Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jclemens (talk | contribs) at 05:48, 6 January 2011 (→‎Motion: typo in my vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk at 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 3, modified by motions from 6 May and 13 November.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Amendment 1

Statement by Piotrus

More than a year has passed since the original remedy was instituted, yet close to three months still remain on the topic ban. Since March I have edited uncontroversially, and in May I was allowed to make suggestions at WT:POLAND; neither have been subject to any criticism. In November the topic ban was narrowed to "articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics". I tried my best to avoid approaching the rather blurry boundaries of that new ban (I raised concerns about it in the past several times). I will admit that despite my best intentions I have drifted a few times close to that blurry boundary. In all but one instance I self-reverted quickly. Sadly, battleground mentality in EE topics still persists among some, and this led to two AE requests naming me as a party - please note that both ended with no action taken towards my person, and the filling parties in both cases were subject to AE bans and/or blocks (AE 1, AE 2, related AE 3). Finally, just a few days ago I was suddenly blocked by an AE admin, who in good faith misinterpreted the topic ban; I was unblocked a day later following the input from three Arbitrators (appeal and relevant discussion here).

What finally prompted me to file this request now was a single edit I did not make: I wanted to correct the placement of a reference template in the Adam Mickiewicz article ({{Catholic|wstitle=Adam Mickiewicz}} should be in the reference section, not at the very bottom of the article). But moments before I was about to hit the save button, I realized that the article seems to be in the midst of an edit war related to the subject nationality, and by making an edit there - even one totally uncontroversial and unrelated to the dispute - I could be accused of violating the topic ban. This is not the first time I halted myself like that; one of the self-reverts I mentioned was this edit to the article "Poland Anti-Religious Campaign (1945–1990), where I made an AutoEd/ce edit to a new article that popped up on the WikiProject Poland's new article report. This topic was never a subject to a dispute on Wikipedia (nor has it been since the article was created), but it does seem related to some dispute. And indeed, in the (dismissed) AE reports I mentioned, this edit of mine was part of the "evidence". Thus I am prevented from carrying out the copyedit of this article, moving it (the title needs to be decapitalized per MoS) and making other uncontroversial edits. After this last block-unblock incident, I am very wary of editing anything related to Eastern Europe at all (I was about to create a series of articles about Polish armoured trains, a plan I now put on hold, as I don't want my block log to witness more admins who could misinterprets my topic ban as including all military topics...). Even if I do my best to adhere to the topic ban, I can still be harassed by battleground-minded editors; worse, even neutral, good-faithed admins have shown they have trouble interpreting the topic ban, and the result is a lot of wikistress and time wasted on AE. I have to admit that I feel more stressed under this topic ban then in many preceding months, as I am always afraid I will make a good-faithed edit that will be seen as topic ban gaming, or that even if I won't, I will be dragged to AE again for more stressful battleground showdowns (and even if such reports seem to serve a useful function of identifying disruptive, battleground-minded editors, I do not enjoy being the lightning rod of their attention - which, considering that I am now the last editor with an EEML-related remedy still in force, is unlikely to diminish).

Lastly, I'd like to note that the EEML case was not about creating improper content, but about improper edit (revert) coordination and (vote) canvassing. That lesson, about impropriety of such actions, was learned by me and others long ago (I admited as much during the very case). I would like to resume creating content and building an encyclopedia (the 2010, due to the topic ban, was the first year I wrote no Featured Article, my Good Article and DYK writing were also cut down to roughly one fifths of the levels of the previous years; here you can see how the remedy affected my activity levels).

The topic ban will end in late March; I believe that I am as ready to resume constructive and uncontroversial editing in that area now as I will be in by then. In the past year, during discussions of subsequent amendments, the Committee members often spoke of the gradual return to the editing area. I hope that now, close to 13 months out of 15 in my remedies, we can finally put this behind us (I also selfishly hope that this request can be processed faster than the last one, which took two months).

New members of the committee may be interested in reading my statement from the 21 September from the amendment request that led to the motion narrowing the topic ban.

Statement by other editor

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

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion


Request to amend prior case: West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Initiated by Jayjg (talk) at 02:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 11.3.4 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Jayjg restricted
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

Statement by Jayjg

It's been a year and a half since I was topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine area. I'd like to request that the ban be lifted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Lifting of restrictions.

I've reflected a lot on the reasons for the ban, and I can see now that I wasn't collaborative enough in my approach. I was too quick to revert, and too judgmental about edits I disagreed with. I apologize to the Committee and community for the role I played in the events that led to the ban, and I hope I've learned the appropriate lessons from it. I would very much like to contribute in the I/P area again: I have knowledge of the topic that I believe would help to resolve disputes, I'm very familiar with the content policies, and I believe I could make useful contributions that would benefit the encyclopedia.

The "Lifting of restrictions" section of the case mentions looking favorably on participation in the featured-content process. During the last 18 months, I've written and brought a series of articles about synagogues to FA and GA status: First Roumanian-American congregation, Temple Sinai (Oakland, California), Temple Israel (Dayton, Ohio), Congregation Beth Israel (New Orleans, Louisiana), and Congregation Beth Israel-Judea. Another article I wrote, Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee), is currently an FA candidate achieved FA status this week.

During the same period, I've participated in dozens of FAC reviews (e.g. [1], [2]), assisted User:Nableezy in improving Al-Azhar Mosque with a view to helping it gain FA status in future, and written over a dozen DYKs. I’ve also helped out at AfD, closing hundreds of AfD discussions, and at RS/N, where I’m the fourth highest contributor.

The topic ban has caused a few problems. For example, I was unable to take part in the FAC of the only other synagogue GA (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurva Synagogue/archive1), because the synagogue is in Jerusalem, even though I was solicited to do so by FA Director SandyGeorgia.[3][4] The FA nomination ultimately failed. Similarly, the Israel FA went through a Featured Article Review, and was delisted in June. I was the fourth highest contributor to the article, but was unable to help it retain its FA status. There are other articles I would like to bring to FA status, but certain aspects of them touch broadly on the I/P debate, so I’ve been unable to.

I can assure the Committee that, if the ban is lifted, I will stick very closely to the content and behavioral policies on those articles, as well as the additional ARBPIA restrictions, and will endeavor to ensure that my input there is only constructive. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Regarding FAC reviews, here are some other examples: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. I think my participation at FAC (and edits to FAC articles) have generally been appreciated; one FA author, for example, posted on my talk page "Thank you very much for your in-depth comments. It's reviews like these that make me want to come back to FAC. :-)" Another posted just 3 days ago "José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a Featured article! Jayjg, thank you very much for taking your time to review the article and for your helpful and constructive participation.". Regarding RS/N, I've made almost 800 edits to the page; here are some examples from this month: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: This appeal has so far been blissfully free of the usual partisan drama, but I suppose we all knew that couldn't last forever. :-) Sure, contact anyone you like. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight: I am now, thanks, but I wouldn't have violated this restriction and guideline even if they hadn't been formalized. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jd2718

Jay's appeal is well-reasoned. But I also recall the difficulties that led to the restrictions. And I also recall that there were significant difficulties that did not make it into an arbitration. Forgive me for the lack of diffs and facts and dates - I'd like to express reservation, not opposition, and hope I will be allowed to do so without going into detail. Perhaps the restriction could be partially lifted, or phased out, or some other formula that would give Jay substantial immediate relief, but also provide a transition? Jd2718 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

As everyone is probably well aware, the Palestine/Israel topic area is, arguably, the worst topic area in Wikipedia with regards to POV-pushing, partisanship, incivility, wiki-lawyering, refusals to collaborate and cooperate, and revert warring. A look at the current ArbCom enforcement page shows that this is still the case. When Jayjg was editing that topic area, not only did he engage heavily in many of these behaviors, he often assumed a leadership role, perhaps because of his standing as a former arbitrator and possession of special admin privileges such as checkuser and oversight, in promoting and giving credibility to that kind of behavior. Thus, he may deserve much of the blame for the negative tone that still afflicts those article talk pages.

In his statement above, he appears to gloss over his actions that caused so much trouble for so long in the topic area. He doesn't address whether, as rumored, he participated in a mailing list cabal to coordinate efforts to control article content in that or other topic areas, or why he chose to push a particular POV in those articles instead of striving to uphold the NPOV policy, which should be the default approach of all Wikipedia editors.

That being said, however, he is admitting that he was wrong, apologizes for his actions, and promises never to do them again. He has also helped out extensively at a noticeboard and contributed featured content. In short, he has done exactly the things an editor should do to merit removal of arbcom sanctions. I'm not sure what more could be asked of Jayjg to better earn serious consideration for removal of the sanctions. Cla68 (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Supreme Deliciousness

Why hasn't Jayjg commented on this:[23] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My first thoughts here is that I would be willing to lift the topic ban (with the appropriate caveat that it will quickly be replaced if there are further issues here.) However, before I would entertain a motion, I would like to see other statements. SirFozzie (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayjg, could you give a few more examples of FAC reviews you have participated in and also some examples of 'reliable sources noticeboard' discussions where you felt you made particularly helpful contributions? On a pedantic point, it is FA delegate, not director. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jayjg, thanks for the extra information I asked for. I will ask the other arbitrators to have a look as this as well. One more thing - given what SirFozzie said above, would you be happy with us asking the clerks to ask others to comment here, including some of those you have mentioned? Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have no objections to lifting the topic ban. Shell babelfish 20:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barring any other comments, I will propose a motion in about 24 hours to lift the topic ban. Risker (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motion
There being 18 active arbitrators, the majority for support of the motion is 10.

In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

Support
  1. As proposer. Jayjg has complied with the expectations of the Arbitration Committee and (by extension) the community in participating in the development and improvement of many articles, as well as in community-driven processes to support content improvement, and he has done so while working within the consensus model of participation. One hopes that Jayjg will be able to translate these experiences to his participation in the Palestine-Israel area of editing, should he choose to return. Risker (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I applaud the way Jayjg has argued that the topic ban removal will allow him to contribute to the encyclopedia in ways that were prohibited before. That is the best reason to lift a topic ban: a supported argument that the sanction is no longer preventing harm to the encyclopedia, but is now actively preventing its improvement. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shell babelfish 02:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg has shown that he understands the problems that led to the restrictions being put in place, accepts that the behaviour was not conducive to a good editing atmosphere, and undertaken not to make the same mistakes again. Some editors have expressed reservations, and I hope that Jayjg will take these concerns on board: but everyone broadly agrees that removing the restrictions would be a net benefit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger talk 04:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. as detailed above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. as detailed previously, Jayjg is aware of the issues in the area, and I'm glad to be able to lift this. SirFozzie (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. In light of Jayjg's assurance that they will be editing in a collegial fashion in this area. –xenotalk 17:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Although I was recused on the original case, the reasons prompting my recusal do not really apply to this motion, and I feel able to participate. Support per Risker, Jclemens, Chase me, and Xeno. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Recuse
Abstain



Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience

Initiated by jps (talk) at 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience
  2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • Current wording: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience reads "16) 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."
  • Suggested rewording: Replace the above principle with: "16) Theories which have a following but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
  • Precedent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Modified_by_motion
  • Rationale: singling out "astrology" is problematic and essentially a content ruling which is beyond arbcom's remit. Problematic aspects of this finding include: 1) indicating that astrology is a "theory" which it certainly isn't in the sense of a scientific theory, 2) insinuating by negative association with a previous principle that astrology is somehow not "obvious pseudoscience" which is a highly questionable proposition. Removing the specific example corrects these problems.

Statement by jps

Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ludwigs2

Alternate wording of this amendment. see my comments under amendment 2 below for explanation and discussion:

Suggested rewording
16) Theories which have a following in the lay public but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

  • Current wording: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable science reads "17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
  • Suggested rewording: Replace the above principle with: "17) Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience may contain information to that effect."
  • Precedent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Modified_by_motion
  • Rationale: singling out "psychoanalysis" as "questionable science" and declaring a class of subjects that "should not be characterized" in defiance of reliable sources which say otherwise are both problematic assertions and essentially content rulings which are beyond arbcom's remit. Problematic aspects of this finding include: 1) indicating that psychoanalysis is a "science" which it is not generally considered to be — not even a "questionable" one. It is, rather, a technique that offers a perspective on human behavior, theory of mind, and modes of dysfunction. 2) insinuating by negative association with a previous principle that psychoanalysis is somehow not "obvious pseudoscience" which is a POV that attacks the perspective of such luminaries as Richard Feynman who outlines his argument in favor of psychoanalysis being a pseudoscience in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. Removing the specific example corrects these problems. 3) The final directive, that these kinds of proposals and ideas "generally should not be so characterized" is a vague and unhelpful directive that has caused problems with editors debating whether a topic is truly "pseudoscientific" or merely "questionable science" — a meaningless and terrible game that puts the focus on trying to read the tea leaves of arbcom decisions rather than looking at the most reliable sources and trying to decide from them what the mainstream academic understanding of a subject is. In practice, this ruling is ignored by editors at, for example, list of pseudosciences because it is so contrary to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines (example discussion). I propose that the easiest way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to amend the ruling so that it no longer makes claims to content adjudication and instead returns editorial control of pseudoscience characterization to what reliable sources say on the subject.

Statement by jps

Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

I'm not a participant in the original case, but I am a regular at the fringe theory noticeboard. Personally I tend to favor examples, but if we have precedent for omitting them, so be it. I do not think the last clause should be dropped through amendment, however. In the case of psychoanalysis it seems to me that the article needs to reflect the mainstream viewpoint and express Feynman's criticism as that of a dissenter (assuming of course that this situations still obtains-- but if it didn't there wouldn't be any pressure to use this as an example). Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources that show that Feynman's critique is close to the mainstream academic understanding of psychoanalysis. I just used his critique as an example. jps (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I prefer Ludwigs2's wording I don't think I would interpret the consequences of following it so stringently as he holds. In general for a subject of some controversy there is reason to mention the controversy in the lead. In the cases in question, there is some difference, however small, between a field which has always had trouble gaining general academic acceptance and another field which once enjoyed some degree of respect but which is now falling out of favor. As it appears at this instant it seems to me that the lead for parapsychology is up front about the controversy, and those testifying against it seem more relevant as authorities. Looking at the material in psychoanalysis is a lot more problematic, not the least of which problem is the considerable space devoted to criticisms from philosophers. If we had some solid sources from psychologists saying "look, we tried this stuff, and we now think it's a bunch of hooey" it would be a lot easier to class it as old, dead pseudoscience.
There's a content issue here of exactly how similar the two cases are. My sense of what's in the articles now is that they support calling the one pseudoscientific better than they do the other, but that there's some possibility of finding better material for the latter. In the case of string theory there is a lot of doubt being expressed but surely not to the same degree; the lead of that article is up front about the dispute but does not go so far as to elevate those doubts to the level of calling the theory discredited. I feel that we have more of an issue which can be dealt with here about specifically the wording of article leads. My interpretation of the various versions is that none of them which has been proposed here would forbid any use of the word "pseudoscience" in a lead; as I see it the issue is in expressing the consensus and how disagreement relates to it. Even if the line between them is not always sharp, I think we need distinct cases where there is general agreement that a matter is pseudoscientific and where there substantial opinion which has not been accepted as consensus. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ludwigs2

This is problematic. Why should even a noted scholar like Feynman be used on wikipedia to critique an entire field of scholarship for which he has no special training or expertise? He is a physicist, not a psychologist or a specialist in the philosophy of science, so the most he's qualified to say is that psychoanalysis is not good physics (which I think we all already knew). We're not talking about UFO technology here: psychoanalysis is a valid field of research in its own right, and if it's going to be critiqued it should be done so by professionals in the relevant research area. Feynman is not even close. This is precisely the kind of thinking we do not want to encourage.

The sticking point, I think, is in the ambiguity of the phrase Theories which have a substantial following... which is used in both sections. The 'substantial following' of psychoanalysis is of a different character entirely than the 'substantial following' of astrology. Clarify that, and I think the problem resolves itself more cleanly. so, I'll offer the following as a counter-suggestion:

Suggested rewording
17) Theories which have a substantial presence in academic scholarship should not be characterized as pseudoscience, but may contain scholarly critiques which refer to them as pseudoscience.

I would interpret this to mean that Feynman could be used on the psychoanalysis page, but only in the body (not in the lead), and only properly contextualized as a debate about the rigor of psychoanalysis' methods. I've added a parallel revision to the other amendment request above. --Ludwigs2 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonably good formulation providing it says "... in current academic scholarship" as there are cases where pseudoscientific ideas have enjoyed academic favor prior to their rejection. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(please move if this is the wrong place to comment) I understand the concerns about overly weighting minority critiques, but the same rationale Ludwigs2 uses to dismiss Feynman's characterization of psychoanalysis could also be used to argue that famous critiques of parapsychology do not warrant mention in the lead of that particular article. The problem with Ludwigs2's proposed wording is, as I see it, that what constitutes a "substantial presence" in "academic scholarship" is very difficult to gauge. To wit, there are far fewer academic psychologists willing to go to bat for the scientific legitimacy of Freudian or Jungian theories than there were in the past, and the number of true psychoanalysts employed in the academy is most-assuredly steadily dropping (they're a minority in psychology departments these days, which is ruefully acknowledged by the psychoanalysts themselves). At what point do we as editors decide that the pendulum has swung enough to include the characterization of a subject as being pseudoscientific in the lead? This, I think, is NOT something that the arbitration committee should be deciding. It's something that informed editors need to decide after considering the sum total of the reliable sources on the subject. Trying to legislate this treatment from on-high is just inviting an additional conflict over the semiotics of arbcom decisions. If a hypothetical featured-article writer wants to improve our article on psychoanalysis and makes an editorial decision to deal with the academic critiques of the subject in a single sentence in the lead, why should their hands be tied by an arbitrary arbcom content ruling? jps (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't create the content ruling - that was here before I joined the project. I just think that if arbcom is going to indulge in a content ruling regardless, they ought to do it correctly.
As to why your hypothetical editor should have his hands tied... My belief on this matter is that any topic that has active, productive, ongoing work in the scholarly world is precluded from being pseudoscience by definition for the time frame it is active in the scholarly world. Each community of scholars gets to decide for itself what is and what is not 'scientific' for its field - that's the way it works in the academy - and so long as the field itself is accepted by the greater academic community, wikipedia should not be implying that it is somehow less than scientific. That does a disservice to the scientific world as a whole (where does wikipedia get off telling the scientific community that a field they currently accept as valid is actually pseudoscience?) Scientists are allowed to sneer at perceived methodological flaws of other disciplines, obviously, but wikipedia cannot present that as truth without without running afoul of a large number of academic scholars who happen to be in that other discipline. And yes, this is retroactive. Parapsychology can be considered pseudoscience now but for the brief period it was actively investigated by reputable scholars, it was science. Psychoanalysis may (probably will) eventually reach a stage where no scholars take it seriously, and anyone who practices psychoanalysis after that can safely be considered a pseudoscientist, but as of now it's still a valid area of scholarly research and deserves to be considered a science.
As I've said before, the entire range of fringe science conflicts on wikipedia boils down to two species of editors who both drastically misunderstand what science is. On one hand there are editors who are overly-enthused about improbable possibilities and think all such deserve to be called science; on the other, there are editors who seem to believe that 'science' can be defined as an abstract universal against which everything can be measured. Both approaches are wrong-headed. We shouldn't be trying to determine when something starts or stops being a science - if the status of a field is not patently obvious from the way scholars deal with the subject, then we should gracefully maintain the status quo (keeping unaccepted fields as unaccepted and established fields as established until scholarship makes things clearer). --Ludwigs2 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor User:Rocksanddirt

This sort of amendment is the sort of legal nitpicking that is not really important to the management of en.wikipedia. While singling out certain types of groups in the final decision is not the best practice, amending the decision two or so years later is also not the best practice. I think those on the committee would be better to spend the precious time they devote to committee activities to work on real disputes and problems within the community. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Please move this comment if it should be placed somewhere else.) There are real disputes regarding these rulings that are ongoing on various pages. For example, Talk:Acupuncture has active editors insisting that these arbcom rulings are relevant to discussions of categorical labeling. In the past, the fact that the committee chose to make a content ruling such as this has emboldened editors to edit war with the claim that they are carrying out arbcom's commands. jps (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Vassyana

I think ArbCom should not revise their findings. Instead, just state that it was an understanding of the policy at the time, not a binding directive independent from established policy; direct editors to WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV rules that are binding now. Wash your hands of the content matter and be done with it. Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think it's possible to wash ones hands of the content matter when there's always at least one genius editor who will be using that as a basis to push their silly POV much to the frustration of everyone else. It's a select few decisions that seem to have this issue, so it's better to just remove those mentions for everyone's sanity; the effort it takes to remove the content decisions compared to the time dedicated to explaining why that is out of date and not binding is quite a bit less in the grand scheme of things. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about what I quickly drafted out below? Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose it because it might reasonably work on the future dispute (and a way of handling them). However, I cannot actively support it as a removal serves more than that. The first reason is similar: a removal of that bit (per the request) would prevent an unnecessary (and what ought-to-be resolved) future dispute as no genius would be able to play around with the fact that the content matter has been removed altogether. The second is to ensure consistency as I remarked below - if Steve Smith was in a position to serve the rest of his term, I'd expect him to be consistent in the way he dealt with principle 15). The final reason is important: the fundamental and simple rule which has not really ever changed - AC does not and should not decide content, be it then or now. That it may have been their understanding/knowledge/example of how our policies worked at the time and that it was done with the greatest of intentions is really not good enough to keep it in my opinion (the same goes for saving an ego, or because it's too time-consuming to add 4 tildes in support of a similar proposal to principle 15). The amendment request was caused by the then-AC's "throwaway remarks" as some users charitably might call them, so it would seem unnecessary for the Community to have to address problems with individual AC decisions (particularly content issues) in its policy/guidelines or for AC to try to keep it in its decision...this is especially given that the now-AC apparently agrees, and, is in a position to resolve the issue through relatively simple procedure - removing the issue altogether. Though again, I wouldn't oppose your suggestion; just that I'd actively support removal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well given that Fred seem to have noticeably been absent when similar issues have arisen, I don't see what the incentive would be for him to pop up and say "yes, that's not really what I meant in the long term - cut 2006's now-obvious-and-spotted mistakes from the decision". I don't see a reason why we can't proactively deal with the issue; why wait for the genius to pop up when that's what this amendment request seems to want to avoid based on past experience? If I wasn't busy in July, I'd have advised you to deal with these at the same time as when principle 15 of the decision was being dealt with. This just becomes weird and inconsistent if you're making amendments a few months ago, but now you want to say some parts of the decision aren't binding anymore.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't around in July. I've been absent most of the year. I'm around now and the discussion caught my attention. I don't see why there would be any conflict between the removal of certain examples and the idea below. I just don't see it as a priority and it does concern me somewhat that it would be reinforcing the letter-law use of ArbCom decisions, but it's not in opposition to my rough suggestion. Either way, I think it is important to de-emphasize ArbCom case law wikilawyering and emphasize the extant, mature community policy. Personally, I believe if an admin runs across someone playing those hairsplitting games, they should take care of that problem. If I run across a case on ANI or AE, that's what I intend to do, even if it is just providing a fair warning that lines are being crossed. That's all my opinion of course and you're welcome to grab a few salt grains with it. Vassyana (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; either way is better than none of the above. We're in particular agreement about handling that problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would you phrase such an edict, Vassyana? It needs to be incorporated into the finding so it can be referred to. jps (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something like, "X and Y from Decision Z are not binding policy. The Arbitration Committee recognizes that the community has rules in place to deal with this topic area. Editors should refer to the Neutral Point of View and Fringe Theories policies and noticeboards (NPOV, FT) for current guidance, per community norms." Probably not perfect, but I think the gist is clear. Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Remember that the case is linked at the top of many talk pages, in huge orange boxes that list the guidelines described in the case, like, for example, Talk:Astrology.

It's like a ghost that keeps haunting the pseudocience-related pages. Fix the ruling. Or pass a motion for a disclaimer, like Carcharoth says. Just do something that disables the danged thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Giving an example is illustrative and not "singling out" in any especial way. Astrology is a simple and unambiguous example of pseudoscience, this is not a content ruling as that has been established for a very long time in the articles on astrology. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

I think we need to develop two guidelines:

  • Regarding use or attempted use of principles drawn from arbitration decisions as policy. In the founding days of the Arbitration Committee the principle was adopted that arbitration decisions were not precedent, much less policy. They incorporate within them restatements of policy, in this case based on only the broadest general principles. Using links to this case in lieu of an editorial guideline reflects the poverty of the community's policy making procedures, fine in theory, but often not carried through. The decision filled a vacuum; but as the years go by and there is a failure of decision making by the community, it is being asked to serve in place of considered community policy. It is the use that is wrong, not its specific language.
  • The questions raised in the pseudoscience decision should be addressed by editing guidelines developed by the community which addresses them.
    • Actually Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience should serve. It incorporates the principles from the decision in a usable way, although I think removal of clear specific examples makes it less clear than would be optimal.

If the community is unable to collaboratively craft, by consensus, if possible, needed guidelines they should expect arbitrary decisions, which this arguably was, to continue. If that is the case alternative methods of developing guidelines need to be considered. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to unfounded beliefs: There are numerous reliable sources that many people believe, and act, on information for which there is no reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I would likely have supported these changes (and a number of others) if I had been an arbitrator when the Pseudoscience case was decided in 2006, but I am not convinced that any infelicities of the wording are doing any actual harm some four years later. (I'd reconsider this conclusion if there were a showing that the wording is being thrown in people's faces as pretermitting legitimate content or categorization arguments.) Perhaps it would be sufficient if I and other arbitrators observed here that the examples given in the decision do not constitute binding rulings by the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps Fred Bauder, who wrote the decision, would care to offer his perspective on the matter. I'd also like to welcome my former colleague Vassyana, who has commented above, back to this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to concur with Vassyana. It's four years later, and the community has moved this along; we're not in the business of reworking what is now the community's guideline, and that the community is certainly at liberty to update as it feels appropriate. Risker (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the best thing here is to simply remind everyone that examples in decisions are just that: examples. They are, by definition, not exhaustive or definitive. While they might have been helpful to clarify things at the time, they are not binding. — Coren (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewriting such as this should only really be done within a new case, though I am aware that we have engaged in rewriting previously on this very case (as mentioned above by the filers). See here. I also think what I said previously on an earlier clarification request applies: "I've always been uneasy about the practice of quoting ArbCom principles in policies, especially very old principles [...] please don't ask ArbCom to participate (from RFAR) in the editing of policy [...] Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)" and also what Newyorkbrad said at about the same time: "There are several paragraphs of the Pseudoscience decision that venture more closely to content or policy rulings than would normally be found in one of our decisions. [...] Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)" Given that last quote, it might be useful to pass motion to add a disclaimer, similar to what Vassyana has proposed above, to the case. But to then avoid further messing with what is now a very old case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone is consistently using ArbCom remedies to "win" content disputes, it's most likely that behavior that needs addressed, not the ruling. Shell babelfish 20:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Vassyana. That case had a number of content decisions I would have outsourced to the community, which looks like what we have now with Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Not thrilled with using psychoanalysis as an example, as it is rather an egregious one. Hence, shall we draft a motion along Vassyana's entry and vote? (I'd say principles 3, 6.1, 6.2, 9, 9.1 and 11, FoF 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10.1, 11, 12, 13 and 17) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Do folks think we need specify these content findings in the motion? I think yes as it reduces ambiguity and firmly pushes folks in the one direction to find answers/consensus. Anyone want to add or subtract any? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do not think that this should result in an amendment at all, and instead should be closed. There's nothing really to amend here unless we're going to rewrite the entire decision, and I do not think that is a reasonable outcome. Risker (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much per Newyorkbrad, if there are concrete examples that these findings are being actively misused in current content disputes, then some amendment or motion may be required. These findings strayed closer to ruling on content than I am comfortable with, but it is generally understood that committee decisions neither set precedent nor create policy; they merely interpret existing policies and guidelines. Agree that a reminder of this and a reference to current guidelines on the matter should be enough to counter any argument that is based on these 2006 findings. –xenotalk 18:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Coren - it was only an example, not a binding content decision, and also with Risker - this should be closed. PhilKnight (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: User:Koavf

Initiated by —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ (per User:Shell Kinney) at 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
User:Koavf/Community sanction
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
  2. Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
  3. Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

None outstanding, but all users who commented at AN have been notified.

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Note: these will be added after I have submitted this proposal, so that I can post a static diff of this page to the users' talks.

Statement by Koavf

This has a long history and you can go down the rabbit hole following this from ArbCom to AN to user talk pages and back to ArbCom (e.g.), but basically put: I have three editing restrictions noted above and I would like them lifted. My lengthier proposal and rationale from before are copied and pasted:

I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:

  1. Limited to editing with a single account.
  2. Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
  3. Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:

  1. I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
  2. I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
  3. This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

Statement by other editor

Statement by Fetchcomms

As I stated at the AN thread, I don't see any major issue with lifting the restrictions. Not sure what else I have to say; I was never involved in the original sanctions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@NW, I'm not a clerk but I think I updated the template. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Shell, I don't think it was consensus not to remove the sanctions as much as lack of participation either way. It might just because not many people are familiar with this case and Koavf's current activity. I interpret lack of input as "I don't care" over "status quo, leave them in place". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Jayron32

Again, my opinion has not changed just like Fetchcoms. At the same AN thread above, I noted that I saw no problem with lifting restrictions 1 & 2. Restriction 3 needs to remain in place for some time while he his allowed to edit in the problematic area. While Koavf has remained in good standing when editing outside of the Western Sahara/Morocco area, we have no evidence one way or another how things will go once he starts to edit in that area. I think that keeping restriction 3 in place, for say at least another 6 months or so, will allow us to see if things go well. If they do, then we can recind that restriction as well. So my opinion is that ArbCom should look at recinding restrictions 1 & 2, and leave 3 in place for six months as a sort of "trial period" for editing the Western Sahara related articles. --Jayron32 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

I've notified Sandstein of the discussion, as he closed the ANI thread. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think I have much useful input to offer. I only closed the stale ANI discussion after there was no positive consensus to lift the restrictions (which meant that they remained in force by default) but not much community interest in maintaining them either. I suppose that gives ArbCom wide latitude to determine whether maintaining the sanctions is in the interests of the project. About that I have no opinion.  Sandstein  23:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I...tried to updated Template:ArbComOpenTasks, but I couldn't figure out how to do so. Could another clerk take a gander at it? NW (Talk) 16:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • In the absence of any commentary to the contrary, a week after this has been filed, I am hard pressed to think of a reason to deny this request, and would likely support lifting it. Risker (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely clear where ArbCom were involved in the past here. If this is indeed within our remit to modify, I would have no problems with something like Jayron suggested above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since appeal to the community resulted in a consensus not to remove the sanctions just a few months ago, there's no obvious reason for us to disagree with that decision. If you'd like the sanctions lifted, you need to convince the community that you've resolved the issues. Shell babelfish 00:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly There wasn't a "consensus not to remove the sanctions", there was simply no consensus to remove the sanctions. In point of fact, everyone who participated was willing to remove them (or stagger their removal), so the !votes were in favor of lifting it; there just weren't enough. And then I was told to come here--if you have a better place for me to take this, I'd happily do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No issues with removing these sanctions; in fact, the complete lack of support in continuing the sanctions at the last community discussion makes me wonder why this was not addressed at that time. Sanctions that no longer enjoy the support of the community should be lifted, and there is no expectation of a supermajority of support for lifting two year old sanctions. Risker (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read the history here, this was initially an indefinite block (not necessarily a ban), which was lifted subject to restrictions imposed by this Committee in 2007 (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf). Thus, I don't see any issue with our authority to lift or modify the restrictions if we think such action is warranted. With regard to whether we should do so, my current inclination is to propose a motion either lifting the restrictions, or alternatively, suspending them a period of three or six months, with the intention of then lifting them altogether at that time if there are no significant problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following Sandstein's and NYB's comments, it seems ArbCom can undo the restrictions, and if this is the case, I agree with Jayron's suggestion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

The restrictions placed upon Koavf (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf are terminated, effective immediately. Koavf is reminded to edit in the future in full accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

As there are 18 arbitrators, a majority is 10.

Support:
  1. There seems to be a consensus that these restrictions have served their purpose. I do see some division of opinion as to whether we should lift the sanctions outright at this time, or suspend them for a few months to make sure no problems develop before lifting them permanently. On consideration, my own view is that ample time has passed for an outright lifting to be reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Personally would have preferred to have a probationary period, but my fellow arbs are right, Koavf should know that further issues will mean that sanctions are re-applied fairly quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Would have preferred to retain the 3rd restriction, however I agree with SirFozzie - if there are problems, the sanctions can be re-applied. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mailer Diablo 17:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No opposition to lifting restrictions. Koavf shoud be aware that sanctions will be reapplied tout suite if he fouls up.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The restrictions have served their purpose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per SirFozzie. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=406231335"