesn't edit a lot in the topic area. ] (]) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by other editor ====

=== Further discussion ===
:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
* '''Comment''': I have no problem with lifting this restriction. I haven't assiduously trawled through AQFK's contributions but my general impression from seeing them around is that they have moved on considerably from their earlier, um, dogmatism and developed clue. In the event that fresh problems arise, they can be handled by discretionary sanctions. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' "I don't like being under a topic ban" is not a good reason for removing a topic ban. If anything, it's an argument ''against'' removing it. Better arguments include "I learned and know better now" and "I've run into a situation where this sanction is preventing me from improving the encyclopedia". ] (]) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Generally agree with Jclemens. ] (]) 14:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
* On the one hand AQFK is not putting forward a persuasive argument for lifting the topic block with his comment that he has no interest in the topic, but on the other he states that he has edited in contentious areas since his topic ban and has had no complaints. We accept that people make mistakes and we hope that they learn from them. AQFK is saying that he has learned from his mistake, so there seems to reason to keep him banned. Unless someone can raise concerns about his editing in the past 12 months, I would '''support lifting the topic ban'''. ''']''' ''']''' 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
* Thank you to AQFK if the quality of his editing at contentious articles has genuinely improved; this is always heartening to see. However, I do not hesitate in saying I am minded to decline this appeal. ] ]] 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

== Amendment request: Scientology (Jayen466) ==
'''Initiated by ''' '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 10:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Scientology}}

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Jayen466}}

===Amendment 1===
* Request lifting of Rick Ross topic ban ("Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.")

==== Statement by Jayen466 ====
Since there is currently a fashion for this, I think I ought to apply myself. In the ] case in 2009, almost exactly three years ago, I was placed under a topic ban "from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined". This was largely the result of concerns over my fall 2008 edit-warring at the Ross BLP with a ] (since desysopped, topic-banned and community-banned), and the BLP subject's personal objection to my editing his biography.

Remedy 3B of ARBSCI provides that:

* Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Misplaced Pages and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably 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 no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

The current situation is that:

* Since the arbitration case, I have reviewed at least a couple of dozen featured article candidates at FAC. I have received multiple ] for my FAC work, among them one from User:ChrisO in October 2009, who thanked me for my "outstanding work in organising and resolving citation issues in the ] article", demonstrating our ability to work constructively together to create featured content. (He also received a barnstar from me for his quite extraordinary, and lovingly crafted article.) Closer to this topic area, I received a barnstar from ], thanking me for my help in bringing ] to Featured Article status. For my work reviewing FACs related to German history, ] gave me a barnstar thanking me for my "incredible ability to find the minutest ''minutiae'', and for suggestions on ], ], ], and others."

*As for my own editing, since the ARBSCI case I have brought ] to GA status, and shepherded the article through a successful GA Review presided over by ], at the end of which the article retained its GA status.

*I have written two featured articles in other topic areas, ] and ] (the latter co-written and co-nominated with Auntieruth55).

*I have written about 25 DYKs since ARBSCI, listed on my user page; a good proportion of them about religious scholars.

*In September 2010, I was awarded an Imperial Triple Crown by User:Casliber, for my contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC.

*I am well aware of BLP policy, and indeed have successfully proposed and/or contributed a number of refinements to Misplaced Pages's BLP policy over the years (WP:BLPCAT, No eventualism, discouraging contributions from individuals in a significant legal or personal dispute with the subject of any article, etc.).

*I have acquired a modest reputation as a defender of BLPs against malicious editing, acknowledged by a few barnstars to that effect, and have written a number of related essays (], ] (described as by Jimbo Wales, one of the founders of our project), and ]).

*Indeed, in acknowledgment of my efforts, I recently received a from Jimbo, stating that {{xt|This explanation of BLP policy is one of the best I have seen. You have it exactly right. ] (]) 11:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)}}.

*I understand that given Mr Ross's feelings and anxieties about me, as someone once affiliated with a group against which he campaigned vigorously, it would be quite inappropriate for me to ever edit his BLP again.

*I have not made a single edit to his biography's talk page since the conclusion of ARBSCI, even though the talk page notice at the conclusion of the case would have allowed me to do so ({{xt| "Whilst the user is not prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page, they may not edit the article itself."}}).

*I have no interest whatsoever in contributing to that article or its talk page at any time in the future.

*I have never been blocked for edit-warring or any other reason.

*I have never edited with any other account than this one.

*The edits that resulted in the Ross topic ban were made in 2008, and the restriction served its purpose long ago. Its only role now is for it to be brought up against me as some kind of black mark. The risk of problem recurrence in the article is nil, and I therefore ask the arbitrators to be so kind as to lift the restriction.

@Roger: I have no intention of returning to the topic area ("articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined"). Given that we submitted arbitration evidence about each other, I would not want him editing my biography, if I had one, and he is surely entitled to the same peace of mind. Regards. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 08:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens, FWIW, I understand I was an idiot then, and I am sorry. In fact, I owe Ross an apology. Re-reading some of the article versions I defended in 2008 is a cringeworthy experience. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 07:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Count Iblis ====
What I wrote about Prioryman also applies to Jayen466; he is one the best editors we have on Misplaced Pages. There may have been grounds to impose some restrictions in the past, but to keep them in force given his record is not justified. Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone, so when we impose a topic ban, we are actually making the judgement that the editor in question is so much worse than a randomly selected person from the World's population, that you need to restrict that editor.

Even if we only focus on the past problems involving Jayen466 and Prioryman in the Scientology topic area, one can also argue that because they have been exposed to these problems in the past, they have become better editors as a result of that today. ] (]) 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Carrite ====
I would recommend against removing restrictions from JN, who was a principal in a veritable holy war against User:Cirt. The latter wound up being desysopped and we lost one of the best closers at AfD, while JN walked away with a "tsk tsk." Cirt's activity on this topic strikes me as being an underlying cause of this battle — a mini-POV war, if you will. ] (]) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Youreallycan====
User:Jayen should get a Misplaced Pages retainer for getting rid (helping to catalog and draw attention to the policy violations of) ] a violator of the project of the highest order (the worst I have seen in three years) that after ] restrictions here has simply moved to create BLP violating content on wikinews. As for Cirt's AFD prowess - he used to close ten a minute with one word closes, nothing special there. - this reply is in response to Carrite's comment, although what this request has to do with User:Cirt is really beyond me.<font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 11:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

====Statement by John Carter====
I regret that, to my own shame, I had in the past "stood up" for Cirt on some issues of disagreement between him and JN. We all know the ultimate outcome there. I also acknowledge that the subject himself, Rick Ross, has been a bit of a controversial one. But JN is one of the best writers and editors I think we have, and this is a subject of interest to him, as it is, to a perhaps lesser degree, to me and others. I believe we would all be better off with as many very good editors like him (not so much me) involved in all articles as possible. Also, I am very heartened by some of JN's own comments above, which indicate that he would now act very differently in controversial matters. I think/hope that I have become a bit more neutral over the years, and I believe from my interactions with him JN certainly has. I can see no reason not to have the ban lifted. Worst comes to worst, the page could be placed under discretionary sanctions, which probably isn't that bad of an idea for most controversial subjects around here. ] (]) 20:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
==== Statement by other editors====
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

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

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
* '''Awaiting statements''' but in principle I doubt the value of retaining this ancient restriction, especially when discretionary sanctions are available to deal with any fresh issues. I note what Carrite has said but I don't think keeping rdestrictions in place on Jayen466 as a quid pro quo for his Cirt-related activity is either particularly fair or relevant. I do though have a question for Jayen466. He says "the risk of problem recurrence in the article is nil". Does that mean he has plans to return to the Ross topic but has mended his ways or that he has no intention of returning to edit there? &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:* Okay, Jayen, noted thanks. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 08:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*I think I disagree with Roger here. But, before going to formally oppose, I will await further statements. ] (]) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*Agreed with JClemens... this smacks to me more of "I must clear the black mark against my name" and not as much "I've learned better and won't do it again, and here's why I won't do it again" ] (]) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' "I don't like being under a topic ban" is not a good reason for removing a topic ban. If anything, it's an argument ''against'' removing it. Better arguments include "I learned and know better now" and "I've run into a situation where this sanction is preventing me from improving the encyclopedia". In this case, both the first and second arguments are made, but my impression is that the first is the actual reason for this request. ] (]) 05:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
*There is something odd about a request to lift a topic ban on an article that one has "no interest whatsoever in contributing to ... at any time in the future", but, as with A Quest For Knowledge, I don't see that in itself as a reason to decline lifting the ban. The request is perhaps over egged, including the names of two Committee members plus Jimbo, but, again, that is no reason to decline. What counts is that Jayen466 has recognised the faults that led to the ban, and has evidence of good editing since the ban was imposed. The ] has been mentioned, and Jayen was criticised in that for his conduct toward another editor, but he was not criticised for his editing, so while there may be some concerns regarding Jayen, they are not in relation to the subject of this request. I '''support lifting the topic ban'''. ''']''' ''']''' 00:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
* Legacy restrictions are demeaning, and I see no benefit from retaining this sanction. As my colleagues note, any new problems can be resolved rather elegantly with standard enforcement of the standing discretionary sanctions. I am minded to grant this appeal. ] ]] 10:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

== Amendment request: Scientology (Prioryman) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Scientology}}

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Prioryman}}

===Amendment 1===
* Request lifting of binding voluntary restrictions

==== Statement by Prioryman ====
''Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBCC appeal above. The discussion there has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal above, and this ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.''

In the ] case in 2009 I agreed to a set of binding voluntary restrictions. These were that within the topic area (i) I limit my edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) I make no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) I refrain from sysop action of whatever nature. The findings against me concerned conduct as a sysop, which is no longer relevant as I no longer exercise that function, and errors in the sourcing of articles. I acknowledged error at the time and voluntarily proposed the restrictions under which I currently operate.

The case came about due to concerns about COI editing and role accounts . I was not involved in those issues and was only added to the case at a very late stage. There was no suggestion at the time that I was involved in any ongoing issues; all of the findings against me related to a small number of historical edits, the most recent of which had been made a year before the case and the oldest of which went back all the way to August 2005, over four years before the case.

Remedy 3B of the case provides that:

* Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Misplaced Pages and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably 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 no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

The current situation is that:

* Since the case I have brought two articles in the topic area, ] and ] up to GA standard. In other topic areas, I have created four more FAs, two more GAs and over 60 DYKs. My editing has been entirely uncontroversial and widely praised, earning 16 barnstars in the last 18 months alone.
* My current involvement in the ARBSCI topic area is negligible and is limited only to minor maintenance (vandalism reversion etc) of articles that I've written. My editing in the topic area in the last three years has been entirely unproblematic and has not resulted in any disputes with any other editors in the topic area.
* I inadvertently breached the restrictions with a couple of minor edits in July 2010 to articles that I did not know were covered by the topic area. This was resolved without further action in discussions by email with arbitrators on 13 and 14 August 2010.
* The issues raised in the original case are ancient history now - the most recent diffs relate to edits made five years ago, and the oldest relate to edits seven years ago. I submit that this is more than long enough for a reconsideration to be due.
* Although I have not conflicted with any editors in the topic area, the ARBSCI sanctions have been (ab)used by individuals associated with Misplaced Pages Review to snipe at me repeatedly and make unsubstantiated false claims about my editing. I deeply regret that although I asked at the outset of this appeal for topic-banned or interaction-banned editors to observe their restrictions on participating in this process, this has not been respected and has resulted in unnecessary controversy. As Roger Davies has rightly said, the ARBSCI sanctions are now "more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth".
* The BLP findings against me in this case relate to two articles: {{article|Barbara Schwarz}} (deleted in December 2007, 18 months before the ARBSCI case) and two edits to ] made in September 2006 and December 2008. That is the entirety of it. Even going by the findings, it's 3½ years since any of my BLP edits in the topic area have been deemed faulty. At the time of the case there were no ongoing BLP issues of any sort.
* Since I created this account I have edited multiple BLPs using reliable sources with no controversy whatsoever, including those in sensitive topic areas; example include ] (Northern Ireland), ] (crime), ] (crime), ] and ] (Balkans) (and note the BLP enforcements and ). I've collaborated successfully with multiple editors, including Jimbo himself, on BLPs. Jimbo highlighted and praised my contributions to ] in .
* There has not been a single dispute about the quality, neutrality or sourcing of any of my contributions to the topic area since the case.
* I'm not involved in any off-wiki activism related to the topic area, nor have I been for a very long time (in fact since well before the case).

The sanctions are no longer necessary for the following reasons:

* I have more than demonstrated my commitment to the goals of Misplaced Pages and my ability to work constructively with other editors in this topic area over the last three years. I've also demonstrated an ability to edit positively on BLPs.
* The restrictions have become actively counter-productive and are hindering my efforts to improve the topic area. (I remind the Committee that the restrictions were specifically intended to focus me on improvement work.) There has been no dispute whatsoever about the quality of the content that I've contributed, but the sanctions themselves have become the focus of controversy. As mentioned above, individuals associated with Misplaced Pages Review have used them as a pretext to wikilawyer and snipe at me. If the Committee wants to reduce controversy, the best way to do this is by lifting the restrictions and so remove that pretext.
* There's no reason to believe that lifting these restrictions will cause problems. Nor is there any reason why the existing discretionary sanctions should not be sufficient in future.
* It also makes no sense to continue sanctions related to very old edits when there is no ongoing problem with my involvement in the topic area, and there is no suggestion from anyone that the problems which led to the sanctions are either continuing or have been repeated since May 2009.

I would also like the Committee to note that the restrictions were voluntarily proposed by myself, and I request that I be given credit for this. I therefore ask for the restrictions to be lifted.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBSCI or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Jayen466 ====
I would advise against lifting the ARBSCI BLP restriction at this time. I would like to see a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first. No objection to lifting the remainder of the restriction. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Count Iblis ====
Similar to what I wrote about Jayen466's request, the restrictions should be lifted for Prioryman also in this case. The entire BLP topic area has come under much stricter oversight than just a few years ago, and this system also works quite smoothly. And I don't think Prioryman will behave as a troublemaker in this area, given his record in the BLP area outside this particular topic area. ] (]) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Youreallycan ====
−
I oppose lifting of this users Scientology arbitration restrictions - The user is one of the twenty notable people attacking Scientology - I strongly oppose his reintegration to the BLP sector in this topic - non ] I would not object to - I would prefer him to be honest and connect himself to . - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 04:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Nomoskedasticity ====
Another editor writing above hopes to see "a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first". I think that's exactly what we *do* see at this point, and I would support lifting the restrictions -- this is clearly a productive and intelligent editor, an asset to the project. ] (]) 06:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
* '''Comment''': these sanctions should probably go now as they are open to misunderstanding/wiki-lawyering and have themselves become a source of contention. This defeats the purpose of having them. I note that discretionary sanctions are in place for the topic, which means that clearer and/or more comprehensive sanctions could be imposed if problems occur. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
* I disagree strenuously with Roger and think lifting the sanctions would do more harm than good. ] (]) 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
* Given that this individual sanction is superseded by standard ARBSCI discretionary sanctions, I am minded for that reason alone to grant this appeal. ] ]] 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Climate change (Prioryman) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Climate change}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Remedies 3.1, 3.2

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Prioryman}} (initiator)

===Amendment 1===
* Request lifting of topic ban

==== Statement by Prioryman ====
''Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBSCI appeal below. The discussion has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal here, and the ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.''

I wish to request a lifting of the ARBCC topic ban on myself, passed 18 months ago. I don't particularly wish to return to the topic area in a major way, but I would like to be able to contribute the occasional new article (filling in red links and suchlike) and the odd bit of wikignoming on existing articles in the topic area.

I acknowledge the validity of the case findings that I had edit-warred and made incivil comments. I recognise that I responded badly to the battlefield conduct of others. In so doing I helped to reinforce the battlefield mentality that existed at the time. This was due to frustration with incredibly blatant BLP violations, persistent tendentious editing and a lack of outside intervention to deal with either problem. I don't believe such problems are likely to arise again in the foreseeable future due to a combination of the current arbitration sanctions, a stronger focus by the community on BLP enforcement, and the topic- or site-banning of the worst offenders. I've not followed the topic area at all since 2010, but the case sanctions log suggests that things are pretty quiet now.

Remedy 3.2.1 provides that "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 Misplaced Pages and their ability to work constructively with other editors."

The current situation is as follows:

* Since the case I have been extremely busy as a content contributor: I have made nearly 10,000 edits and have had three Featured Articles on the Main Page in the last six months alone, as well as contributing two Good Articles, 65 DYKs and over 270 images to Commons. The FAs, GAs and DYKs are all linked from the top of my ].
* My contributions have been widely recognised by others, with 16 barnstars in the last 18 months. I have been described as a "model Wikipedian" for my contributions.
* I was briefly blocked in March 2012 for an inadvertent violation of the topic ban, which was logged .
* I have been working closely with Wikimedia UK, which provided a grant to support the development of a series of articles to commemorate the Titanic centenary weekend in April. This has so far resulted in one featured article and sixteen DYKs, with the new and expanded articles attracting nearly 1 million page views over the weekend of April 14-15. I think this speaks well for my ability to work constructively with others.

In response to the specific concerns of the case (i.e. edit-warring and incivility) and a few other issues, I'd like to note the following points:

* In my approach to resolving these specific concerns, I've followed the example of {{user|Jayjg}} in concentrating on producing "audited content" and demonstrating that I meet the remedy's requirements. This approach resulted in restrictions on him being lifted in January 2011 (see ). I have so far produced 70 items of audited content which have been widely praised for their quality.
* I've acknowledged making errors in my approach to these articles and have not repeated them in other topic areas since the case.
* As a way of demonstrating that I had changed my approach, I specifically sought out a highly charged topic area area to bring an article up to FA standard - namely ] - and entirely avoided conflict, dealing in a sensitive way with the complexities of the issues involved, for which I was widely complimented (and was awarded five barnstars).
* I'm not under any BLP restrictions in the ARBCC topic area, though this occasionally been incorrectly claimed by others - perhaps through confusion with the ARBSCI below where such a restriction does exist.
* The ARBCC sanctions have not resulted in conflict with other editors since the case.
* I've sought to avoid conflict and, where conflict has arisen as a result of the actions of others, to find long-term solutions. When an interaction ban relating to me was recently violated, I sought the assistance of other editors to find a permanent solution, which resulted in an agreement on a more robust enforcement mechanism and stricter terms for the ban. This was a positive outcome, definitively ending an ongoing conflict situation. More recently I've helped {{user|Youreallycan}} to find an acceptable way forward to resolve issues that have seen him repeatedly getting blocked (see ) - another positive outcome that will benefit the community going forward.

I believe this record shows that I've met the requirements of 3.2.1 several times over and that I'm more than capable of re-engaging in the topic area without further problems. In the extremely unlikely event of any future issues, there is no reason to believe that the existing discretionary sanctions in the topic area will be insufficient. I therefore request that the Arbitration Committee consider one of the following options:

* A full lifting of the topic ban (the simplest option).
* A half-way house, under which I would be permitted to contribute DYKs to the topic area for a period of six months, following which the topic ban would be lifted if there were no further problems. This would have the advantage of allowing me to demonstrate an ability to contribute constructively to the topic area in a limited capacity. As Casliber is a DYK regular, he would be in a good position to keep an eye on my DYK contributions.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Count Iblis ====
Prioryman's editing record begs the question: Did Jimbo hire Prioryman as a professional editor? Obviously, Prioryman should not have any editing restrictions; if he isn't a good enough editor to edit somewhere, who is? ] (]) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect: The problem in general with this is that ArbCom restrictions come with a reversal of the burden of proof. So, e.g. I'm not under any ArbCom sanctions and I have to misbehave quite badly before I'll be blocked. If there are some editors who are very critical of my editing who are mnitoring me, they will hve to present a strong case in an RFC/U or ArbCom case against me.

If, on the other hand, I were operating under some ArbCom restrictions, then any hint of a violation of those restrictons by me implies guilt, unless I can prove that I'm innocent. E.g. Prioryman had to explain himself here about his editing of BLP pages. So, there was a hint that he might have violated an ArbCom restriction, and he had to explain that this was not a violation of a restriction he's under.

Then with Prioryman being monitored by quite a few editors, Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces. This is extremely distracting, so one has to consider if the restrictions are necessary at all. This would be the case even if the critics were always acting in good faith, but obviously that's not always the case here. ] (]) 21:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect & Prioryman, what I mean is that you have to defend yourself, obviously with good arguments, not in some negative way. When I was under a stupid advocacy restriction imposed by ArbCom which barred me from defending an editor here, that caused me a lot of headaches, even a long time after that restriction was lifted, ]. I ended up at AE twice ''after'' that restriction was lifted, because of misunderstandings by editors about that restriction. ] (]) 03:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


;No relevant objections have been raised so far.

What is relevant here is whether Prioryman can edit CC pages without problems. Both in case of William's amendment request and Cla68's request, the discussions here were centered around that question. I was in favor of lifting the topic ban for both editors with some restrictions (BLP restriction for William I think, although that may have been a compromise I supported, in case of Cla68, I argued for a 1RR or 0RR restriction).

Basically, one considers the editor in question back into the topic area and discusses what problems are likely to occur based on current editing behavior or very recent editing history. ] (]) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

====Statement by Collect====

PM has been quite evident on several noticeboards, incuding a current extensive discussion at AN/I. I would humbly suggest he get down to a "no drama" level for a month or two before pursuing this. Cheers. ] (]) 11:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM -- I know that you were the "victim" and that you had ''nothing'' to do with the "drama" evinced at AN/I. Yeppers. The way for you to have avoided the drama was to ''not'' promote the drama. And as others have noted, your problems in the past were heavily imbued with "drama." Ergo - a couple of months more with a cup of tea will not harm you. to be sure. Cheers. ] (]) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM - Last I looked, you quite appeared to be ''actively seeking'' the "drama" per notceboard postings and also per your posts on ErantX's UT page. Hence my suggestion that you swear off the "drama" for a couple of months before pursuing this further. Have some tea - the "deadline" is not yet arrived. ] (]) 15:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@ST My overall impression is that those who ''routinely'' complain on noticeboards as the "victim" generally do not emend their behaviour therein without being rather specifically urged to reduce such actions. ArbCom has seen a number of editors who seek "arbitration enforcement" aganst their perceived "foes" and I have seen no cases where such behaviour has been improved by simply removing sanctions thereon. Thus my suggestion that a couple of months without such drama would make me more convinced that the initial behaviours have possibly been ameliorated. Is this more clear? I would hold the same position, for what it s worth, on any "amnesty" acts where full and open discussions, not sullied by any "false consensus", led to the initial restrictions. Cheers. ] (]) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@CI
:''Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces''
Exemplifies the drama problem. There is no need to "go on the attack" - that sort of battleground mentality is precisely one of the major problems on Misplaced Pages, and I am aghast anyone would say it is right to engage in battleground acts. If you feel your post should work in PM's favour, I regret to inform you that it is more likely to redound to his handicap in my opinion. Your mileage appears to differ. ] (]) 20:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note further PM's apparent love of drama at . Suchh claims as
:''He is often absolutist in his views and appears to consistently see things in black and white.
:''His judgement is often faulty.
:''He personalises disputes to an excessive degree, regarding problems as a personal affront.
:''He has an excessive willingness to escalate, which we've certainly seen on this occasion.
:''He has an insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions, again which we've seen on this occasion.
Are used by PM as a rationale to seek a 1RR restriction and a draconian civility restriction:
:'' '''If Youreallycan makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Youreallycan otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week. ''' ''
on an editor who ''appears'' to have aroused PM's personal animus. As ''all'' of the above claims seem to suit PM fairly well, I suggest "goose sauce" should be considered here as well. Cheers. ] (]) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM - the issue is ''not'' whether you are pals with YRC, but whether you ''routinely'' jump to noticeboards seeking ''punishment'' for others. I note that the evidence is fairly clear on this - that you do so routinely run to the noticeboards seeking ''punishment'' for others. Cheers - you make this very clear indeed. ] (]) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(noting that the comments by PM to which I herein replied have apparently been redacted, making it ddifficult for others to see precisely to what I replied and for what reasons) ] (]) 18:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Jayen466 ====
{{hat|Drama}}
Prioryman, did you write the L. Ron Hubbard featured article, as ]?

I am asking because at the time of that article's FAC, I was quite certain, having observed your (outstanding) work on the Inner German border article during that article's FAC, that you were the author. Not just from the (equally outstanding) quality of the work, but for many other on-wiki and off-wiki reasons as well.

Of course, under ARBSCI you were and are allowed to work on articles in that topic area to bring them to GA or FA status. I supported the FA nomination in recognition of that fact, and indeed assumed that the arbitration committee were most likely aware of your operating the Helatrobus account.

However, I later learnt from Cool Hand Luke that they were not aware of the Helatrobus account, and indeed would have been disappointed to find it was yours, given your previous socking after invoking the Right To Vanish. Could you clear this up, once and for all? '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

* Prioryman, I am sure you are well aware that answering this question does not require you to make reference to any other editor. It's a simple yes-or-no question. For what it's worth, I took part in and supported the Hubbard FAC, and came to my conclusions quite independently of any user you might have in mind. It was blindingly obvious. If you want all your sanctions lifted, I would recommend that you come clean first, as otherwise this stuff will just continue to hang around you. And if you aren't prepared to do that, then I have no confidence that the factors that led to your being restricted in the first place are in any way resolved. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 13:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
**I think we can call a here and assume that's a Yes then, shall we?
**You were sanctioned in ARBSCI because you considered yourself above the law. Your recent behaviour, claiming the right to vanish during arbitration and then immediately returning as a sock, and then with your present account when the first sock was found out and blocked, and with the Helatrobus account as well, seems to indicate that you still do.
**Battleground mentality, along with incivility and edit-warring, was the finding in , in late 2010. And battlegrounding is how you chose to respond right here, to being asked a not unreasonable question. You refuse to give a straight answer, and instead turn the matter into a pissing contest over whose sanctions were worse, or . ;) '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 02:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you are able, under the present sanctions, to perform GA and FA improvement drives on non-BLP articles. No change is required for you to write another five GAs or FAs. What you aren't able to do is to edit any BLPs in the topic area, or get involved in routine spats with other contributors.

I honestly think that's the best of both worlds. This topic area has mostly remained quiet since ARBSCI, one of the most successful arbitration cases of its kind in the history of Misplaced Pages, and is mercifully free of activists now. Some outrageously slanted biographies or other articles with BLP impact have been deleted or fixed, and the important articles in the topic area are stable and in reasonable shape. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you really see some clanger in a biography, you are very welcome to drop me a note with suggestions; and there are other editors in the topic area who would look into any such concern for you too. Regards. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 12:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you're in attack mode again. I said, "No change is required for you to write another five GAs or FAs. What you aren't able to do is to edit any BLPs in the topic area, or get involved in routine spats with other contributors." That is correct, and surely was the intent of the remedy, which read:

17) {{Admin|ChrisO}} has proposed a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet ] and ] criteria, using ]; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to ]; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.

:''Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And it has worked, because as you say, you haven't been in spats with other contributors. But instead of acknowledging that, you bristle, " It's absolutely, unequivocally false to claim that I was 'involved in routine spats with other contributors'" – as though you had never been in any such spat, which is complete nonsense. When you were active in the topic area, in editing BLPs and general editing outside GA and FA drives, you were involved in such spats. One two-year "spat" is mentioned in the ARBSCI FoF:

13) {{Admin|ChrisO}} significantly edited, between August 2005 and September 2007, a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion. In his sysop capacity, he protected the article; declined a CSD; and blocked the subject of the article herself. and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material from an ] to a ]; and restored ].

:''Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There may have been periods where you weren't involved in any spats in this topic area, but I doubt that you were editing the topic area much in those periods. Your unwillingness to give a straight answer on the Helatrobus account, your bristling, and your nibbling at the topic ban now, before it's lifted, like , are warning signs to me. I don't expect anything good to result if the ban is lifted and you go back to editing BLPs in the ARBSCI topic area, or do routine editing outside GA/FA drives. Focus on the latter – you have the demonstrated ability to take articles to that quality level, and your temperament doesn't equip you well for the rest. Your opponent is interaction-banned, so don't worry about him. I personally am generally a fan of your FA work, and the FAC process is a much better, more controlled setting to fine-tune an article. Regards. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

:You mean you've violated your topic ban regularly for the past three years? I can't say I've noticed, despite having a good few pages in the topic area on my watchlist, but if you have, then I don't think that inspires added confidence that you are committed to editing BLPs and other articles within policy if the ban were lifted formally. I see a continuous and worrying history of you thinking various policies and guidelines don't apply to you like they do to other editors – whether it's RTV, acting when involved, citing your own self-published writing, violating BLP, returning to areas your previous account was topic-banned in under new identities without disclosing prior sanctions and identities, etc. (Your BLP ban in the ARBCC topic area was as recent as a year and a half ago – so there is a more than five-year continuous history of you getting banned from BLPs in topic areas you are passionate about.) I also see some great work, but frankly don't understand why you can't simply do good work and drop all the games. Cheers. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 00:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this is now getting ridiculous. Prioryman is me of having violated my ARBSCI sanction by commenting here. For reference, my ARBSCI sanction is, in total, per ]:

21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

If you want evidence of the risk of drama, or battleground editing, it couldn't come clearer than this. A bull in a china shop comes to mind! '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 01:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==== Statement by Youreallycan ====
Just a note to comment about my relating with Prioryman. I was pointed here in email by the user after I was mentioned in the comments. He has been suggesting topic bans and edit restrictions for me but generally/imo in a goods faith manner to help me stop repeatedly getting blocked for silly stuff before i get myself perma banned - I have been in dispute with him previously but I/we have been attempting to improve our working relationship so I wouldn't want any of his interactions with me to affect the outcome of this request, which I have not really investigated but it is generally my feeling that we should not be overly severe in our restrictions on editors contributions for excessive lengths of time unless there are clear related issues with a users contributions - if they improve we can give them a chance and if they need restrictions again they can easily be replaced. - I would add that clearly the - it was a year ago and he shouldn't have written that , ... I wish he would fess up and be honest about that, denying such clear realities just removes all good faith NPOV support. The users that violated BLP in the climate change area held/and still hold very opinionated vocal positions , those have not changed at all and living people were attacked , perhaps a position of non BLP contributing to the sector such as ] is allowed would be a good start to see how it goes.<font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 02:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. I am neutral, leaning oppose on the request, but I'm willing to listen to comments either way before I make a formal "decision" on which way I'd go. ] (]) 03:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
*Per SilkTork, I think I would need to formally oppose any lifting of the sanction at this time. ] (]) 03:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' we've used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one's belt. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Willing to consider this; if things don't go well, the existing general sanctions would probably be sufficient to address issues. ] (]) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
* I would support a motion to vacate Prioryman's topic ban. ] ]] 13:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I have no particular problem with lifting either this or the other extant historical sanction, which seem to me to be more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth. It is not as if this editor will escape scrutiny in either area so if the event that there are fresh problems in either topic area, they can be handled perfectly well by discretionary sanctions. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Update''': My take is that the sanctions themselves have become the issue, with the bickering switching from content to who is in breach of what. This view is confirmed by recent events. I still have no problem with lifting the existing sanctions because discretionary sanctions are in place and thus sanctions can be re-imposed if problems arise. Lifting the sanctions now will I think help everyone move on. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*<s>Under the historic sanctions from Prioryman's prior account (which he now also wants lifted) he agreed to make "no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people", but a look through recent contributions shows edits to ], ] and ]. Am I right in thinking that edits to those articles would be a violation of the sanctions if the sanctions are applicable to this current account? Could Prioryman provide an explanation for those edits - and offer up any other BLP articles he has edited as I only went back through contributions as far as the ] edit. ''']''' ''']''' 10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)</s> My bad, I misread the sanction.
:*This seems a reasonable request. Prioryman produces good contributions and acknowledges the poor conduct from the past. I am unclear regarding Collect's points - is the suggestion that Prioryman reduce general involvement in noticeboards, or is there a particular concern about the focus or tone of the involvement? ''']''' ''']''' 17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:::OK. I note , , and ]. I'm a little uncomfortable at the amount of drama that has unfolded and I'd like to see what other Committee members feel about what has happened. ''']''' ''']''' 21:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I would feel more comfortable supporting this if there was no associated drama. I am prepared to be convinced otherwise by colleagues, though my inclination would be to decline this for now, and hear an appeal again in six months, and if Prioryman sees at that time any provocative posts that he show an ability to ignore it/rise above it, allowing others to deal with the matter if they feel it significant enough. ''']''' ''']''' 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
----
== Clarification request: Abortion (1RR query) ==

'''Case link: ]'''

'''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|SarekOfVulcan}} (initiator)

=== Statement by SarekOfVulcan ===
An article was recently tagged as being under the community 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles. After some discussion, I realized that it was no longer clear that the community restriction was in effect. ] states that "This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community." However, the community authorization was in two parts -- the 1RR authorization, and the discretionary sanctions. On ], the whole thing is listed as superceded, but I'm not sure that was what was intended. Thanks. --] 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
:According to ], it's probably still in effect. --] 16:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
::'''@Jclemens''' -- Pregnancy is not the article in question. As Collect points out below, it's ]. I didn't identify the article in my original statement because I wanted to clarify the general principle, rather than its application to this particular case.--] 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
::And I agree this is a more-appropriate venue, I just thought it was best to link to the previous discussion instead of ignoring it. --] 18:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
::'''@Roscelese''' -- I'm trying to keep this on "is there a 1RR in effect", not "should 1RR apply to this article". --] 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Collect ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
Queries: It the labelling of an article as being subject to being under 1RR properly done by ''any'' editor? Specifically, can an editor who is ''heavily involved'' in editing an article a fair source for so indicating that an article not previously labelled as being under a 1RR restriction is now under one? Is placement of the "1RR template" properly done by an involved editor who is ''not'' an administrator? Hypothetically, if an involved editor in an article which has not heretofore been identified as being "abortion related" adds material which is clearly "abortion related" can such an editor ''then'' add a template indicating that the article is under a 1RR "abortion related" restriction? Where the article has ''not'' been under such a prior restriction, is it proper for an involved editor to state that another editor has "violated" the 1RR restriction which was not noted at the article or article talk page? Can an ''involved'' admin place an article under the 1RR restriction? Does the placing of a restriction require the act of an ''uninvolved'' administrator? I apologize for the logical query string, but trust the issue is clear here. Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
:BTW, I read Jclemens posts somewhat differently than you do, and also note his position that an article on ] does not ''intuitively'' fall under the sanctions, even if the word "abortion" is in the article, unless the article is substantially about "abortion" proper. The case at hand is about "feminism" proper, and not specifically about "abortion" ''except'' to the extent that the word appears as a "feminism" issue (specifically "pro-life feminism"). Cheers. ] (]) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

:Is ] ''strictly'' an "abortion" topic, or is it a "feminism" topic showing that feminists ''can'' and do have ''differing views'' about topics which happen to include abortion? I would note that in all the time since the abortion decision, this article has ''never'' been cited as falling into its purview. This comment, morevover, falls below the specific stated queries above, which I suggest reasonably ought to be answered in any case. <!-- removed as it appears to Sarek to mean I am pushing a POV - which is odd as I am "pro-choice" I would also point out that "abortion" appears in on the order of 8,000 article spots (search raw count) on Misplaced Pages, and most of them have a ''far clearer connection'' to "abortion" than this article has. --> In fact, the edit which aroused the ire was to ''remove'' an ''insufficiently sourced'' insertion of "abortion" into the article. ] (]) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
<p>
Note also that "abortion" is covered in ''every'' current political biography (inc. Santorum, Romney, Obama et al, and the campaign articles), pretty much, in the party articles, in the political spectrum articles (including ], etc., and if a strict interpretation of "it says "abortion in it" is used, thousands of articles will be subject to the 1RR restriction. Somehow I doubt this is a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the committee, indeed. IOW, the law of unintended consequences seems to be at work here. ] (]) 21:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

<p>
I would note that Sarek views my position stated here as somehow reaching:
::''this statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken?''
Which I regard as overkill in the context of this discussion. Is it the position of arbitrators that mentioning a search result is a basis for seeking a ban of any editor where I have made ''zero'' POV edits about "abortion" on any article whatsoever? Cheers. ] (]) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

<p>@R - note that upon receiving the warning, I did attempt to self-revert, as I noted at the time. Thus I am "wriggling out of" nothing at all. What I am concerned with here is what is in my queries, which I would really like answered, instead of having miscellaneous noticeboards brought into this. It is ''procedure'' which is the issue, and nothing else, as far as I am concerned. Cheers. ] (]) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
<p>@R I am glad you made an edit at 21:20 on 3 April which far better comports with the source, ''which was what I asked for in the first place.'' Though it took a BLP/N discussion to show you. Cheers. ] (]) 22:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
<p> shows my notice of an attempt to self-revert - ''before 18:26 on 2 April''. - thus making some of the "charges" made here a tad irrelevent. I trust this clears the air of the charge that I am "wriggling out" of anything. ] (]) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Roscelese===
*The article in question is about an anti-abortion movement and is inseparable from the subject of abortion. Past decisions (I'm referring to calls I know Sarek has made, but this may be true of other admins as well) have also held that material related to abortion falls under the sanction even if the article in general is not about abortion, eg. discussion of abortion in a biography of someone whose notability was not as an activist. The applicability of the case to the specific article is not in doubt; the question is whether 1RR is still active. –] (] &sdot; ]) 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
:@Sarek: Yes, exactly. I'm trying to bring the discussion back around to the topic, not to Collect's attempts to wriggle out of an edit-warring warning at that article. :) –] (] &sdot; ]) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
::@Collect: You're joking, right? April Fools' Day is over. You were edit-warring to remove the classification of O'Brien as an anti-abortion activist in favor of saying her position was representative of Irish women, and the article still calls her an anti-abortion activist and doesn't misrepresent sources to claim she's more representative than she is. I do hope this means you're done edit-warring and misrepresenting sources, though. –] (] &sdot; ]) 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by MastCell ===
I think the question here is whether 1RR is in effect on abortion-related articles. I think the answer is yes. A community-enacted 1RR restriction was in place before the case. ArbCom found that ] Presumably, "all sanctions" includes the 1RR. It would be good to get a quick confirmation of this from the Committee, since it's apparently a matter of dispute. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other user} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
:''With two inactive arbitrators (Xeno and Hersfold) and one recused (Risker), an absolute majority is seven.''

* Sarek, is ] the article in question? As far as what I said before, I would encourage other arbitrators to look at the question with fresh eyes, because it was certainly never my intent to issue a binding opinion on the matter; this venue is certainly more appropriate than my talk page and its archives. ] (]) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
**It was not my intent as drafter in the referenced case to end the community's 1RR on the topic. ] (]) 05:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Recused'''. ] (]) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Question''': Has the 1RR restriction been widely enforced since the ''Abortion'' case was decided? ] ]] 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:: Thank you for the comments offered above (and to my colleagues for responding). My own view is that the community's 1RR sanction is obviously still in force. (If its retention in this topic area is undesirable, ANI or another noticeboard should be used to rescind the sanctions: what the community giveth, the community may taketh away.) ] ]] 15:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
* Agree with MastCell, the answer is 'yes', the 1RR is still in place. ] (]) 16:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
* Aye, my interpretation of the bit Mastcell quoted is that 1RR still applies. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 00:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
* Yes, I think they are in place as well. (Apologies that this is very far from the 'quick confirmation' sought here.) &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*Agreed with my fellow arbs that it still applies. ] (]) 16:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*Sorry for delay in answering - and also apologies for the response being long and complex! The wording is: "This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community. All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization." Slightly awkward wording which could mean that ArbCom take over the community sanctions so that they are treated as ArbCom sanctions, though it could also mean that the new ArbCom sanctions replace the community sanctions (so that the old sanctions no longer apply) but that the records of actions performed under the community sanctions are merged with the records of the ArbCom sanctions. Looking at the Proposed decision page, there was some discussion on the matter - ], and the option which made it clear that ArbCom was taking over the community sanctions was not supported in favour of this wording. My reading of those comments makes it appear as though the intention was to replace the community sanctions with ]. As there is some doubt regarding the wording, would it be worth looking at the , which essentially only differ from the Discretionary sanctions by the use of a 1 Revert Rule, and seeing if the Committee wishes to take that over as an ongoing sanction, or replace it completely with the standard sanctions? Personally I think that we should all follow a one revert rule as standard, so I would support a one revert rule in any problematic area and would consider opening a discussion to include such a rule in the Discretionary sanctions. ''']''' ''']''' 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
**In short - I support a 1RR sanction for the Abortion topic. ''']''' ''']''' 15:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

* Given that we are unanimous in support of the 1RR sanction, I have asked the clerks to archive this request. ] (]) 16:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: BASC (Iantresman) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Case affected: ] referring to ]

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# ]: "Iantresman is topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined."

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|iantresman}} (initiator)

===Amendment 1===
* ]
* Topic ban lifted

==== Statement by iantresman ====
On 18 September 2011, the Ban Appeal Subcommitte unblocked me under the condition that a topic ban continues. Now that six months have passed, I would be grateful if this was re-assessed. Please take the following into consideration:
*During the past six months, I've created over a dozen well-sourced ], (plus ]), and made
*I had previously edited a number of articles (within the current topic ban), which I feel are well-sourced and stood the test of time, eg. ], ], ], ], ], etc
*I do not support nor condone edit warring. I was once blocked for 3RR but which another editor felt was done in good faith because I felt my edit was exempt per ] (and said so at the time of the edit), but would now use WP:BLP/N.
*I also took part in ]. I also do not "support", nor deliberately "push" pseudoscience or fringe science, and in the few subjects I have edited, have merely tried to describe points of view accurately, fairly and with appropriate sources.
*Nearly 5 years have passed since my Community ban, and Misplaced Pages is a somewhat different place with different personalities.
*I am also happy to consider (a) a ] (b) restricting my input to talk pages until consensus is reached, although obviously I'd prefer unrestricted editing, and taking the usual responsibility.
____
*'''Response to PhilKnight'''. Surely if the topic ban ''wasn't'' working, it would be a convincing reason ''against'' removing the ban. Isn't good editing a positive step? Otherwise what makes a convincing reason? --] (]) 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to Skinwalker'''. ] is a person (involved with biology), ] is cosmetics and beauty, ] is astronomy, and ] is a numbering system (maths?), and I was looking at ] from the biological point of view, but concede that it could be taken as physics, in which case it violates my topic ban. I'll also let others decide whether nearly 6000 other edits, and my contribution as a whole, outweighs my possible misjudgement --] (]) 23:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to Cardamon'''. I think we have to be careful with subjects that are ''part'' of physics, and subjects that are of ''interest'' to physics. If we go merely by the ] template, then the following subjects are deemed to be physics: the whole of ], ]s, ]s, many people (eg. the Queen guitarist, ]), and a picture of a ]. --] (]) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to Cardamon '''. (1) There is no dispute that ] are of great ''interest'' to physics, but I continue to be a little puzzled that you consider to the article, to be subversive and outweighing my other 6000 edits. (2) I don't recall any of my edits to ] and ] including inappropriate references to ] (you should be spoilt for choice for diffs?), but I do recall, for example, making significant improvements to ] that together with the contribution of other editors, resulted in it achieving Good Article status. --] (]) 09:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to Cardamon '''. Can my , be described as "POV pushing" if it is "obviously true" (who's POV)? And where is the "pushing" of an edit that remained in the article for over 2 years? I think there are many valid criticisms that could have been made, rather than the pejorative "POV pushing". --] (]) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to Skinwalker '''. In my opinion, a physics-related subject is one that you would learn about in a physics lesson, ie. the physics-related ]s, but not the man ] who is of interest to physicists. I acknowledge that every editor will have their own views, but I don't think that contributing personal information to an article on a biochemist with a double-first-class honours from Cambridge University, was meant to be covered by the ban. --] (]) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to PhilKnight '''. While I feel that the ] article would not have be included in the topic ban, the fact is that I did not edit it. It does seem harsh to judge me on my opinion, and not just my actions here. With regard to ], you'll also find that my only other edit to his article five years ago, added a citation and quote supporting the statement "his ideas are deemed controversial and are considered by some mainstream scientists to be pseudoscientific", hardly the action of someone trying to be disingenuous, (and hardly the action of someone trying to push pseudoscience). --] (]) 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to Casliber'''. Excellent point. I have already been involved in some negotiation in some articles, the most notable I can think of being two issues in the article on sushi (a) (b) , and (c) a contentious edit on the . But I shall further try and seek out improving an article to GA or FA level. --] (]) 08:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Update'''. Just a note to say that I have requested (23 Apr 2012) a ] for an article I initiated, as I felt this would provide better interaction with other editors than either (a) joining in a GA nomination that is on hold during improvement, or (b) reviewing an GA article nomination. I think that the aforementioned (to Casliber) negotiations, where there was actual disagreement, may still be better examples of editor interaction. Unfortunately work commitments have not allowed me more time to participate. --] (]) 12:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to SirFozzie'''. I would be grateful if you could offer some criticisms which would help me improve/address my recent editing over the last 6 months. --] (]) 23:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Update 2'''. My ] has failed, and I am addressing the criticisms, though interactions with other editors is non-existent. This would seem to be partly expected as GA nominations are supposed to be fairly stable articles, whereas interaction with other editors would be more likely in more contentious articles. --] (]) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to proposal'''. (1) I would humbly suggest that '''all''' contributions to Misplaced Pages '''are''' audited by other editors, not just the Good Article nomination process. My recent 6000+ edits did not generate any major incidents, and my talk page shows no problems with my conduct, and two positive comments ( and ) (2) I have no problem working on Good Article nominations, if only this had been mentioned in my , the ], or indeed anywhere, then I could have saved you all a lot of time, and the need to repeat this process all over again. (3) If my topic ban was lifted, there are already guidelines and mechanisms in place to regulate my conduct and contributions. --] (]) 11:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Response to Roger Davies'''. Good questions. (1) I think it is worth looking at my earlier conduct in context. Nearly all the problems in the past were caused by conflict with just one editor, against whom I lodged the ] complaint in 2006. While this does not excuse my conduct in the past, other editors with whom I worked within my banned topic area, for example, noted in ] that "despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him" As the said editor is no longer part of the Project, I do not see the same kinds of issues arising. (2) Nothing prevents me from working outside my topic ban. Not to brag, I have a degree in chemistry, a master's in computer science, and university certificates in astronomy, cosmology and radio astronomy, so like most editors, I have my areas of interest. This extends to some "fringe science" topics too, and only wish to see them described fairly with reliable sources. When another editor "goes so far as removal of well-sourced positive comments he doesn't agree with or "knows" is wrong or the inclusion of negative material without any source or with poor sources" (not my words), again I do not try and excuse my conduct, only to put them into context. (3) Yes, I have been involved in contentious editing that has reached a compromise, see for example two discussions on Sushi, here and . (4) Finally, I would just like to mention that (a) my addition of a source supporting Nature's editor describing Rupert Sheldrake's books as pseudo-science , (b) Creating the article "]", is hardly the work of someone intent on pushing pseudoscience, and, that many of the science (and fringe science) (before 2007), have stood the test of time, and consequently have improved Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 14:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Update 3'''. Just a note that since my ] failed, that I have been slowly improving the article, having increased its length from 2200 words ] to 4600 words, and almost doubling the number of citable facts, today.. --] (]) 10:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

==== Statement by Skinwalker====

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

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

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

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

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

==== Statement by Collect ====

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

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

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

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

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

:@Arbs: As I recall, Iantresman's main areas of fringe POV pushing were physics – related astronomy, and plasma physics. Examples include the articles ], ], and ]. The connection was his desire to make Misplaced Pages present the not - at - all - widely - accepted theory of “plasma cosmology” much more favorably than it does.
:In editing ], Iantresman was inside the range of articles he was told not to edit (physics), and at the edge of the range of articles in which he had POV pushed. In fact, long ago, he made a (really quite mild) POV pushing to ]. (It made a statement that was obviously true, but didn’t help the article.) ] (]) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Further discussion ===
:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
* Awaiting statements. However, as an initial comment, the fact that the topic ban is working well at the moment, allowing Ian Tresman to edit in other areas, isn't as far as I'm concerned, an especially convincing reason to remove the ban. ] (]) 18:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
** Further to Skinwalker's diffs and Ian Tresman's replies, I'll oppose any motion to remove his topic ban. I find Ian Tresman's comments about Rupert Sheldrake to be entirely disingenuous, and the assertion that under a broadly construed physics ban he could edit the Isaac Newton article to bordering on the absurd. ] (]) 19:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
***Regarding Cas Liber's comment below, I would be prepared to look more favourably on another request following a GA or FA. ] (]) 13:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
*It seems the original ban was . It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been in ]. He was six months ago, on condition he refrained from editing fringe science and physics-related subjects, and informed he could appeal that topic ban after six months. Provided he has met the conditions, and nobody provides any evidence of wrong doing in the past six months, then I would agree to the appeal. It would be fair to warn Iantresman that if he is found once again engaging in POV pushing the community are likely to ban him, and after being twice bitten, it would be much more difficult to get unblocked. ''']''' ''']''' 13:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
*I see no particular issues with the article diffs listed by Skinwalker; they seem to be both encyclopedia-improving, and outside what I believe a reasonable man would conclude as the boundaries of the topic ban. Leaning towards granting the relief from the topic ban. ] (]) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
* Before considering lifting this, I'd like to see Ian Tresman participate in an arena where one ''has'' to negotiate with others. An area such as this would be improving an article to GA or FA level. This would best be an article which is unambiguously and clearly not under the scope of current sanctions. ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
*Not 100% sure this request is still active/ongoing, but right now, I think I would oppose any such motion to lift the topic ban at this time. ] (]) 23:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
* Concur with PhilKnight and Casliber on this one. ] (]) 22:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
* @Iantresman. Just trying to focus this discussion a little as it does not seem to be best use of everyone's time to have a very similar discussion again in a few months time. Firstly, what I am not seeing is a compelling reason to lift the topic ban. So, how do you think it improve the encyclopedia within the prior area of conflict, while avoiding the problems of the past, if we were to do so? Secondly, what prevents you making valuable contributions outside the prior area of conflict? Why are you so intent on editing again within a topic which has been problematic for you in the past? Thirdly, have there been specific instances in the past six months where you have edited in contentious areas, and where your patience was tested (this amendment request apart) and you negotiated a compromise? If so, please provide diffs. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

====Proposal====
*In which case I propose we close/archive this and give Ian Tresman a chance to produce some audited content and review at a later date. ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
*: I concur. ] ]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
*: I'm pretty much okay with this too; I'd just like to give Iantresman an opportunity to answer my just-posted questions before finally making my mind up. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
*::While I thank Iantresman for his comments, I am not completely persuaded that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia to lift the restrictions just yet. So I suggest he applies again once he has the audited content that Casliber's seeks under his belt. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
*:I agree as well. I think Roger's questions are excellent... but regardless of the answers, the sanctions do not appear to have support for modification absent audited content creation, so there's no pressing hurry to have them answered. We can keep this open, or we can archive this and start a new one once some audited content has been re-created--I'm not sure there's a substantive process difference between those options. ] (]) 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
*There appears to be unlikelihood on achieving consensus on lifting the restrictions, but we do have consensus on closing/postponing this request until some audited content is produced so I support this proposal in order to move the matter forward. ''']''' ''']''' 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

:* I have asked the first available clerk to archive this appeal as unsuccessful. As discussed, this archival is without prejudice to appeal in future. ] ]] 10:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page 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).

Submitting a 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
127128129130131

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131
Categories: