Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

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).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: North8000	Motion	none	6 August 2020
Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience	none	(orig. case)	19 August 2020

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Amendment request: North8000

Initiated by North8000 at 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756686514#Motion_regarding_North8000

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756686514#Motion_regarding_North8000

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

• North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756686514#Motion_regarding_North8000

• Remove all restrictions. I believe that the older case restrictions were replaced by incorporation into this, but if not, then them too.

Statement by North8000

Request for removal of older Arbcom-placed restrictions.

I have topic bans on tea party movement, gun control, the homophobia article, and post 1932 american politics and a limitation to one account. Most of my restrictions originated in the 2013 tea party movement 2014 gun control cases and the newest (american politics) was placed in 2016 as a sort of “add on” condition when I came back. All were appeal able starting in mid-2017 but I’m just first asking now. I learned and wiki-evolved an immense amount from the entire process, as well as from time and experience. The newest event that any of these were based on was over 6 years ago.

Since (2016) I’ve been active in Wikipedia in wide ranging areas with an additional 12,000+ edits (now 53,000+ total) in article creation & improvement, GA reviews, helping folks out, and very active at NPP / new article curation, policy and guideline page discussions and a range of other areas which provide a diverse “proving out”. . This has all been with zero issues and zero drama of any type. This has not been due to any of the restrictions, it’s just how I roll throughout that period and now. I’m requesting that you remove of all of the restrictions to give me a clean slate. The “clean slate” aspect is more important to me than any restrictions in particular. Thanks for your consideration and of course I'd be happy to answer any questions.North8000 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

responses

• I've treated libertarianism articles as political science, not American politics. That was not an edit war, and Davide King and I respect and compliment each other and value each other's presence and he has thanked me I'd estimate 40 times for my edits. The extraction and characterization of this as something else says much.North8000 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Black Kite and others; my view and basis then was that phobia means phobia and that anything else was a then-neologism. But I left voluntarily and never went back even when my promised 1 year was up and no longer had even a self-imposed restriction. Also I no longer want to and don't participate in high-drama debates such as that. I also don't want to ever edit the homophobia article; after all of these years (that was 8 years ago) I just want to have a clean slate. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've considered it to be a mark of impartiality when, for the sake of the article, I disagree with folks who hold the same general real-world POV as my own, and that article was one of those. Also, my view would be the opposite now compared to then due to evolution in the usage of the term over the 8 years. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• GorillaWarfare On the Libertarian article, I think I screwed up, but I was treating libertarianism articles as political science rather than politics. Also, the main discussion is at an article that is clearly about political science topic in general but then moved a bit into the "in the US article" and I followed it there and my edit was suggesting keeping it out of there, for other reasons. In hindsight it was a blunder. Also, I still have little experience with that whole general discretionary sanctions area which defined it. That restriction was a proposed add on when I came back which I agreed to, easily, because I never was active on such articles and so also also had no history of issues there. I think that having such an extremely broad restriction (from everything covered by discretionary sanctions) in an area which was just an add-on and not due to past issues supports my request being a reasonable one. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Springee, I've not requested anyone to weigh in here; I've not even mentioned this on my talk page. I don't know the protocol for this page. I've had 12,000+ diverse edits of pleasant interactions since 2016 and would be confident of the results to ping the last 10 or 200 editors that I've interacted with.North8000 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Xeno, IMHO the common meanings are different, and also the IMO nature of what happens to those in Wikipedia is very different. If I didn't think so I would have been coming here 3 years ago. Nevertheless, I think that following that one political science discussion when it started spilling to that so-titled artcle was a blunder. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Re: RFC on source reliability at RSN noticeboard. Practically everything in the US has some connection to US politics. "some connection to" does not equal "IS". The RFC wording is at the top where it should be, and that was what I was discussing, and even then just on a structural problem. The wording indicated was not it or there. North8000 (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Newyorkbrad: The timing of my request is a combination of "want to move towards get a clean slate/clean start" and "not in any particular hurry" and "finally got around to asking". I have an interest in almost everything, but regarding editing articles, I have no interest in, and actually a strong aversion to participating in drama of any type. A clean slate would be a very safe and successful move. You have my word on that, but beyond my word, this has already been proven out with very active and diverse participation since 2016 with zero drama. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Springee and Newyorkbrad. Anything that auto-expires to a clean slate in 6 months or a year if all goes well I'd be happy with and IMO should reassure. Like 1RR in article space and only brief light conversations on talk for everything previously under topic bans. For clarity, the US politics would be for when the topic is clearly / specifically US politics. My concern there is that it could otherwise be interpreted to include practically everything, plus I've always been active on political science articles where we have substantial friendly discussions (= not "brief and light"). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

However, I can assure you that a simple 100% immediate removal of all restrictions would go very well, and have proven that with zero drama while being active in the rest of wikipedia since coming back in 2016. Also note that the US politics restriction was not from any of my activities, it was an "add on" when I came back. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

The committee should reject vacating North8000's topic ban on Homophobia. Although it was eight years ago, his contributions there were entirely disruptive and wasted a great deal of editor's time.[1][2] There is no reason to believe that North8000 has some unique perspective or skill that will benefit this fully developed article. The risk greatly outweighs any potential reward.

At this point, I have no opinion about whether the Tea Party topic ban should remain. Regarding gun control and post-1932 American Politics, I can only say that that topic area has settled down quite a bit in the past few years as a direct result of several editors having been topic banned and editing restrictions having beed imposed on several articles. I may have more to add later. - MrX 🖋 17:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Relatively recent edit warring on an American politics article does not help the case:[3]
• These six edits were violations of the gun control topic ban: [4]; Warning:[5]. (To my knowledge, North8000 never responded.) - MrX 🖋 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Springee

I have only limited engagement with North8000 but I've seen no issues between them and other editors. The tbans are 8 years old, if they haven't caused trouble since I think its safe to assume they have learned better ways to deal with editorial disagreements. If problems return it's not like the tban's can't be reinstated. In cases like this we should always err on the side of assuming good faith. Springee (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Follow up comment: I'm sorry to see this request has received limited comments. Remembering that the reason why tbans are put in place is to protect Wikipedia, not as a punishment, I'm seeing a clean block history for the last 4 years. This certainly isn't an case where one could argue blocks are obviously needed and the bad behavior continued in other parts of Wikipedia. At what point does a protective tban simply become punitive? What is the risk in erring on the side of unblocking? Worst case, bad behavior resumes and the block returns. However, if the tban is really no longer needed, if the editor really has learned from their mistakes, then this is a punitive block. We can never know for certain what would have happened but it's easy to reverse a tban if behavior warrants. We can't return the time an editor was tbanned if it turns out the ban was not needed. This isn't an editor asking just 6 months after the tban was instated. This is 44 months later and is almost certainly more punitive than protective at this point. Springee (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Newslinger, I don't see how any of those can be considered a violation of AP2. In cases where there is some level of cross over between AP2 and another topic I think context and scope matters. For instance, an AP2 topic ban would apply to comments about Ronald Reagan's political work/life. It wouldn't apply to comments about his acting roles. Fox News was being questioned in part for politics but also for things like coverage of scientific topics, environmental/climate change topics etc. None of the cited edits are specific to Fox's political coverage. Really, I would be far more concerned if we were seeing confrontations in new topic areas. So far we have edits that look like they are not over the line (Fox News RfC) or over the line but mildly so (Libertarian). These are old topic bans. Nothing shown here is sufficient to say lifting the tbans would result in new disruptions. That should be the standard here because anything else means this is punitive rather than protective. Springee (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:, what about a 1RR limit on the previously restricted topic areas. That generally prevents article edit issues. I'm not sure if talk page restrictions would be needed. Allow the restrictions to expire after 6 months if there are no new issues. I admit this doesn't address talk page but it would prevent article level issues. Perhaps a strict talk page CIVIL restriction on the affected topics? Springee (talk)

Statement by Black Kite

I haven't much knowledge of the other topic-bans so I'm not going to opine about them, but I would definitely oppose lifting the topic ban on Homophobia, on which North8000's 266 talk page posts wasted vast amounts of other editors' time arguing for the article to be completely re-written to include a WP:FRINGE definition of homophobia (that using the word which includes -phobia denigrates opposition to homosexuality), and accused other editors of being "activists" [6]. He eventually exhausted everyone's patience (as an example, try this conversation. It's one article, there are 6m+ others. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Newslinger

In June 2020, North8000 made three comments criticizing the highly-attended 2020 Fox News RfC after the discussion had been active for over two weeks:

1. Special:Diff/964433983
2. Special:Diff/964434623
3. Special:Diff/964616404

Fox News, which is categorized under Category:Conservative media in the United States, is a contentious subject in the field of American politics, with active arbitration remedies on the Fox News article itself. One of the RfC questions was "Is Fox News reliable for US Politics?", and the RfC had been listed under the "Politics, government, and law" RfC category. I was not aware of this topic ban when I responded to the third comment. — Newslinger talk 20:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I genuinely believe that North means well and is clueful enough not to repeat previous mistakes. Broadly speaking, I think it would be right to lift at least some of the restrictions on a trial–WP:ROPE basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re North8000)

@Xeno: I would change "Unless modified by further motion, the restrictions will automatically expire at the end of the one year period." to something like "Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period." to avoid ambiguity; arbcom can always modify any restriction they placed at any time, with or without explicit provision. I'd also a clause along the lines of "Any restrictions that are reimposed may be appealed at WP:AE one year after their reimposition if no alternative time frame is specified." Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: I think you might have misread the second part of my comment? It is about restrictions that have reimposed at AE. I'm not sure what you mean with "Do you think it's better for AE to be tapped for concerns?". Basically my suggestion is:

• Restrictions that are not reimposed at AE: Expires 1 year after this motion passes
• Restrictions that are reimposed at AE: Appealable at AE 1 year after reimposition (unless AE says differently). Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Xeno: ah the confusion is my misreading ARCA as AE - your comment makes sense now. If you're going with ARCA then the second part isn't needed. As for the actual question of ARCA vs AE, IIRC suspensions like this usually allow an individual administrator and/or AE to reimpose the sanctions if the person ends up causing disruption during the year's probationary period. I think AE is generally preferable to ARCA for speed and efficiency in such matters, so I would argue in favour of the former. If you go down that route though then venue for appeals of reinstated sanctions should be specified, but I've got less strong feelings about that - possibly allow North8000 to choose (although hopefully nothing will need reimposing and all this will be academic). Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

North8000: Clerk notes

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

North8000: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting additional statements; generally amenable to lifting old restrictions if it can be demonstrated they are no longer necessary. –xeno^talk 14:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Isn't political science just a subset of politics? –xeno^talk 12:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Frankly I don't see how it's possible to argue that Libertarianism in the United States is not covered under the AP discretionary sanctions as a contemporary American political topic. I'm not as worried about the NRA edits because of their age, but the March 2020 breach of the AP TBAN does concern me regardless of whether or not it's edit warring. You are not restricted from edit warring on AP topics, you are restricted from editing them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• I am still thinking about this request. I suspect that it was inspired by a request that we granted a few days ago, in which we vacated an old remedy against a user who convinced us it was no longer needed. But that request involved a single topic-ban from 10 years ago, whereas this case involves multiple topic-bans against North8000 that culminated in a ban from the entire site. To his credit, North8000 abided by the ban for years, eventually made a successful appeal, and as far as I can tell has generally edited appropriately since. I do not see the alleged topic-ban violations as deal-breakers here, but they do show that North8000 retains his interests in areas in or adjacent to those where he has had problems in the past. I wonder if there might be an alternative path forward here that would fall somewhere between denying the request completely, which would show no recognition of the editor's improvement, and granting it completely, leaving him entirely unrestricted all at once. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Newyorkbrad, I agree with your analysis. I wonder if suspending the topic bans for a year would be a viable solution. North8000 would be free to edit in areas he is presently banned from; if there are problems, a report can be made to AE and an administrator can reimpose the topic ban(s) as appropriate. If all goes well for a year, we vacate the topic bans entirely. Maxim_(talk) 22:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

---

North8000 restrictions: Motion

North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was restricted by motion in December 2016 (Motion regarding North80000). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to WP:ARCA if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Maxim_(talk) 16:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
2. I feel like this is a good "middle road" that can allow North8000 to show they are able to avoid the mistakes of the past while leaving a quick path back to being sanctioned should that not prove to be the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
3. I copy-edited the motion by adding "if warranted," although I certainly hope that would have been understood anyway. I'm open-minded on whether any future issues (although I hope there won't be any) should be raised at ARCA or AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
4. This works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 13:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
6. SoWhy 15:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
7. With regards to question of ARCA vs AE for modifications, this seems sufficiently nuanced that ARCA felt like the best port-of-call should any concerns arise. (With thanks to Thryduulf for the suggestions) –xeno^talk 13:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
8. Noting that North8000 has stated they will stay away from the homophobia article. Mkdw ^talk 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

• For consideration, per suggestions of Maxim and Newyorkbrad. Tweaks invited. –xeno^talk 15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion Thryduulf, I've implemented the first part. For the second part, wouldn't it need to be re-imposed at AE to be appealeable at AE? Do you think it's better for AE to be tapped for concerns? –xeno^talk 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thryduulf I haven't used AE since this is a motion, not a remedy. Would we still consider it a "remedy in a decision", and do you think AE is better than ARCA for concerns? (Essentially, there's no restrictions to violate during the suspension period except a general agreement to keep the peace, so it's a bit more nuanced and might be confusing at AE) –xeno^talk 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Initiated by RexxS at 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• RexxS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by RexxS

I apologise for making what appears to be a content-related request, but the behaviour of editors at Ayurveda and Talk:Ayurveda needs to be restrained, and a simple confirmation should be all that's needed to clarify the underlying issues.

Following a contentious edit war at Ayurveda and a WP:AE discussion, El C created an RfC at resolve the question of whether the phrase "pseudoscience" should be in the lead. The debate involved over 60 editors, was closed as no-consensus, reviewed, and re-opened for closure by an admin.

Many proponents of Ayurveda have taken the opportunity in that debate to argue that Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific and are attempting to have the phrase removed entirely. I believe that the position on Wikipedia is that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience as a matter of fact. I am therefore seeking a clear confirmation from ArbCom that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions as a pseudoscience (as even that fact has been contested). Having a clear statement of the position will enable a closer to accurately weigh the strengths of the arguments and to reject entirely arguments that clearly contradict Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience.

In the decision at WP:ARBPS#Generally considered pseudoscience, ArbCom asserted the principle

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

I would like a clarification that the principle includes Ayurveda in the same way as astrology, and consequently that Ayurveda can be considered in the same light.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: It is a truism that as far a WiIkipedia is concerned, Ayurveda is either a pseudoscience or it is not. If it is, then editors who breach WP:AC/DS requirements for behaviour can be sanctioned as an AE action. If it is not, then they cannot. You have earlier disputed that ArbCom has designated Ayurveda as a pseudoscience in Wikipedia's view, but that leads to an unsustainable situation. If your logic holds, any other editor can use your ipse dixit argument to claim that they cannot be sanctioned – simply by stating that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience on the grounds that ArbCom has not explicitly said so. Any admin can take AE action against any editor breaching the expected standards of behaviour at Astrology; however the consequence, if your reasoning is accepted, is that anyone editing articles such as Ayurveda has a get-out-of-jail-free card by the simple expedient of denying that the topic is a pseudoscience.

We already have prior debate: RfC July 2015 and Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 #Pseudoscience concluding that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, but that is insufficient, it appears, as editors are free to deny the fact as if it were not so.

Who then should be the authority that decides that question? At the very least, ArbCom needs to clarify that position. --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: I'm not sure that ArbCom would be comfortable in addressing the second part of my request for clarification, although you were happy enough to do exactly that for Astrology, which is completely analogous to Ayurveda. The first part is naturally more important, particularly as we are currently under attack at the Talk:Ayurveda page from a concerted campaign, organised through Twitter to distort the consensus away from the recognised scientific viewpoint. An admin has felt it necessary to take the extraordinary step of semi-protecting the talk page temporarily, and I've been playing Whack-a-mole with about 30 newly registered meat/sock-puppets who have repeated the same disruptive edit requests. We need a lot more eyes on the disruption to that page, and it's possible that it is going to require another ArbCom case if the DS prove insufficient. Having a clear statement that Ayurveda is pseudoscience in the same way that Astrology is would go a long way to settling down the disruption there and establishing that Wikipedia's content cannot be held hostage by special interest groups. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad and Katie: we already have had two RfCs confirming that the community regards Ayurveda as pseudoscience, as well as a catalogue of reliable sources stating the same. See  Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 12 #Category:Pseudoscience and Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 #Pseudoscience. This does not stop the talk page being flooded with SPAs to distort consensus and oppose the appellation. The serious discussions have been made and the consensus is long-standing, but that doesn't stop the disruption.

@DGG: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anuram567. Your idea and mine of "a very small number of editors" differ quite dramatically. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience)

If the arbitrators feel that explicitly declaring this (or any) topic as pseudoscience would be a content decision, an alternative option would be to allow the discretionary sanctions to be applied to topics that are described as pseudoscience in independent reliable sources even if that status is disputed. In other words saying that the DS applies to subject areas that are or are called pseudoscience so that the application of DS itself does not require a determination of whether it is or is not pseudoscience and the application of DS does not mean that Wikipedia is necessarily calling something pseudoscience. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Re Shashank5988 I'd forgotten about that case, but discretionary sanctions are indeed authorised for "Complimentary and alternative medicine" and would seem to be a good fit. The Ayurveda article describes it as "an alternative medicine system" and a look at the current talk page suggests that this characterisation is not disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: If there is or was a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. If there is active debate about whether the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. The alternative medicine DS also applies. If the DS isn't working then I don't understand what arbcom saying that the pseudoscience DS applies will change? In terms of content the most the committee could say is that there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience (anything else would be a pronouncement on content that is outside their remit) - what would such a statement change? Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Shashank5988

Arbcom created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture for subjects like this, to avoid the conflict between "pseudoscience" and "alternative medicines". Shashank5988 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

I agree that clarification is needed, inasmuch as a principle from a nearly 14 year old Arbcom case has been leveraged to assert that various subjects are pseudoscience based on ipse dixit declarations by involved editors. If my recollection serves me, previous Arbcoms have opined about this before (someone could perhaps check so that this Arbcom doesn't have to reinvent the wheel). Perhaps it's addressed in this FOF: WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_2.

RexxS has expressed an understanding that, by my interpretation, would cast a broad net over a range of subjects making them automatically classified as pseudoscience based on (I guess) it being "pointed out in a discussion".[7][8] I think it's self-evident why such an approach to dispute resolution would be problematic. If not, please let me know and I will explain further.

There are proponents with strong views on both side of the dispute at Ayurveda (note: I'm uninvolved). I would aver that simply because members of one side declare that "the position on Wikipedia is that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience as a matter of fact" does not make it so. Nor does it obviate the question in dispute: should the subject be described as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the article? Arbcom either needs to distance themselves from this reasoning or embrace it, because the ambiguity left by a nearly 14 year old Arbcom case has to potential to be weaponized in these disputes. This is not the first article where such a dispute has broken out. - MrX 🖋 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm not aware that there is a serious dispute that Ayurveda is subject to discretionary sanctions. WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions says "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted.". Does anyone disagree that Aruyveda is at least related to pseudoscience and fringe science?

However, that's an entirely different issue than your request which says "clarification that the principle includes Ayurveda in the same way as astrology, and consequently that Ayurveda can be considered in the same light." In other words, I don't think you are asking if editors on the article are subject to DS, but whether the article can describe the subject as pseudoscience on the basis of the a principle written in a 2006 Arbcom case. - MrX 🖋 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

Subjects like Ayurveda are clearly covered by the decision on Complementary and Alternative Medicine [9]. As about pseudoscience, it was another decision [10], with good wording: "Theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community".

In my view, no action is required here because the specific area of Complementary and Alternative Medicine is already covered by your decision. However, what qualify as pseudoscience in general is a good question. I think it is not enough just to say "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case". One must have at least one solid RS saying that subject X belongs to pseudoscience. Yes, there are such sources in the case of Ayurveda, although the consensus of RS seems to be this is just a traditional medicine. Should we label all projects in the field of traditional medicine funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (a part of National Institutes of Health) as pseudoscience? I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. OK. So, if an admin thinks that certain edits (for example, about a book) might belong to pseudoscience, than it is covered by pseudoscience DS, even if there are zero sources claiming the subject belongs to pseudoscience (and in fact it may belong to mainstream science)? That seems too much, given that admins may not be experts in the corresponding area of science. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. Thank you! Understood and agree. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a side note, this is actually about content. I think too many subjects in WP are labeled "pseudoscience". This is a very serious label, and it must be exceptionally well sourced. Some of these subjects are simply not science, but a traditional medicine or something else, like Aurveda. Others, like Osteopathy aka Osteopathic medicine, implement at least some science-based procedures (one can follow this subsection of page Osteopathy to linked page Osteopathic medicine in the United States to realize this), and even completely mainstream Allopathic medicine was included to template "Alternative medicine". My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sunrise

As far as I'm aware, the answer is that the pseudoscience DS apply regardless, but the scope of DS cannot itself affect how the topic is described in an article. This is because the scope follows the concept of broadly construed - the DS will apply because the question "does this qualify as X?" is itself an X-related topic (otherwise topic-banned editors could wikilawyer endlessly around the edges of their sanction). However, for the same reason, simply being within the scope of X-related DS doesn't actually tell us whether or not the topic is or is not an X. Quoting from WP:BROADLY (I'm the original author of this text, but it's never been challenged in the more than two years since it was written): "Broadly construed" is also used when defining the topic areas affected by discretionary sanctions. In particular, if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case (for example, definitional disputes: whether a particular issue counts as a type of American political issue, whether a particular practice counts as a type of alternative medicine, etc), that is normally taken to mean that it does. For this particular case, while the article does indeed state that Ayurveda or parts thereof are pseudoscience as a matter of fact (and has done so for a long time), that is because of the strength of the sourcing as determined by previous consensus, rather than being directly determined by ArbCom. The specific statement at WP:ARBPS#Generally considered pseudoscience does apply, but I think of it as mostly being a confirmation that using the term "pseudoscience" is in fact permissible under these circumstances. Sunrise (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@MVBW: Traditional medicine and similar practices become pseudoscience when their effectiveness is disproven and they continue to be promoted regardless. Except in the most restrictive definitions, promotion with a disregard for evidence or on the basis of an unscientific belief system will also constitute pseudoscience (non-scientific reasoning is being presented as supporting a scientific claim). With regards to the allopathic medicine article, the template itself may or may not be warranted, but the relationship comes from the origins of the term as a derogatory label used by homeopaths. Sunrise (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

I I think the only answer is that all discussions of whether a topic is pseudoscience fall under the pseudoscience DS (that is the entire point of the restrictions, since that is the whole debate that requires DS in that topic area), and that, once the issue has been raised, the entire topic falls under the pseudoscience DS restrictions until there is an affirmative consensus that it is not pseudoscience. As long as there is reasonable doubt that it might be pseudoscience, basically, there is going to be debate of the sort that the DS were specifically created to govern. Obviously the applicability of the DS restrictions in that situation should not itself be taken as an absolute statement that the topic is pseudoscience, merely that it is at least under dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

The determination of whether or not something is pseudoscience is a content decision that needs to be made by the community, but the determination of whether or not something falls under the scope of an AC/DS is very much a decision that is ultimately ARBCOM's responsibility. Making that decision does not require a ruling on content as such; it just requires ARBCOM to determine whether the problematic behavior that led to the authorization of DS is present in the topic under consideration. As such, this is a decision ARBCOM needs to be willing to make, regardless of whether another DS regime applies. By refusing to decide whether the pseudoscience DS regime covers Ayurveda, ARBCOM creates the possibility of endless wikilawyering with respect to the scope of such regimes, specifically, the argument that because there is not consensus among reliable sources that a topic is related to the name of a DS regime, that the relevant sanctions do not apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: I'll leave it to RexxS to articulate what he wants from this request; but my statement was more in response to the many people arguing here that this would constitute an expansion of the DS regime, or that ARBCOM needn't bother answering whether Ayurveda is within scope here because Ayurveda is covered by the alternative medicine DS regime. I think both of those are dangerous lines of argument for the reasons I've given above. I think you (ARBCOM) need to make explicit that Ayurveda is within the scope of these sanctions, and moreover, clarify why you've made that determination. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I don't think the committee has to take the position that any particular subject is pseudoscience for DS from that case to be applied (that the status is disputed is rather the point). RexxS: others have noted that the Acupuncture DS could also be applied: would that solve the immediate issue? –xeno^talk 16:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93: Any article where there is significant dispute as to whether it is pseudoscience is covered under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions: the article already carries the PS DS heading, and I don't think that loophole would carry very far. It seems the clarification request goes further in asking the committee to declare that not only does the DS apply, but also to classify the article subject "as a pseudoscience" (making a content determination) so that certain principles of the Pseudoscience case can be applied more directly - am I reading that right RexxS? –xeno^talk 16:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93: The existence of significant editorial disputes as to whether the topic is pseudoscience is sufficient for that topic to be covered by the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. In this context, I've withdrawn my question as to whether the Acupuncture DS could be substituted. –xeno^talk 17:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• A discussion of whether or not a given field or phenomenon is a pseudoscience should fall within the discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @My very best wishes: I'm speaking of a serious discussion that's overtly focused on whether something is a pseudoscience or not, not of a mental reservation that might be present in one admin's head. We just need to avoid the circularity of needing to know the outcome of a discussion of how we categorize something before we can define the rules of the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I am unwilling to expand the scope of pseudoscience especially in a situation where there seems to be some cultural bias--it his treated in some geographies as a science with long historical roots and academic underpinnings. Arb com had no business declaring what fields are pseudoscience, or restricting or prescribing the content edited in these or any other fields. (with the exception of such things as blp) Nor does it have any need to deal with ordinary disruptive editing--ordinary admin remedies are sufficient for that. What arbcom does have the right and responsibility of doing is declaring that some fields are so exceptionally disruptive that arb enforcement sticky remedies are needed. The original basis for DS remedies was that in some such fields admins would revert each other, creating untenable situations unless the abbility to do so were restrained. The introduction of DS was successful, and did pretty much put a stop to that sort of privileged disruption. There may be some fields where this is still necessary--I might for example agree thaat American Politics is one of them, at least for the next few months, and some ethnic conflicts, perhaps even indefinitely. It could conceivably be argued that some forms of pseudoscience such as homeopathy are also. though I have doubts here--it has been so thoughly refuted. . I think the addition of any specific pseudoscience or other field to the list should should be discourage unless it is proven that ordinary admin methhods have failed to deal with disruption. Ordinary arb methods have lately been dealing quite effectively with disruption, as can be seen by the many fewer cases that need to come to arb com. In my view, adding this field to the list unnecessary; its advocates are a very small number of editors who can be dealt with by the ordinary admin remedies. DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS: I see a very large number of probable puppets, and ordinary sanctions, not DS, are quite enough to deal with that. DS had a possible role when there are persistent editorss getting repeatedly blocked; it adds nothing to the ordinary admin remedies in cases such as you mention. It does not show a need to arb com. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thinking further since I wrote my original comment, I have strenthened my view on DS--I would never support using them even in AP, where they have served to discourage open discussion and influence POV,. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I can't decide what vitamins to take, so I'm in absolutely no position to decide if something is or isn't pseudoscience. Those are discussions that need to take place in a community process per NYB. Katie^talk 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I would prefer to leave the decisions of whether something is pseudoscience up to the editing community when possible. However, it seems like the discretionary sanctions on alternative medicine are applicable here, so is this now a solved problem? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

GW--what makes it impossible for the editing community to deal with the question? It already has Extended confirmed protection, and why is that not enough? DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)