Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FayssalF (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 6 March 2009 (→‎Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/3): reply to NYB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions

Initiated by Iberomesornix (talk) at 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried.

Statement by Iberomesornix

Introduction
a. Page Iberian-Guanche inscriptions was put up in English Wikipedia by me.
b. T_L_Miles says that this is mainly one single group's study.
c. Trigaranus suggested deleting the page, but with "no doubt, inscriptions exist".
d. Iberomesornix showed that the study was a result of several groups:

  • Wermer Pichler collected the inscriptions as "Latin", without noticing they were written in Iberian[1].
  • Renata Springer studies again Pichler's "Latin" inscriptions[2].

We edited the page questioning the Arnaiz-Villena translation, as suggested.
e. We stated in the discussion the [2]authors who follow Arnaiz-Villena's Basque-Iberian interpretation. [3]
f. Iberian-Basque theory has nothing to do with the page, but was brought up to be dismissed only 60 years ago. Since 16th Century, all scholars agreed it was right, including Humboldt.
g. dumu eduba says that Basque has nothing to do with any other language. This has nothing to do with the page, which was further edited to make it clear.
h. Iberomesornix dismissed dumu eduba's arguments with references. Even Ruhlen (Proffesor at Stanford University) and Bengston had supported them.
i. Trigaranus brings about a reference which he says dismisses the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions page. However, the reference is unrelated, because there was another Pichler reference[1] showing what he calls "Latin inscriptions" and we call "Iberian-Guanche incriptons" [4].
j. However, this reference was completely deleted[3][1][5] by Kwamikagami and later restored by me.
k. We think that this deletion is unjustified because permission was never criticized by anybody, and it might have been done for avoiding comparison with the key reference which was used to delete the page. We had permission to use it, which was asked by nobody.
l. Trigaranus and dumu eduba decided to tagging this page for deletion.
m. Reference given by Trigaranus is irrelevant for the page. The first ones are about Lybic inscriptions, and this page is about Latin or Guanche inscriptions. Please check the in both references and see they have nothing to do with each other.
n. This spureous reference was used as an argument for deletion by Fritzpoll [6].
o. In Deletion discussion it was made clear by me that discussion was unrelated to the page itself. It was brought about that Arnaiz-Villena had been persecuted and censored because of a Palestinian paper years ago, and that persecution is still ongoing by the same people that censored the Palestinian paper [7]. Deletion discussion was balanced and repeating the same non-applying arguments.
p. Another distinct page with more documents (scanned Iberian-Guanche inscriptions on the rocks themselves) [8], [9] and much editing, doubting about translations. As the critics did not like the term Guanche, the new page was renamed Iberian-Canarian scripts.
q. This new page was deleted by Kwamikagami arguing "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" [10]. [11]

'Summary'
1. Content of the page itself has not been criticized.
2. They have centered criticism on Basque-Iberism and translations (these matters were avoided, as explained in the Canarian-Iberian page discussion. Arnaiz-Villena is probably being persecuted again.
3. There is a conflict of interests about Iberian-Basque relationship. This has nothing to do with the page, and particularly with the fact that 2000-years-ago Iberian-Guanche inscriptions have been found in the Canary Islands since 1980's at least and they are silenced by scholars who feel damaged by these findings.
4. Trigaranus, Fritzpoll, and Kwamikagami have ignored common sense when following this case, in spite of perching to some Wikipedia regulations that are doubtfully appliable to about 2000-years-ago facts: the writing on Canary Islands rocks of Iberian scripts.
5. I am seeking a way out for keeping this important 2000-years-ago information in the Wikipedia. Arnaiz-Villena seems to be the target for deletion, instead of my page's contents; I would suggest either to reduce his references to the minimum.

  1. ^ a b c Die Schrift der Ostinseln-Corpus der Inschriften auf Fuerteventura. By: W. Pichler. Almogaren, XXIII. Edited by: Hallein. pp. 313-453 (1992).
  2. ^ Origen y uso de la escritura líbico-bereber en Canarias. By: Renata A. Springer Bunk. Edited by: Centro de Cultura Popular Canaria. Tenerife. Canary Islands. Spain (2001). ISBN: 978-84-7926-395-9
  3. ^ Egipcios, bereberes, guanches y vascos. By: A. Arnaiz-Villena and J. Alonso Garcia. Edited by: Editorial Complutense. Madrid. Spain. 2nd ed. January (2001).

Statement by Fritzpoll

Just to say, this has all caught me off guard - I had a request to explain the close some days ago, I responded and commented that WP:DRV was the next step if the party was unsatisfied. Beyond closing the AfD and deleting recreated pages, I've had no interaction with these editors or their pages and was, until this evening, nothing to do with this dispute. I am suitably bemused.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/3)

Skatergal on articles related to the Sindhi community

Initiated by Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) at 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Gamesmaster G-9

I attempted to clean up the original article Sindhi people of numerous POV statements (principally those that attempted to privilege Hindu Sindhis over Muslims). I was blocked by User:Skatergal and a number of anonymous users. All changes I made were reverted without explanation, and I was warned to stay away from "their page". (Please note the edit summaries [13], [14]). I provided explanations for each edit ([15]), but to no avail. After requests by User:Yellowmonkey and User:Master_of_Puppets also had no effect, User:Yellowmonkey protected the page. Still, in spite of my requests, User:Skatergal refused to discuss the issue. During this time, she attempted to create a POV fork [16] and add the same material that I was objecting to.

After the page was unprotected, the user has begun making disruptive edits again. Photographs of Pakistani Sindhis were removed and my edits are once again being reverted without explanation. All attempts at mediation and negotiation have failed. I have turned to arbitration as a last recourse. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Regarding the suggestion that I attempt other forms of mediation first, I should mention that I have tried posting to WP:AN and RfC:History and Geography. I should have mentioned those in the request, and I apologise for the oversight. The relevant diffs are here [17] and [18]. I am also adding them to the list of evidence.

In the meanwhile, Skatergal has continued to cause disruptive edits in spite of the arbitration proceedings [19], which have attracted the attention of at least one Pakistani user, and may blow up.

Once again, I would like to submit that this is not a content dispute, but an egregious violation of WP:OWN. I have expressed my willingness to discuss the content on numerous occasions ([20], [21], [22], [23]), but I have only met with intransigence. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response
All of you have suggested some other means of dispute resolution, but there is no method I haven't tried. The only concrete suggestion was from Newyorkbrad. Could any of you put me in touch with an admin who is willing to help? Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Vassyana
Thank you for your suggestion. I will approach MedCab and MedCom. The reason I didn't approach them earlier is because I was convinced that this wasn't a content dispute. Hopefully, this will solve the problem. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement about RFC

I didn't start it. GMG09 did and listed it on the listings, he just didn't add the lightbulb template. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/1)

  • Decline, seems like a content dispute to me. If it continues and mediation is refused, I'd actually try a thread at WP:AN first, as it does not seem like the community at large has taken a look at this problem. Wizardman 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I do not know enough about the subject-matter to tell whether this is a legitimate content dispute or more of a user conduct issue, although the edit summary on the the user's latest contribution (the sole edit on March 1) is certainly not promising. A post to WP:ANI requesting attention to the page may be sufficient to address any user misconduct here, Otherwise, Wizardman's suggestion of mediation may be in order. The heavy artillery of an arbitration case, which represents the last and most complex stage of dispute resolution, is not required here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for adding the links to other steps you have taken. They make the request for arbitration seem more reasonable, but I still am not convinced that the problem has quite gotten to this stage. Could I ask that an uninvolved administrator get involved in the situation and see what needs to be done to address it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is a legitimate problem as skatergal does not appear to be entering into any discussions. The RFC initiated by YellowMonkey has received no input at all, but that could be because it has not been added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Could someone please do that. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; at least for the time being. While there doesn't seem to be very much cooperation at this time, it is likely that less forceful methods of dispute resolution may yet bring positive results. — Coren (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline until some other avenues are exhausted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declineper most of the above from my colleagues — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This is not mediation; it is a series of warnings. Mediation assistance can be provided by an uninvolved user acting informally, MedCab, and MedCom. While the document lays out formal mediation under MedCom, Wikipedia:Mediation is still a helpful reference about the general nature and purpose of mediation on Wikipedia. This is not "negotiation"; it is a short bickering exchange. This is only one attempt to raise the issue to the attention of uninvolved administrators, where the responding admin noted there was no 3RR violation but that if problems continued they could be addressed. I see no reason to believe that admins would not intervene if reports of continued conduct issues were reported at WP:ANI or another appropriate venue. Essentially, a plethora of dispute resolution options remain for both the content and conduct sides of the dispute, and there is no reason to believe this cannot be resolved at the community level. Vassyana (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Vassyana. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Vassyana. There is a problem here, as Skatergal does need to be more responsive and less aggressive, from what I've seen here. If ANI hasn't got much response, maybe try the geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard? Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per my colleagues. — Roger Davies talk 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience

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

Statement by Xasodfuih

It has been recently pointed out to me that "ArbCom does not rule on content". Is this a newer policy that invalidates/vacates the pseudoscience decision which allows for the categorization (and presumably sub-categorization) of pseudoscientific claims and theories?

Diets making pseudoscientific claims are often described as fad diets by scientific associations; for instance, the American Dietetic Association has a list here. In a recent discussion however, the fad diets category has been deleted with the main argument that it's "not NPOV because what is fad is inherently POV" (not an exact quote). Surely, the same argument can and most likely was made about the more general pseudoscience category before the ArbCom previously. So, does the pseudoscience decision still stand? Is it WP:NPOV to have Category:Pseudoscience? Is it WP:NPOV to have sub-categories for pseudoscience, such as Category:Fad diet if major scientific organizations use them? Thank you for your time. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I've read Wikipedia:Arbitration policy carefully, and I don't see a limitation on the scope of ArbCom rulings to content, but only a caveat that you usually don't rule on it: "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." Since a prior content-related decision has been made in this area, I think that clarifying it will not violate the current policy. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Risker: User:Good Olfactory was the closing admin for the original Category:Diet and food fads discussion, and the admin who speedily deleted (G4) my (inadvertant re-)creation of Category:Fad diet. User:Jmh649, who like me has not taken part in the (unadvertised to relevant WikiProjects) original discussion, asked Good Olfactory to reopen the discussion, but the admin declined without further commentary. I don't see how the unexpressed thoughts of the closing admin override the rationale(s) given in the original deletion discussion. As for redundancy, surely we have Category:Science, but that does not make more specific categories such as Category:Fringe science or even Category:Pseudoscience redundant; I think the reasoning same applies to diet topics. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example (possibly clarifying the difference between this issue and the other related request on this page): Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that the potentially derogatory term "fad diet" is attributed (to ADA) in the wiki article's text, not given as a bare fact. I don't see however a practical way to do that for Wikipedia categories. I assume the 2006 decision struggled with this matter too, hence the wording "generally considered pseudoscience". I'm all for discussing whether a certain diet meets the "generally considered" standard for categorization, but the deletion of the category preempts any such discussion from taking place. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 2: The finding I'm citing from the famous 2006 ArbCom has been incorporated into Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories. (I'm surprised that nobody pointed this out to me.) So, there's probably not much else that the Committee can do in this matter. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was added to NPOV on Feb 12, 2009, that's why many don't know about it. Thanks, John! Xasodfuih (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

Other current discussion related to that CFD exists at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23#Category:Fad diet. GRBerry 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

To be honest, this has puzzled me as well. ArbCom traditionally don't rule on content or validate policy and guideline apart from the main summary of the non-negotiables (e.g. the main gist of NPOV, BLP, and NFC). A little bit of clarification would be nice. Sceptre (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

  • Archiving in approximately 12 hours--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment to Xasodfuih: Have you discussed the closure of this CfD with the administrator who closed it? The closure of that CfD may have nothing to do with the term "fad" and may be related to the fact that the articles within the now-deleted category were all present in Category:Diets, as noted by one of the other participants. Risker (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment below in the context of the previous request for clarification of this same decision, is also generally applicable here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two clarification requests at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience that may be helpful to read. 1 2 Following the most recent of those clarification requests, the Pseudoscience section of NPOV was lifted from the FAQ. Note that a similar section was moved from the NPOV page to the new FAQ subpage in mid-2006, and the Arbcom ruling was included there in March 2007. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversial category names are tricky. The specific example of "fad diets" should be left for deletion review to take care of (though is it not possible to use another name for such things, or subcategorise diets another way?). The general approach to controversial categories should be to improve the articles first so that it is clearer (with source) as to whether the articles should be in such categories. And if the category is deemed appropriate, to come up with a category definition to keep things under control. Not quite sure what diets have to do with pseudoscience, though. They may claim to have a scientific basis, but that doesn't make them a science or pseudoscience. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, I feel this is no longer a matter for the Committee to clarify or handle. The "pseudoscience" section of policy predates the arbitration case. The reference to the principle formulated during the case was added to official policy almost two years ago by normal policy editing.[24] It appears the community has taken ownership of the principle, or rather that it has been incorporated into policy by normal means. Thus, it should be handled like any other point of policy. (Additionally, I am concerned that remaining open to ArbCom clarification on the principle turns the Committee into a content adjudicator for disputes surrounding it.) Discussions about its appearance and application in policy should be discussed at the neutral point of view talk page and/or policy village pump. Requests for input and clarification regarding its application to specific cases should be discussed at the NPOV noticeboard and the appropriate article talk pages. Dispute resolution should be used to help resolve any impasse. Vassyana (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Paranormal - Adequate Framing

Refactored title [25] per page format issue. Franamax (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

In articles such as psychic, telekinesis, and so on, where the subject's very existence is heavily in dispute, it seems to me to be necessary, to adequately frame the subject, to acknowledge that in the lead sentence. For instance, you could describe it as a "purported ability", but to simply define it as what proponents say it is seems to directly imply its existence, which is a problem. However, it's been said that this Arbcom ruling means that such framing is forbidden. Can you clarify whether this ruling was meant to apply in articles about such abilities and subjects themselves, or whether it was intended to instead mean that it's usually not necessary to rehash such debates in every article? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad: I didn't think of that - sorry! I've done it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Fred: Please forgive me, I'm not quite sure I fully understand your point. It seems to be that, all things being equal, it's not necessary to rehash, say, the psychic debate in every article, but that instead we can just include individualised criticism to frame it, but I'm not sure how that applies in articles where the subject is, say Psychic, Parapsychology, Ghost, and so on. How would you see, say, Psychic's lead sentence or paragraph, if adequate framing is to be provided? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) by Fred Bauder

Just as one need only identify a narrative as being based on a dream in order to frame it as not real, in many instances simply identifying a subject as being "paranormal" serves to frame it as not being based on scientific observation. Thus, it is not necessary to include extensive disclaimers in order to satisfy neutral point of view. The same principle can be applied to alternative medicine. Identifying Homeopathy as alternative medicine defines it as not being based on standard medical trials of effectiveness. It is not necessary to throw the word quackery around in the introduction. Likewise with respect to the paranormal, simply stating that telekinesis is a paranormal phenomenon is generally sufficient. It is not necessary to carry on at length regarding lack of scientific evidence. The example given about Jeane Dixon, a notorious humbug who held herself out as a psychic, is illustrative. Fred Talk 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not forbidden to point out lack of evidence of a subject's existance in close questions; it is simply bad form to continually edit war and fuss over such language when simply stating that a phenomena falls into a generally rejected category offers more than sufficient information to the reader. Fred Talk 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

This request is not actionable and should be closed, because it pertains to a decision that has not yet been made. This discussion belongs on the proposed decision talk page. Also, on the merits, is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision#Adequate framing, a principle enunciated by the Committee, even part of the binding arbitration decision? I was under the impression that the only operative part of arbitral decisions are the remedies. If that is so, the principle at issue is not enforceable through arbitration enforcement and the request is moot anyway.  Sandstein  19:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike part of the above, the case is indeed closed, and the correct link goes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate_framing.  Sandstein  20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday

@ Sandstein: They are generally treated as enforceable, even unanswerable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

Those attempting to understand one part of an ArbComm case should also look to other parts. In this case, it appears to me that to understand principle 6.2 "Adequate framing" and finding of fact 12 "Paranormal as an effective tag", it is necessary to also review at the least principles 6.1 "Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content" and 11 "Generally considered pseudoscience", findings of fact 3 "Status of parapsychology", 5 "Cultural artifacts", 6 "Subjects without referents", and 9 "Flat statements of fact". The numbering indicates that principles 6.1 and 6.2 are related replacements for the rejected proposed principle 6. Personally, I would expect that in articles such as Psychic or Ghost principle 6.1 would be of more relevance than 6.2, while in the case of an individual claiming to be a psychic or a claimed particular incident/location of haunting by a ghost 6.2 would be of more relevance than 6.1. However, the amount of framing to appear in an article's lead is always going to be constrained by other standards applying to article leads, so the framing in the lead is likely to be succinct with extended discussion of epistemological status in the body of the article. GRBerry 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • There is some threaded discussion above, are the arbs ok with this or should it be broken out into sections for each participant? MBisanz talk 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed - Each editor needs to comment under a separate heading. Tiptoety talk 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archiving in approximately 12 hours--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator comments

  • Please give notice of this thread to the former arbitrator who wrote the decision. I would welcome his input on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thank Fred for his input. I believe that in past discussions concerning principles in the Pseudoscience case, the conclusion has been that they represent general background observations on the issues, and are not meant to unduly constrain the usual process of article development (i.e., there is a difference between the role of principles and the role of remedies). In this case, I think the principle suggests that it is well to avoid undue weight on a negative characterization of a subject or topic in the lead, but I do not think it would be valid in a content to dispute to expect to be playing a trump card by stating "your wording violates a principle handed down by the ArbCom two years ago." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interpretation of past rulings are always, as a rule, a difficult endeavor. In this particular case, I share Shoemaker's Holiday puzzlement over the examples given since it would seem to me that describing someone as a "psychic" without qualification, for instance, begs the question of the existence of psychics in the first place. If the article on our founder began "Jimmy Wales, a 700-year old vampire", then it appears to claim not only that Jimbo might be a vampire, but that vampires do in fact exist (since he would be one). It would appear to me that the only neutral way of framing claims of belonging to a category whose very existence is disputed requires attributing the claim.

    However, I am not about to guess at intent without giving the drafting arbitrator the opportunity to clarify it themself. — Coren (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My view here is that editorial discretion is key, and ArbCom shouldn't be ruling on this sort of thing, other than to uphold the principle of editorial discretion. If there is disagreement over how best to write a lead sentence, or get the balance right in the lead section, then look at how other encyclopedias (or other Wikipedia articles) have handled this. Aim to get the balance right between a suitably worded description and one that is readable. In other words, don't tie things up in knots if the end result is an awkward and clumsy sentence or paragraph. Better to have a good piece of writing that gets the point across, than a standard approach that is clumsily imposed on all articles in this topic area. And do trust the readers more. Some of them are perfectly aware of what the issues are and don't need to be (metaphorically) beaten over the head with clarifications and disclaimers and glosses to explain things. Sometimes a link and a few judiciously chosen words alone is enough. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comment to the related clarifiction above. I believe the same principle holds valid here. This is largely a ball in the community's court at this point, or so I believe. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=275321177"