Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:32, 13 January 2022

Latest revision as of 22:28, 4 February 2023

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 193:

====Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]]====

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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

====Statement by [[User:Geoff Plourde|Geoff Plourde]]====

Line 223:

"As a result, the ACSH has been accused of being more of a public relations firm, and less of a neutral council on Science. " [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health]

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 [http://parapsych.clubexpress.com/ 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. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin^phi</span>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Line 339:

:# Support. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:# I agree that this is helpful statement as an companion to the the proposal that I added about Fyslee. I see no way around the Committee making some type of a determination about the nature of this source if we are going to make a remedy about his use of the source. But I still think that labeling it an unreliable source is wrong and we need to backtrack on this aspect of the case ruling. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:#: <s>Support.</s> --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:#: <s>&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]} 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</s>

:# in the interests of expediency, though I agree with Vassyana that focus should be on conduct of editors nt use of sources, but if this is needed to clarify things and push forward, so be it. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Line 353:

:Abstain:

:<s> Not sure about this. Would prefer that the wording focus on the behaviour of editors, not judgment of content and sources. For example, the other side of the coin also needs to be addressed here, namely the behaviour of editors who used the previous finding of fact to target those using Quackwatch as a source. The degree and appropriateness of that sort of behaviour also need to come under scrutiny, I feel. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</s> Switched to oppose. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

:# In retrospect, although Quackwatch is unashamedly partisan, that's not automatically a bad thing and I don't think it's necessary to focus this much on it. I can think of many instances in other areas were sources strongly advocate a position without distorting or cherry-picking information to advance it. Facts often speak for themselves. --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

:# Per my comment above. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

:# Recuse. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Line 363:

:Support

:# Proposed. To supplement motion (1) --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:# Perfect. I was getting ready to add this exact wording. :-) [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:# Support. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Line 502:

* '''Decline''' per FloNight. I will point out that over half of the current committee has taken office just over 24 hours ago. While this is definitely something that will be addressed, we have not had sufficient time (or attendance) to establish an agenda and timeline, and both must be somewhat fluid to allow for activity on this page. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* '''Decline''' but with careful reasons:<ol><li>I was the single strongest opposer to the BLPSE decision, Barerio. I described it as a extremely worrying misjudgement since in my view it would not resolve the problem but escalate it. Even so, for me, it is within the remit of the committee:<br />WMF and the community have both agreed BLP is crucially important and has very high standing as policy; both agree admins enforce policy. In a more and more pressing and difficult situation, Wikipedia Arbitration may lean towards the draconian to solve a communal problem. The concern was about resolving the perennial disputes over BLP enforcement, and the undermining of BLP. The decision was admins should apply the tools they have very hard indeed if needed to procure BLP compliance. Giving this a name ("special enforcement") does '''not''' change that this was an extreme version of ArbCom's usual role:- ie, that given a conflict, Arbcom's role is deciding the best way existing consensus-accepted policies apply and are interpreted in the situation, to good effect and for best benefit of the project. Admins have a wide scope of tool usage discretion within communal norms. Tool usage can range from "very gentle" to "very firm". In this case the answer was "Policy and norms are served best by using admin access very firmly indeed in the case of BLP disruption, and by setting enforcement measures to ensure they are ''able'' to use their tools to enforce policy fully". This was clearly felt by the Arbitrators to be situated well within existing policies (although clearly a draconian use for an exceptional problem), and I agree on that point, regardless of whether I personally do or don't support the actual decision.</li><li>It is normal when saying something may be done a given way, or enforced (eg any sanction) for Arbcom to also spell out exactly how that should work - who may act, what guidance they have on acting, how enforcement should work, and so on. This formed the bulk of that ruling. Apart from the draconian nature of the matter being enforced, it's quite a usual type of content for a decision.</li><li>Arbitration looks forward. It's clear there may be merit in revisiting this, but to pull the current view to pieces is not going to happen here. It's something one might do in reviewing the entire area of enforcement, which is a more rounded issue, and is likely to be looked at anyway, as FloNight and Kirill said.</li></ol>[[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 03:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* '''Decline''' This is already high on the agenda for review in due course. The current arbitrators are reform-minded but most of us have only been in the job twenty-four hours and Rome, as they say, wasn't built in a day. --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* '''Decline'''. I personally think BLPSE was overreaching, endorse it being deprecated, but the committee has got [[buckley's chance]] of devising an improvement to this complex problem as a quick motion. Also, I dont see an overwhelming community consensus at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#WP:BLPSE]], so if you want traction on this ... please do initiate [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BLPSE]]. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] ^{'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''}</span> 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

*: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#No_New_Policy|No '''New''' Policy]] (which I strongly agree with) was not a community endorsed view that the committee should overturn all previous remedies that were overreaching. I just told you how the community can fix it: the community needs to develop a [[Nextgen|NG]]BLPSE so that the committee remedy can be deprecated. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] ^{'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''}</span> 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Line 577:

====Statement by Martinphi====

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. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin^phi</span>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

====Clerk notes====

Line 591:

*Decline without prejudice to considering these issues as appropriate in a pending or future case. I will add that I remember reading the ''Paranormal'' decision when it was being voted on (I was the Clerk on that case) and thinking that some of the findings were a little more content-based than is usual. (I also remember being surprised at the inclusion of an official ArbCom finding of fact captioned "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Three layer cake with frosting|"Three layer cake with frosting"]], but that is a matter of style.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

*'''Decline''' per others. Would expect these concerns to be addressed at the Fringe science case. Unlike the previous request, this one is too complicated to deal with here. Also, per my previous comment, if evidence of allegedly 'inappropriate use of past ArbCom decisions during subsequent editing' hasn't been submitted to the Fringe science case, please feel free to do so. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

* Decline without prejudice to considering similar concerns during the Fringe Science case. --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*'''Decline''' as will be covered by Fringe Science case, so please take part over there. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

----

Line 659:

|-

| style="font-size:100%" |

* <fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">Negative items</fontspan> - The norm would be that a negative item in a biographical article would need at a minimum, very good sourcing, and to be encyclopedic. That's as true for a nickname as any other encyclopedic statement. A redirect is a twin statement that 1/ ''"X's nickname is Y according to reliable sources, and this is a significant item rather than a 'tiny minority' one"''; and 2/ ''"The nickname 'Y' is widely enough in use that people searching for person X may routinely use it instead of X"''. '''The community''' can evaluate these statements and decide on the redirect as we would any content.

* <fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">The "attack page" question</fontspan> - Would it be an "attack page" or "attack issue" to note ''"X's rude nickname in some circles is Y"'' (assuming reliable sources and notability)? To that extent the redirect might be. As a personal impression, it seems the redirect/nickname does not currently exist as an "attack", but instead, because the proponent editors supporting it honestly believe in good faith that it is a genuine, notable nickname. That view is an assessment that '''the community's editors''' must make by consensus.

* <fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">The BLP issue</fontspan> - Suppose the community concludes the nickname is well used and well evidenced. Suppose the community concludes the nickname is commonly used enough that significant numbers of people may search for it and not for the real name. At this point, although it is still up to the editor community, BLP may well be satisfied, since we would be noting the nickname is a nickname, we would be redirecting it to the real (non-rude) name, and we would have agreed the nickname is verifiable, well evidenced, and not "tiny minority" or non-notable. BLP exists much more as a filter for the highest quality of editorial statement; its role is not a mere crude "hatchet job" censorship mechanism for the negative facts that may exist. If the nickname has passed the above tests then there is a chance BLP will be satisfied too. But on this as well, '''the community''' (and not any arbitrator) must decide.

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.

Line 836:

==== Statement by [[User:Rootology|Rootology]] ====

Contrary to Phil's statements, as Everyking is not the [[User:Rootology|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. [[User:Rootology|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#0D670D" face=";font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</fontspan>]] (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<fontspan colorstyle="color:#156917;">C</span>]])([[User talk:Rootology|<span style="color:#156917;">T]]</fontspan>]]) 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 [[Death|kill me]], in which case he can have it all. :) [[User:Rootology|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#0D670D" face=";font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</fontspan>]] (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<fontspan colorstyle="color:#156917;">C</span>]])([[User talk:Rootology|<span style="color:#156917;">T]]</fontspan>]]) 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

==== Statement by [[User:Username|other user]] ====

Line 856:

*In my view, Everyking should be free to comment on matters (including AfDs) even if Phil is on the same page, but should still avoid interacting with or commenting on Phil. There are also some standard situations that Everyking should usually avoid: articles created by Phil, AfDs started by Phil, discussions started by Phil, and so on (this is not intended to be, nor can it be, a comprehensive list). Common sense says that Phil should do the same to avoid interaction with Everyking. If either Everyking or Phil need clarification on specific points, they should feel free to e-mail the arbitration committee, while noting that such potential encounters should not suddenly become more common than they have been in the past. Please don't engage in deliberate testing of the boundaries of this restriction, but do make a note of situations that come up during your normal editing habits. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

*As per Carcharoth, posting on high traffic communal pages should not be a problem if there is no direct interaction noted or implied. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

*"Comment on content, not on the contributor." Both Everyking and Phil Sandifer know that. I don't believe someone would be able to define or present a detailed and comprehensive list of all possible scenarios where the boundaries get crossed or where restrictions get violated (i.e. commenting on the editor or bringing back history and old disputes). However, many would be able to judge and confirm whether boundaries get ''unjustly'' crossed when they ''really'' get crossed. -- [[User:FayssalF|<fontspan sizestyle="2px"font-size:small; face="font-family:Verdana"><font; color=":DarkSlateBlue;">FayssalF</font></fontspan>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<fontspan style="background: gold;">^{''Wiki me up''®}</fontspan>]]</small> 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

*I think this request for clarification begins with a misapprehension. To my knowledge, no arbitrator believes nor has anyone else suggested that Everyking is "a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of [his] ability" (as stated above), or "a fifth-class editor, somewhere below anon IPs and above banned trolls and vandals" (as suggested on another website). It bears emphasis that each and every one of the ArbCom restrictions on Everyking has been lifted (or will technically be lifted as of next month) by unanimous vote of the committee, with the sole exception of this one which the committee chose to leave in place at present. Nor is there merit to any suggestion that the restriction has been left in place simply because Everyking previously criticized actions of other administrators, and particularly not because of criticisms that were levied in 2005 (before many of the arbitrators, including myself, had even started editing Wikipedia), nor merely because Everyking has participated on an external site often critical of Wikipedia (as have I). Beyond that, I am disinclined to review on-wiki here the events of three years ago, some of which I was not aware of until this most recent clarification request, as I do not believe that either Everyking or anyone else or the process would benefit from my doing so. With respect to the specific request for clarification, the limited remaining restriction on Everyking should be interpreted in a reasonable, and reasonably narrow, fashion. A test I think often makes sense in "User A is to avoid User B" situations is whether a questioned edit to a page that User B has edited would have been made anyway even if User B had not edited the page. For example, if Everyking looks over a dozen AfDs on a given date and !votes on all of them, although one of them happens to have been started by Phil Sandifer (and Everyking doesn't refer to that fact), fine; if Everyking !votes on an AfD on an article he's edited heavily that Phil Sandifer happened to put on AfD, fine; if Everyking never edits AfD for a month and then suddenly shows up on the only AfD created by Phil that month, not quite as fine. Hopefully few if any close calls will arise and the issue will remain largely moot, as I gather it has been for awhile except in these modification/clarification threads themselves. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

----