Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xeno (talk | contribs) at 13:48, 1 February 2011 (→‎Statement by Count Iblis: nocat). 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
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic Motions 10 April 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light]] none none 23 January 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Wikipedia:Activist)|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Wikipedia:Activist)]] none none 18 January 2011

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Initiated by Jayron32 at 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Jayron32

My request for clarification is two fold. First, does motion 4 (Brews ohare advocacy restrictions) expire with motion 6, or motion 5? If it DOES expire with motion 6, then does this page: User:Count Iblis/Speed of light, which is pretty much exactly the point-of-view that Brews ohare tried to push into the Speed of light article, count as advocacy, and more to the point, does this use of said page count as advocacy of Brews ohare's POV, something expressly forbidden by motion 4. --Jayron32 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Count Iblis: For the record, I have never, once, had an interaction with Count Iblis on the Reference desks, on any article, on any article talk page, or any discussion board ever as far as I can tell. If I have, it has been so fleeting as to have been insignificant. The first time I even interacted with him was to notify him of this clarification. This is a request for clarification, not an accusation of any sort. I have no idea if his edits are a violation of any restriction, I was asking if they were. If not, no harm no foul. As to my editing history, it is open for view by anybody, I have nothing to cover up or explain or answer for. I make mistakes, I own up to them every time they are pointed out, and everytime someone shows me to be mistaken, I apologize for my mistakes and thank the person for helping me understand better. I never claim to know anything about anything, least of all physics, of which my knowledge is pretty much zilch, which is why I am asking for clarification here. I know so little about physics that I needed to file this request for clarification for someone to clarify if Count Iblis was violating his sanction, not to actually accuse him thereof. --Jayron32 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: Absolutely, and that's why I request a clarification in this case; the greater issue to me is the ambiguity regarding motion 4. Even if this wouldn't normally count as "advocacy" for the purpose of enforcing motion 4 (and as I have said once, I don't even have enough physics background to tell if is or is not anything close to Brews O'Hare's position. Seriously. I can't tell whether or not this is Brew's position, oblique to it, or 100% the opposite of it. I simply don't have enough physics or mathematics knowledge to make heads or tails of either person's position on the speed of light.) Motion 4 needs clarification regardless. The fact that motion 6 came into effect means, to me, that it is unclear if the advocacy stipulation was supposed to expire or not. If it actually has expired, then the second question becomes completely irrelevent, and frankly, I could care less at that point. So, if motion 4 has expired, then I couldn't give a shit what Count Iblis does. If motion 4 has not expired, the rest of the questions then become relevent. And then I would care. --Jayron32 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Two remarks:


1) The link on my userspace is the view supported by many theoretical physicists, which was completely the opposite of the view taken by Brews Ohare. Basically, I'm with Michael Duff on this issue (I've actually had private communication with him about this issue a long time ago). While I know that this view is a bit controversial, it is still a fully mathematically consistent view and any objections are thus of a purely metaphysical/philospical nature (therefore completely irrelevant as philosphy is not a real science). What I've done on my userpsace is given a derivation of the usual equations of relativity containing c starting from natural units. This is never done in textbooks, because it is awkward and it goes contrary to how beginning students think of dimensional quantities. What happens is that later on theoretical students learn that dimensional constants are just conversion factors and not fundamental at all, however, one then never revists the elementary stuff and does the derivations without invoking any dimensional constants (because it is waste of time).

To give a more familiar example, comapre e.g. partial fractions. When professional mathematicians or physicists have to do this, they usually use Laurent expansions, instead of the standard textbook techniques. When students learn this for the first time, they don't know anything about complex analysis. When they later study that subject, they don't need to revisit partial fractions, as they already know how to do it, albeit it in the awkward way.

2) I have observed that Jayron often makes misleading comments on the Ref Desk about modern physics, e.g. on gravitons, Quantum Field Theory etc. I can tell from his answers that he bases his reasoning on popular books, not on real textbooks. I doubt he has ever worked through standard textbooks like this or this one, because his reasoning is easily debunked from what one can read in these books. Also, he argues a lot defending his personal views, e.g. on gravitons that go counter to the thinking in modern physics; the way he does it is misleading, as to lay persons it looks like he speaks from some authority.

Conclusion: Clearly Jayron is behaving a lot like Brews was perceived to behave. He is wrong about a lot of things on modern physics and pushes his views on the ref desk. He has now used this board while the disagreement seems to lie with a statement about the role of the speed of light which is a normal view held within theoretical physics (as opposed to the view held by Brews). Clearly he is unaware of the fact that it is a normal view held by many. He should have known that Brews's view is the complete opposite had he taken the time to check this out. Clearly he hasn't done that, so he is making a statement of a fact when he doesn't know what he is talking about. Presumably, all he has done is check that I was once (wrongly) restricted for "advocacy" and that Brews was topic banned, and then "concluded" that my view posted on my userspace is the same view held by Brews.

Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

Count_Iblis is certainly entitled to keep wikipedia-related text in his userspace.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other users

Just looked through Count Iblis's user page on the speed of light. The math is a pretty standard deviation of classical Newtonian mechanics from relativity based on first principles. I'm not seeing any fringe advocacy here. The text is a little confusing, but looks to be a decent way of explaining some of the differences between Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sailbystars reading of Count Iblis's page looks about right to me. Brews's stuff was completely different and was nonsense. While the page might technically run afoul of NOTWEBHOST, I myself wouldn't bother kicking up a fuss about it. One idea might be for Count Iblis to transfer the content to Wikibooks:Special Relativity. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added: yes, my understanding is that the advocacy restrictions are no longer in force. There was an incident last August that led to some talk of renewing them, but the renewal didn't happen. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sailbystars. It's an interesting approach I haven't seen before, but on a quick read appears to makes sense (I did not read carefully). I'm not sure it would be the most helpful approach to present to a casual reader, so I am happy it is a user space essay and not the text of our article on the topic, but there seems to be no need for arbcom involvement or clarification - unless they want as individuals to engage in interesting discussions on physics. Martinp (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • On a plain read, and unless I've missed something, the advocacy restrictions expired at the end of June 2010 and were not renewed with the subsequent motions. –xenotalk 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I've only answered the first of Jayron's question. The second question (which I'm woefully ill-equipped to answer) only requires addressing if the restrictions are still in place (and I don't believe they are). –xenotalk 01:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a decent layperson's knowledge of physics, perhaps even above average, but that's all. I can try to opine on this issue, but am willing at least for now to defer to those who might know more of what they are talking about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's become apparent that there is no issue requiring our intervention here, and that this request can soon be closed out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing wrong with Count Iblis's user page (it it, indeed, an unusual but entirely uncontroversial derivation of Newtonian mechanics), and the restriction did end last June. — Coren (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general agreement with those above. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Xeno - the restrictions have expired. Otherwise, the restriction was clearly intended to prevent disruption, and a page in userspace isn't especially problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Wikipedia:Activist)

Initiated by TS at 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Tony Sidaway

The essay Wikipedia:Activist was started last August by now topic-banned editor Cla68 (see early revision), evidently as a result of his experiences editing articles on climate change, although it is relevant to other controversial topics. In November it survived a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist).

In this arbitration case Cla68 and several other editors, including the listed parties ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley, were found to have engaged in "battlefield conduct" with respect to the topic of climate change, and subject to the following restriction:

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

At first sight the recent edits by ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley at that essay seem to fall under clause (iii) and (iv).

Here four days ago now admin Nuclearwarfare fully protected the essay for 48 hours because, in his words "This essay and this talk page have completely devolved into utter uselessness. Nothing in these recent talk page discussions look like they have any promise of ultimately helping the encyclopedia." Since then Cla68 has engaged in discussion on the talk page.

A discussion involving Doc glasgow, "since when did essays need references", went in the direction of letting the parties squabble on an essay because it's of little consequence. That's arguable but the activity here seems to suggest that the involved editors aren't letting this matter go.

I want to solicit arbitrator comments on this matter, particularly comments about the likely outcome of any future review of the topic bans, in view of deliberate engagement in this topic. Also any decision to take this to WP:AE (an act that has had mixed results in the past) would be strongly influenced by arbitrator consensus. --TS 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anybody doesn't understand what this request is about, it's a request for arbitrator comment: viz, comment on the scope of the remedies pertaining to the case I cite and their implication for the editing of tangentially related essays. As far as I'm aware that's what this process is intended for: clarification. --TS 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reading Casliber's comments it occurred to me that a bold redirect to the essay Wikipedia:Advocacy may be more useful than trying to resolve the issues with this one. I've done it. Material from one essay may be merged into the other if necessary. --TS 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than getting ourselves bogged down in the pros and cons of the essay (which is apparently here to stay, at least for the time being) perhaps the arbitrators should address the way in which this document is being used to continue the bad faith and bickering that was hosted on the climate change articles until recently, apparently prosecuted by some of the topic-banned editors and their enablers. Surely this is something on which the Committee can suggest a way forward. --TS 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The essay was found to be allowable at AfD, and some who demurred seem to have made edits which are, on their face, a bit less than helpful thereto. [1] is one thereof. Cla68 has made 6 of the last 250 edits, of which he made none since 25 December. Nor have any of Zulu's edits appeared to be in any way, shape or form disruptive to normal editing of essays. I would suggest a simple statement that disruption of editing of an essay for the clear sake of disruption has occurred, and should be denounced. Collect (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just one example -- see [2], [3], ad nauseam. Collect (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See [4], [5] etc. In the words of Cicero, "How long, O Cataline?" applies. There are dozens of such edits - and this does not even begin to touch the weirdness found on the article talk page. Collect (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "bold redirect" as essentially allowing the improper edits to have the effect they were intended to have - that is, deletion of the essay when it was not deleted at AfD. Allowing misbehaviour to circumvent WP policies is the worst possible sort of precedent imaginable. Collect (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottyBerg

I'm not certain of the purpose of this clarification request, or if one is needed. The essay was written while the CC case was underway, and nobody brought it up, and it was not mentioned in the decision. The sole diff diffs provided by Collect above is not worth making a fuss about. The essay has problems and should have been deleted. I do believe that it was at least in part influenced by the then-ongoing CC arbitration, but I don't see what needs to be clarified. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cherry-picked diffs provided by Collect are of zero relevancy to this clarification request. If it is OK for topic-banned editors to create/participate in this essay, whether the edits are good or not is not an issue for arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Casliber's concern that the essay may "read like a manual for anyone wanting to push a fringe POV into gaming a battlefield with mainstream defenders." I was concerned about that from the beginning and wrote a section on "activism to advance fringe points of view." It was gutted without discussion and with the edit summary "trying to tidy some of the writing."[6]. Even with that section, the essay was problematic. In one of its most recent permutations it suggested that poor writing may be a hallmark of activists! Tony's redirect is the only solution. I see that edit warring has taken place to revert Tony's redirect, with, naturally, a "don't edit war" edit summary [7]. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZuluPapa5

I sought clarification when entering the essay. I've seen no evidence but guilt by association in regards to the CC sanctions. Best I can tell, those working to keep CC banned editors out of the essay, are escalating the CC issues. Guess I'll have to start my own essay. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Bold redirect is battle like. The essay had progressed to address concerns. Have faith.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [8] can we establish an clear issue before jumping to conclusion, I am befuddled why I was called in here, other then the pretext of my topic ban. The only way I have to satisfy concerns, is to apparently stay out of the essay for good? That is, after being forced to wear the badge of shame, called a battleground topic ban, until I can appeal on my building content record. How can I build content, if my actions continue to be called into question by association? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

The essay was originally drafted by me and several other editors, and presumably (in the case of the other participating editors) and for sure on my part, based on all of our experiences and observations participating in Wikipedia over a number of years. Once posted, I have participated in content discussions on the essay's talk page and, along with other editors, have added some more content. I have not, however, made a single revert to the essay. Some editors agree with what the essay says, and some obviously disagree, but I don't see any problem with that, as one of the purposes of Wikipedia essays are to provoke reflection, discussion, and critical thinking of issues involved in building an encyclopedia.

Of Tony's actions here, I'm not sure that this is an appropriate request. He isn't asking for clarification, instead asking for "arbitrator comments". In other words, it looks like he's trying to pull some comments out of the arbitrators that he can use as weapons later to continue the battlefield behavior that he has exhibited since the close of the CC arbitration case. He has previously tried to make what appears to be an attempt to draw me and others back into a battle with him as the instigator. To be honest, I resent his attempts, whether intentional or not, to do so. I ask that the arbitrators not allow themselves to be drawn into whatever it is he's trying to do here, and let the rest of us get back to building an encyclopedia, of which some of us are actually trying to do. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Count Iblis...a few (fortunately, very few) editors involved with the essay have tried to turn it into a battleground over the CC topic. Most of the participating editors (including me, IMHO) have refrained from being drawn into that type of behavior, which is appropriate since the essay is not a part of the CC topic area. Personally, I am disappointed to see those few editors try to turn the essay into a CC battleground, but they are responsible for their own actions. Therefore, if the behavior of those few editors needs to be dealt with, then AE might be the appropriate forum, not here. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Solution: Make a template like this

with "article" replaced by "essay".

Clearly, there is a problem with the way the essay is being edited. The main points made in the essay are the same that the climate sceptical editors have complained about since 2007, however the essay formulates these abstractly, avoiding mention of climate change or global warming. Of course, editors are allowed to write such essays, but the problem is that there is no real collaborative editing going on. Moreover, many of the main editors were involved in the CC case, in fact quite a few were topic banned. So, i.m.o. one should make the essay subject to general sanctions. Alternatively, Cla68 could move it to his userspace. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ludwigs2

Allow me to point out that I have seen this issue raised many times on wikipedia - in at least three essays, and in countless talk page and ANI threads on multiple topics, so this in not something that's specific to climate change. I fact, it affects (to my personal knowledge) climate change, alternative medicine, fringe science issues, issues concerning israel and palestine, judaism more broadly put, socialism broadly put, and many issues in American politics.

The problem (put most generally) occurs when a number of editors implicitly or explicitly decide to coordinate their efforts in order to impose a particular viewpoint as truth on wikipedia. they may do this intentionally (as part of a real-world effort to use wikipedia for propaganda) or they may do it unintentionally (out of a personal conviction that what they are arguing for is the truth), but in either case they use the same series of edit-warring and shout-down tactics to achieve their end (basically a kamikaze approach that either gets them what they want or renders the article and talk page unreadable and uneditable). It's a major behavioral problem that wikipedia has not yet managed to master (because every time someone tries to address the issue, one or more of these loose coordinate groups feels threatened and shouts-down the effort).

There's more I could say on the issue (I could talk on this topic extensively) but I'll restrict myself to pointing out that if the raison d'etre for this request is that this is something specific to climate change, then this request is specious and should be dismissed out of hand. this isn't even remotely restricted to climate change. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

Calsiber gave an opinion on the Essay. However it was just that, an opinion. There is no arbcom ruling that overides the community decision to keep the essay. Casliber and all arbitrators are welcome of course to participate in any community discussion on the essay itself in their editorial capacity.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

Casliber, you have missed User:Ravpapa/Tilt, which is far more hands on. I don't see how documenting the alleged practices is a "violation" of anything but WP:BEANS, an essay itself.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I must say I have a problem with the essay as is, as I am concerned that it reads like a manual for anyone wanting to push a fringe POV into gaming a battlefield with mainstream defenders...which strikes me as antithetical to the production of neutral comprehensive encyclopedia. For that reason, I am saddened that the deletion discussion did not come to a conclusion that a merge with Wikipedia:Advocacy. The rationale is that the discussion can be applied to mainstream and fringe activists, rather than concentrating on the former, which I feel is unhelpful. That said, we don't have a policy on merging essays, and we have over a thousand of them apparently - what worries me is a "not seeing the forest for the trees" - Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#essay - doesn't have alot to say. If it were up to me, I think the essay as is is a little too close to home to the recent arbitration case, and hence does have battleground elements to it, yet I recognise others don't see it as such. I would hope that in general, there is more of an effort to merge similar essays into more solid essays, which would helpfully give them greater weight, readability and legitimacy, and that if this is not spontaneous, then maybe an RfC into essays and looking at how to streamline them is fruitful. I note there is a new Essays Wikiproject which might be agood place to log centralised discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At times in the essay, Cla68 may possibly allude to his role in the global warming articles dispute, but I don't consider that he has breeched the sanctions imposed on him. Otherwise, perhaps a future consensus will support a merge, a userfication or rewrite of this essay, however that's outside of ArbCom's prerogative. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This situation is being overblown on all sides. I do not presently see a need for arbitrator intervention here, although I hope I will still be able to make that comment a few days from now. I will add that when an essay proves to be this divisive in Wikipedia space, the obvious solution is often to userfy it; although perhaps this is more in the nature of an MfD !vote as opposed to an arbitrator comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The situation appears to have quieted down a bit. Can we close out this request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this situation appears to have been resolved without arbitrator intervention. My review of the recent edits shows that the worst behavior involved in the essay editing belonged to an editor who has since departed from Wikipedia for at least a year. The named Climate Change parties' edits, though inadvisable, do not appear to have risen to the level that AE would have been unavoidable. At the same time, had an uninvolved administrator sanctioned either one for their participation in the editing of this essay, I would not have objected. The clarification I would encourage all parties to take is this: finding proxy topics on which to snipe or snark at former opponents on topics from which one is currently banned is entirely against the spirit of such topic bans. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=411373328"