Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anachronist | 16 June 2024 | 0/5/0 | |
| Rio Grande 223 | 19 June 2024 | 0/1/0 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: Pseudoscience | none | (orig. case) | 12 July 2021 |
| Clarification request: COVID-19 | none | (orig. case) | 13 July 2021 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Block of Rp2006 | 18 June 2024 |
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section 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).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- 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).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. 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.
Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. 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:
Clarification request: Pseudoscience
Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Tgeorgescu
Are the sanctions from WP:ARBPS applicable to pseudohistory? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@BDD: The generic dispute is how fundamentalist believers want to state their own view of the Bible and of the history of Christianity in the voice of Wikipedia, i.e. against rendering the views of mainstream Bible scholars, which fundamentalists consider them to be heretical. But it also covers nationalist pseudohistory (e.g. Dacianism). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
It should be considered that, more and more, the study of history, especially ancient history, is coming to be based on scientific data, and, as such, pseudohstory which directly contradicts that data or is not consistent with it should probably be considered to be pseudoscience as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by DGG
In general, subjects in the field of the humanities are not suitable for considerations as pseudoscience , and I have grave reservations against extending them even into the social sciences. . There may be some areas and topics in history that are essentially pure conspiracy theories and fringe, but in general we can deal with them without the need for the pseudoscience special treatment.
But one area of the humanities is totally inappropriate to be considered pseudoscience, ever, and that is religion. The nature of the evidence in this field sometimes does resemble convention historical thinking, but often does not. I personally have a very strong view that proving truth by personal revelation is never valid, and neither is proving truth by reference to the statements in sacred texts. People active in these areas from some traditions often feel the exact opposite, and it is not for WP to try to decide on this. Within the two religions I know, Judaism and Christianity, arguments about this question has been active on for thousands of years now, and is most unlikely to be settled --at least unless the traditionalists should somehow be correct, and the Last Judgment should intervene. What WP should never be doing is deciding on the status of religious questions. If there are multiple views, they must be presented, but the wording of an article should never imply that any one particular version is Correct. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia , of course, thought about this differently, and they had every right to. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (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.
Pseudoscience: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion
- My initial response to the question as posed is yes, they can be, but no, they are not always necessarily. It would depend on the claims. Scanning most of the topics listed at Pseudohistory, nothing necessarily stands out to me as 100% pseudoscience, but many could veer into that territory. "Aliens built the pyramids", no, but specifically "ancient astronauts traveled through space, and their technology can cure cancer", yes. "White people are responsible for all great historical achievements", no, but "Genetics prove that white people are superior", yes. Of course, if this is a jumping-off point to a specific dispute, I'm reserving judgment. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Given the clarifying comment above, in this case, no. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think BDD summed up what I wanted to say quite nicely. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience but it's not a part of it. That said, if the same problems appear there, we can consider expanding ARBPS to it, possibly by motion. Regards SoWhy 18:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I know we cover pseudo-science broadly, but the broad strokes in my head cover "anything that purports to be science, but cannot be proved through scientific method". Pseudohistory is different, it's closer to propaganda and conspiracy theory. Yes, they overlap, and there will be times where Pseudohistory can be covered in the Pseudoscience banner, but not generally. WormTT(talk) 12:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- My thinking aligns with my colleagues above, particularly WTT. This particular instance would not fall under a discretionary sanctions that I can see. However, as BMK points out history does overlap with other fields and so it's possible that a different dispute may also be part of pseudoscience. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above, it can overlap but it's a rather narrow scope for that particular Venn diagram, and in this particular instance seems to be outwith the "science" part. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I interpret the pseudoscience DS authorization similarly to our article on pseudoscience. In particular, for a statement or belief to be covered by the pseudoscience DS authorization, both of the following be true: (a) the statement or belief purports to be scientific and factual, and (b) there is a reasonable argument (based on reliable sources) that the statement or belief is incompatible with the scientific method. Other disputed beliefs (such as those that don't claim to be grounded in the empirical methods) are not covered. If the dispute in question qualifies under this standard, then it is covered by the DS authorization; if not, as I suspect, then I concur with my colleagues that the DS authorization does not apply. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Clarification request: COVID-19
Initiated by Shibbolethink at 01:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Shibbolethink
Does the ArbCom decision on COVID-19 affect Gain-of-function research? There has recently been an increase in talk page activity and some off-site canvassing about this article and how it relates to certain COVID-19 conspiracy theories (namely that the virus was generated using bioengineering in a laboratory (usually suggested to be the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It may soon become helpful to request application of these sanctions if SPAs show up or if the page becomes more disrupted, so I ask: Do the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions apply to this article? Thanks.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm not 100% clear on who would be a relevant party to this clarification request, if anyone. I am happy to include or notify any other users as requested. I added a notification over at the talk page in question just to be safe [1]. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Firefangledfeathers
I'd argue that the DS should definitely apply to at least part of the article, and probably to all of it. Since part of the page directly addresses COVID-19, any edits to those parts are certainly "edits about ... COVID-19, broadly construed". My experience with partially-covered ARBPIA articles (seemingly referred to as related content as opposed to primary article) suggests that there is a template that could be adapted for COVID DS.
That said, even parts of this article that don't explicitly mention COVID-19 may be edited by Wikipedians and interpreted by readers in the context of speculation about COVID-19 origins. The predominance of the talk page discussions mention COVID. Recent coverage of GoFR, even when primarily discussing pre-COVID history or post-COVID legislation or funding, inevitably frame the facts using the current pandemic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq
Yes, of course Gain-of-function research is part of the speculation regarding Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I'll watch the article for a while and may be able to help as an uninvolved administrator but am busy at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by DGG
At present, the interest in gain of function research --at least on WP-- is mostly because of the implications for the origin of COVID, bu the topic is much broader, and arguments about the appropriateness of this type of study were raised long before Covid. There could perfectly well (& in my opinion should) be an article on the subject not specifically discussing Covid, but giving a link to a breakout page where that possible example would be discussed. Applying DS here would discourage proper use of the page for the general topic.
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.
COVID-19: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
COVID-19: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I would say that yes, since the DS is related to COVID-19 broadly construed and since there is a clear link between gain-of-function and COVID conspiracy theories, that article should be covered by the DS.WormTT(talk) 12:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with WTT that gain of research definitely falls with-in the broadly construed element of this sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- If it's becoming a Covid flashpoint that seems like evidence enough it's about COVID broadly construed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues. If the editing is related to COVID-19, the DS applies, even if the article itself is not mainly about COVID-19. Regards SoWhy 07:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I can conceive of editing related to gain-of-function research without any inherent connection to COVID, but I doubt we're seeing much of that these days. I see this as a flip side of the pseudohistory and pseudoscience issue above—they're not necessarily always overlapping, though in this case, they usually are. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above, the direct connection to COVID puts this particular issue (again, as it relates to COVID) under the broad umbrella of the case. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with my fellow arbitrators. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)