Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FayssalF (talk | contribs) at 11:09, 12 March 2009 (→Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science: that was meant to be a comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
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
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Current requests

Phi Kappa Phi

Initiated by Angtitimo (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried.

  • See Talk:Phi Kappa Phi. Lhakthong and Angtitimo agreed on 03/10/2009 to bring the contentious issue to arbitration after failing to agree on wording of lead, and continuing, daily edits by Lhakthong of the Phi Kappa Phi article.


Statement by Angtitimo

Dispute was raised by above filing party:

1) Phi Kappa Phi article is protected, but being edited daily by Lhakthong. Please settle dispute over why there is preferential treatment given by admin (unknown to Angtitimo) to Lhakthong who is being allowed to edit a protected or semi-protected article as of 02/29/2009. Lhakthong is editing it daily apparently to market/advertise Phi Kappa Phi; and 2) Improper editing by Lhakthong. Lhakthong continues to edit contentious lead by making the non-neutral, POV, misleading and unqualified "claims" that Phi Kappa Phi is the "largest" and "most selective" all-discipline honor society, and by wording the third and fourth sentences in the lead as "claims" to evade NPOV rule. I have suggested that the third and fourth sentences be qualified to indicate that other similar societies are factually just as large and selective, if not larger or more selective. There is factual and verifiable information I listed in Talk:Phi Kappa Phi to show that claims made by Lhakthong are false and baseless. There is no need to do any OR on the part of anyone because information is available and factual concerning equally very selective honor societies which were reference in Talk Page. Angtitimo (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lhakthong

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/0)

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
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
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024


Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

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


Statement by Hipocrite

SirFozzie "clarified" this case here. Is this valid? How could an outside user looking in know this was valid? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to ArbCom
Thank you for your haste in dealing with this. It is appreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The topic ban placed on ScienceApologist has proven highly problematic. It has lead to intense wikilawyering and campaigning for blocks on WP:AE.[1][2][3][4] The Arbitration Committee was appointed to decide difficult cases. Decide. Don't fob your responsibilities onto the admin corps. No two users seem to agree on what the topic ban covers. Does it cover a simple article on plants, such as Atropa belladona? Can SA work on an article like Gamma-ray burst? If SA finds unsourced WP:OR in that article, can he remove it? SA has many antagonists who are ready to jump in and claim that SA is violating the topic ban. The decision in this case has made a total mess at WP:AE. You've made the situation worse rather than better. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie can't be sanctioned because impersonating ArbCom isn't a crime. Everybody knows he's not ArbCom and that he doesn't have the power to modify a remedy. He can certainly express his common sense view on what a remedy means, which I think he did quite well. The sanction handed down was naive because it failed to understand how heated and wikilawyerish the fringe science area is. Either you ban somebody completely or you topic ban them in a way that leaves little doubt. SA is a science editor. Virtually all science articles have some sort of fringe component. The ban as currently written might was well be a siteban if it is going to be construed that broadly. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

There are two basic ways to interpret SirFozzie's action. First, as part of the normal discretion implied and neccesary in having to interpret terms such as "broadly construed" and the generally wide berth that admins are given to enforce arbitration remedies, or 2. as an extra-procedural, but I would argue correct modification to an Arbitration remedy.

The exact wording of the remedy is as follows: "3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles."

The key terms are "any article" and "broadly construed" The simplest and plain text reading of the remedy would allow any administrator to block ScienceApologist if he edits on any article that has any relation to fringe science, no matter how minute the relationship. This would include any edit on any such article, even the most uncontroversial. In other words, un-watchlist and walk away, you don't belong here. What others have interpreted it as is articles only tightly related to fringe science, or which the subject is fringe science - paranormal activity, UFOlogy, and so forth. Unfortunately, confounding the issue, some science is "fringe" in that it is generally not considered science, and some science is simply unpopular or in legitimate dispute (is my position that Pluto is a planet "fringe?"). In addition, this would also mean that edits that in themselves concern fringe science, are not restricted. Thus, an edit to Chinese culture is not restricted, even if it is to say "Chinese medicine is a pseudoscientific fraud" - which is clearly related to fringe science topic, but is not a fringe science article.

Fozzie's interpretation more accurately addresses what I believe was the intent of the committee: to keep ScienceApologist from editing on topics he has shown a history of problematic behavior, and thus the edit itself should also fall under the microscope. Otherwise, in order to make the restriction effective, we must go with the plaintext reading, leaving ScienceApologist topic banned from any article that touches the subject of fringe science or fields that are pseduoscientific, or have been related to fringe science in present or past, because of the wording of "broadly construed" - or we can use a common sense approach in reading the topic ban. Excessive obsession over wording minutiae leads us away from the obvious, but I will indulge anyway to point out this: both Bainer and Coren referred to the "topic area" which implies it is the content itself, not the title of the article, that is the problem.

It is my opinion that SirFozzie's clarification serves an obvious purpose: he is essentially publishing his interpretation of the remedy's intent and wording, and thus putting upfront under what conditions he as an administrator will block under - and other admins can endorse his opinion (as I do now) as the interpretation they will use.

If it is the opinion of the Committee that SirFozzie's action was confusing or distressingly extraprocedural, the solution is to quickly come to a clarification, preferably one endorsing SirFozzie's interpretation. Let me remind the Committee however, that Aribtration Enforcement is a difficult matter, and the administrators need a great deal of support, and as this request for comment has shown, the administrators are not getting it. It is the natural result of this situation that AE admins are left to make interpretations on the fly and on the ground - and that overriding such a decision should only be done when there is significant need. If the Committee chooses to disagree significantly and say so, it should also be the first of many acts showing the dedication of the Committee to become more responsive and involved in the administrator work done to enforce Arbitration decisions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist is not improving the encyclopedia by making typo fixes in a topic banned area. Perhaps he was trying to, and I'm sure the fixes themselves were helpful, but the level of drama and disruption that was inevitable and likely planned has NOT improved anything. Improve the encyclopedia does not mean "I'm right, and the rest of you can go to hell." That attitude belongs in your own private space and work.--Tznkai (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist

One solution may be to simply lift the topic ban. There was another proposal called "3.2" that was gaining traction (maybe) but the arbitration closed before all arbitrators had a chance to consider it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1.1 is pretty good as it makes others accountable for fringe science while enabling me to continue editing the 5 to 10 articles I normally edit each week. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DreamGuy

I almost posted to the ArbCom decision page to ask how on earth some random admin thought he had the authority to rewrite the text of one of the conclusions and present it as if it were valid. ArbCom should be the ones doing that stuff. He is certainly within his rights to suggest a rewording to ArbCom, but it should be explicitly agreed upon by all the people who voted for the conclusion or else it has no validity. I don't care what the issue is, it's a matter of principle and simple functioning of this site in general. The reason I didn't post originally is I figured it's probably what Arbcom intended and they could certainly object to it when they saw it, so this specific issue isn't my concern. Admins can't just unilaterally rewrite ArbCom decisions, and especially not admins with histories on conflict with the person it'd affect, and I can't believe it's even necessary to have to clarify that to people, but I guess it is. Admins who pull things like this should be firmly warned and removed if anything similar happens again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be very helpful if some of the people responding here took a minute to read and realize this is not an arbitration request on ScienceApologist. It's a request to clarify a single admin can take it upon himself to rewrite an ArbCom decision. Whether the text of the rewrite itself makes sense is a side issue (people can agree that it would make a good clarification without agreeing on whether it the edits were made properly), and everything else is a completely off-topic tangent that doesn't belong here. 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Middle 8

What Chillum said. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this gem from ScienceApologist himself. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Dreamguy's admonition

Some of us (including some arbs, cf. below) evidently want to expand the discussion to the root of the problem. No offense intended.

Concurrence with User:ImperfectlyInformed

My experiences have been similar to I.I.'s, including being the target of one of SA's frivolous WP:AE actions. [5] Those are a lot more worrisome to me, in terms of the topic ban, than the correction of spelling errors. SA has continued in his battleground mode, trying to make life as miserable as possible for those whose content views he opposes (and I also agree with I.I. that for a supposed "science editor" SA is remarkably parsimonious in his offering of sources, instead preferring to edit war over contentious language).

ArbCom and WP:AE admins not on the same page

WP:AE admins are declining to sanction SA for valid complaints users have brought over his continued misconduct: and I don't mean just the spelling errors, I mean SA's frivolous complaints to AE, which are self-evidently escalatory and vengeful. [6] Reasons for admins' lack of action seem to include their disagreeing with the decision and therefore refusing to enforce it (shouldn't they just recuse in that case?), opting to err on the side of decorum over difficult enforcement decisions, and not quite knowing what balance to strike in terms of whether to be gentle or firm with SA in the wake of his just having been through Arbitration. I certainly understand that AE admins' jobs are not easy, but it would be good to "get everyone on the same page", and in that light Coren's comments below are helpful (as was Sir Fozzie's attempt to move toward clarity).

ScienceApologist still adheres to his M.O.

In his words: "I'm not at all convinced that the way I've been doing it clearly won't work. It is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic." [7] I'm sure he genuinely believes this; the problem is that (a) he has some qualities of a WP:FANATIC, and does a poor job of deciding who is really a problematic editor (ImperfectlyInformed? Seicer? Elonka? No, I don't think so), and (b) his approach is un-Wikipedian: if WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVILITY mean anything, they mean we don't resolve disputes by chasing away editors with a stick. The germ of truth in his statement is that we do need to be stricter in policing content, but his approach is all wrong.

Compassion vs. enabling and double-standards

I also appreciate that SA is under a high level of wikistress and may be more likely to "act out", but consider that he's been "acting out" all along, and is merely continuing or escalating his existing pattern of bad behavior. Seems to me it's a deliberate "fuck you" to ArbCom and those who dare to disagree with him. Enough double standards and apologetics. Please take a firm stand on how handle this loose cannon of an editor. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

Sir Fozzie's action is an obviously valid interpretation of the arbcomm remedy. I thus fully endorse the first five paragraphs of Tznkai's comment.

Instead of the sixth paragraph, I note that the sort of boundary pushing and rules lawyering evidenced in the recent WP:AE threads is 1) what we've been seeing for months in this topic area, 2) therefore utterly unsurprising, and 3) the reason why some of those engaged in it are likely to end up permanently site or topic banned due to a demonstrated inability to edit productively in a collaborative environment. I think the encyclopedia would be better off if those caught up in battleground behavior change their editing habits and edit collaboratively with those with whom they disagree, but this sort of behavior, unchanged, is likely to end up with some of them site banned.

I also think Chillum's suggestion is likely what is needed to change this user's current behavior pattern - the boundary needs to be made very clear and any crossing of that boundary needs to result in sanctions. Currently the boundary we have is an article space topic ban, and Sir Fozzie's interpretation makes the boundary clearer so is a good step toward implementing Chillum's suggestion. The next step is enforcing it. GRBerry 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed

The edit which brought this "clarification" is [8]. It's a typical edit for ScienceApologist, where he changed "a homeopathic mixture may have few to no molecules" to "there is none" and it obviously relates to fringe science, broadly construed. It's a fairly pointy and trivial edit; I don't see why this clarification is necessary. Other post-ArbCom edits include removing a reference that sodium lauryl sulfate is associated with canker sores [9]. That's not a spelling correction, and is more debatable. I think SA thinks it's fringe science. I would revert him on it, but I don't want to get into an edit war. The fact that I'm reluctant to contest this sort of thing, even though 3 studies have shown an association with SLS and canker sores (PMID 7825393, PMID 8811135, PMID 9656847 -- 2 research teams) while 1 has not (PMID 10218040), gives an indication of the degree to which: 1) ScienceApologist is willing to edit-war and 2) how willing he is to remove scientific studies which do not support his POV. Even if I were to present the balanced picture, there's a good chance SA would revert. Actually, the above is all false. Looks like he was just removing it from the lead. My apologies.

In other news, ScienceApologist has now decided to up his campaign of false allegations and bad faith:

  • He recently called for a community ban of me and called me a POV pusher and "terrible editor", but the only diff he was able to provide was of me noting through a source that casualty insurance, which includes liability as well as property insurance, is problematically defined.
  • He has said that "it is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic", and he seems to think that I'm one of those people [10].
  • The above allegations ignore the fact that I have probably done as much or more to suppress fringe science than he has, because I use references and clarify the facts. For example, I added the first critical reference on chelation therapy for heart disease [11] and recently summarized what the past studies have found [12], I used an old Science reference to shed some light on the origin of the laetrile controversy, I supported the categorization of alternative cancer treatments which put most of them into "disproven" or "scientifically implausible", based mainly on references, I suggested putting the systematic review of multiple chemical sensitivity which found no support that it's a physical condition in the lead, and I've clarified exactly what the National Research Council found on fluoride's toxicity -- which largely entailed showing that toxic effects to DNA and organs seem to occur, if at all, at a much higher dose than one will get in any dose from fluoridated water.
  • Most recently I've faced opposition from ScienceApologist for using references to show that one of orthomolecular medicine's pet therapies, high-dose vitamin E for heart disease, was debunked by two RCTs, one in 1950 and one in 1974 [13] and also, in that edit, clarified that the epidemiological studies finding lower heart disease among high vitamin E consumers was not orthomolecular, but mainstream. No explanation has been provided for removing the material, but it appears that I will have trouble working it into the article.

While no evidence has been provided of problematic editing on my part, people nevertheless feel entitled to assume bad faith of me because of ScienceApologist's unjustified mudslinging. The widespread misinformation campaign and frequent attacks has led to administrators who are afraid to enforce the Arbitration Committee's ruling, for fear of being tarred and feathered as fringe science promoteres and apologists. There is a widespread misconception that ScienceApologist does a lot of good work, when most of his edits are actually controversial not because they are good science, but because they are pointy and non-neutral. Good editors who combat fringe science such as User:Eubulides do not have major issues because they use references and present both sides. They are highly effective.

Since ScienceApologist feels so comfortable calling me a "terrible editor", I can honestly say that I can't recall ever seeing him add a reference, and I haven't been able to find any in a search of his contributions I've noticed that he very rarely adds references. If he wants to combat pseudoscience, using references is the way to go. A review of his contributions also shows that he has been editing fringe health science topics exclusively yesterday and today, although he also proposed Elonka for deletion. On the other hand, I add probably an average of 1-2 peer-reviewed journal references, often reviews, per edit. II | (t - c) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gatoclass

Unless I've missed something here, I must endorse Dreamguy's position. Administrators cannot just alter Arbcom decisions willy-nilly according to their own interpretations. Surely such actions are reserved for this very "Clarifications" section! Whether SirFozzie's interpretation is right or wrong, it's a breach of process to go about it this way and that needs to be made clear. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildofMidnight

Speedy close. And as a side question, how many fairies fit on the head of a pin? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by SirFozzie

This is a rather rough situation. The case involved, Fringe Science, closed about ten days ago. Since then, AE has been flooded with the same people, who are still fighting the same wars, in the same ways. We have a user, who's openly declared that he intends to push the boundaries of his topic ban in every way, shape and form possible.

ScienceApologist knew exactly what he was doing in his edits on the article Atropa belladonna. The plant itself may not be part of a strict reading of his topic ban, since a majority of the article wouldn't be considered "fringe science". However there is two mitigating factors in this. First of all, there is no doubt that his edit (on the homeopathic use of the plant ,or supposed homeopathic use), would generally fall under his topic ban. Secondly, he had been sanctioned under the Homeopathy ArbCom case as an AE action previously for this very same article, for the very same reasons. Now, admittedly, the sanction had been placed on him by an administrator he has a good amount of antipathy towards, but there is no doubt that he knew (or should have known) that this was either a violation of his topic ban, or at the very least, something he should have gotten clarification on before doing.

I decided that a firm clarification was necessary to ensure that the boundary was made clear. I made it clear that I did not speak for the Arbitration Commitee, or any of its members (In the interests of full disclosure, I did briefly discuss the situation with one member of the Arbitration Committee, but that was little more then a "I'm sure this will be kicked up to you" notice".)

I did not block SA, although many would argue I had good reason to at this point. Instead, I issued a clarification from myself as an AE admin, to make it clear where the boundaries are, to avoid him or his supporters claiming that I had "moved the goalposts on him" if a block had occured. I submit to the Committee that this is utterly uncontroversial. I did not re-write the decision, as people above me are claiming. I logged it in a section marked "Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.". That is what I did. I stated it was an AE action, not a "Speaking for ArbCom" action.

ScienceApologist has stated in various ways that he will continue to defy his topic ban. He made a statement as an announcement on his talk page that This user ignores all arbitration rulings made about him. and I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring. (From AE, diff coming shortly).

I apologize to the Committee for the length of my statement, and if anyone wants to summarize, I will move the remaining part of mystatement off this page

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The issue at hand is whether individual administrators have the authority to make interpretations of Arbcom's intent that are binding on other administrators. It is up to Arbcom to decide whether they want to allow this, but in either event they should make it clear. The specific concerns about SA's behavior should be dealt with separately after the larger issue is clarified, and there should be no sanction against the muppet Knight Batchelor for taking initiative in a gray area. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:William M. Connolley

If SA corrects a spelling error (or reverts clear and blatant vandalism) on a "fringe science" article, and someone blocks him for it, that will be stupid. If he does the same, and someone reports him to AE for it, they should be cautionned for being vexatious, and blocked for repeat offences William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:MaxPont

I sometimes see other users express surprise about the fact that ScienceApologist stir up so much controversy and that they don't understand why ScienceAplogist constantly is targeted by other users in ANI, 3RR, RFA, etc. I wonder why. It is obvious that ScienceApologist is gaming the system as much as possible and expresses strong defiance against the ArbCom[14]. I am surprised that the ArbCom tolerate this blatant challange of the authority and trust they have been given by the Wikipedia community. If the ArbCom don't make a swift and visible statement that spitting them in the face is unacceptable any troublemaker can copy this strategy and begin to ignore ArbCom rulings.

Statement by User:Abd

My conclusion from review of what SA has written about these edits is that he is deliberately pushing the edges of the topic ban, and that he's being supported in that by at least one editor. There is substantial evidence for disruptive intent. ("Harmless edits" to articles and sections covered by the ban complicate Arbitration enforcement, requiring discussion of edit content, plus SA has stated defiant intent claiming WP:IAR). I have suggested how SA could make truly noncontroversial edits such that I would vigorously defend his right to improve the project in such ways, without complicating arbitration enforcement, which would be self-reversion, allowing other editors to quickly incorporate truly non-controversial edits. When we topic-ban an editor, we lose something (possibly valuable contributions), and we only do it when it's considered necessary to avoid disruption. Here, disruption is being created, with the assistance of Hipocrite, who reverted the allegedly harmless edits, took matters to AE without necessity, and filed this request for clarification. I urge the committee to take this seriously, and to order the ban to be enforced strictly, but excluding edits promptly self-reverted or simply proposed in Talk. I will provide diffs for what I have asserted here in the collapse section below. --Abd (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I'm practicing civil disobedience.[15]

I think it's time for a test case.[16]

Bans are legitimate only inasmuch as the community has abandoned WP:IAR, which, I believe, they have. What I believe this will comes down to is punishing people for correcting misspellings.[17]

  • Note that the community wasn't "punishing people for correcting mispellings." The problem with the minor corrections wasn't raised by general community members, who were mostly counseling ignoring these edits, but by SA's supporter, with SA's consent, to test the limits.

If the community doesn't want to enforce a topic ban, is it really a topic ban?[18]

  • SA knows that if minor corrections can be made, as if there were no ban, the toe is in the door.

I will continue to edit fringe science articles to improve them to protest the idiocy of arbcom as an object-lesson in how irrelevant and out-of-touch they are.[19]

This user ignores all arbcom rulings.[20]

I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring.[21]

  • If he believed that the edits were not disruptive, the ensuing flap, with multiple AE reports and this clarification request, should be ample evidence to the contrary.

SA has stated that he's practicing "civil disobedience." Those who do so know it is disruptive, and they expect to be arrested. Accordingly, even though normally SA would not have been blocked for minor technical ban violations that were truly non-controversial, some of the edits weren't so innocent,(see edit summary) and given the manifest disruptive intent, he should be short-blocked to confirm that ArbComm sanctions will be enforced, and he should be warned that continued violations, even if merely "technical," will result in further action. It is not about spelling.

(A self-reverted, non-disruptive edit should not considered violation, but merely a more efficient "proposed edit" than if in Talk, and any editor, taking responsibility, can then implement in seconds.) --Abd (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing it asserted here, on User talk:ScienceApologist, and elsewhere, that SA was blocked and a ban seems to have passed because of harmless, helpful edits to articles. However, if the evidence I presented above is reviewed, the conclusion is inescapable that these "harmless" edits were intended to attack the topic ban by interpreting as mindless, testing it, then going to Arbitration Enforcement and here with complaints. The goal of these edits was not good spelling, but disruption. Too many editors have failed to notice that this request for clarification was filed by the editor who also reverted the small edits, claiming that they violated the ban, and who also filed the AE notices. That editor is a supporter of ScienceApologist, and an opponent of the ban, and they were clearly cooperating in this effort, as the evidence shows; alternatively, this editor did believe that the ban, even though a terrible idea, should be respected, but SA obviously was pleased that his testing of the ban is being noticed. Then, after the fully expected disruption occurs, it's again asserted that the edits are harmless. That so many editors have fallen for this trap demonstrates how "sectarian affiliation" can corrupt our thinking.

To nail this down, SA contemptuously rejected suggestion that he could indeed make those harmless edits, quickly, and with much more overall efficiency than the permitted Talk page edits. The reason is obvious: this would require voluntary cooperation with the ban, in order to improve the project in spite of it. SA can still improve the project, even if blocked, if that's his goal. I won't detail how unless someone asks. Too many words already. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Protonk

Abd has a point. There is a problem when a user violates the spirit of a topic ban by making innocuous edits (or, more accurately, edits which would be innocuous if made by any other user) which has the apparent effect of forcing administrators to ignore the topic ban (and weaken it in practice) or enforce it by blocking an editor for innocuous edits.

We can't know science apologist's state of mind, so we don't know if this is testing the water, practicing civil disobedience, or simply the course of normal editing by an editor with a powerful routine. As a practical matter, there isn't a difference.

We should not treat this as a discipline problem where we punish science apologist for flouting the topic ban, but we also shouldn't lift the topic ban on the premise that his 'good' edits within the topic area have made the band absurd. We should simply reassert the ban and expand it, and simplify its enforcement. If the previous band allowed him to edit science related articles linked to pseudoscience only peripherally, the new ban should just limit him to articles unrelated to science at all. Just say that if it is in the Science, math or medicine portals, he can't edit it, for any reason. If he violates it, then someone sends an email to the arbcom list and he gets blocked by an arb on behalf of the committee (To avoid any Giano style wheel warring shenanigans).

That solution is unpleasant for a number of reasons. It puts pressure on the arbs, of whom there are far fewer than they are admins watching AE. It broadly (and probably unfairly) restricts science apologist. It opens the door for other topic ban considerations.

But it avoids the appearance of a non-binding remedy. It avoids the inevitable spiral that flouting with topic bans brings. And it avoids the drama around blocking and reblocking a member of the community about whom many admins have strong feelings (whether they know it or not). Or, to be more fair to him, it is less that we have strong feelings about him and more that his struggle represents the balance in the encyclopedia as a whole between openness and rigor; between allowing cranks and banning dissent. In cases like that, the community becomes a relatively poor judge of conduct and the committee must step in.

Statement by User:Badger Drink

As everybody knows, an encyclopedia is a place where everybody feels welcomed at all times. If unrepentant tyrants of fact and the scientific method persist in their disruptive efforts to introduce and/or maintain an academically honest, intellectually valid tone to articles on fringe subjects, then these folk need to be shown the door. If they are so devoted to the scientific method, perhaps they can congegrate in a place that dedicates itself to pursuit of knowledge over whimsy - perhaps via brief written pieces - as comprehensive as possible whilst remaining focused and direct - dedicated to individual subjects. We can only hope that these heartless monsters, void of even a hint of sympathy for alternative flim-flammery, have not the unmigitated audacity to call that project an "encyclopedia". --Badger Drink (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Verbal

Yes, let's ban someone for improving the project. This ban will show how well ArbCom is functioning. Verbal chat 10:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

I hope the Committee will use this clarification request to tighten the wording of the ruling and support SirFozzie's action. The wording of the ruling was little less than an open invitation to gaming and a recipe for confusion. If you set that kind of thing up, you gotta give the people you expect to enforce it leeway to uphold the ruling's spirit. SirFozzie's action was an attempt to do this. In my case, I wasn't quite sure the clarification would "stick", and added my support so that it might. If SirFozzie wished to be more judicious, he could have used Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and placed any restriction to the same effect. So it'd be the same, whether or not the Fringe science case explicitly ruled on discretionary powers.

SA was going out his way to exploit the wording to maximum effect. It's despiriting to see arbitrators actually debating the meaning of their own decision before they actually made it. I'd suggest this is a product of the propose and rush decision making process the ArbCom decided for some obscure reason was best way to do such things. There is a chance here for the Committee either to undermine SirFozzie or else reaffirm SirFozzie's good faith attempt to deal with this issue. It would be best if they did the latter.

... And also, it'd probably be good if -- for the sake of clarity -- one of the arbs launched a motion tightening the wording in the ruling. We're here now anyway. :) Note also that the wording is, I suspsect, particularly unclear to admins with a non-scientific background. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queries about sanction proposals

@ John Vandenberg

1) "Any instances of misbehaviour during this three month period will be dealt with by an indefinite ban at the discretion of an individual arbitrator."
This would take it out of the community's hand. Is this intended?

@ all

2) "for the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means 'entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic'"
This doesn't clear it up. It is still unclear if edits about fringe science in articles not necessarily within the fringe science topic count. Also, remember not all admins are scientists who'll know what ... plants [for instance] are and are not subject to fringing.
3) "Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email."
How would an AE admin know of these clarifications? They would need to know if they're expected to enforce the ruling, surely.

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[22] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by User:Stephan Schulz

This is an amazing failure of ArbCom so far. Yes, SA is brusque. But he is an overall positive force for the project. Escalating and increasingly shrill punitive sanctions are not appropriate. As with the old ArbCom before the recent election, the main interest here does not appear finding a good solution that allows SA to resume productive editing, but to uphold the authority of the Committee no matter what. But real authority does not derive from process and the exercise of power, but from wise or at least well-considered decisions. This one does not work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised to be honest. The longest block he ever had was 96 hours, and we're suddenly talking about 3 month and 6 month bans. I guess those who support motion 1 have a lot of private evidence to justify this. But then...there is nothing private about this; I guess they wanted to keep MaxPont happy (see also his statement above). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As stated on the proposed decision page, I have recused on issues relating to ScienceApologist because of his role in helping set up the New York meet-ups and Chapter meetings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the clarification proper: the topic ban is primarily meant to include article whose primary topic is fringe science and pseudoscience. The notation that the topic area is to be "broadly construed" is exactly that — the topic is off-limits for edition by ScienceApologist. This does not mean that every article that discuss fringe science incidentally or passingly are under the ban, but the sections or passages which do are covered. The ban isn't meant to include or exclude specific articles but a topic, wherever in articles it may be found.

    Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the restriction is meant to prevent ScienceApologist from interacting in topic areas where he has already shown difficulty maintaining the appropriate decorum, and where his interactions with other editors have been antagonistic and destructive. Editing around the spirit of the restriction by making minor or trivial edits in banned topic is a deliberately provocative maneuver of the kind that has been warned against in general. Such edits are not acceptable, despite the legalistic rationalization proffered (indeed, the invocation of WP:IAR is particularly egregious given that ignoring the behavioral community rules is what caused the sanction to be applied in the first place).

    ScienceApologist would do well to remember that the topic ban was implemented as a last resort to allow an otherwise good editor to continue contributing in areas where he is not so prone to cause disruption and drama— and that absent serious intent to correct the behavioral problems the only recourse left to the committee is the regrettable option of excluding him from participation entirely. I am dismayed and disappointed by his stated intent to ignore the restriction and am forced to remind him that this will inevitably result in a complete ban unless he changes tack immediately. — Coren (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well said Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, Sir Fozzie's clarification should not have been done as an Arbitration Enforcement action and logged at the case page, but should have been filed here as a request for the arbitrators to make the necessary clarification. Having said that, I would endorse such a clarification, as my comment at the section on the proposed decision page should make clear. i.e. The restriction should apply to any fringe science topic in any article. I will repeat here what I said there:

    Am supporting this because the previous behaviour for which ScienceApologist was sanctioned persists. If ScienceApologist can follow these conditions, can edit 'fringe science' talk pages civilly and productively, and work productively on other articles for six months, then a return to editing fringe science articles would be possible. If the behaviour persists on other articles, I would support extending the topic ban to other areas. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

    To expand on that: I supported the topic ban of ScienceApologist in the hope that he would restrict himself to civil and collaborative talk page edits regarding fringe science topics and articles, and would also work on other articles (such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and so on - there are a wealth of science articles out there that ScienceApologist could usefully edit). ArbCom cannot force people to move away from a contentious area and contribute in different areas, but if someone does persistently edit disruptively and tendentiously in the same area (and this doesn't just apply to ScienceApologist, but to others as well), then they are verging on becoming a disruptive single-purpose account. If ScienceApologist and others are only interested in editing fringe science and related articles, and are only here to fight over the articles without engaging in productive and collaborative editing, then they need to be fully topic banned, and blocked if they persist in such behaviour. Administrators should still use their judgment though - correction of typos, for example, can be ignored, and administrators should be able to judge when the line is crossed between helpful edits and engaging in disruption. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough said by Coren and Carcharoth. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coren hit the nail on the head. If this continues a ban will be in order, quite simply. As Carc said as well, an admin cannot unilaterally change the meaning of a case. Wizardman 03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An addendum that I meant to write in earlier,but didn't: when I voted to support the topic ban, it was meant to be a topic ban. Fixing typos is blatantly trying to "slightly violate" it so that those that support SA can say "Oh, he was only correcting typos" when it was pretty clear that it was at best testing whether or not we were going to follow though on it. Not sure how my fellow arbs interpreted it when they supported, but when I see a topic ban, then the party better not be editing that topic, i don't care what the edit is. Wizardman 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at arbitration enforcement, or some other relevant venue. It's entirely reasonable, and indeed desirable, for admins to be making note of the way that they are interpreting decisions when they take enforcement actions under them. However, SirFozzie's posting here had the potential for confusion, because of the use of the word "clarification", which is also used by the Committee for its requests for clarification process. Stating that he was making a note of his interpretation would have avoided the confusion. As to the substance of SirFozzie's interpretation, I agree with it.
On the related matter of ScienceApologist's ban, there seems to be some confusion, for some unknown reason. Under the ban, ScienceApologist "is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months." There are no exceptions. If an article relates to fringe science topics (whether this condition is met is a matter for the enforcing admin, or the consensus among enforcing admins where more than one admin is involved) then ScienceApologist may not edit it. Simple as that. --bainer (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deacon of Pndapetzim, your second and third concerns apply to both motions 1 and 1.1. I do see room for further clarification with those, however my motion begins with three month of restricted editing, meaning we have time to work out the details on the topic ban that will follow. With regard to motion 1.1, the indefinite ban option would be in the hands of the committee. The community could still issue blocks of suitable durations as before, to deal with any arising issues quickly. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Motion to sanction ScienceApologist

Note: There are 11 active arbitrators (plus 4 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 6.

1) ScienceApologist is banned from Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support; sadly, ScienceApologist seems to have confused this Committee's attempt at giving him an opportunity to contribute constructively with a game to be "won" or "lost". — Coren (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Three months actually feels light to me, I'd prefer six. But throwing in another motion will delay us further, the sooner this is passed the better. Wizardman 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I regret that ScienceApologist's actions make this action necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As a direct consequence of the reaction to the topic ban. Would be prepared to review in one month's time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unfortunately necessary, given the failure of the topic ban. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No sign of a behavior change. Yesterday, I gave ScienceApologist 24h to see if some light appears at the end of the tunnel but unfortunately nothing has changed. See at 'Comments' sections below. As an aside note regarding the typos, I'd say it is behavior that should be fixed rather than typos because this is a collaborative project and making it look like a bloody battleground is really more harmful than leaving 2 typos unfixed —someone may fix them but ScienceApologist still has to fix his behavior.-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. pending alternate proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For the moment. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments:
  1. I wouldn't have chosen to comment if there has been no 1.1. So, I am giving it another 24h to see if there would be any good signs of a change in behavior. So far, nothing has changed judging by what I've just read at ScienceApologist's talk page; same usual attitude plus a kind of temptation to use anonymous accounts for editing and a clear unacceptance of "the authority of the administrator making the block [and] the arbcom's insistence that the topic ban is reasonable in any way." ScienceApologist has still to understand fully that it is all about the attitude that harms collaborative editing and that is irrespective of whether it concerns anonymous or registered accounts. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just after coming back today ScienceApologist went to his talk page and started to alter Abd's posts by changing the whole content of the posts: 1) Here, ScienceApologist removed a whole post while keeping only one phrase which suits him. That is a violation of WP:TALK: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." ScienceApologist could just have removed all Abd's comments and that would be fine. 2) Then, ScienceApologist started to remove the posts and that is legitimate. However, he just replaced them with "'Comment by, Abd, cold fusion promoter removed." He then did it twice again before blanking his talk page. That's enough evidence that ScienceApologist believes he can still keep doing what he likes to do even under ArbCom lenses. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. I am therefore supporting a ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) ScienceApologist is restricted from freely editing Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. He is not permitted to make any edit to any page in any namespace outside his own userspace, unless the page has been approved by the Arbitration Committee. Any instances of misbehaviour during this three month period will be dealt with by an indefinite ban at the discretion of an individual arbitrator.

The list of acceptable pages will be maintained on a protected page in his userspace. Requests to add pages to the list must be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email, and two Committee members must approve of any addition to the list. Any committee member may remove a page from the list, at any time, with a notification to his user talk page.

The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts after the three months of restricted editing. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see this as merely giving him another chance. It is an alternative approach to how he is restricted for the next three months. It is weaker than a full ban, but if he can endure editing only a limited number of articles, what do we have to lose? I doubt that it will take much time for us to approve a few articles for him to work on each week. If it is working well, but consuming too much of our time, we could ask another member of the community to do the approvals.
    This motion temporarily handles the ambiguity of the topic ban in an extreme way, and in a way that forces ScienceApologist to take a break from his typical editing pattern, and let others deal with the problems that he notices. If he doesnt, he is out. OTOH, I do appreciate that motion 1 will also give him time to clear his head, and will endorse that remedy if he does not like the look of motion 1.1, or if he rants and raves when he comes back from his block. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. in the interests of article building and neogtiating some form of consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Excessively complex; given our workload, we shouldn't be inserting ourselves into approving day-to-day edits. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill. Also not happy at the indefinite ban clause. In principle, I think most ArbCom bans should be a maximum of one year, only rising to indefinite if the problems recur after that. Normal indefinite bans should be the purview of administrators and community ban discussions. Would be happy for some form of the above to take place after three months, or to be discussed during the suggested review after one month referred to in my comment above. Carcharoth (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill, we gave him a chance with the topic ban, so we should he get another? Wizardman 10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill, plus (i) he's already had his chance with the topic ban and (ii) no indication whatsoever that he understands the problem with his behaviour. — Roger Davies talk 10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No. I see no reason to expend so much effort to accommodate an editor that is not intent on being collaborative, as amply demonstrated. — Coren (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. See my rationale at the 'Comments' section above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. (I will allow myself to point out ministerially that there is an ambiguity in the motion: in the clause "unless it is approved by the Arbitration Committee", does the word "it" mean the page, or the specific edit? The next paragraph suggests the former, but this might well be clarified. This comment can be removed if the wording is adjusted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators

Note: There are 12 active arbitrators (plus 3 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 7.

2) Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is to codify an understanding which has previously always been acknowledged in practice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Sam. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Motion regarding SirFozzie

Note: There are 12 active arbitrators (plus 3 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 7.

3) SirFozzie has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Arbitration enforcement is often too thankless of a job. — Coren (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Of course. Wizardman 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his record of contributions to the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his fine record of contributions to the project. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=276721308"