Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:38, 13 February 2022

Latest revision as of 06:15, 30 January 2023

Line 235:

I have more evidence to do- I hope you will give time. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin^phi</span>]]''' [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

:Oh, yes, I expect this will last at least another week. I've started with the proposed principles given that will color most everything else and may well direct some of the evidence. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]} 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

::I should be inputting something tomorrow or Thursday; I've been extremely busy or out of town, for the most part. <small>[[User:Seicer|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#CC0000;">seicer</fontspan>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#669900;">talk</fontspan>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#669900;">contribs</fontspan>]]</small> 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Yeah, things are definitely still in process. For example, I'm trying to find a way to give the Arbs MrDarwin's (very good) credentials without revealing who he actually is. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin^phi</span>]]''' [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Line 462:

::I never heard of any, but okay. This looks much to me like a rule about the proper WEIGHT- focus on science, not culture. Yes, what you've done is to focus on science mainly. Like [[angel]], would focus on science since the visions of angels relate to medical diagnosis. It has been argued that articles should focus on the entire impact, rather than do a focus specifically on science like that. If you had an article on prayer healing, you'd state that "there are no chemical mechanisms through which prayer can work at a distance," or some such, since it's within biology and medicine. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin^phi</span>]]''' [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:::[[Chronic fatigue syndrome]] - this article, though purportedly scientific, ends up by saying nothing. There is no scientific consensus in the article. &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<fontspan colorstyle="color:navy;">'''Mattisse'''</fontspan>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

==Question on process==

Line 471:

== Mentorship ==

For the record, I conceive mentorship as a different function from what Coren articulates. I'm a guide, not a cop. I will not fill the role described if the proposed decision passes. If someone else wishes to volunteer for the purpose Coren proposes then they are welcome to step forward. It might be helpful to come up with distinguishing terminology, though, to avoid confusion. With respect, <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:I agree that a better term than "mentor" may be appropriate, albeit I'm not certain the parallels with "cop" are accurate or desirable. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]} 05:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

::I think it may be best to continue to call all such roles "mentor", since there are many overlapping roles. Just because someone is willing to be a mentor but rejects one specific mentorship role doesn't necessarily mean a different word needs to be used. I appreciate the specificity of the description of the role. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 13:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I really don't see the proposal's enforcement parameters as being compatible with mentorship, Coppertwig. It's not that I'm rejecting a mentorship role, so much as I think the additional functions would undermine mentorship itself. Call it what you will: ''supervisor'' or something else. <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 04:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm similarly puzzled here. You've described a parole officer. That's a sensible remedy and everything, but [[WP:SPADE]]. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 06:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Line 492:

:::Hmmm ... an interesting emphasis on ''power'' here. Somehow reminds me of the story of [[The Frogs Who Desired a King]]. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] ([[User talk:Gandalf61|talk]]) 12:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit of follow-up discussion here, but frankly nothing is vaguely persuasive. Some of you conceive of mentorship differently. By all means then, step forward. There's room for more than one. <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 05:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:I'd be willing to help, Durova. But I'm probably seen as too sympathetic to SA's rationalistic viewpoint to act as a "parole officer", but I could certainly try to act as a resource for you, especially with trying to deal with the slippery arguments that abound in these topics when people differ in their interpretation of what "scientific consensus" is on a topic. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 23:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Line 882:

::: The other proposed powers (acting as an editing filter) are useful but not essential, and in most circumstances would be detrimental to efficient editing. They might work as part of a program of inculcating good cooperation skills. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

::::Thank you for volunteering, Tony. I'm still willing to mentor SA in the traditional sense of neutral advisement. Would two of us do, if one isn't willing to cross the line into enforcement provisions? <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

::::Mentorship teams are an interesting suggestion. I'm recused from this case, but I did send a link and summary of this section to the arbcom list just to ensure that it gets attention. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 07:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Line 891:

: Whilst mentorship teams might seem like a novelty to some, I have personal experience of this in the Cool Cat (now known as White Cat) mentorship where I worked as part of a team of three. As a practical matter, having more than one mentor acts a sanity check, because the mentors can compare perceptions and discuss solutions. It also reassures the community, and if one mentor wanders off and does something else then there's still someone to take up the slack. I would be perfectly prepared to act as sole mentor, but this shouldn't be necessary. The community always has the reassurance that if arbcom loses confidence in the mentor or mentors it can fire or replace them. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

::I have no objection to Coren's model of mentorship being adopted in conjunction with a different model, and wish to make it clear that although I will not be operating on that particular model, would be glad to interact collaboratively with Tony. In conjunction this could be interesting: one mentor on a strictly advisory capacity, and another with enforcement powers (long term and short term if you will). Re: Tony's comment above, some of the people I've mentored have become featured content contributors (which SA already is) and one has turned around from a lengthy block log to become an administrator on Wikipedia. <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I see nothing wrong with a "joint" supervision; it opens up a few questions in the details, but nothing that could not be reasonably worked out. I beleive there is precedent for a "mentor" to be a team in the past as well; and I expect the committee to accept such arrangements provided one member of the team is unambiguously designated as the point of contact (so that we don't get into "ask the other parent" arguments). &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]} 14:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:John Vandenberg, Lar, and I were jointly appointed mentors for Privatemusings. The mentorship didn't work out, but 'point of contact' issues were not the problem. What proved to be more of a problem was that ArbCom structured the thing differently from how it was proposed, and as a result the mentors were not very free to exercise their own judgment. When ScienceApologist asked whether the current proposal meant I'd still mentor him I said 'absolutely'. That answer was based upon a proposal that I believed was stable. But if you try to tie my hands, Coren, I'll walk. <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 00:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are arbitrators who are unaware that joint supervision has been tried successfully in the past, I would say that it's a good indication that arbitration is about what will work now. Take your time. Do what you need to do. Wikipedia 2009 is not Wikipedia 2005. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:You're referring to White Cat, Tony? I'm referring to fall 2008. A significant contributing factor to the latter's failure were arbitrary provisions created by ArbCom in its attempt to structure the undertaking; I had previously mentored same editor successfully at a sister WMF site, without interference. In the latter attempt the mentors gained newfound respect for each other, but--to put it mildly--it is not a promising sign to see an arbitrator attempt to impose new arbitrary mentorship structures while demonstrating such obvious ignorance of recent history. I wasted two months last fall and I'm not going to repeat that mistake. Would be glad to collaborate with you, Tony, but not under the paternalistic terms Coren conceives. <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:: I don't see how a mentorship can tie the mentor's hands. These are the powers proposed in the current case. The mentor may

Line 914:

:::Most of the description allows the mentor freedom to define the role as they see fit, (since there is no requirement to use the special powers), but the part "Complaints ... further action" prescribes how some things are done, apparently not allowing the mentor to arrange things differently. I don't know whether this is what Durova is talking about. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 19:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Committee has been made aware of the problems it created when it structured the Privatemusings mentorship. Now it proposes not to under-empower a mentor but to over-empower one. Whether intentional or not, this would radically alter the mentor's position and all interactions. I embarked upon this to become a neutral point of contact for all parties--someone they can turn to for candid feedback. Under the proposed decision, those editors would no longer interact with the mentor as a peer. A mentor with power to impose sanctions becomes something more like a parole officer--and that reorients matters substantially away from long term stabilization and toward short term management. Regardless of what FloNight asserts at the concurrent PHG case, mentorship does not exist for the purpose of evading blocks or other sanctions. Mentorship is to help an editor adapt to site standards, not vice versa. No guarantees about the result, but unless any one of the arbitrators can demonstrate they mentored a turnaround more dramatic than [[User:Cirt|Cirt]]'s, their track record doesn't impress. <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== "Baiting" v. "Past decisions are open to challenge": Pcarbonn ==

Line 1,033:

::::::No you are merely misinterpreting what I wrote. That's your choice of course but feel free to (re)review it in the context of Shoemaker's discussion above rather than independently in the context that you are applying. [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, if I understand Shot info correctly, he or she seems to be saying that this proposed finding has little utility because it appears to determine against an editor according to parameters that could be applied to nearly any active content contributor. That type of finding should not be written or passed because it opens the door to potential abuse of process. If ScienceApologist has erred, please take care to identify ''distinguishing'' traits between his contribution and that of normal editors, or else abandon the proposal. There's a blue sky quality to the proposal that dilutes out any utility, and may introduce harmful elements. <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 05:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

:You got it. Of course, Shoemaker is the one who actually articulates the real point(s). [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Yes, I hadn't really noticed until Shoemaker pointed it out. He's got his finger on the pulse of something. Good post. <fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</fontspan>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

::I think I get you now. My abstention was based mainly on the actual diffs, but I see the general point now. Will consider my position. As for the wording here, I will mention any objections I still have when I update my position. Not sure what approach other arbitrators take to these talk page discussions, but also suggest approaching the bainer directly about the wording, or drawing his attention to this discussion. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 01:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Line 1,134:

::I hope you understand that "broadly construed" is difficult to interpret. The three articles you list are interesting because only one is actually controversial on Wikipedia. Banning me from editing [[Lysenkoism]] seems particularly bizarre. As for a "sustained change in behaviour", I ask you to consider my contributions from the last month. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 06:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Keep up the improved behaviour for a couple of months and I'll certainly support relaxing the topic ban. --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 07:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::::Agreed with Risker and Roger. Use the talk page if there is any doubt, and use the talk pages to demonstrate productive and collaborative behaviour for those articles that cover fringe science topics. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

* I strongly oppose a topic ban at this time. ScienceApologist has been behaving well lately. The Committee's slow action on this case has obviated the need for a ban. Please reconsider. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:* I've added a "last chance saloon" remedy to cover this and switched to oppose. --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 10:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::* Sounds good to me. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::*Why should applications (to ArbCom for the topic ban to be imposed) only be considered if they're made by uninvolved 'administrators'? I would've thought that any uninvolved "user" should be given the same consideration if they made a request. While it may be necessary to confine it to uninvolved users, it is not necessary to confine it to uninvolved administrators. Note; this isn't a point I'd make in any particular case - it's a general point. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:::It's a deliberate filter as motions take time to deal with. This is experimental so if it's adopted, the process may well evolve. --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 13:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::::I don't follow - motions take time to deal with, so you don't want to give time to those who aren't admins? If you really wish for efficiency (and to extend another chance to the community to handle it), why not simply put him on fringe science topic probation? That way, a topic ban can be imposed by uninvolved admin or the community if needed. If there is subsequently no consensus either way by the community on imposing a topic ban, then it can come back to ArbCom so it can vote via motion. Of course, my suggestion is experimental too. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::::: It is a simplified type of probation, I suppose, but with a sunset clause and an opportunity for ArbCom to review before the ban is imposed. --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::I find that it is more complicated. My suggestion to impose the broader topic probation was merely to save time from a future community discussion. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for the suggestion. We'll have to wait and see if anything passes :) --[[User:Roger Davies|<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES</small>'''</fontspan>]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 19:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

== Arb Voting Behaviour ==