This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee names Quackwatch as an unreliable source. Quackwatch has been recommended by major medical organisations ( AMA, American Cancer Society) as well as numerous universities, newspapers, and journals (See article), and, furthermore, is used as a source in articles on the American Cancer Society website. [2] This finding should be simply thrown out. Although electronically published, it has reviewers, selectivity, and an advisory board. It is not merely a self-published source, it is a highly respected organisation, and thus a very, very useful source on some of the obscure fringe views it covers, but which other reliable sources are rare for. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 15:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to Geoff: Can you point out the section on the evidence page where evidence was provided that it was not a reliable source? I see some people saying they dislike its point of view, or claiming that it is biased against alternative medicine and fringe topics, but no actual evidence. If such exist, please link. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposals
There doesn't appear to be very good evidence of Fyslee having problematic edits - notably, the evidence section of the case has one section pointing out that most additions of Quackwatch by Fyslee were, in fact, reversions of removal of content when seen in context. I don't think this is a particularly crucial finding, nor are any of the remedies explicitly based on it, so I think it could be excised without problem, and this would also expunge a content decision. The best way to note its being withdrawn is probably to simply put the finding in strikeout tags and add a note saying "Withdrawn by the Arbitration committee on [Date]", with a link to the section of the talk page where this RfCl is moved.
I don't see merit in revisiting the case long enough to revise the finding, if the Arbcom wishes to, I am certain you can come up with something. I simply ask that you make sure it is justified by the case's evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
On the current proposals:
1 is appalling. The community is perfectly capable of handling Quackwatch on a case by case basis, but with a lengthy attack on it like that from the Arbcom, it may as well be banned. In the articles where Quackwatch tends to be used, the articles are describing the worst of alternative medicine: Scams and quackery, of only slight notability, but which have just enough notability that their supporters can keep them on Wikipedia, despite having few or no non-promotional sources discussing them. Quackwatch is almost necessary in these cases.
Should we really put at equal weight strong scientific evidence that a medical intervention not only doesn't work, but couldn't work, with... How about this? This is an extreme fringe journal's report on a rather poorly-done experiment that is claimed to prove pyramid power. Shall we say that this means that any website that's critical of pyramid power should be considered a questionable, biased source? Shall we give equal validity to the the view that the moon is made of green cheese, and thus point out NASA is a "partisian" source that should have equal validity?
1.1 is at least a step in the right direction, but does not go at all far enough. Arbcom, I beg you, get out of content decisions. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Further comment
To Flonight
archived bad start. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular " finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom.
"Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, that have been presented, not written before presentation of evidence. Nor should they be based upon false charges (they were shown to be false) brought by my attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. One shouldn't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly.
That finding was just plain wrong on both counts:
-- Fyslee ( talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
I would hope that ArbCom would look past the (understandably, I suppose, considering, but not very helpful) angry tone of the above and take steps to fix the very real problem. We've been discussing QuackWatch on the Workshop page of the Fringe Science workshop page, and we've pretty well established that it's nothing like an unreliable source. ArbCom typically doesn't rule out sources as unreliable just in general, but it's especially odd they'd do so on one that fits WP:RS so strongly, and it's mentioning as such is being used by civil POV-pushers to try to remove a well known, extremely well-regarded and important source critical of their beliefs in fringe topics. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This finding attempted to rule upon a content issue outside the Committee's remit. Although a necessary part of arbitration does relate to obvious calls such as the unreliability of citations to non-notable blogs, this was not that type of obvious call. The evidence upon which the Committee passed this finding was more emotional than factual (one party had been in a protracted lawsuit with the owner of the Quackwatch site) and regardless of what POV is at stake that is not a good basis for arbitration findings. I have no opinion about the suitability or unsuitability of Quackwatch for encyclopedic citations. This is a matter for the community to determine. Durova Charge! 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
While I have a COI in this area, I believe that the finding regarding Quackwatch was accurate, but nonetheless procedurally wrong. Quackwatch is as heavily biased as any other blog site. The articles are written by an ex psychiatrist with absolutely no training in the areas he professes to be an expert in. Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques. This website has no peer review system and considers all topics as pseudoscience. It is clearly the work of someone with a vendetta against anything that is not mainstream medicine. Unfortunately, I must agree with my worthy colleagues that the scope of this body does not include content, and therefore content rulings are moot. However I advise amending the finding to a suggestive finding stating that "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy." This is simply a statement of fact and not a content ruling, satisfying both the need to note the error of Quackwatch and remove the content intrusion. Geoff Plourde ( talk) 19:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
However, in this case, I believe that the original decision was correct in light of the circumstances. The finding was about the usage of partisan sites by Fyslee, which is a policy matter. Quackwatch was cited as an example in support, an application of policy. Is Quackwatch partisan? Yes and this is clearly established by cursory review of Quackwatch itself. Did Fyslee try to use Quackwatch? This case and relevant logs would appear to say yes also. The finding is a logical result of this reasoning.
Regardless of the reasoning, there is a more significant test of whether this was a content ruling. Does the finding prohibit the usage of Quackwatch? Nowhere in this finding am I able to find any provision that specifically says that Quackwatch is unusable. Without such a provision, Quackwatch is still utilizable. While I may be speculating, this appears to be more about one user's discomfort at having his hand smacked for his conduct. I would therefore reject this motion, as the evidence clearly shows that this is not a content ruling. Geoff Plourde ( talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom made a ruling on content, and a bad one at that. It's being discussed on the fringe science case [ [6]]. My 2 cents:
This finding is being used as a sledgehammer to kill references to a source that, as Shoemaker points out, is recommended by reliable sources on the relevant fields.
"As a result, the ACSH has been accused of being more of a public relations firm, and less of a neutral council on Science. " [8]
Well, maybe the site is reliable and maybe not. Looks like it might have some wise council sometimes. But that does not mean we should not prefer better sources when available, nor does it mean we do not attribute statements. If it weren't purportedly defending the mainstream, it would be considered a very unreliable source. Its "reliability" comes totally from its POV, since few here would for example think that the Parapsychological Association is an RS, although it is far more RS per policy. As it is, Quackwatch and similar sources should never be used unattributed, and I'm guessing that is the major point of contention in articles, as it has been in the past. I mean, read WP:RS. —— Martinphi Ψ~ Φ—— 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There is some evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine. Please note that this is not just another way of saying "he has a pro-science bias (chuckle, well, shouldn't we all)". I mean that he holds alt-med, which like conventional med ought to rise or fall based on evidence, to an overt double standard.
For example, from a Village Voice article: "Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing specifically to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture.
Homeopathy, I can understand; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence to date is far from extraordinary. But chiropractic and acupuncture? Whether or not vertebral subluxation theory or qi and meridians strike you as bullshit, the practices of spinal manipulation and acupuncture (inserting needles at particular sites) are the subject of mainstream research, and show some promise in the treatment of pain (and nausea, in the case of acupuncture), according to the Cochrane Collaboration, a resource for evidence-based medicine. Cochrane, unlike Quackwatch, meets WP:MEDRS and takes the stance that more research is appropriate and necessary in these fields.
When Barrett refuses even to acknowledge that things like chiro or acu, which are physical procedures with plausible mechanisms, should even be studied before being dismissed, he's out on a bit of a limb. Dare I say, he's something of an extremist.
From the same Village Voice article, regarding Barrett's anti-evidence-gathering stance:
Exactly. Barrett not only lacks objectivity, he derides it.
The Institute of Medicine, one of the American Academies of Science and certainly one of the most prestigious and reliable English-language sources on medicine, conducted a study on alternative medicine ca. 2003-2005. Barrett criticized the panel for doing what any other panel on any other subject convened by the IOM would do: including members who had professional affiliations, sometimes including grant money, related to the study's subject area (here, alt-med). This is disingenuous and a flagrant double standard, since a panel on radiology would obviously include some radiologists (some of whom were academics and therefor getting grant money), and so forth.
Such a double standard is plainly indicative of bias.
This doesn't mean that Barrett a/o Quackwatch can't be used as sources at all, but we should be mindful of their biases. Quackwatch does not even come close to meeting WP:RS, particularly WP:MEDRS. In my view, it should be used in situations where WP:PARITY applies, i.e. as a counter to fringe, vanity-type claims. When it comes to more mainstream alt-meds, like chiro and acu, we have far better sources meeting WP:MEDRS; there, Barrett has amply demonstrated his bias and should never be considered a reliable source. -- Backin72 ( n.b.) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too worried about whether the journalist quoted in the Village Voice is much of an RS, because he's just giving voice to a conclusion that follows from Barrett's own words. When Barrett denies the need even to gather evidence, or uses flagrant double standards, he's providing all the evidence of his own bias that any fair-minded person needs. -- Backin72 ( n.b.) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It reflects very well on the quality of Quackwatch that the best critical quote Backin72 could come up with was from a Mr. Peter Barry Chowka in that well-known bastion of evidence-based medicine the Village Voice, and it reflects very poorly on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine that he helped squander their tax dollars.
One simply has to examine his website. [9] The latest article is on "An International Story That Helped to Define 2008"- the terrible defeat of Thabo Mbeki, AIDS hero, and his anti-HIV treatment policies, which biased pro-science Western science found to have killed at least 330,000. [10] It namedrops fellow AIDS hero David Rasnick. And it shows up the mainstream scientific establishment, represented by Oprah Winfrey.
So there you are. If you accept the judgement of important public figuress like Chowka, Quackwatch is simply an entertainment site. Nevard ( talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The evidence for the unreliability of Quackwatch is its outright rejection of all forms of alternative medicine, "There is no alternative medicine". This results in a blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures such as acupuncture with have some support, see 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. This article, 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' is a good example of how self-published material by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is featured on the site. Fred Talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
When this finding was made and the arbitration was closed, editors used this finding to go to many articles to remove all mentions of QuackWatch from articles. They actually diffed to this finding saying that the arbs stated the QW was an unreliable source. Now this brings the questions, if the arbitrators didn't want to make a decision on content, then why did they? I have also seen attacks to Fyslee with this motion attached to prove that what he added was against the policies made by that decision. I believe that this does need to be rewritten so that it says that arbs do not make content decisions. Editors that go and remove all references to QW where it is being used appropriately should be warned if a new decision is written that this site is WP:Reliable source which from my readings here and at another arb case is being stated. I also agree that if another ref is available that should be used but it doesn't mean that QW has to be erased at the same time. This motion, in a nutshell, is used as battering ram to remove this source in WP:Fringe articles all to often. It is also used to debunk any editor who has placed the dif into an article. So in closing, I hope the arbitrators will either rewrite the section for clarity or do a new case to clarify this situation. Just a side note about this, Fyslee esp. has had to defend himself on many ocassions do to an editor warning him about using partisan sites against arbs ruling, this I also find to be a big problem for this editor to edit articles without the tensions that this motion has caused. Thank you for listening. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Everyone interested in this subject area has biases. Those of Quackwatch are declared, and the general view of the scientific and medical world is that overall they are sound, and based on evidence. To the extent the finding was written by Bauder, it represents his personal viewpoint, which is not sound in the view of most of those in the general subject field (or at least such is my own bias); he is entitled to it, and articles should take appropriate account of such fringe viewpoints, but it illustrates unmistakably why arb com should not be making such pronouncements. The decision that resulted from his view is harmful to the basic principle of NPOV and objectivity. No source can be used uncritically; the tradition Wikipedia dichotomy between reliable|unreliable is too crude to be helpful in many situations. The finding was both beyond he remit of arbcom, then and now, and in any case simply wrong. Not that arbcom should declare Qw legitimate. Its legitimacy is no concern of the committee. Its use in articles is to be determined,as with all sources, on a case-by-case basis. I suppose it would be correct & within its remit for arb com to confirm, as a general principle of editing behavior, that people should regard sources in a careful manner. DGG ( talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the wording of the first motion looks a little odd.
The problems with some of the Quackwatch content are well known and I've no intention of defending that site. However the reasoning given in the proposed new wording seems to send a couple of confusing messages that could end up being badly misinterpreted. From experience of previous misunderstandings, I think it's reasonable to expect that any infelicitous or insufficiently clear wording could come back to cause problems in future, so it's worth striving to get this right.
The proposed new wording is:
The wording as it stands seems to imply two things:
The problems with these interpretations are as follows.
If the proposed wording were interpreted in this way, it would tend to cause problems where any website explicitly states "we're here to provide you with the information you need to avoid the health frauds." I'm sure this applies to several very reputable and well balanced organisations in my own country, including statutory trading standards bodies. The wording could be read to imply that such bodies are intrinsically biased, which (except for being against fraud and other crimes) they are not.
Please consider taking the time to clarify what you mean. The meaning is not clear to me. -- TS 05:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Casliber should recuse because of his conflict of interest: Quackwatch has an attack page on Peter Breggin.
1) In the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case, the following additional finding is added:
1.1) That the header of the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case be changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original request text and responses.
|
---|
I ask for review of this case, in particular the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons remedy on the following grounds,
I would like an answer to the following questions,
Note: I would appreciate independent answers from all active members of the committee, considering the importance of this issue. -- Barberio ( talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) I do not think it would be appropriate to allow the process/policy to stand if the issue has been 'punted' into the distance and review postponed until some unknown later date. If you can, please provide a specifict date that this 'review' will be conducted. Otherwise, consider this an request to conduct this review immediately, or I will open an RfC on the topic and the community may conduct one. -- Barberio ( talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) A response to Statement by Daniel. The results of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee called for some pretty clear changes to the Arbitration Policy. I proposed that we put some of them to ratification at the arbitration vote. However, I was promised that this was not needed because the committee had taken the call for change on advisement, and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating would be enacted. So I withdrew on the understanding that the Arbitration policy would eventually be changed. No movement had been made on that since October. Yes, I am feeling rather "ticked off" at the Arbitration Committee for failing to follow through on promises of reform. And I am reluctant to accept promise now that they will look into it later. I am prepared to state this... If this review does not happen in a timely manner then the issue should rightfully be removed from their hands. -- Barberio ( talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC) ps. I admire the irony of being told off for demanding immediate action, as well as being told of for trying to get problems with Arbitration addressed for A YEAR. -- Barberio ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Response to Kirill. Yes, I am calling for amendment of the remedy. The questions asked are directed at identifying issues with the remedy and it's results, and how that would effect any amendment of that remedy. While the question of if the remedy as written was acceptable under the arbitration policy at the time is 'constitutional', I do feel it is an issue which needs to be addressed when amending it. However, I am willing to drop issues of 'constitutional' scope, if I can have a binding promise of a date at which the ArbCom are willing to report to the community on reform. Unfortunately, the committee has a poor past record of responding timely to issues, and I can not help but feel that enough time was already given to respond during and after the RfC. So a deadline by which the committee will provide a report on how it will reform would be a great help to prevent distrust that the process will not occur at all -- Barberio ( talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Judging from the votes, the Arbitration Committee is reluctant to give any indication that while they accept they should review this, they will not do so now, nor will they give any specified time at which they will do so, nor any fixed deadline by which they will provide a report. And it's odd that 'the new membership has only just arrive' is used as an excuse considering promises by candidates 'to hit the ground running', and that candidates could not be ignorant of these issues considering the public RfC. So here's a direction... Provide a report by April 3rd 2009 on the review of the issues involved. If I don't get anything back by then, I will restart the process to change the arbitration policy by notifying the foundation that we'll be having a ratification vote on the changes to the arbitration policy that were recommended during the RfC. Yes. This is an ultimatum. I don't mean to prod you with sticks, this isn't a crusade, but it is direction that you can't keep saying you will 'investigate reform' without providing any. If you really can't provide some kind of report on reform in three months, then this issue is probably going to have to bypass you. -- Barberio ( talk) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Reply to Jayvdb. The 'overwhelming opposition to creation of new policy/process' came from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#No_New_Policy. So there already was traction on overruling the arbcom's decision to create new policy/process. However, administrators who support the use of the new policy/process have reverted any attempt to deprecate the policy, on the grounds that it is owned by the Arbitration Committee and can not be changed by the community. Can I take this group shrugging of shoulders as sign that you don't own it, and the community can do what it wants with the page, or is Arbitration Committee ownership still claimed? -- Barberio ( talk) 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC) I'd also like to stress again one of the reasons that this needs urgent review. The new policy/process appears to have been used by a minority as grounds to threaten use of the process in warnings that were not logged on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log [13]. This appears to be being taken under the "Any and all means" clause, but without being logged there is not ability to ensure that it is being used appropriately, and not simply as a means to stifle otherwise appropriate discussion or content. Since the Arbitration Committee have claimed full ownership of this process/policy, enough administrators are willing to block any community effort to alter the process/policy. This means that the community can not alter the process/policy, and it seems that the only changes that will be accepted are ones directly from the Arbitration Committee. You broke it. So either you fix it, or allow the community to fix it. -- Barberio ( talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Yet another reply on this... The community can not alter the policies involved, because Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement has turned it into an "Arbitration owned" policy. Even if the community could, what policy would be acceptable by the arbitration committee? How do we know what the requirements are going to be for you to decide to lift Special Enforcement? Can we then go back and change the BLP policy later, or is it going to be carved in stone again? Frankly, and to risk being incivil, you guys haven't thought any of this through have you? You've not sat down and worked out the implications of this mess. You're now refusing to do so, or at least refusing to say when you will do so, despite it being a major issue, and one that decided a lot of people's votes in the election. And you're refusing to allow the community to fix it, by still claiming ownership of the process/policy. Why are you acting in a way that damages this wiki?-- Barberio ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
In light of the reluctance of the arbitration committee to set out any timeline or agenda on addressing the issues raised, I withdraw my request.
Instead, this is a notification, that I would expect the arbitration committee to investigate this issue by April 2nd 2009, and be able to report back to the community their findings and intents on reform.
Concurrently the process to create a new Arbitration Policy, based on discussions from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee, and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating will be restarted, and will proceed with the expectations of a ratification vote some time before Q3 of 2009, regardless of if the Arbitration Committee reports back on reform or not. Arbitration Committee members are invited to take part in this process with the same respect as any other editor. -- Barberio ( talk) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why expecting ArbCom to do something timely about a mess they caused, and reminding them that they operate at the consent of the community, is 'threatening them'? -- Barberio ( talk) 14:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To clarify this a little...
Committee, it may have escaped your notice, but you are now in positions of authority in an organisation that has a turn over of over 6 million dollars, is an important reference tool used by tens of millions, and is almost a household name.
If you feel threatened by public calls to work to formal agendas, set out time tables, and approach the job with professionalism and readiness from day one, then you may not understand the positions you volunteered to. -- Barberio ( talk) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think threatening the Committee with an RfC if they don't do exactly what you want, right now, is either appropriate or an intelligent move. The community cannot overrule this motion, except by overruling each individual application of it, so a community RfC is pointless unless, of course, you simply intend to continue your crusade against the Committee which I have observed over the last year. Daniel ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
From the beginning, there has been an air of Chicken Little about some of the responses to the special enforcement provisions. As it happens, the remedy doesn't seem to have been adopted by the administrators, so the rational thing for the arbitration committee to do would be to continue to quietly ignore it as many enabling remedies are ignored if they are not needed or turn out to be unsuitable. No review action is necessary because the dire doom-saying turns out to have been wrong. It is not part of the Committee's business to investigate imaginary or hypothetical grievances. The sky did not fall.
The Committee retains the authority to settle disputes and, by tradition, may delegate that authority through enabling remedies that describe how administrators may enforce the policies which we have created through discussion and consensus. No proposal to limit that right of delegation has gained consensus, to my knowledge. -- TS 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that all that is really needed to solve this issue is a declaration by the committee that WP:BLPSE may be modified, rejected, rewritten, or otherwise dealt with by the community. Given that, I have no doubt that this would rapidly become a non-issue. May I suggest the committee throw it to a community revision process for a month or two, and review it after that time? (Feel free to rapidly close this, if the decline of the last request was intended to put off all discussion of this case) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLPSE has no connection with arbcom except that it contains text from a decision (which is recorded elsewhere and may only be changed by motion from arbcom). It has a hatnote describing it, correctly, as "[documenting] an Arbitration Committee decision on administrative enforcement of policies related to biographical articles on the English Wikipedia." It was not created by arbcom or by anyone connected to arbcom or anyone acting as an agent of arbcom. It's just a page created by a Wikipedia user. -- TS 06:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is presumed that interested parties will see at least one of these, others may be notified as appropriate.
If the arbcom will indulge one more request: Several findings in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal are being claimed to be binding content decisions, notably in the current Fringe science arbcom case.
I think that it would be better if the following were retracted or tweaked, as they represent content decisions:
“ | 5) "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist. | ” |
Request: clarification: While this is probably good enough for normal articles, one does feel that in the articles Psychic, Clairvoyant, and the like that this shouldn't apply. Example (from Psychic): "The word psychic ... refers to a proposed ability to perceive things hidden from the normal senses through what is described as extra-sensory perception, or to those people said to have such abilities." - I think that both clarifications are necessary in a lead sentence.
“ | 6) Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but not every referral to mythical beasts or projected future events need be accompanied by a qualifier. | ” |
Request: clarification: Pretty much per above.
“ | 9) Articles exist which contain flat assertions of fact regarding fantastic formulations, for example Astral projection starts off "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation." and contains nowhere in the article the viewpoint that there is no such thing. Others such as Astral plane contain attribution, "The astral plane, also called the astral world or desire world, is a plane of existence according to esoteric philosophies, some religious teachings and New Age thought." | ” |
Request: withdraw: Violates Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance, WP:UNDUE (Last revision before a recent attempt to clarify an issue that I am involved with), and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.")
“ | 10.1) According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology). | ” |
Request: Withdraw as inaccurate: The Parapsychological Association itself thinks that Ectoplasm is part of Parapsychology: [14]
“ | 11) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking. | ” |
Request: Withdraw. Explicit content decision, or very easily read as such.
I think that a good part of this case was a mistake: most of the decision relates to content without even discussing the editors in question. It's hard to justify why "Three layer cake with frosting" (11), or the simply inaccurate "Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts" (10.1) passed in the first place. Three layer cake, in particular, has been endlessly abused to beat up people with the mainstream POV. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Response to arbitrators
We went through this, it was clarified. It isn't about specific intellectual content, but helps to show when an editor is POV pushing. I'll have more later, perhaps, but parapsychology studies paranormal claims usually without confirming them, and often debunking them. That's what it is, so of course ectoplasm is part of parapsychology. Also: no, it hasn't been used against people with a mainstream POV, but only with a POV which wishes to do the same kind of defamatory stuff the ArbCom was responding to at the time. If debunking is mainstream, it's also not NPOV. —— Martinphi Ψ~ Φ—— 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
This is in regards to the redirect Didiot, which is a redirect to Laura Didio. This redirect has been through two deletion discussions at RfD, where it was decided to be kept twice. However, the redirect is a BLP Violation (it's basically calling a living person an idiot), and thus, by its very nature, there can be no "neutral" form to revert to. Thus, it is an Attack Page, and should be deleted speedily by reason of Speedy Deletion under the G10. Krimpet ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted the article on the 8th, per BLP. However, MacGyverMagic ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has undone the deletion. Rather then create havoc by enforcing this via WP:BLPSE, which is currently in a limbo area, I thought it would be best to get an ArbCom clarification on this. Does a redirect that refer to a living person in a derogatory, vulgar fashion, such as this, qualify under WP:BLP as an attack page, and should it speedily be deleted. (Please note, I am not asking for sanctions against MGM, just clarification if this should be deleted under WP:BLP/BLPSE. Thank you)
If you search for "didiot", only one of the first three pages in Google's search refers to Laura Didio, so we can't even claim that she's more recognizable under this vulgar nickname rather then her real name.
SirFozzie ( talk) 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's the current DRV for Krimpet's deletion (that's turned into a DRV for MacGyverMagic's unilateral undeletion): Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_9#Didiot
First RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_16#Didiot_.E2.86.92_Laura_DiDio
2nd RfD
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_26#Didiot_.E2.86.92_Laura_Didio
Please note the low participation in both RfD discussions. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(The reason I brought this is that an admin had already promised to use BLPSE to delete the redirect should the DRV decide to keep the redirect in question, and a couple people strongly objected. Rather thn see it happened, I figured it would be best to get clarification on the base issue, whether a redirect could violate BLP. I'm getting the opinion that it can here, so that's something useful. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
The redirect violated the biographies of living persons policy, was correctly deleted by Krimpet, and was inappropriately and unilaterally restored by MacGyverMagic without comment [15]. This conclusion should be confined to the specific facts presented here, namely, that there was extremely little interest in the preceding RFD discussions. It would be grossly inappropriate to extend the same procedure of unilateral deletion to other post XFD discussion contexts: e.g., summarily deleting an article citing the biographies of living persons policy soon after another administrator had closed a controversial AFD discussion concerning it as "keep" or "no consensus". In most situations, the general principle articulated in the criteria for speedy deletion applies: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." However, irrespective of whether any speedy deletion is actually correct, unilateral reversal of a good-faith deletion (or any other good-faith administrative action) without a log summary is considered to be wheel-warring in its most objectionable form. MacGyverMagic should have waited for the closure of the deletion review concerning the redirect. John254 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be premature. I see no reason why this can't be dealt with by the community without the involvement of the arbitration committee. Avruch T 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
RE to NYB. I'm not sure I see how the current redirect to Idiot is worse than the previous one. It still implies something, but less obviously I think... And as you've probably seen, I've argued that it should be deleted both on the DRV and the new RfD. The redirect doesn't belong, but its current iteration still seems an improvement. Avruch T 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Use multi-word terms with quotes, when there are several separate terms use the plus sign to force that a certain term always appears on the results:
Also, arbcom should double clarify that WP:BLP enforcement extends to all pages, including redirects, templates, whatever. Make a motion to a add a little note to Wikipedia:BLPBAN
P.D.: I re-nominated since it points to a different article, nom is somewhat related to this case: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10
A redirect from a derogatory nickname to a biography of a living individual is something that should only be considered when the term is extremely widely used in a large number of reputable sources, and thus a likely search term. This particular nickname has no such obvious wide currency. In fact, it appears very much as if the intention is to use Wikipedia precisely in order to create such currency. No "special measures" are needed to nuke crap like this, it can just be nuked under WP:CSD#G10 and citing WP:BLP. I sincerely hope this always was the case, and that we don't now have to jump through additional hoops in order to get rid of such foolishness. Guy ( Help!) 20:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on the Google link provided by FT2 in his comment below, I've come to the conclusion this particular misspelling is not common enough for a redirect, so I will redelete it. Still, I'd like arbcom to clarify what should happen in cases were a potential misspelling IS common and can be seen as disparaging by some. (I still believe my assessment of the prononciation holds) - Mgm| (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The nickname redirect is an interesting conundrum. It is also clearly a content issue and a question for the editorial community (is it a redirect the community wants to create or delete). The nickname has some amount of usage ( Laura Nickname Laura Nickname Didio). The dispute issue is balancing the priorities of BLP vs. Notability, but this has not visibly caused "divisiveness" that the community cannot resolve, but rather, it has led to concerns by some users about the "rightness" of the decision. Although BLP is important, this request is not suited for arbitration, and RFAR is not an appeal from DRV. As such, I do not feel it appropriate to comment as an arbitrator on this specific content issue.
Overall, decline as both a case and a clarification - the problem is a classic content issue, and no strong evidence of "too divisive for the community". Arbitration help might be needed if there was a "too divisive" dispute or much poor conduct over the deletion, recreation, or close, or if attempts to resolve the disputed reversal had been made but failed, but that hasn't visibly been the issue. A "clarification" would involve reviewing the appropriate handling of the dispute or the admin action, but neither of those is yet at a "last resort" stage; there are many routine communal ways available for a good resolution to be reached. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That said, some thoughts (as an editor) if it helps... |
---|
I've suggested here some thoughts about process and policy interpretation, which may help the user posting the question (and other users), if the case is declined. However I do not (and will not) make a claim to actually decide any matter of fact or opinion in the arena of Wikipedia arbitration, nor stray into making a content decision here. On this one, it's back to DRV and usual process. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: the specific article involved is List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
(Note: since this case involves an article and not any specific editor(s), neither I nor the parties below are directly affected. However, I've notified all active editors as a courtesy, and have left a note on the article's talk page.)
We are at an impasse regarding use of the "pseudoscience" label at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Certain of the findings of principle in the Pseudoscience Arb case were incorporated into NPOV (see: WP:PSCI), and are now being disregarded. Basically, some editors want to characterize as pseudoscience any topic that has received criticism as such, even from self-published sources like Quackwatch and CSICOP. We've had a bunch of RfC's (I stopped counting before 2008: 19 Jan. 2008, 15 Aug. 2008, 18 Nov. 2008, 28 Dec. 2008), all of which have failed to generate consensus, and lately a lot of edit-warring (see edit history). We're deadlocked, other attempts at WP:DR have not worked, and each side is convinced they are right, so I believe the time is ripe for ArbCom to clarify.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. WP:PSCI is quite clear on what to explictly characterize (or label, or categorize) as pseudoscience, and what not to. For convenience (at the expense of the 500-word limit; sorry), here is a cut-and-paste of WP:PSCI:
In an Arbitration Committee case, which can be read in full here, the committee created distinctions among the following:
- Obvious pseudoscience: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more [justification]."
- Generally considered pseudoscience: "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."
The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:
- Questionable science: "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."
- Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."
It's pretty clear what NPOV is telling us: don't categorize or otherwise characterize a topic as pseudoscience unless it's trivially "obvious pseudoscience" (and requires no reference), or it's "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Classifying a topic as the latter obviously requires a suitable source, cf. WP:RS#Consensus, and also WP:MEDRS. Such sources usually are scientific academies or other mainstream, official groups (e.g., many of the sources listed in List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design). Skeptical advocacy organizations like Quackwatch and CSICOP, while notable (and perhaps suitable for establishing that a topic is what we call "questionable science"), cannot be taken as representing general agreement in the scientific community. Such sources suffer from self- selection bias, and don't even meet WP:MEDRS at all.
However, some editors don't believe that inclusion of "questionable sciences" on the list violates WP:PSCI. [16] One editor says "a list is not a category", irrespective of the list's title. [17] Some want to populate the list as robustly as possible, and have tended to brush off the objection that we must find the proper sources, i.e., those indicative of what the scientific community generally holds. This is especially problematic given that the list's title is unambiguous: " List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" leaves no wiggle room, any more than category:pseudoscience does. When we put a topic on that list, we are saying that the topic is pseudoscience, no ifs, ands or buts.
My view is that if we keep the list's present title, we should strip out all topics that are not verifiably "generally considered pseudoscience" or "obvious pseudoscience". If we changed the list's title to something like "List of topics referred to as pseudoscience", then I think it would be OK to include "questionable sciences". However, I'm still concerned that we'd have to clearly demarcate the clear-cut pseudosciences from the "questionable" ones. Otherwise, it's like having an alphabetical "List of burglars, and people who might have been burglars according to speculation". It's a violation of WP:WEIGHT to have clear-cut pseudosciences alongside grey-area topics.
So, I request that ArbCom clarify that findings 15-18 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience accordingly:
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. -- Backin72 ( n.b.) 13:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts is currenty a crapola because of so much arguing over that WP:PSCI ruling, but the modifications proposed by Backin would just make it worse. It just deepens the "content ruling" problem by a) expanding its scope and b) enforcing stricter limitations on content.
While that ruling needs modification, this doesn't look the correct way to go.
This is really more of a content dispute than anything that ArbCom needs to deal with. As background, I have been acting as an administrator for the last few days at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, trying to help stabilize the article via the discretionary sanctions authorized from the Pseudoscience case. There currently appear to be three main points of dispute, though all three appear (to me) to be the topics of constructive discussion on the talkpage. The main three issues are: (1) What should the page be titled; (2) Should Chiropractic be included on the list; and (3) Should Traditional Chinese medicine (such as acupuncture) be included on the list. Up until about a week ago, there were pretty systematic back and forth revert wars going on, but since there has been more administrator attention on the article, the revert wars have stopped, and the discussion environment seems to be improving on the talkpage. No direct sanctions have been implemented (at least by me), though I did post a few nudges to the talkpages of a few users: QuackGuru, Dematt, Backin72, [18] Levine2112, along with some off-wiki communication with ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs). All editors have been cooperative and have voluntarily complied with the requests, which is appreciated, and the article appears much more stable as a result, though of course vigorous discussion is continuing on the talkpage. As far as ArbCom is concerned, the existing ArbCom motions and discretionary sanctions seem sufficient for the current situation, so it would probably be best to allow the discussions at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts to continue, with administrators continuing to monitor the page. -- El on ka 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Possibly influenced by the daunting volume of often polite discussion and rapid watchlist-destroying reverts, all listed editors are long-term good faith contributors. There is general consensus that unquestionable science should be excluded from the list - anti-vaccination advocacy groups and others clearly outside the scientific conversation are not sufficient sources.
I prefer to view this as a genuine dispute concerning where the bar of WEIGHT falls - if a practice, for instance homeopathy, is published in peer-reviewed journals or practiced in some hospitals, can reliably-sourced analysis support an entry in this list? This often boils down to the issue of efficacy vs. rationale - many papers studying the efficacy of chiropractic are published in quality sources, but the original and a continuing rationale asserts the existence and healing powers of a putative energy. MEDRS applies only to the efficacy side of this question, though assertions made in the absence of evidence may come into play. To further complicate matters, there are three answers to this question: write an entry mentioning nuances and caveats; write an entry discussing solely the pseudoscientific aspects; or write no entry. I favor the first position (adequately sourced) - state that hypnosis exists but Mesmerism and past-life regression are pseudoscience. This issue is treated in the inclusion criteria described in the introduction to the list.
This brings us to the question of sourcing - a few pseudoscientific practices are widespread enough to have attracted the notice of organizations and departments who ordinarily devote themselves to science. Everyone has heard about the 'power lines cause cancer' scare, and the American Physical Society felt it worth their time to state that " [n]o plausible biophysical mechanisms for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these power line fields have been identified." They have issued no corresponding statement on the misapplication of quantum mechanics in service of mysticism. The test of whether such a body has issued a statement is a much better indicator of how widespread a practice is or how much it impinges on their mission than it is an indicator of "how pseudoscientific" it is. Skeptical bodies are interested in pseudoscience, and may make reliable statements regarding it.
There is also a perennial proposal to rename the list to include alleged, purported, or some similar qualifier in the title. Fyslee gives what I see as the best-articulated formulation of this position here. My own position is that we should rely on in-line attribution and nuanced explanations to show rather than tell. A ridiculous analogy would be a proposed rename to Hertzsprung–Russell diagram according to mainstream astrophysicists.
Requested clarifications
Requested non-clarifications
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Earlier this month, the ArbCom voted to uphold the sanctions applied to me under the terms of the EK3 case. I am very uncertain about how the "restraining order" regarding Phil Sandifer is meant to be applied in various situations, however, and if this restriction is going to be in place indefinitely, a clear understanding of its nature is necessary for me to continue participating in the project comfortably.
The ArbCom apparently imposed and upholds this restriction based on the belief that I am a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of my ability. As I have repeatedly explained, this is sheer fantasy, and my only concern has been to see the ArbCom pass a mutual restriction that would equally apply to Phil Sandifer, thereby mitigating or neutralizing the severely negative effect this "restraining order" has on my reputation and community standing. If the ArbCom is just trying to keep me from contacting Phil Sandifer, the restriction serves no purpose, as I have no desire to contact him. There are, however, a variety of real, plausible circumstances under which I might cross paths with Phil, and it is completely unclear how I am supposed to behave in those circumstances.
One example that I have presented in the past is that of AfD: if Phil nominates an article for deletion, am I still allowed to register my opinion on the article as part of the discussion? I have been seeking an answer to that question for years. Furthermore, what if he merely comments—before me—on someone else's AfD nomination; am I allowed to make my own comment in that situation?
How should the "restraining order" be applied to articles? Am I allowed to edit articles that have been previously edited by Phil Sandifer? Am I allowed to edit in subject areas where Phil Sandifer has taken an interest (for example, webcomics)? What about discussions on the AN pages and the like: can I comment on an issue there if Phil has already commented (I have done this before and nothing happened, but I was very nervous about possible consequences)? Can I comment on an issue if he raises the issue himself (for example, by starting the thread)? Perhaps the best way to articulate the problem is to ask: am I prohibited from mere proximity to Phil Sandifer, or am I prohibited from actual interaction with him/commentary about him? In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to my disadvantage, meaning that I must assume the former and avoid situations involving any degree of proximity. This could lead to an absurd situation in which I create an article, Phil fixes a typo on it, and I am thus prohibited from continuing with my planned work to expand the article further. Naturally this problem makes my participation on the project uncomfortable, and I call on the ArbCom to at least interpret the ruling in some reasonable fashion that gives me more freedom to participate fully in the project. Everyking ( talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As a test case, I have now made this edit to an AfD in which Phil has already commented. I ask the ArbCom to clarify whether or not that is an acceptable edit. Everyking ( talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Certainly it is entirely reasonable to expect that I should not deliberately follow Phil around, persistently editing things that he has edited, just as it is reasonable to expect him to refrain from doing that to me. However, it is unreasonable to expect me to refrain from registering my opinion in an AfD started by Phil; I have been broadly participating in the AfD (or VfD) process throughout my five years on the project, and there is no basis for believing that my participation in AfDs started by Phil would be intended to harass him. Indeed, in the test case I linked above, Phil and I voted the same way—I am interested in all AfDs as content issues only and I think Phil's involvement ought to be considered irrelevant. It is also unreasonable to expect me to completely avoid editing articles created by Phil, although it would be perfectly reasonable to expect me to avoid making edits of marginal value to a wide variety of articles created by him (that would be reasonable in any case where users had a history of antagonism). Perhaps in these matters we could say that the best approach is caution, rather than prohibition. I am totally willing to be cautious, and I don't expect that very many cases of overlapping editing would arise, but I want to be free to participate when I am solely concerned with the content and Phil's involvement is merely coincidental. Everyking ( talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I urge Tznkai not to close this right now. I want to take this opportunity to ask the ArbCom to clarify my status as a Wikipedia editor further. Will it consider voting on a motion that would formally designate me as a user in good standing or express in some sense the idea that the remaining restriction should not be perceived in such a way as to lessen my community standing? I would also like for the ArbCom to consider a motion that would observe that there is no basis for the allegations made against me in recent weeks—in connection with my appeal—regarding off-wiki actions. This is particularly important because, by retaining the restriction, it could easily appear that the ArbCom has endorsed those allegations; furthermore, the ArbCom should not allow its pages to become a venue for baseless smears. Everyking ( talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If there are specific areas where Everyking feels unduly burdened by the restriction, let him bring them up. But I would rather not turn the restriction into something that becomes about rules lawyering, or that requires my constant negotiation and defending of. I've already had to deal with requests to lift this restriction three times in the last few months, which are three times more than I want to be dealing with Everyking. If there's a specific issue underlying this, fine - last time he brought it up I was perfectly willing to allow him to ask questions on my arbcom bid, in the interests of fairness. But I would rather not be in this position of having to constantly negotiate the parole in the general case, or in an attempt to engage in an extended modification of it that can go through a thousand absurd hypotheticals. But come on. What if I made a minor edit to an article Everyking had created? Really? What if I start an AfD? I do less than one of those a month. If there's an actual issue here, let's hear it. These are ridiculous hypotheticals.
Can the arbcom please rule that there will be no further general case motions about this parole for some nice, long amount of time? This constant having to come back to RFAr to de facto negotiate with Everyking rather defeats the purpose. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to Phil's statements, as Everyking is not the only person on Wikipedia under a similar restriction, and if memory serves there are still more, it does need clarification. Phil is not a special case or a particularly special user (none of us are). If UserA is restricted this way from UserB, what happens if UserA has edited a given article, and then UserB comes along? Is UserA then barred from going there? Barred for some time? What if one or the other starts an AFD? What if they both comment on some rambling ANI discussion? Are these restrictions meant to be (as I've interpreted them) from commenting on each other, or some inappropriate placebo for the UserB's of the scenario to not "see" the other party? The "blocks" if mutual in scope are a great idea to basically let useful users stick around while neutering drama. If the restrictions are not mutual, as detailed here, then the scope does need to be defined so that the UserA of the scenario doesn't have to worry about having a pointless and inappropriate cloud over their head from what amounts to an ultra laser specific restriction while improving Wikipedia. If the question of scope comes up, it's a good idea to clarify it, because it seems to be a good solution growing in popularity. rootology ( C)( T) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify that this is NOT sour grapes in any way, shape, or form with my own situation, it's just a genuine curiosity for clarification about these cases in general. Specific to my own situation, as I'd said time and time in public and in private to people, I'm absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely fine with it all. The odds of he and I interacting at this point are functionally null. The closest we're likely to ever come to each other is both commenting on different subpages of WP:FAC for our own nominations for Featured status or random FARs. Our interests in content are simply light years apart. However, I do call shotgun on anything related to either Mount Rainier or Mount Saint Helens exploding, but he can have the mountains themselves as they're one of his specialities, unless if the theoretical eruptions kill me, in which case he can have it all. :) rootology ( C)( T) 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee names Quackwatch as an unreliable source. Quackwatch has been recommended by major medical organisations ( AMA, American Cancer Society) as well as numerous universities, newspapers, and journals (See article), and, furthermore, is used as a source in articles on the American Cancer Society website. [2] This finding should be simply thrown out. Although electronically published, it has reviewers, selectivity, and an advisory board. It is not merely a self-published source, it is a highly respected organisation, and thus a very, very useful source on some of the obscure fringe views it covers, but which other reliable sources are rare for. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 15:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to Geoff: Can you point out the section on the evidence page where evidence was provided that it was not a reliable source? I see some people saying they dislike its point of view, or claiming that it is biased against alternative medicine and fringe topics, but no actual evidence. If such exist, please link. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposals
There doesn't appear to be very good evidence of Fyslee having problematic edits - notably, the evidence section of the case has one section pointing out that most additions of Quackwatch by Fyslee were, in fact, reversions of removal of content when seen in context. I don't think this is a particularly crucial finding, nor are any of the remedies explicitly based on it, so I think it could be excised without problem, and this would also expunge a content decision. The best way to note its being withdrawn is probably to simply put the finding in strikeout tags and add a note saying "Withdrawn by the Arbitration committee on [Date]", with a link to the section of the talk page where this RfCl is moved.
I don't see merit in revisiting the case long enough to revise the finding, if the Arbcom wishes to, I am certain you can come up with something. I simply ask that you make sure it is justified by the case's evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
On the current proposals:
1 is appalling. The community is perfectly capable of handling Quackwatch on a case by case basis, but with a lengthy attack on it like that from the Arbcom, it may as well be banned. In the articles where Quackwatch tends to be used, the articles are describing the worst of alternative medicine: Scams and quackery, of only slight notability, but which have just enough notability that their supporters can keep them on Wikipedia, despite having few or no non-promotional sources discussing them. Quackwatch is almost necessary in these cases.
Should we really put at equal weight strong scientific evidence that a medical intervention not only doesn't work, but couldn't work, with... How about this? This is an extreme fringe journal's report on a rather poorly-done experiment that is claimed to prove pyramid power. Shall we say that this means that any website that's critical of pyramid power should be considered a questionable, biased source? Shall we give equal validity to the the view that the moon is made of green cheese, and thus point out NASA is a "partisian" source that should have equal validity?
1.1 is at least a step in the right direction, but does not go at all far enough. Arbcom, I beg you, get out of content decisions. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Further comment
To Flonight
archived bad start. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular " finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom.
"Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, that have been presented, not written before presentation of evidence. Nor should they be based upon false charges (they were shown to be false) brought by my attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. One shouldn't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly.
That finding was just plain wrong on both counts:
-- Fyslee ( talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
I would hope that ArbCom would look past the (understandably, I suppose, considering, but not very helpful) angry tone of the above and take steps to fix the very real problem. We've been discussing QuackWatch on the Workshop page of the Fringe Science workshop page, and we've pretty well established that it's nothing like an unreliable source. ArbCom typically doesn't rule out sources as unreliable just in general, but it's especially odd they'd do so on one that fits WP:RS so strongly, and it's mentioning as such is being used by civil POV-pushers to try to remove a well known, extremely well-regarded and important source critical of their beliefs in fringe topics. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This finding attempted to rule upon a content issue outside the Committee's remit. Although a necessary part of arbitration does relate to obvious calls such as the unreliability of citations to non-notable blogs, this was not that type of obvious call. The evidence upon which the Committee passed this finding was more emotional than factual (one party had been in a protracted lawsuit with the owner of the Quackwatch site) and regardless of what POV is at stake that is not a good basis for arbitration findings. I have no opinion about the suitability or unsuitability of Quackwatch for encyclopedic citations. This is a matter for the community to determine. Durova Charge! 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
While I have a COI in this area, I believe that the finding regarding Quackwatch was accurate, but nonetheless procedurally wrong. Quackwatch is as heavily biased as any other blog site. The articles are written by an ex psychiatrist with absolutely no training in the areas he professes to be an expert in. Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques. This website has no peer review system and considers all topics as pseudoscience. It is clearly the work of someone with a vendetta against anything that is not mainstream medicine. Unfortunately, I must agree with my worthy colleagues that the scope of this body does not include content, and therefore content rulings are moot. However I advise amending the finding to a suggestive finding stating that "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy." This is simply a statement of fact and not a content ruling, satisfying both the need to note the error of Quackwatch and remove the content intrusion. Geoff Plourde ( talk) 19:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
However, in this case, I believe that the original decision was correct in light of the circumstances. The finding was about the usage of partisan sites by Fyslee, which is a policy matter. Quackwatch was cited as an example in support, an application of policy. Is Quackwatch partisan? Yes and this is clearly established by cursory review of Quackwatch itself. Did Fyslee try to use Quackwatch? This case and relevant logs would appear to say yes also. The finding is a logical result of this reasoning.
Regardless of the reasoning, there is a more significant test of whether this was a content ruling. Does the finding prohibit the usage of Quackwatch? Nowhere in this finding am I able to find any provision that specifically says that Quackwatch is unusable. Without such a provision, Quackwatch is still utilizable. While I may be speculating, this appears to be more about one user's discomfort at having his hand smacked for his conduct. I would therefore reject this motion, as the evidence clearly shows that this is not a content ruling. Geoff Plourde ( talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom made a ruling on content, and a bad one at that. It's being discussed on the fringe science case [ [6]]. My 2 cents:
This finding is being used as a sledgehammer to kill references to a source that, as Shoemaker points out, is recommended by reliable sources on the relevant fields.
"As a result, the ACSH has been accused of being more of a public relations firm, and less of a neutral council on Science. " [8]
Well, maybe the site is reliable and maybe not. Looks like it might have some wise council sometimes. But that does not mean we should not prefer better sources when available, nor does it mean we do not attribute statements. If it weren't purportedly defending the mainstream, it would be considered a very unreliable source. Its "reliability" comes totally from its POV, since few here would for example think that the Parapsychological Association is an RS, although it is far more RS per policy. As it is, Quackwatch and similar sources should never be used unattributed, and I'm guessing that is the major point of contention in articles, as it has been in the past. I mean, read WP:RS. —— Martinphi Ψ~ Φ—— 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There is some evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine. Please note that this is not just another way of saying "he has a pro-science bias (chuckle, well, shouldn't we all)". I mean that he holds alt-med, which like conventional med ought to rise or fall based on evidence, to an overt double standard.
For example, from a Village Voice article: "Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing specifically to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture.
Homeopathy, I can understand; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence to date is far from extraordinary. But chiropractic and acupuncture? Whether or not vertebral subluxation theory or qi and meridians strike you as bullshit, the practices of spinal manipulation and acupuncture (inserting needles at particular sites) are the subject of mainstream research, and show some promise in the treatment of pain (and nausea, in the case of acupuncture), according to the Cochrane Collaboration, a resource for evidence-based medicine. Cochrane, unlike Quackwatch, meets WP:MEDRS and takes the stance that more research is appropriate and necessary in these fields.
When Barrett refuses even to acknowledge that things like chiro or acu, which are physical procedures with plausible mechanisms, should even be studied before being dismissed, he's out on a bit of a limb. Dare I say, he's something of an extremist.
From the same Village Voice article, regarding Barrett's anti-evidence-gathering stance:
Exactly. Barrett not only lacks objectivity, he derides it.
The Institute of Medicine, one of the American Academies of Science and certainly one of the most prestigious and reliable English-language sources on medicine, conducted a study on alternative medicine ca. 2003-2005. Barrett criticized the panel for doing what any other panel on any other subject convened by the IOM would do: including members who had professional affiliations, sometimes including grant money, related to the study's subject area (here, alt-med). This is disingenuous and a flagrant double standard, since a panel on radiology would obviously include some radiologists (some of whom were academics and therefor getting grant money), and so forth.
Such a double standard is plainly indicative of bias.
This doesn't mean that Barrett a/o Quackwatch can't be used as sources at all, but we should be mindful of their biases. Quackwatch does not even come close to meeting WP:RS, particularly WP:MEDRS. In my view, it should be used in situations where WP:PARITY applies, i.e. as a counter to fringe, vanity-type claims. When it comes to more mainstream alt-meds, like chiro and acu, we have far better sources meeting WP:MEDRS; there, Barrett has amply demonstrated his bias and should never be considered a reliable source. -- Backin72 ( n.b.) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too worried about whether the journalist quoted in the Village Voice is much of an RS, because he's just giving voice to a conclusion that follows from Barrett's own words. When Barrett denies the need even to gather evidence, or uses flagrant double standards, he's providing all the evidence of his own bias that any fair-minded person needs. -- Backin72 ( n.b.) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It reflects very well on the quality of Quackwatch that the best critical quote Backin72 could come up with was from a Mr. Peter Barry Chowka in that well-known bastion of evidence-based medicine the Village Voice, and it reflects very poorly on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine that he helped squander their tax dollars.
One simply has to examine his website. [9] The latest article is on "An International Story That Helped to Define 2008"- the terrible defeat of Thabo Mbeki, AIDS hero, and his anti-HIV treatment policies, which biased pro-science Western science found to have killed at least 330,000. [10] It namedrops fellow AIDS hero David Rasnick. And it shows up the mainstream scientific establishment, represented by Oprah Winfrey.
So there you are. If you accept the judgement of important public figuress like Chowka, Quackwatch is simply an entertainment site. Nevard ( talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The evidence for the unreliability of Quackwatch is its outright rejection of all forms of alternative medicine, "There is no alternative medicine". This results in a blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures such as acupuncture with have some support, see 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. This article, 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' is a good example of how self-published material by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is featured on the site. Fred Talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
When this finding was made and the arbitration was closed, editors used this finding to go to many articles to remove all mentions of QuackWatch from articles. They actually diffed to this finding saying that the arbs stated the QW was an unreliable source. Now this brings the questions, if the arbitrators didn't want to make a decision on content, then why did they? I have also seen attacks to Fyslee with this motion attached to prove that what he added was against the policies made by that decision. I believe that this does need to be rewritten so that it says that arbs do not make content decisions. Editors that go and remove all references to QW where it is being used appropriately should be warned if a new decision is written that this site is WP:Reliable source which from my readings here and at another arb case is being stated. I also agree that if another ref is available that should be used but it doesn't mean that QW has to be erased at the same time. This motion, in a nutshell, is used as battering ram to remove this source in WP:Fringe articles all to often. It is also used to debunk any editor who has placed the dif into an article. So in closing, I hope the arbitrators will either rewrite the section for clarity or do a new case to clarify this situation. Just a side note about this, Fyslee esp. has had to defend himself on many ocassions do to an editor warning him about using partisan sites against arbs ruling, this I also find to be a big problem for this editor to edit articles without the tensions that this motion has caused. Thank you for listening. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Everyone interested in this subject area has biases. Those of Quackwatch are declared, and the general view of the scientific and medical world is that overall they are sound, and based on evidence. To the extent the finding was written by Bauder, it represents his personal viewpoint, which is not sound in the view of most of those in the general subject field (or at least such is my own bias); he is entitled to it, and articles should take appropriate account of such fringe viewpoints, but it illustrates unmistakably why arb com should not be making such pronouncements. The decision that resulted from his view is harmful to the basic principle of NPOV and objectivity. No source can be used uncritically; the tradition Wikipedia dichotomy between reliable|unreliable is too crude to be helpful in many situations. The finding was both beyond he remit of arbcom, then and now, and in any case simply wrong. Not that arbcom should declare Qw legitimate. Its legitimacy is no concern of the committee. Its use in articles is to be determined,as with all sources, on a case-by-case basis. I suppose it would be correct & within its remit for arb com to confirm, as a general principle of editing behavior, that people should regard sources in a careful manner. DGG ( talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the wording of the first motion looks a little odd.
The problems with some of the Quackwatch content are well known and I've no intention of defending that site. However the reasoning given in the proposed new wording seems to send a couple of confusing messages that could end up being badly misinterpreted. From experience of previous misunderstandings, I think it's reasonable to expect that any infelicitous or insufficiently clear wording could come back to cause problems in future, so it's worth striving to get this right.
The proposed new wording is:
The wording as it stands seems to imply two things:
The problems with these interpretations are as follows.
If the proposed wording were interpreted in this way, it would tend to cause problems where any website explicitly states "we're here to provide you with the information you need to avoid the health frauds." I'm sure this applies to several very reputable and well balanced organisations in my own country, including statutory trading standards bodies. The wording could be read to imply that such bodies are intrinsically biased, which (except for being against fraud and other crimes) they are not.
Please consider taking the time to clarify what you mean. The meaning is not clear to me. -- TS 05:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Casliber should recuse because of his conflict of interest: Quackwatch has an attack page on Peter Breggin.
1) In the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case, the following additional finding is added:
1.1) That the header of the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case be changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original request text and responses.
|
---|
I ask for review of this case, in particular the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons remedy on the following grounds,
I would like an answer to the following questions,
Note: I would appreciate independent answers from all active members of the committee, considering the importance of this issue. -- Barberio ( talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) I do not think it would be appropriate to allow the process/policy to stand if the issue has been 'punted' into the distance and review postponed until some unknown later date. If you can, please provide a specifict date that this 'review' will be conducted. Otherwise, consider this an request to conduct this review immediately, or I will open an RfC on the topic and the community may conduct one. -- Barberio ( talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) A response to Statement by Daniel. The results of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee called for some pretty clear changes to the Arbitration Policy. I proposed that we put some of them to ratification at the arbitration vote. However, I was promised that this was not needed because the committee had taken the call for change on advisement, and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating would be enacted. So I withdrew on the understanding that the Arbitration policy would eventually be changed. No movement had been made on that since October. Yes, I am feeling rather "ticked off" at the Arbitration Committee for failing to follow through on promises of reform. And I am reluctant to accept promise now that they will look into it later. I am prepared to state this... If this review does not happen in a timely manner then the issue should rightfully be removed from their hands. -- Barberio ( talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC) ps. I admire the irony of being told off for demanding immediate action, as well as being told of for trying to get problems with Arbitration addressed for A YEAR. -- Barberio ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Response to Kirill. Yes, I am calling for amendment of the remedy. The questions asked are directed at identifying issues with the remedy and it's results, and how that would effect any amendment of that remedy. While the question of if the remedy as written was acceptable under the arbitration policy at the time is 'constitutional', I do feel it is an issue which needs to be addressed when amending it. However, I am willing to drop issues of 'constitutional' scope, if I can have a binding promise of a date at which the ArbCom are willing to report to the community on reform. Unfortunately, the committee has a poor past record of responding timely to issues, and I can not help but feel that enough time was already given to respond during and after the RfC. So a deadline by which the committee will provide a report on how it will reform would be a great help to prevent distrust that the process will not occur at all -- Barberio ( talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Judging from the votes, the Arbitration Committee is reluctant to give any indication that while they accept they should review this, they will not do so now, nor will they give any specified time at which they will do so, nor any fixed deadline by which they will provide a report. And it's odd that 'the new membership has only just arrive' is used as an excuse considering promises by candidates 'to hit the ground running', and that candidates could not be ignorant of these issues considering the public RfC. So here's a direction... Provide a report by April 3rd 2009 on the review of the issues involved. If I don't get anything back by then, I will restart the process to change the arbitration policy by notifying the foundation that we'll be having a ratification vote on the changes to the arbitration policy that were recommended during the RfC. Yes. This is an ultimatum. I don't mean to prod you with sticks, this isn't a crusade, but it is direction that you can't keep saying you will 'investigate reform' without providing any. If you really can't provide some kind of report on reform in three months, then this issue is probably going to have to bypass you. -- Barberio ( talk) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Reply to Jayvdb. The 'overwhelming opposition to creation of new policy/process' came from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#No_New_Policy. So there already was traction on overruling the arbcom's decision to create new policy/process. However, administrators who support the use of the new policy/process have reverted any attempt to deprecate the policy, on the grounds that it is owned by the Arbitration Committee and can not be changed by the community. Can I take this group shrugging of shoulders as sign that you don't own it, and the community can do what it wants with the page, or is Arbitration Committee ownership still claimed? -- Barberio ( talk) 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC) I'd also like to stress again one of the reasons that this needs urgent review. The new policy/process appears to have been used by a minority as grounds to threaten use of the process in warnings that were not logged on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log [13]. This appears to be being taken under the "Any and all means" clause, but without being logged there is not ability to ensure that it is being used appropriately, and not simply as a means to stifle otherwise appropriate discussion or content. Since the Arbitration Committee have claimed full ownership of this process/policy, enough administrators are willing to block any community effort to alter the process/policy. This means that the community can not alter the process/policy, and it seems that the only changes that will be accepted are ones directly from the Arbitration Committee. You broke it. So either you fix it, or allow the community to fix it. -- Barberio ( talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Yet another reply on this... The community can not alter the policies involved, because Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement has turned it into an "Arbitration owned" policy. Even if the community could, what policy would be acceptable by the arbitration committee? How do we know what the requirements are going to be for you to decide to lift Special Enforcement? Can we then go back and change the BLP policy later, or is it going to be carved in stone again? Frankly, and to risk being incivil, you guys haven't thought any of this through have you? You've not sat down and worked out the implications of this mess. You're now refusing to do so, or at least refusing to say when you will do so, despite it being a major issue, and one that decided a lot of people's votes in the election. And you're refusing to allow the community to fix it, by still claiming ownership of the process/policy. Why are you acting in a way that damages this wiki?-- Barberio ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
In light of the reluctance of the arbitration committee to set out any timeline or agenda on addressing the issues raised, I withdraw my request.
Instead, this is a notification, that I would expect the arbitration committee to investigate this issue by April 2nd 2009, and be able to report back to the community their findings and intents on reform.
Concurrently the process to create a new Arbitration Policy, based on discussions from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee, and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating will be restarted, and will proceed with the expectations of a ratification vote some time before Q3 of 2009, regardless of if the Arbitration Committee reports back on reform or not. Arbitration Committee members are invited to take part in this process with the same respect as any other editor. -- Barberio ( talk) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why expecting ArbCom to do something timely about a mess they caused, and reminding them that they operate at the consent of the community, is 'threatening them'? -- Barberio ( talk) 14:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To clarify this a little...
Committee, it may have escaped your notice, but you are now in positions of authority in an organisation that has a turn over of over 6 million dollars, is an important reference tool used by tens of millions, and is almost a household name.
If you feel threatened by public calls to work to formal agendas, set out time tables, and approach the job with professionalism and readiness from day one, then you may not understand the positions you volunteered to. -- Barberio ( talk) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think threatening the Committee with an RfC if they don't do exactly what you want, right now, is either appropriate or an intelligent move. The community cannot overrule this motion, except by overruling each individual application of it, so a community RfC is pointless unless, of course, you simply intend to continue your crusade against the Committee which I have observed over the last year. Daniel ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
From the beginning, there has been an air of Chicken Little about some of the responses to the special enforcement provisions. As it happens, the remedy doesn't seem to have been adopted by the administrators, so the rational thing for the arbitration committee to do would be to continue to quietly ignore it as many enabling remedies are ignored if they are not needed or turn out to be unsuitable. No review action is necessary because the dire doom-saying turns out to have been wrong. It is not part of the Committee's business to investigate imaginary or hypothetical grievances. The sky did not fall.
The Committee retains the authority to settle disputes and, by tradition, may delegate that authority through enabling remedies that describe how administrators may enforce the policies which we have created through discussion and consensus. No proposal to limit that right of delegation has gained consensus, to my knowledge. -- TS 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that all that is really needed to solve this issue is a declaration by the committee that WP:BLPSE may be modified, rejected, rewritten, or otherwise dealt with by the community. Given that, I have no doubt that this would rapidly become a non-issue. May I suggest the committee throw it to a community revision process for a month or two, and review it after that time? (Feel free to rapidly close this, if the decline of the last request was intended to put off all discussion of this case) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLPSE has no connection with arbcom except that it contains text from a decision (which is recorded elsewhere and may only be changed by motion from arbcom). It has a hatnote describing it, correctly, as "[documenting] an Arbitration Committee decision on administrative enforcement of policies related to biographical articles on the English Wikipedia." It was not created by arbcom or by anyone connected to arbcom or anyone acting as an agent of arbcom. It's just a page created by a Wikipedia user. -- TS 06:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is presumed that interested parties will see at least one of these, others may be notified as appropriate.
If the arbcom will indulge one more request: Several findings in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal are being claimed to be binding content decisions, notably in the current Fringe science arbcom case.
I think that it would be better if the following were retracted or tweaked, as they represent content decisions:
“ | 5) "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist. | ” |
Request: clarification: While this is probably good enough for normal articles, one does feel that in the articles Psychic, Clairvoyant, and the like that this shouldn't apply. Example (from Psychic): "The word psychic ... refers to a proposed ability to perceive things hidden from the normal senses through what is described as extra-sensory perception, or to those people said to have such abilities." - I think that both clarifications are necessary in a lead sentence.
“ | 6) Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but not every referral to mythical beasts or projected future events need be accompanied by a qualifier. | ” |
Request: clarification: Pretty much per above.
“ | 9) Articles exist which contain flat assertions of fact regarding fantastic formulations, for example Astral projection starts off "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation." and contains nowhere in the article the viewpoint that there is no such thing. Others such as Astral plane contain attribution, "The astral plane, also called the astral world or desire world, is a plane of existence according to esoteric philosophies, some religious teachings and New Age thought." | ” |
Request: withdraw: Violates Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance, WP:UNDUE (Last revision before a recent attempt to clarify an issue that I am involved with), and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.")
“ | 10.1) According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology). | ” |
Request: Withdraw as inaccurate: The Parapsychological Association itself thinks that Ectoplasm is part of Parapsychology: [14]
“ | 11) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking. | ” |
Request: Withdraw. Explicit content decision, or very easily read as such.
I think that a good part of this case was a mistake: most of the decision relates to content without even discussing the editors in question. It's hard to justify why "Three layer cake with frosting" (11), or the simply inaccurate "Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts" (10.1) passed in the first place. Three layer cake, in particular, has been endlessly abused to beat up people with the mainstream POV. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Response to arbitrators
We went through this, it was clarified. It isn't about specific intellectual content, but helps to show when an editor is POV pushing. I'll have more later, perhaps, but parapsychology studies paranormal claims usually without confirming them, and often debunking them. That's what it is, so of course ectoplasm is part of parapsychology. Also: no, it hasn't been used against people with a mainstream POV, but only with a POV which wishes to do the same kind of defamatory stuff the ArbCom was responding to at the time. If debunking is mainstream, it's also not NPOV. —— Martinphi Ψ~ Φ—— 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
This is in regards to the redirect Didiot, which is a redirect to Laura Didio. This redirect has been through two deletion discussions at RfD, where it was decided to be kept twice. However, the redirect is a BLP Violation (it's basically calling a living person an idiot), and thus, by its very nature, there can be no "neutral" form to revert to. Thus, it is an Attack Page, and should be deleted speedily by reason of Speedy Deletion under the G10. Krimpet ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted the article on the 8th, per BLP. However, MacGyverMagic ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has undone the deletion. Rather then create havoc by enforcing this via WP:BLPSE, which is currently in a limbo area, I thought it would be best to get an ArbCom clarification on this. Does a redirect that refer to a living person in a derogatory, vulgar fashion, such as this, qualify under WP:BLP as an attack page, and should it speedily be deleted. (Please note, I am not asking for sanctions against MGM, just clarification if this should be deleted under WP:BLP/BLPSE. Thank you)
If you search for "didiot", only one of the first three pages in Google's search refers to Laura Didio, so we can't even claim that she's more recognizable under this vulgar nickname rather then her real name.
SirFozzie ( talk) 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's the current DRV for Krimpet's deletion (that's turned into a DRV for MacGyverMagic's unilateral undeletion): Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_9#Didiot
First RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_16#Didiot_.E2.86.92_Laura_DiDio
2nd RfD
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_26#Didiot_.E2.86.92_Laura_Didio
Please note the low participation in both RfD discussions. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(The reason I brought this is that an admin had already promised to use BLPSE to delete the redirect should the DRV decide to keep the redirect in question, and a couple people strongly objected. Rather thn see it happened, I figured it would be best to get clarification on the base issue, whether a redirect could violate BLP. I'm getting the opinion that it can here, so that's something useful. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
The redirect violated the biographies of living persons policy, was correctly deleted by Krimpet, and was inappropriately and unilaterally restored by MacGyverMagic without comment [15]. This conclusion should be confined to the specific facts presented here, namely, that there was extremely little interest in the preceding RFD discussions. It would be grossly inappropriate to extend the same procedure of unilateral deletion to other post XFD discussion contexts: e.g., summarily deleting an article citing the biographies of living persons policy soon after another administrator had closed a controversial AFD discussion concerning it as "keep" or "no consensus". In most situations, the general principle articulated in the criteria for speedy deletion applies: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." However, irrespective of whether any speedy deletion is actually correct, unilateral reversal of a good-faith deletion (or any other good-faith administrative action) without a log summary is considered to be wheel-warring in its most objectionable form. MacGyverMagic should have waited for the closure of the deletion review concerning the redirect. John254 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be premature. I see no reason why this can't be dealt with by the community without the involvement of the arbitration committee. Avruch T 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
RE to NYB. I'm not sure I see how the current redirect to Idiot is worse than the previous one. It still implies something, but less obviously I think... And as you've probably seen, I've argued that it should be deleted both on the DRV and the new RfD. The redirect doesn't belong, but its current iteration still seems an improvement. Avruch T 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Use multi-word terms with quotes, when there are several separate terms use the plus sign to force that a certain term always appears on the results:
Also, arbcom should double clarify that WP:BLP enforcement extends to all pages, including redirects, templates, whatever. Make a motion to a add a little note to Wikipedia:BLPBAN
P.D.: I re-nominated since it points to a different article, nom is somewhat related to this case: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10
A redirect from a derogatory nickname to a biography of a living individual is something that should only be considered when the term is extremely widely used in a large number of reputable sources, and thus a likely search term. This particular nickname has no such obvious wide currency. In fact, it appears very much as if the intention is to use Wikipedia precisely in order to create such currency. No "special measures" are needed to nuke crap like this, it can just be nuked under WP:CSD#G10 and citing WP:BLP. I sincerely hope this always was the case, and that we don't now have to jump through additional hoops in order to get rid of such foolishness. Guy ( Help!) 20:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on the Google link provided by FT2 in his comment below, I've come to the conclusion this particular misspelling is not common enough for a redirect, so I will redelete it. Still, I'd like arbcom to clarify what should happen in cases were a potential misspelling IS common and can be seen as disparaging by some. (I still believe my assessment of the prononciation holds) - Mgm| (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The nickname redirect is an interesting conundrum. It is also clearly a content issue and a question for the editorial community (is it a redirect the community wants to create or delete). The nickname has some amount of usage ( Laura Nickname Laura Nickname Didio). The dispute issue is balancing the priorities of BLP vs. Notability, but this has not visibly caused "divisiveness" that the community cannot resolve, but rather, it has led to concerns by some users about the "rightness" of the decision. Although BLP is important, this request is not suited for arbitration, and RFAR is not an appeal from DRV. As such, I do not feel it appropriate to comment as an arbitrator on this specific content issue.
Overall, decline as both a case and a clarification - the problem is a classic content issue, and no strong evidence of "too divisive for the community". Arbitration help might be needed if there was a "too divisive" dispute or much poor conduct over the deletion, recreation, or close, or if attempts to resolve the disputed reversal had been made but failed, but that hasn't visibly been the issue. A "clarification" would involve reviewing the appropriate handling of the dispute or the admin action, but neither of those is yet at a "last resort" stage; there are many routine communal ways available for a good resolution to be reached. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That said, some thoughts (as an editor) if it helps... |
---|
I've suggested here some thoughts about process and policy interpretation, which may help the user posting the question (and other users), if the case is declined. However I do not (and will not) make a claim to actually decide any matter of fact or opinion in the arena of Wikipedia arbitration, nor stray into making a content decision here. On this one, it's back to DRV and usual process. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: the specific article involved is List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
(Note: since this case involves an article and not any specific editor(s), neither I nor the parties below are directly affected. However, I've notified all active editors as a courtesy, and have left a note on the article's talk page.)
We are at an impasse regarding use of the "pseudoscience" label at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Certain of the findings of principle in the Pseudoscience Arb case were incorporated into NPOV (see: WP:PSCI), and are now being disregarded. Basically, some editors want to characterize as pseudoscience any topic that has received criticism as such, even from self-published sources like Quackwatch and CSICOP. We've had a bunch of RfC's (I stopped counting before 2008: 19 Jan. 2008, 15 Aug. 2008, 18 Nov. 2008, 28 Dec. 2008), all of which have failed to generate consensus, and lately a lot of edit-warring (see edit history). We're deadlocked, other attempts at WP:DR have not worked, and each side is convinced they are right, so I believe the time is ripe for ArbCom to clarify.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. WP:PSCI is quite clear on what to explictly characterize (or label, or categorize) as pseudoscience, and what not to. For convenience (at the expense of the 500-word limit; sorry), here is a cut-and-paste of WP:PSCI:
In an Arbitration Committee case, which can be read in full here, the committee created distinctions among the following:
- Obvious pseudoscience: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more [justification]."
- Generally considered pseudoscience: "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."
The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:
- Questionable science: "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."
- Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."
It's pretty clear what NPOV is telling us: don't categorize or otherwise characterize a topic as pseudoscience unless it's trivially "obvious pseudoscience" (and requires no reference), or it's "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Classifying a topic as the latter obviously requires a suitable source, cf. WP:RS#Consensus, and also WP:MEDRS. Such sources usually are scientific academies or other mainstream, official groups (e.g., many of the sources listed in List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design). Skeptical advocacy organizations like Quackwatch and CSICOP, while notable (and perhaps suitable for establishing that a topic is what we call "questionable science"), cannot be taken as representing general agreement in the scientific community. Such sources suffer from self- selection bias, and don't even meet WP:MEDRS at all.
However, some editors don't believe that inclusion of "questionable sciences" on the list violates WP:PSCI. [16] One editor says "a list is not a category", irrespective of the list's title. [17] Some want to populate the list as robustly as possible, and have tended to brush off the objection that we must find the proper sources, i.e., those indicative of what the scientific community generally holds. This is especially problematic given that the list's title is unambiguous: " List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" leaves no wiggle room, any more than category:pseudoscience does. When we put a topic on that list, we are saying that the topic is pseudoscience, no ifs, ands or buts.
My view is that if we keep the list's present title, we should strip out all topics that are not verifiably "generally considered pseudoscience" or "obvious pseudoscience". If we changed the list's title to something like "List of topics referred to as pseudoscience", then I think it would be OK to include "questionable sciences". However, I'm still concerned that we'd have to clearly demarcate the clear-cut pseudosciences from the "questionable" ones. Otherwise, it's like having an alphabetical "List of burglars, and people who might have been burglars according to speculation". It's a violation of WP:WEIGHT to have clear-cut pseudosciences alongside grey-area topics.
So, I request that ArbCom clarify that findings 15-18 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience accordingly:
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. -- Backin72 ( n.b.) 13:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts is currenty a crapola because of so much arguing over that WP:PSCI ruling, but the modifications proposed by Backin would just make it worse. It just deepens the "content ruling" problem by a) expanding its scope and b) enforcing stricter limitations on content.
While that ruling needs modification, this doesn't look the correct way to go.
This is really more of a content dispute than anything that ArbCom needs to deal with. As background, I have been acting as an administrator for the last few days at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, trying to help stabilize the article via the discretionary sanctions authorized from the Pseudoscience case. There currently appear to be three main points of dispute, though all three appear (to me) to be the topics of constructive discussion on the talkpage. The main three issues are: (1) What should the page be titled; (2) Should Chiropractic be included on the list; and (3) Should Traditional Chinese medicine (such as acupuncture) be included on the list. Up until about a week ago, there were pretty systematic back and forth revert wars going on, but since there has been more administrator attention on the article, the revert wars have stopped, and the discussion environment seems to be improving on the talkpage. No direct sanctions have been implemented (at least by me), though I did post a few nudges to the talkpages of a few users: QuackGuru, Dematt, Backin72, [18] Levine2112, along with some off-wiki communication with ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs). All editors have been cooperative and have voluntarily complied with the requests, which is appreciated, and the article appears much more stable as a result, though of course vigorous discussion is continuing on the talkpage. As far as ArbCom is concerned, the existing ArbCom motions and discretionary sanctions seem sufficient for the current situation, so it would probably be best to allow the discussions at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts to continue, with administrators continuing to monitor the page. -- El on ka 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Possibly influenced by the daunting volume of often polite discussion and rapid watchlist-destroying reverts, all listed editors are long-term good faith contributors. There is general consensus that unquestionable science should be excluded from the list - anti-vaccination advocacy groups and others clearly outside the scientific conversation are not sufficient sources.
I prefer to view this as a genuine dispute concerning where the bar of WEIGHT falls - if a practice, for instance homeopathy, is published in peer-reviewed journals or practiced in some hospitals, can reliably-sourced analysis support an entry in this list? This often boils down to the issue of efficacy vs. rationale - many papers studying the efficacy of chiropractic are published in quality sources, but the original and a continuing rationale asserts the existence and healing powers of a putative energy. MEDRS applies only to the efficacy side of this question, though assertions made in the absence of evidence may come into play. To further complicate matters, there are three answers to this question: write an entry mentioning nuances and caveats; write an entry discussing solely the pseudoscientific aspects; or write no entry. I favor the first position (adequately sourced) - state that hypnosis exists but Mesmerism and past-life regression are pseudoscience. This issue is treated in the inclusion criteria described in the introduction to the list.
This brings us to the question of sourcing - a few pseudoscientific practices are widespread enough to have attracted the notice of organizations and departments who ordinarily devote themselves to science. Everyone has heard about the 'power lines cause cancer' scare, and the American Physical Society felt it worth their time to state that " [n]o plausible biophysical mechanisms for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these power line fields have been identified." They have issued no corresponding statement on the misapplication of quantum mechanics in service of mysticism. The test of whether such a body has issued a statement is a much better indicator of how widespread a practice is or how much it impinges on their mission than it is an indicator of "how pseudoscientific" it is. Skeptical bodies are interested in pseudoscience, and may make reliable statements regarding it.
There is also a perennial proposal to rename the list to include alleged, purported, or some similar qualifier in the title. Fyslee gives what I see as the best-articulated formulation of this position here. My own position is that we should rely on in-line attribution and nuanced explanations to show rather than tell. A ridiculous analogy would be a proposed rename to Hertzsprung–Russell diagram according to mainstream astrophysicists.
Requested clarifications
Requested non-clarifications
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Earlier this month, the ArbCom voted to uphold the sanctions applied to me under the terms of the EK3 case. I am very uncertain about how the "restraining order" regarding Phil Sandifer is meant to be applied in various situations, however, and if this restriction is going to be in place indefinitely, a clear understanding of its nature is necessary for me to continue participating in the project comfortably.
The ArbCom apparently imposed and upholds this restriction based on the belief that I am a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of my ability. As I have repeatedly explained, this is sheer fantasy, and my only concern has been to see the ArbCom pass a mutual restriction that would equally apply to Phil Sandifer, thereby mitigating or neutralizing the severely negative effect this "restraining order" has on my reputation and community standing. If the ArbCom is just trying to keep me from contacting Phil Sandifer, the restriction serves no purpose, as I have no desire to contact him. There are, however, a variety of real, plausible circumstances under which I might cross paths with Phil, and it is completely unclear how I am supposed to behave in those circumstances.
One example that I have presented in the past is that of AfD: if Phil nominates an article for deletion, am I still allowed to register my opinion on the article as part of the discussion? I have been seeking an answer to that question for years. Furthermore, what if he merely comments—before me—on someone else's AfD nomination; am I allowed to make my own comment in that situation?
How should the "restraining order" be applied to articles? Am I allowed to edit articles that have been previously edited by Phil Sandifer? Am I allowed to edit in subject areas where Phil Sandifer has taken an interest (for example, webcomics)? What about discussions on the AN pages and the like: can I comment on an issue there if Phil has already commented (I have done this before and nothing happened, but I was very nervous about possible consequences)? Can I comment on an issue if he raises the issue himself (for example, by starting the thread)? Perhaps the best way to articulate the problem is to ask: am I prohibited from mere proximity to Phil Sandifer, or am I prohibited from actual interaction with him/commentary about him? In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to my disadvantage, meaning that I must assume the former and avoid situations involving any degree of proximity. This could lead to an absurd situation in which I create an article, Phil fixes a typo on it, and I am thus prohibited from continuing with my planned work to expand the article further. Naturally this problem makes my participation on the project uncomfortable, and I call on the ArbCom to at least interpret the ruling in some reasonable fashion that gives me more freedom to participate fully in the project. Everyking ( talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As a test case, I have now made this edit to an AfD in which Phil has already commented. I ask the ArbCom to clarify whether or not that is an acceptable edit. Everyking ( talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Certainly it is entirely reasonable to expect that I should not deliberately follow Phil around, persistently editing things that he has edited, just as it is reasonable to expect him to refrain from doing that to me. However, it is unreasonable to expect me to refrain from registering my opinion in an AfD started by Phil; I have been broadly participating in the AfD (or VfD) process throughout my five years on the project, and there is no basis for believing that my participation in AfDs started by Phil would be intended to harass him. Indeed, in the test case I linked above, Phil and I voted the same way—I am interested in all AfDs as content issues only and I think Phil's involvement ought to be considered irrelevant. It is also unreasonable to expect me to completely avoid editing articles created by Phil, although it would be perfectly reasonable to expect me to avoid making edits of marginal value to a wide variety of articles created by him (that would be reasonable in any case where users had a history of antagonism). Perhaps in these matters we could say that the best approach is caution, rather than prohibition. I am totally willing to be cautious, and I don't expect that very many cases of overlapping editing would arise, but I want to be free to participate when I am solely concerned with the content and Phil's involvement is merely coincidental. Everyking ( talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I urge Tznkai not to close this right now. I want to take this opportunity to ask the ArbCom to clarify my status as a Wikipedia editor further. Will it consider voting on a motion that would formally designate me as a user in good standing or express in some sense the idea that the remaining restriction should not be perceived in such a way as to lessen my community standing? I would also like for the ArbCom to consider a motion that would observe that there is no basis for the allegations made against me in recent weeks—in connection with my appeal—regarding off-wiki actions. This is particularly important because, by retaining the restriction, it could easily appear that the ArbCom has endorsed those allegations; furthermore, the ArbCom should not allow its pages to become a venue for baseless smears. Everyking ( talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If there are specific areas where Everyking feels unduly burdened by the restriction, let him bring them up. But I would rather not turn the restriction into something that becomes about rules lawyering, or that requires my constant negotiation and defending of. I've already had to deal with requests to lift this restriction three times in the last few months, which are three times more than I want to be dealing with Everyking. If there's a specific issue underlying this, fine - last time he brought it up I was perfectly willing to allow him to ask questions on my arbcom bid, in the interests of fairness. But I would rather not be in this position of having to constantly negotiate the parole in the general case, or in an attempt to engage in an extended modification of it that can go through a thousand absurd hypotheticals. But come on. What if I made a minor edit to an article Everyking had created? Really? What if I start an AfD? I do less than one of those a month. If there's an actual issue here, let's hear it. These are ridiculous hypotheticals.
Can the arbcom please rule that there will be no further general case motions about this parole for some nice, long amount of time? This constant having to come back to RFAr to de facto negotiate with Everyking rather defeats the purpose. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to Phil's statements, as Everyking is not the only person on Wikipedia under a similar restriction, and if memory serves there are still more, it does need clarification. Phil is not a special case or a particularly special user (none of us are). If UserA is restricted this way from UserB, what happens if UserA has edited a given article, and then UserB comes along? Is UserA then barred from going there? Barred for some time? What if one or the other starts an AFD? What if they both comment on some rambling ANI discussion? Are these restrictions meant to be (as I've interpreted them) from commenting on each other, or some inappropriate placebo for the UserB's of the scenario to not "see" the other party? The "blocks" if mutual in scope are a great idea to basically let useful users stick around while neutering drama. If the restrictions are not mutual, as detailed here, then the scope does need to be defined so that the UserA of the scenario doesn't have to worry about having a pointless and inappropriate cloud over their head from what amounts to an ultra laser specific restriction while improving Wikipedia. If the question of scope comes up, it's a good idea to clarify it, because it seems to be a good solution growing in popularity. rootology ( C)( T) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify that this is NOT sour grapes in any way, shape, or form with my own situation, it's just a genuine curiosity for clarification about these cases in general. Specific to my own situation, as I'd said time and time in public and in private to people, I'm absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely fine with it all. The odds of he and I interacting at this point are functionally null. The closest we're likely to ever come to each other is both commenting on different subpages of WP:FAC for our own nominations for Featured status or random FARs. Our interests in content are simply light years apart. However, I do call shotgun on anything related to either Mount Rainier or Mount Saint Helens exploding, but he can have the mountains themselves as they're one of his specialities, unless if the theoretical eruptions kill me, in which case he can have it all. :) rootology ( C)( T) 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)