Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 05:41, 20 March 2012 (→‎Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Aspersions cast by Thryduulf   16 July 2024 0/6/1
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 18 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 18 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: WP:ARBCC (Cla68)

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
WP:ARBCC
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:ARBCC#Cla68 topic-banned (Remedy 15)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

  • Request lifting of topic ban

Statement by Cla68

I'd like to request removal of the topic ban. I was thinking of not ever requesting a return to the topic, but an incident caused me to reconsider.

I am a daily reader of the Japan Times newspaper. One of my WP activities is adding citations to articles, mainly about Japan, related to articles I read in the morning's paper. I think it was this edit using a non-web-available citation, which made me reconsider the topic ban. The citation in question contained some useful information on Japan's response to carbon-reduction efforts, which is related to the global warming issue. Because of the topic ban, I was able to use the citation to add some non-related information to the article, but was unable to add the information related to global warming. I realized that the ban was getting in the way of me being able to improve articles on Japan.

Since the ban was enacted on 14 October 2010, the following is a sample of my contributions to Wikipedia, both in article and admin space:

  • Three featured articles which I co-edited with other editors (primarily Sturmvogel 66 and Dank):
  • Helped significantly expand or improve several other articles, including:
  • Co-certifier on the Cirt RfC
  • WP:V RfC. Although I didn't take part in the final decision, I think it was my push which finally got three admins to buckle down and close it.
  • I was blocked once during this time, for a matter related to the Fae RfC. The majority opinion at the block review was that the block was incorrect, and me and blocking admin don't appear to have any acrimony. On that issue, I have started drafting an essay on logical fallacies, which I will eventually propose for upgrading to a guideline. The goal is to influence WP editors to stop using logical fallacies, such as ad hominem or straw man arguments, when debating an issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AGK, the finding was correct. I did engage in those behaviors while editing the climate change (CC)/global warming topic area. I won't do it again. I do have actual evidence of my commitment not to do so. After the case was over, I wrote an essay, called WP:ACTIVIST with help from SlimVirgin and a few others. The essay was not only, or even primarily, based on my experience in the CC topic area. After completion, the essay was amended quite a bit, to say the least, by other editors, including some of the climate change regulars. If you check the edit history, although many editors revert-warred with each other over that essay, I was not one of them. I made not a single revert. This is what my original draft looked like. These are the drastic changes made to it by other editors, including Will Beback and Scotty Berg, who has been revealed recently to have been a sock of Mantanmoreland. I basically let them have at it even though it had taken me a lot of time and effort to get the essay to where it was. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to MastCell: I think MastCell's statement constitutes an ad hominem argument, because it is my behavior on wiki that matters, which he omitted. For example, when WMC requested that his topic ban be lifted four months ago, although I had some reservations about one statement he made, I supported the lifting of his ban, with one restriction. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Casliber. Your statement, "the WR comment postdates the Activist essay by several months" is not exactly true. One of the individuals in question revert warred on that essay as recently as 17 October, which was after the WR comment. I did not agree with that revert or the edit summary, but I let it go. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) (WMC notified).[reply]
  • Response to Dave Souza. Me and Dave Souza disagreed on the use of that source. Dave revert warred its use, but I didn't engage in a revert war with him. I did what you are supposed to do, I started a discussion on it on the article's talk page, and started the threads on both the RS and FT noticeboards, then followed their advice. Although the majority of uninvolved responders believed that the source should not be used, the opinions were not unanimous. Intelligent Design is a difficult topic to edit for various reasons, as this incident illustrates, but I will leave it at that for now. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Count Iblis. Actually, I believe in a higher standard, the "zero revert" way of doing things. When someone adds text which appears to be reliably sourced, if I or anyone else disagrees with it, we should start a talk page discussion before considering its removal. If someone reverts something I added, I will start a talk page discussion instead of reverting it back. BLPs and obvious vandalism would be the only exceptions. If WP editors would start doing things this way, there would be a lot less acrimony in controversial topics. I have already started practicing what I preach on this [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I think giving someone a one revert a day restriction, or some variation of that, sounds like WP's administration is saying that revert warring is ok, within limits. I think that's the wrong message to send. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Raul654. Intelligent Design is an extremely difficult topic to edit, as a good number of the regular editors there apparently have undisguisedly strong feelings on the topic. Raul, if you have a concern over my approach to an article talk page dicussion, please next time bring it up with me on my user talk page. I have no problem talking things over with other editors. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

On 9 October 2011, Cla68 (talk · contribs) posted on Wikipedia Review:

Fortunately for WMC, Wikipedia doesn't have a "Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule, or he would have been sent on his way long ago.

Here's the thing, I truly don't belive that WMC, Stephan Schulz, Kim Dabelstein Peterson, or Short Brigade Harvester Boris are really scientists, because I can't belive that true scientists would act as deceitfully, dishonestly, or as insecurely and cowardly as they act. If they are really scientists, I would like to know which universities they teach at to ensure that I don't send my kids to those bush league institutions. To be clear, I respect scientists who truly believe in man-made global warming but recognize that they might be wrong. The ones who don't are the ones who try to use Wikipedia to artificially socialize their positions. [9]

That statement raises some doubt in my mind as to whether Cla68 has, in fact, moved past a battleground mentality on climate-change articles.

Regarding the admissibility of off-site commentary, policy clearly states that "personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions... Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." MastCell Talk 19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by dave souza

Arbcom's 2010 finding referred to Cla68's "inappropriate use of sources".
Recently, Cla68 ignored talk page discussion showing that a source was fringe and at best questionable, and joined in with suggestions that it be used as a source for other articles.[10][11] After being advised this was inappropriate, he added a new section based solely on this source to one of the articles.[12] When I undid this addition,[13] he posted accusations on my talk page,[14] took it up on the article talk page,[15] and also took it to FTN and RSN. Cla68 received little or no support in these discussions, or in the continuation of the original discussion.
The links in the Arbcom finding show misrepresentation of a reliable source: this instance is different in being, in my opinion, disruptive pushing of an unreliable fringe source while omitting mainstream context. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Replace the CC topic ban by a 0RR restriction for CC related edits originally made by Cla68 himself. This means that when corrected or completely reverted by non-vandals, Cla68 cannot revert back, but he can revert any other edits (and that only once, because once he reverts it counts as his edits, so it amounts to 1RR such a case). Count Iblis (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I think this is effective is because Cla68 is then forced to think carefully if his edits will stick before making them. Then given that most active editors in this topic edit from the scientific POV that means having to approach editing the topic from that angle, and this may lead Cla68 to read more about the topic from scientific sources. The scientific aspects of the topic are not controversial (at least not within the scientific community, the controversy is far more political in nature), so that may lead Cla68's view on the topic to change in the direction of most of the current editors there. Count Iblis (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

I'm not sure that Count Iblis' proposal makes sense in this context. Straightforward revert warring is one of those things that can actually be handled reasonably well (in most cases) by existing enforcement processes; a focus on mechanical counting of reverts would seem to miss the point here. While the arbitration case's findings certainly touched on Cla68's edit warring, also mentioned – and arguably more harmful – were his misuse of sources, incivility, and overall battleground mentality.

Above (in his response to MastCell) Cla68 presents his tepid support for an easing of WMC's editing restrictions as evidence of his reformed conduct; he doesn't think that the ArbCom should take notice of his egregious personal attacks on WMC just a few days later, where he calls into question WMC's professional ethics and basic competence, accusing WMC (and other scientists and fellow editors) of behaving "deceitfully, dishonestly...insecurely and cowardly" and regretting the absence of a ""Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule" that would eliminate WMC from this project.

That isn't the mark of an editor who has left his battleground attitude behind; it's an editor who is playing games with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. We get one superficially reasonable comment for the benefit of watching Arbitrators on-wiki; we get egregious personal attacks off-wiki. Does Cla68 believe that WMC (and the other editors he attacked) should be allowed to edit, or not? If so, why make the attacks on Wikipedia Review? If not, why endorse the return of WMC in his comment here? Cla68 is surely well aware that Wikipedia Review is fairly widely read by Wikipedia editors, and he made his attacks there well before WMC's appeal was closed. Was he expecting his comments there to influence the outcome here, or was it just another cheap shot intended to poison the editing environment after WMC's ban was partially lifted, or what? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, it appears that Cla68 was violating the terms of his climate change topic ban by even commenting on WMC's appeal, a point which has been apparently missed so far in this discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On recent misuse of sources. I've hatted this myself, since I had missed that Dave Souza covered this already.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Only a month ago, Cla68 was involved in a content dispute at Irreducible complexity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He added a section to the article that offered a detailed description of the views of a single individual: [16]. (Looking back, it appears that this was carried over from a larger dispute involving Cla68 and others at Talk:Intelligent design and science#Sure looks like a duck.) When his addition to irreducible complexity was reverted, Cla68 opened a thread on the article talk page (Talk:Irreducible complexity#Baylor paper on this topic), but escalated to two separate noticeboards less than an hour later – before any other editor commented on the talk page – needlessly fracturing the discussion into three separate locations.

In those discussions, Cla68's position was universally rejected by the editors who participated. Cla68 nevertheless tried to declare the discussion at WP:RSN closed as lacking consensus ([17]) and implied that the discussions had been tainted by the presence of non-neutral parties and non-'regular' contributors to WP:RSN and WP:FTN.

Arguing strenuously across multiple discussion pages for the inclusion of a dubious source and for content giving undue weight to a non-expert's opinion strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that should ring alarm bells when the ArbCom considers returning an editor to climate change topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

I oppose Cla68's request for a blanket lifting of his ban. I would have been prepared to argue for a partial lifting, but I think that the quote MastCell provides is powerful evidence of the disruptive nature of Cla68, and that that his problematic attitudes continue. It is also evidence of his two-faced-ness: on-wiki, he strives for smoothness, but off-wiki the truth emerges. Cla68 attempts to dismiss this as a mere ad hominem argument and fails in any way to address the obvious problems that it demonstrates; I suggest that means any relaxation is inappropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Harvey

This request here is really a test of ArbCom - not Cla68 who in my opinion is a very good editor with no attachment to the climate change area at all. I find it truly amazing that arbitrators - after lifting the ban of editors as abusive as William M. Connolley (who engaged in battlefield conduct in his own request to have his ban lifted!) - are apparently listening to biased statements by William Connolley and his supporters.

I would like to make some pertinent points:

  • Cla68 was a model editor in the climate change area. This made him unpopular because he was willing to stand up to the POV-pushing majority in defence of neutrality. Cla68 is NOT a climate skeptic as far as I can tell. Nonetheless, in all the time I worked with him, alone of other editors, he was one of the few who never lost his cool while I was present. He was also perfectly even-handed - he would side with the majority against skeptics if skeptics were in violation of the policy. Frankly, Wikipedia owes him an award of some kind for the hard work he did mediating in the climate change area - not a topic ban.
  • Evidence presented for Cla68's topic ban fails to show justification. It is fairly obvious that ArbCom did not consider the actual evidence and based their topic ban on unproven allegations. To make up for this, the present Arbitrators should actually review the so-called evidence now. I provide some highlights but Arbs can find the diffs themselves by following the link in the previous sentence.

Since they were both given the same topic ban, it is instructive to compare the quality of evidence in the case of WMC and Cla68.

Evidence for lack of civility

  • Number of diffs given as evidence: WMC - 15, Cla68 - 4
  • Side by side comparison of civility:

WMC #1: 'you're still a noob in some ways. ... I finally got bored of your repeated errors and told you'. Cla #1: 'Trying to introduce any of these viewpoints into an AGW article in Wikipedia is often extremely difficult because of POV-warring by a group of editors who mainly edits those articles'. (a general statement, not directed at individuals, a perfectly accurate observation, and stated politely.) IMPORTANT NOTE: this is the ONLY diff of Cla68 about civility that occurred outside the ArbCom case itself, where people typically are allowed to speak more freely for obvious reasons.

WMC #2: (in the second edit WMC redacted another editor's comment with 'redacted PA - WMC' because the other editor wrote him 'Hi Will'. Cla #2: (after being accused of misrepresenting suggests "one side" is being "disingenuous").

WMC #3: (after being blocked for 48 hours for blatant violation of talk page rules by editing others' talk page comments, WMC edits the administrator's comment with [pap redacted - WMC] and [pap redacted - WMC]. Cla #3: (Cla68 points out using diffs that an admin claiming to be uninvolved is actually involved. The closest to 'incivility' I find is "Come on!" (Yes, that's right. Cla68 really did use an exclamation mark.)

WMC #4: (after ATren asks why pointing out WMC's incivility is the same as a 'vendetta', WMC directs ATren to his personal blog that makes it clear he is calling ATren a 'fool' and much worse. Cla #4: (criticises an Arb for not looking at the evidence against WMC close enough. In the process, points out that WMC repeatedly violated the BLPs of RealClimate's critics.)

I will stop at #4 but the morbidly curious should review the remaining WMC diffs to see how ridiculous it was to compare the behaviour of Cla68 with WMC in the first place.

Evidence for inappropriate use of sources

This is possibly the silliest of the three claims. Cla68 attempted to use a peer reviewed paper by William M. Connolley himself in an article. Three diffs are given to present the appearance of a pattern of behaviour, but in fact the remaining two diffs are just talk page comments. The totality of evidence given that Cla68 'inappropriately' used sources is a demonstration that he cited a paper by William Connolley.

Evidence for edit-warring

In order to demonstrate edit-warring you typically need to show that 3RR was violated, or in limited cases, perhaps 1RR. The evidence here though simply involves 7 unrelated reverts. It's possible that Cla68 was edit warring, of course; but this evidence doesn't show it.

So let me be clear and state this as politely as possible - the suggestion that Cla68's behaviour was within even the same orbit as WMC's - based on the evidence presented - is sad.

Statement by other editor

Further discussion

Statement by Binksternet

One of the possible interim solutions to help Cla68 regain the trust of the community is to allow one talk page entry per day per article in the previously banned topic. The talk page entry could be used to suggest changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I managed to find an online source for the Japan Times article Cla is mentioning. Though it is just a screen capture on Flickr it is sufficiently legible to see what he is talking about. All the article says related to climate change is that the solar power plant would significantly reduce Japan's carbon emissions. It doesn't touch on the general dispute over climate change so his concern about the topic ban in this respect is legitimate. Reducing the topic ban to be a more limited ban as Jclemens suggests would appropriately address that concern about having difficulty improving articles such as this. Perhaps the topic ban should be limited to any edits specifically on the dispute over anthropogenic global warming. In other words, mentioning climate change or matters related to climate change would be permitted so long as the edits do not have the effect of addressing the dispute over anthropogenic global warming.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Raul654

Cla68 is a very good editor on military and historical articles, but to be honest, his editing over at Intelligent design leaves me seriously doubtful of his competence when it comes to editing on science articles. I can point to one specific incident that crystallized this idea for me. Last January, Cla tagged the intelligent design article as a scientific theory. By itself, this edit should raise a very large red flag. He was reverted by Guettarda, who opened a talk page thread on the revert. Cla responded there, and that's when things really got crazy. Everyone here should go and read that thread in its entirety, because (IMO) Cla's comments there are so bizarre that it makes me seriously doubt his abilities as an editor. He said, among other things, that because Intelligent Design's advocates say that it is a scientific theory, we should simply take their word that it is when categorizing the article. Further, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between reporting on an advocate's belief and sharing that belief. To wit:

Me: If the New York Times prints the sentence Astrologers maintain that Astrology predicts the future, then by your logic it would be perfectly appropriate to edit the Astrology article to say that Astrology predicts the future
Cla68: I would say, "The New York Times says that Astrology predicts the future." Anything wrong with saying that?
Me: yes!! The New York Times is not making that assertion! The advocates of astrology are!

He went on to say that Wikipedia should avoid "taking a stand" on issues where there is any disagreement. As I responded to him there: Wikipedia "takes a side" anytime we say anything is factual that anyone disagrees with. Flat earthers claim that the world is flat. Creationists claim the Universe is about 6,000 years old. Holocaust deniers claim that only a few hundred thousand Jews died during World War II. Should be write articles to take these competing claims into account, in order to avoid taking sides? Should we describe the earth as "allegedly round" because doing otherwise would be taking sides in the flat earth "debate"? No, obviously we do not. Obviously, we should not. We have to use our critical thinking skills (*gasp*) to sort out which assertions are true and which ones are not. On Wikipedia, this is done by using reliable sources.

It's worth noting that after my above reply, Cla simply ignored me and continued (three more times) to assert that Wikipedia should avoid taking a stand, a textbook case of wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He also claimed that nowhere in Wikipedia's policies could he find a definition of what does and does not constitute science. (Needless to say, it didn't take me or others long to find such a definition) The discussion only ended when people started losing patience with his tactic of ignoring rebuttals and then bringing up the same debunked talking points two or three comments later. But even the reason he gave to end the discussion is alarming: "Clearly, current consensus is against adding a science category to this article, although I don't think policy supports the majority position." In other words, the dozens of comments by others made no impact whatsoever on his thinking and he was only dropping it because he could not find anyone to agree with him. This is classic tendentious editing. And, all of this happened *after* he was admonished by the arbitration committee about "battlefield conduct". (Cla68 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring,[154][155][156][157][158][159][160] inappropriate use of sources,[161][162][163] and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality,[164][165][166][167] -- Wikipedia:ARBCC#Cla68.27s_battlefield_conduct

Cla is a good editor on military and historical topics, and his failings that I've described aren't particularly relevant to those areas. But he is here asking for permission to be allowed to edit highly contentious scientific articles, when his track record suggests he is clearly not competent to edit them. Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Cla68: In 2010, this committee found that you "engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, inappropriate use of sources, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality". I make no presumption about your current contributions, but we must know: in relation to the subject of Climate Change (and not your - admittedly admirable - edits elsewhere), what has changed? AGK [•] 00:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raul, the evidence in your submission is rather outdated. The Intelligent design debacle, for instance, was over a year ago. Is there something more recent we should look at?

    To check back in here: I would have us decline this request for amendment, with the understanding that we can re-visit in about six months. At that time, I think we will be in a position to remove the topic ban - so long as no new evidence comes to light in the interim. I cannot support a circumscribed topic-ban; if an editor is banned from Climate change, then he is inherently unsuited to even the most incremental restoration of editing privileges, and frankly it's too large a risk for my liking. AGK [•]

  • Given the rationale for the amendment request, as an intermediate or interim step, I wonder whether it would make sense to start with a modification that would allow edits about climate change specifically in the context of Japan. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good first step (lifting WRT Japan articles) the WR comment postdates the Activist essay by several months. I can't see how that attitude is going to avoid clashing horns with someone sooner rather than later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unconvinced that the volume of edits currently prohibited by the topic ban merit an outright lifting in terms of the others who raise concerns about it. At most, I would be inclined to support something more limited as a first step. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Discretionary sanctions in cases named after individual editors

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Martinphi-ScienceApologist arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. The "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, variously named and numbered.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
N/A: the suggested amendment is cosmetic.

Amendment 1

Statement by Timotheus Canens

This request is prompted by a recent AE request, in which the practice of naming the applicable discretionary sanctions provision after an editor caused confusion on an editor who is not very familiar with the AE process. The three listed cases are the only cases named after individual editor(s) with a discretionary sanctions provision, according to WP:AC/DS; all other cases are named after the relevant topic area instead.

I recommend that the Committee make a cosmetic amendment that allows these discretionary provisions to be easily referenced using an arbitration case named after the subject area instead of individual editor(s). Not only is the latter approach rather counterintuitive and potentially confusing (if someone unfamiliar with AE wants to look up the discretionary sanctions provision for Eastern Europe, WP:DIGWUREN is not really the most obvious place to look), but it is also rather unfair to the editors at issue to have their usernames perpetuated in literally years of AE requests that usually have nothing to do with them. Digwuren (talk · contribs), for example, has not edited since June 2009, yet his username has been, and will be, by necessity, brought up in all AE discussions related to Eastern Europe simply because, by happenstance, the discretionary sanctions in this topic area was passed in a case named after him. As Newyorkbrad observed in a somewhat analogous situation, such a situation is "neither dignified nor fair". T. Canens (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill:
  • For Martinphi-ScienceApologist, my suggestion is to move the entire discretionary sanctions apparatus to the existing Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). The discretionary sanctions in this area were added by motion simultaneously to both the Pseudoscience case and the M-SA case, so the log is already split across two cases. When the Committee standardized discretionary sanctions, the new phrasing was added only to the M-SA case.
  • For Digwuren, the problem is that we already have the Eastern European disputes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) which post-dates this case. Maybe simply "Eastern Europe"?
  • For Abd-WMC, perhaps "Cold fusion 2"? T. Canens (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: WP:ARBRB doesn't have any remedy targeting non-parties to the case, which is why I didn't include it in the list. T. Canens (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eraserhead1

Seems like an excellent idea Tim.

Statement by EdJohnston

I support Tim's proposal to rename these cases. Replacing 'Digwuren' with 'Eastern Europe' sounds good. The acronym WP:ARBEE is available even though WP:EE is in use. Another option is WP:EECASE. We should not worry too much about confusing the proposed name, 'Eastern Europe', with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, since that case is less well known and there have been no enforcement actions since 2009. Tim did not mention Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys, also known as WP:ARBRB. If you want to include ARBRB in the reform, then how about 'Former Soviet Union' as a new name. EdJohnston (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim: I accept your reasoning for why ARBRB should not be included in the reform.
@Courcelles: Keeping 'Eastern Europe' in the revised case name For Digwuren would be a benefit not a disadvantage. The older cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes and WP:EEML, are historical curiosities and they don't need to be referred to very often. It is unlikely that any violations are going to be reported at AE in 2012 under these cases. WP:DIGWUREN is frequently cited at AE but it could logically be renamed to something like Eastern Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia

I would also like for WP:ARBRB to be renamed to something that does not include my username. I see no reason why I should also be required to put up with an Arb case being named (partly) after me, when the issues of the case were deeper than that -- as suggested by Ed above. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 10:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This has been suggested before, IIRC, had some support but because it wasn't seen as urgent at the time no one got around to carrying through. This is a good time to implement it then. I think Tim articulates the reasons for why this is a good idea quite well, so I don't have much to add on that.

All of Timotheus C's and EdJohnston's specific renaming suggestion are good.VolunteerMarek 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

This is both long overdue and welcome.

  • I would suggest ARB-EE for Eastern European disputes OUTSIDE the Soviet legacy--DIGWUREN is the appropriate basis: the later EE arbitration case actually resulted in some level of amnesty and moving forward; all the sanctions are in the Digwuren case (the one-sided naming has always been a problem as well).
  • I also suggest/second ARB-FSU (Former Soviet Union) for Soviet legacy cases (historic portrayal) as well as current geopolitics, i.e., Russia related to South Ossetia, Transnistria, et al. as well as the wider conflict between official Russia and the Eastern European countries over the Soviet legacy.

To some of the other comments, I don't see that EEML poses any confusion issue. This does leave us with what I see as one issue remaining regarding the above and all that has been stated so far:

  • "EE" is not really the appropriate rename for DIGWUREN, as I believe the sanctions have exhibited considerable scope creep outside the original Baltic purview. It might be more appropriate to consider a name completely outside the EE realm, a bit wordy but ARB-GEOPOLITICS might be what we are really after.

I would like to see a more active approach to renaming cases as soon as their enforcement bounds move beyond the scope of the original case and editors involved. There is no useful purpose to stigmatizing editors on any side of an issue manifesting strong disagreements amongst editors. I trust that actions here will set a positive precedent. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Seems the previous case that is named Eastern European Disputes was renamed for similar reasons as it was also previously named after a specific editor. However, it appears the Digwuren case has been the only one cited with regards to sanctions in the topic area. Not sure what the appropriate action would be there but several of the same editors are mentioned in those two cases and they involve the same topic area. As far as potential short names I think WP:EEUR or WP:EASTEUR would be good ones as they are regularly-used abbreviations and sufficiently distinct from the existing short names such as EEML.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The discretionary sanctions provision of Digwuren has the scope of "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I share the view of Ed and the other observers that the similarly-named cases (EEML being the most prominent) are nevertheless infrequently cited. I therefore propose as follows. AGK [•] 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

1) The case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. For the new title of Eastern Europe, WP:ARBEURO and WP:ARBEE are created as shortcuts. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Digwuren decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Digwuren case to Eastern Europe is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.


Support
  1. Proposed per above discussion. Many variants on Eastern Europe, such as Eastern Europe disputes, do exist, but I know from experience with enforcement that simpler case names are far less bothersome. AGK [•] 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As long as whatever it is isn't confusing to others, it's fine by me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not perfect (per Courcelles) but a good step towards depersonalising this,  Roger Davies talk 05:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. No, not in this form. The correct solution as I see here is that these sanctions, the Macedonia sanctions, and the AA ones should be consolidated into a single broad set of discretionary sanctions, instead of these three overlapping, vague decisions. I'd support renaming this case, transferring Macedonia and Armenia-Azerbaijan sanctions here, and making the scope something like "the counties and territories of the Former Soviet Union, Former Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus." Mabe not in these words, or those countries, but IMO, the solution here is to consolidate these three overlapping sanctions into one, not rename the Digwuren case into a vague, non-descript name that resembles other cases. Courcelles 17:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The three cases you mention cover fundamentally distinct conflicts (by which I meant that the associated real-world disputes are not substantially similar in nature, nor related to some common cause or constrained within some common geographic region), so I'm not sure why we'd want to combine those cases and not, say, the conceptually similar discretionary sanctions provisions for the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, etc. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not the same conflict, but they are within what the Digwuren case covers, which is the broad and vague topic of Eastern Europe. The cases were over different areas -- but the cases almost don't matter now, just the topic areas covered, and Digquren covers, in broad terms, what also have sanctions in AA and Macedonia cases. The problem isn't that the three cases overlapped in focus, but that the Digwuren sanctions sort of make the other two unnecessary if "Eastern Europe" is taken to make everything it can mean, and that having three sets of the same sanctions is nothing but a chance for wikilawyering. Courcelles 02:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comment by Arbitrators

Motion: Martinphi-ScienceApologist discretionary sanctions moved

2) The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Pseudoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken through, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are stricken through, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Pseudoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion.

The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed. Pseudoscience already exists, but counter-intuitively the discretionary sanctions for the topic were put under the Martinphi case. This motion moves the sanctions to the auspices of the case of broader scope, for clarify in future referencing. AGK [•] 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Suggested copyedit: change "stricken" to "relocated" or the like. (I think the motion uses "stricken" to mean either "lined through" or "relocated", but it can also have the different meaning of "cancelled altogether" which is not intended here, so it would be good to clarify.) The Clerk who implements this and the related motions to should put an explanatory note at the appropriate place(s) to minimize any confusion resulting from the motions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By "stricken", I mean "stricken through", so I have copy-edited to that effect. To be clear, the strike-throughs were supposed to serve as explanatory notes; the purpose of these motions is explicitly to not cancel any sanction, but to bring them into a more appropriate case. Sorry I wasn't more clear in the first place, and thanks for your suggestion. AGK [•] 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. And per NYB's copyedit suggesstions. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very weakly. I think that cases should be named to what they're about, but not strongly enough to oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support but do we mean psuedoscience or pseudoscience, or have I missed something?  Roger Davies talk 05:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well spotted. We mean pseudoscience, of course, and I've copy-edited to that end. (My browser doesn't mark the ue form as a typo, for some reason.) AGK [•] 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comment by Arbitrators

Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

3) The case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Okay,  Roger Davies talk 05:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Recused on matters regarding WMC, but if I did vote, I would support very weakly. I think that cases should be named to what they're about, but not strongly enough to oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=482847180"