Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
- WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals | 28 March 2024 | 0/4/1 | |
Venezuelan politics | 29 March 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | Motion | (orig. case) | 27 February 2024 |
Amendment request: Gender and sexuality | none | (orig. case) | 13 March 2024 |
Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 18 March 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Current requests
Episodes and characters 3
- Note: Was Mass AfDs which in turn was TTN.
Refiled by — Coren (talk) at 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator of original request)
- TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Procedural refiling as a new case; parties are aware having commented during the original request.
Clerks: If this case is accepted, please copy the original request statements to the appropriate pages as though they were submitted here. — Coren (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Collectonian
I am requesting that the original restrictions against TTN be extended. Since they have lifted, he has returned to many of the behaviors that caused his initial restrictions, including wholescale merging of character lists to their main articles, characters to character lists, etc. He is doing all of these without any previous discussion and without performing any actual merging just redirects. He is doing no tagging before so issues may be addressed.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] And he is completely ignoring/disregarding any on-doing merge discussions that may be happening on that page and falsely claiming he has "merged" the content rather than just redirected. While he is generally not edit warring after they are reverted, he has done some.[16][17] He is doing this silently, and ignoring all requests that he instead start discussions before doing such inappropriate merging as they almost always go against multiple-project consensus and a general overall consensus that fictional series can have a single character list.[18] If his edits are reverted, rather than start proper merge discussions, he takes the articles to AfD.[19][20] This seems to very much be the same sort of disruptive behavior that caused so much trouble before, and is causing hassles for multiple projects attempting to clean up articles. As such, I think the original restrictions need to be extended until TTN can learn to actually "work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question" rather than just clearing out dozens upon dozens of articles because he personally thinks "there is nothing to merge" despite consensus saying otherwise and thinks there is some deadline for cleaning up articles.
Addition: One of the most recent issues relates to List of D.N.Angel characters. This list already was tagged and had an active discussion to merge all of the character articles to the list. TTN came in, delinked the articles and redirected the individual articles to list, without performing a single actual edit nor really merging a single bit of content (despite his claim that he did by saying so in his edit summary).[21] When this was undone in favor of allowing them to be properly merged, he immediately took all of the articles to AfD. This is NOT following the normal nor proper process for dealing with fictional articles. There was already consensus to merge the articles, an AfD was neither nor appropriate. However, TTN wanted them gone NOW rather than allowing editors to do the merges properly, so he attempted to have them delete. And considering his earlier actions with randomly redirecting character lists to their main articles (wiping out almost all the information, then doing a mediocre "merge" of a few sentences to try to get around it)[22][23], it seems highly likely he would have revisited this list in another month and wiped it out completely.
I was one of TTNs supporters in earlier actions, but it seems he is getting worse and worse, acting purely on his own views rather than actual established consensus, guidelines, and project efforts. Regardless of the reason why, in the last ArbCom, TTN WAS restricted from this behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Statement by TTN
I try work as collaboratively as possible with people, but there is a point where it is not possible to directly deal with fans or projects that feel the need to take two years to take care of small problems. I use a mix of merge discussions/strait merging, redirects, and AfDs to get things done, and of course some people will have a problem with it. Collectonian acts like I absolutely never deal with people, though I recently asked the video game project for input twice (here and here), and I do start merge discussions, though they are overshadowed by the number of articles that do not need to be merged at all. Other complaints are just issues of personal preference in dealing with bad articles (whether to tag first, only use talk page discussions for these kinds of articles, ect), so this is the kind of thing that belongs in a RFC/U or some other similar forum of discussion.
Statement by ThuranX
I have seen a number of threads on TTN on AN/I in the past years. Now he's conforming to the restrictions placedon him by ArbCom and the community, and still those who won't really improve things can't stop gunning for him. I am constantly frustrated by the number of editors who see Wikipedia as a cruft farm, and expand things here based on their love for a character or notion, bloating articles with nonsense about episode 17, season 9, scene 4, line 36 or whatever. When editors who work hard to make more and more articles look comprehensive without looking childish fold things together ,or insist on some rigorous standards of writing, not unlike a term or research paper, too much of this community rebels, screaming bloody murder instead of looking at is as real editing. I support TTN in this, as I do in almost all his efforts, and think this is a colossal waste of ArbCom time. ThuranX (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Confused Statement by SirFozzie
This is a BIG mistake. I understand Coren's desire to start clean (with the sheer amount of people who've, but I will be up front and frank here. ArbCom is about to make a huge mistake here. TTN's behavior is perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standards and policies, and I think there will be hell to pay if ArbCom tries to sanction TTN again. This does not require a full case, it requires ArbCom to have the metaphorical brass cojones to tell the crew who are throwing their toys out of the pram that someone's deleting all their fancruft and you know, actually trying to keep an encyclopedia here, instead of a random collection of "interesting facts". Wikipedia relies on policies, TTN's complying with those policies. End. Of. Story. You even have your fellow arbitrators standing up and saying "TTN's behavior doesn't require sanctioning. Why is this here?" and you're ignoring that? I hope ArbCom is mindful of the minefield they're going to be tra-la-la dancing into here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(Update: I'm glad to see that this is NOT going to be focused on TTN after all, and there's a lot less heat, at least from my view, if this turns out as it looks like now. SirFozzie (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC))
New statement by Randomran
We need to avoid making this about TTN's viewpoint. I see people saying "I support what TTN does", but that's not justification for his actions any more than "TTN is pissing a lot of people off" is a reason to punish him. Disagreeing with his edits is a reason to revert, not run to ArbCom. Disagreeing with his AFDs is a reason to participate, not go to ArbCom.
The fact remains that nobody has really shown a policy that he's violating. He used to WP:EDITWAR over redirects. Now he's stopped. That's why ArbCom is treating this as a new complaint. Yes, it's the same editor, and the same content, but it's a different behavior. And there is an honest disagreement about whether the behavior is disruptive, even among members of ArbCom.
The fairest complaint I've seen against TTN is that he's nominating stuff for AFD too fast for people to really be able to search for sources, and respond intelligently. I disagree that it's too fast. There's a lot of reasonable people who are debating this (and maybe even a few unreasonable ones on both sides).
There are two main reasons that "TTN files too many AFDs" doesn't belong at ArbCom:
- First off, there is honest disagreement about what that means, and there's very little in our current policies to really support that.
- Second off, we haven't tried to settle this issue ourselves, as a community.
- Finally, we CAN settle this issue ourselves, as a community, without ArbCom... if we discuss what "too many AFDs" means.
That's why I've proposed a change to WP:GAME here. I keep saying this over and over: if we have a clear line that defines unacceptable behavior, I'm confident nobody will cross it, and I'll be the most eager person to enforce it if somebody does. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support for Phil Sandifer
I support Phil Sandifer's bold attempt to shift this away from sanctioning TTN, and more towards clarifying the boundaries of acceptable/unacceptable behavior. I think there is honest disagreement about what's acceptable/unacceptable, and there's no real policy to guide us here. I hope that ArbCom can help clarify this issue so we won't have to come to them until people on all sides of the debate are clear on what the expectation is. Or if they can't clarify the issue themselves, I hope they'll support and suggest ways that we can clarify it ourselves. Randomran (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Phil Sandifer
While I would support a case on the subject of mass AFDing and disruption, I do not support a case on episodes and characters at this time, as it would, I think, unnecessarily add drama to the productive efforts to create a guideline in this area. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Stifle
As I said in the clarification discussion, I don't think this is necessary in any way. TTN is working within community norms, trying to merge, redirect, or delete pages within the normal community procedures, is remaining civil, and is getting on quite well with that. This request, along with the previous one, seems to be an attempt to stop an editor acting in good faith from continuing to deal with non-notable content. I would hope that the ArbCom declines the request and embargoes any further clarifications/new requests on the subject for twelve months. Stifle (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
What if...
- ...we set up a central process for requesting merges (call it Wikipedia:Articles for merger or whatever)?
- ...we allow merge discussions at AFD?
Either of these could help deal with the perceived problem that TTN is having his mergers and requested mergers whitewashed by entrenched fictioncrufters (wording used ironicly rather than pejoratively) and cannot find any solution other than to AFD them. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment by White Cat
Why were all our comments removed?(Seems like this has been addressed) -- Cat chi? 03:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I am boldly renaming it as Episode and Character 3. TTN wasn't mass nominating asteroid articles now was he? I do not believe this dispute is independent from the E&C one.
I also feel it would be an oversimplification to limit the case to TTN's conduct. the underlying problem is far too complex and vast than that.
This case should be a separate E&C case. Please accept it as there clearly is a dispute that won't be resolved by other means.
-- Cat chi? 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Tznkai.
I apologize if I caused you or any of the clerks any stress with my bold action. -- Cat chi? 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The real issue
“ | If their conduct isn't banned by policy yet isn't backed by consensus it can still be considered disruptive editing. | ” |
It is arbcoms responsibility to review the conduct of TTN and others as a hole. If their conduct isn't banned by policy yet isn't backed by consensus it can still be considered disruptive editing. In fact signs of disruptive editing includes
“ |
In addition, such editors may:
|
” |
Above bullet items is a copy paste from a behavioral guideline. TTN and others like him have violated it on a regular basis. Their lack of seeking consensus is the core of the issue. While they make many attempts to gather consensus they do so only to satisfy policy and evade detection. They will however disregard any consensus that does not suit their needs: to aggressively purge fiction related articles from the site by any means necessary. For example if an AFD is closed as KEEP they will not hesitate to either remove the content by other means such as through the disguise of a merge or by renominating the page over and over again after a certain period of time. Such hasn't happened once or twice but has been done in a systematic manner.
The reason why this rfar is different from the past ones is not because the conduct of TTN and others have improved the slightest bit but their methods have evolved to better avoid detection. Some people defending them are oblivious to the fine details of this dispute and its past. Telling that there is no problem makes that evident. This problem even made its way off-wiki mass media already: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
The aggressive attitude of TTN and others like him has only made "the other side" of the dispute increasingly defensive. I put the other side in quotations because while TTN and people like him work like a team to purge all fiction, they are not confronted by a Unified Inclusionist Front (UIF?). The conduct of TTN and others like him lead to a causality dilemma. People are so worked up in defending their articles they are unable to write any decent articles.
Three arbitrators have recused themselves so far. I believe all of them had made a genuine yet failed effort to resolve the dispute by the regular editorial means. Their lack of success alone should be considered as evidence that the community is incapable of resolving this dispute. This isn't because arbitrators are god but instead because they are (or at least should be) experts in dispute resolution. I cannot talk on behalf of them but I am willing to bet all three of them will agree that all means WP:DR but arbcom has been exhausted already.
I want to question what exactly is their function on the site. If we wanted to indiscriminately delete all short articles on fiction, we would have asked a bot operator. That user conduct exhibited by many users has been a problem since the first E&C rfar. Arbcom is intended to be the last step and this dispute is over three years old and yet at least one arbitrator wants to delegate the matter "back to the community". Why arbitrators refuse to properly address this so far goes beyond logic and reason.
-- Cat chi? 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
In conclusion arbcom is
This dispute has became so notable that it had a wide audience in mass media meaning the dispute itself has made fame off-wiki. And yet several arbitrators have the nerve to say that there is no problem whatsoever.
Honestly. Why don't all of you resign? You are incapable of handling disputes. You serve no purpose aside from wasting our times. Its the 5th of January and arbcom already failed miserably. 360 days left for the next batch to take office I suppose...
-- Cat chi? 05:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment by seresin
Question for the arbitrators. What is this case supposed to resolve? If it's not about TTN, I fail to see what the Arbitrators who have voted to accept want to achieve. If you're wanting to look at the whole notability debate and how AfDs are handled, I can imagine no remedies that you will pass that will be anything other than vapid hand-slapping or policy creation. If you want to look at behavior, then some specific other editors should be added as parties, and this case be made about behavior of participants in the "notability wars". Roger Davies: [P]urely to explore mergers at AfD: which cannot be handled by motions. — policy creation. So what's the purpose of this case?
As a point of order, the case title has zero to do with what you Arbitrators have indicated will be the focus. Perhaps it's better from a continuity standpoint, but it still is not a good description of what the case will cover.
New statement by Flatscan
I see two major AfD topics, which both have active or recent discussions:
- Mass AfD nominations (Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system#another game type: volume)
- AfD and redirect/merge discussions (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Mergers at AfD)
While I welcome clarification of existing policy and current practice, I remain wary of novel interpretation that should be handled by the community. Flatscan (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Masem
I agree with previous comments that if this case is accepted, it should not be about TTN's behavior as, as noted by others, he is acting within the present bounds of editing and certainly not replicating the behavior of the E&C2 case.
I would also avoid making this case an issue about specifically how fiction is handled - as Phil notes above, we are on the verge of putting out a new fiction notability guideline that we need to test for consensus and see how it works in practical cases. While there is potential for ArbCom to address this, I believe this is too early for this, and a side issue of the main problem (below)
If anything, the core isue of this case can be identified by how we deal with a series of connected articles that fail to meet existing standards, but generally are difficult to convince those with the most concern for them that they need to be dealt with in cleanup. (Though TTN is not involved in this, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2 deals with a similar situation, where one editor from outside a project is concerned with the quality of the articles in the project). If this basically means identifying that AFD is a proper place for a larger input on merger or article discussion, or any other finding of fact that ensures that article cleanup of the type that TTN does is validated or restricted or outlined in a better fashion to establish a procedure that helps in cleaning up WP, then that is what ArbCom needs to handle.
Regardless of what else is done here, the question of how an editor should approach a large scale cleanup of a series of tightly-related articles needs to be figured out. One-at-a-time AFDs are spammy, one-shot AFDs with several articles are criticized for grouping too many articles at once, and there is no good place to discuss merges that can gain the attention of uninvolved editors for involve like AFD provides. --MASEM 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional comment - Personally, having spent the last 1.5 yrs trying to help get a fiction notability guideline in place, I truly believe we're at a point aspects of the past are coming back to haunt us in the sense the conflict between "Wikipedia is not paper", notability guidelines, article size, and several other core policies and guidelines are all built on past consensus, but to truly reflect the nature of going forward, not just for fiction but all fields of articles requires us to dismantle and rebuild the existing p/g, not in a manner that changes the status quo of how we do things, but puts in place the right statements in p/g that justify why we do things. For example, there is an obvious conflict between article size and notability - when an article on a topic grows beyond a reasonable size, we're encouraged to split off lower-level details to subarticles, but notability, at least as taken by some, cannot allow these subarticles to exist without their own notability. If we were paper, there'd be no question of inclusion, but this fails when brought to serving pages over the web. There seems to be obvious solutions, but there are editors (on both sides of the issue) that cannot accept these solutions simply because of the wording of one or two policies and guidelines yet most in the middle agree there's some middle ground here that is needed. By this large scale reassembly of policy, we can probably address issues that all sides have with the current situation of fiction and other topics on WP.
Obviously I don't expect ArbCom to even try to fix this aspect; it is way too big and persistent to resolve by a few crafted resolutions; this rebuilding is something that needs to planned very carefully to make such changes transparent to those editors that care little about the politics of policies, and it won't be something that happens overnight. Either Arbcom, if they address it, should consider this a TTN behavioral issue (which I don't believe it is) or the process issue I describe above. If Arbcom does address this as a process issue, it should be considered as a bandaid or stepping stone towards the dismantling that I describe above - there is the issue of how to deal with a lot of tightly-related topics (mostly in the fiction area) that can be considered, at times, as part of the coverage of the work of fiction they are present in. If a solution is found by ArbCom, this may help to set the basis for how we can reconstruct p/g in handling a topic that readily has many sub-topics that should be included in WP somewhere, though not necessarily their own articles. --MASEM 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Carcharoth
- Have recused as an arbitrator and am making a statement here solely as an editor. Mostly making my statement here to agree with what Masem said above: "the question of how an editor should approach a large scale cleanup of a series of tightly-related articles needs to [be] figured out" (though the word "WikiProject" might be relevant here, noting that the approaches taken by different fiction-topic WikiProjects varies widely). Ultimately, the community should resolve what the correct approach should be, though the non-recused arbitrators in this case may be able to help guide the expectations for standards of editor conduct during such clean-up processes.
- I would also like to respond to what Phil Sandifer said above (in a statement he later changed): "...that some of the recused arbitrators - whose views I think would be valuable in the underlying issue - come back to the case...". My view here is that recused arbitrators should, if they wish and have time, participate as any other editor would (as I am doing), but remain recused. Am asking here for public confirmation of the propriety of this approach, from the community and my fellow arbitrators. The one thing I am uncertain about here is if I (and other recused arbitrators) do participate heavily in the case as editors, is the following: what standards apply regarding the arbcom mailing list and other such committee discussions to which we would be privy?
- Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Jtrainor
User:White Cat has the right of it. [TTN himself has said in the past that his behaviour is solely intended to remove material and not to improve it.] Jtrainor (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- diff, if this helps. — CharlotteWebb 15:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Sceptre
This is a massive mistake and a matter that doesn't need another soul-sucking arbitration case like E&C2. I urge that both TTN and White Cat try to write articles instead of engaging in meta-debate. Sceptre (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by User:Kww
If this really comes before Arbcom again, I request that Kirill Lokshin recuse himself as a result of his behaviour here. His parallel discussion here makes it clear that he has already judged exclusionist editors to be at fault, and he is incapable of being unbiased on the issue.—Kww(talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Responding to Barberio: I didn't ask that Kirill recuse himself for having rendered a previous judgment. I asked him to recuse himself for expressing the opinion that it didn't matter which side was right, he was going to sanction TTN, and his willingness to lash out at anyone that supported him. That is behaviour unsuitable for an arbitrator, and unacceptable for one rehearing the case.—Kww(talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by User:Barberio
Limiting myself to the above recusal request. This should be rejected per forma. Expressing an opinion during a previous review of a case or similar case should not lead to recusal if a similar, or even functionally the same, case comes up. That would very quickly result in no one being able to take a case at all. --Barberio (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by User:DGG
This problem is not going to settle itself. Not all those participants are willing to compromise, many people on different sides regard it as too important to abandon, and the divisive effects are increasingly damaging. It affects a large part of Wikipedia. This is therefore a matter which must be resolved, and the only way it can be resolved is by arb com. Does the reluctance of some of the committee to do their job indicate that they think there is no possible solution that will be accepted by enough of the community? DGG (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Nsk92
The case should be accepted to examine, under existing policies, broad issues of conduct that arise here and that are also relevant to other inclusionist/deletionist disputes beyond the topic of fiction articles. We do have a number of relevant existing policies and guidelines, such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BATTLE, WP:Disruptive editing, and probably a few others. While my personal views regarding fiction articles are probably fairly close to those of TTN, I find that much of his conduct and tactics, detailed above by Collectonian and White Cat, to be problematic in relation to these existing policies. For example, I believe that redirecting and merging should almost never be performed without a discussion first. That is certainly true for articles on subjects of broad controversy, such as fiction-related articles are at the moment. TTN's explanation that he is just too tired of arguing with fancraft proponents is not sufficient and is not a valid excuse for shortcutting WP:CONSENSUS. Mass clean-up operations, especially in highly charged areas, also should not be undertaken unilaterally. One should find an appropriate collective forum, such as a wikiproject or a policy discussion page, for reaching consensus on whether suuch mass clean-up operations are needed and if yes, on how they should proceed. The fact that these actions are performed on mass scale, and at the time when the underlying notability issues are being worked out at WP:FICT (which I hope will succeed in becoming a guideline since that is certainly what is badly needed here) makes it worse. It inflames the situation and makes reaching consensus at WP:FICT more difficult. It is, of course, true, that WP:FICT needs to be based on real-life AfD experience. However, the sort of highly contentious AfDs that TTN's scorched earth tactics tend to produce are a poor guide for figuring out a reasonable solution. Mass AfD nominations in the cases where it is clear that a merge is more appropriate can also be problematic. I tend to agree with White Cat that the tactics he describes are rather war-like. The problem is that even fighting against bad articles by war-like methods tends to, in the end, be very counter-productive. It antagonizes many editors, inflames the general situation, makes reaching consensus on the underlying notability issues more difficult and drives a lot of people away from the project. The fact that fiction-related disputes so frequently show up at WP:RFAR is a testament to the disruptive effect of such tactics. There are plenty of issues of conduct for ArbCom to look at here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Peregrine Fisher
I don't know what arbcom should do. My guess is another fait accomplie ruling, or TTN gets the go ahead, or something outside the box that I can't guess at. I would prefer that magical third option, but otherwise a firm affirmation of one of the first two. The fourth option is that the wiki way doesn't really work, and the community needs to figure out how to make it work. This is the easiest, and most easily defensible position, but I ask that you really try for one of the first three options. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Protonk (talk)
Reject this case. I can see no reasonable outcome that arbcom could come to on this issue that wouldn't just be an anodyne restatement of fact and best practices and I frankly don't want to have another vague arbcom ruling on fiction hanging around my neck. The community IS making progress on the content issue as a whole. Interference on that front (either through some misguided statement that AfD's may not be used for mergers or through some attempt to legislate a solution from the bench otherwise) is unwelcome and will be used tactically by those who seek to treat wikipedia as a battleground.
Statement by CharlotteWebb
Coolcat's description is too kind. Repeating the same behavior which led to a six-month topic ban is a textbook example of "exhausting the community's patience". I urge the committee to accept this case and consider a remedy of greater duration and scope. — CharlotteWebb 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Black Kite
I mentioned this before, and I still fail to see why it wouldn't be productive. Create a page Wikipedia:Requests for merging, analogous to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Instead of having multiple AfDs for E&C's that are likely to end up with merge or merge/redirect outcomes, editors simply follow the existing procedure for merging pages, and add the request to this page. Centralised discussion could then take place at this page in a similar manner to that which Requested Moves does now.
This would circumvent the reasons why the current merging procedure is inadequate for these tasks - (1) that the articles involved are obscure and unwatched, thus leading to minimal (or more often, nil) discussion after placing of the {{mergeto}} tag; and (2) that a current merge target (i.e. List of characters in Foo) does not exist. I suggest that this would, if not eliminate, certainly reduce the number of contentious AfDs that are currently being created, and thus a good proporation of the issues that have led us to WP:RFAR again. This is clearly not a panacea for the problems here, but I believe it would be a useful start. Black Kite 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
- This case is a refiling by User:Coren following developments in a previous request to amend the Episodes and Characters _2 case, specifically the restrictions against TTN. The last version of that request, along with statements and arbiter voting on a failed motion can be found here.--Tznkai (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- We need explicit direction from the committee on what the scope (and appropriate title) of this case would be if accepted. Current title is Episodes and characters 3 - but this should be considered a placeholder pending clarification from the committee as a whole.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- This case is a refiling by User:Coren following developments in a previous request to amend the Episodes and Characters _2 case, specifically the restrictions against TTN. The last version of that request, along with statements and arbiter voting on a failed motion can be found here.--Tznkai (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/5/4/0)
- Accept; it appears the case is too complex to handle through motion work on a clarification request. — Coren (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, and because my feeling on the matter appears to have been less clear than I have presumed, I am not proposing to open the case to sanction TTN, but to examine the wider dispute around the handling of AfD like those TTN has opened. The name TTN is based strictly on the original request and should not be indicative of the expected focus. — Coren (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Accept; I was thinking of filing this myself as the attempt at handling by motion(s) wasn't working. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Accept purely to explore behaviour in mergers/mass nominations at AfD, which cannot be handled by motions. As I have said elsewhere, I do not see santionable conduct here.--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)- Reject - The scope of the case has shifted significantly over the last twenty-four hours and the reason for my interest in hearing it has largely evaporated. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse as stated previously. If a case is accepted, could the statements from the original clarification request that Coren has linked to please be placed on an appropriate page (either in the possible new case, or in the appropriate place on the previous case page), and not just linked to in the edit history. If no case is accepted, could the new threads, this one and the clarification one that Coren has linked to, be archived in the appropriate places. Just trying to make sure nothing gets lost here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse, per previous motion. Vassyana (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reject if the case is going to be about TTN's conduct. As I said in my earlier comment, I do not see any significant user conduct problem that would warrant a sanction so I do not think a case is needed. If the Committee wants to open a case to look at the problem surrounding merger discussions at Afd or the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal, I will reconsider my vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Continue to reject. I liked the ideas in several of Coren's proposed motions, so it is tempting to take the case. Although I agree that the topics of Afd, Notability guideline, and merger discussions could benefit from some consensus building discussions, I do not think that we should tackle the case unless there is clear evidence going in that we will be able to add something of value to the discussion that the Community can not do on its own. I think that user conduct issues should continue to be our main focus and unless we are going to address that problem at some level, then I do not think we should get involved. So unless someone can convince me that TTN or someone else has engaged in a violation of policy that would cause them to be sanctioned, I don't want to open the case. If the Committee looks at this broadly, instead of picking a side to support by deeming some types of edits to be violations of policy, I do not think we are going to satisfy anyone. I don't think a general caution or warning to the people involved in these areas will be fruitful. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse per previous motion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Accept as Episodes and characters 3, which will allow for tweaking of the previous findings if we need to. (Facetious comment - The new committee in 2008 had to go through Episodes and characters again, so I don't see why the 2009 intake should escape this chore) Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reject, pace FloNight, unless the scope of the case is TTN. The motion was to seek relief from TTN, and I agree that there is merit to the calls to review his methods and conduct, so I would only accept a case to review that. If the committee accepted such a case, and decided that there is no user conduct problems, that would be a good thing; in effect it would clear TTNs name.
The community is busy working on E&C, and doesnt appear to need the committee at this time. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC) - Reject - based on our prior discussions, there is no reasonable grounds to believe that sanction of any user is warranted. We have been provided with information that applicable "ground rules" are in development. There is no evidence provided of policy violations. The foreseeable end result is the committee supporting an effort to determine notability criteria in the subject area, and weeks of editor time and energy displaced from the very activity that the committee would encourage, in a high-tension arena. There is little to be gained, and more to lose. Risker (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse. Kirill 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reject. Per FloNight. This seems likely to inflame drama for a very small payoff (probably a generalized warning). Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Clarifications and other requests
Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals | 28 March 2024 | 0/4/1 | |
Venezuelan politics | 29 March 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | Motion | (orig. case) | 27 February 2024 |
Amendment request: Gender and sexuality | none | (orig. case) | 13 March 2024 |
Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 18 March 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Request fo clarification on prior case: Special enforcement on BLP
Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
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 work this into the below, if that's more expedient.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
Request to amend prior case: Special enforcement on BLP
Statement by Barberio
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 [26]. 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)
Statement by Daniel
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)
Statement by User:Tony Sidaway
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)
Clerk notes
- BarBerio, you know that threatening ArbCom at this juncture does not do anything, right? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Request noted. I think an open review is needed here, though my views are that this is all to do with WP:ADMIN and arbitration and administrative enforcement, and not really to do with the BLP policy. So from my point of view, the question is whether to review this 'special enforcement' by itself, or together with reviews of other enforcement areas (such as arbitration enforcement). I also note Barberio's six questions, but am deferring specific answers until an actual review process takes place. Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Decline Will be included as part of Arbitration Enforcement review remedy, so I see no need for a special review of this particular enforcement remedy now. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly is being asked here? The title is "Request to amend" (emphasis mine), the first sentence asks for review, and the rest is a series of questions; Barberio, are you requesting a change to the ruling (and, if so, what is that change) or a general discussion about the constitutional role of the Committee? The former may be a matter of some urgency (although, if the ruling isn't even being used, I'm not sure why that would be); the latter is not, and a request for clarification is not a good venue for it in any case. If you're just looking for reform, we're working on it; poking us with pointy sticks, while no doubt entertaining, will unfortunately not make it move along any faster. ;-) Kirill 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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. Risker (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Decline but with careful reasons:
- 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:
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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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. --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. --John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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 NGBLPSE so that the committee remedy can be deprecated. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Placeholder, to state that I will post my thoughts on this tonight or tomorrow (I'm in transit with limited access at the moment). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with Roger. The majority of the Committee is new. We're still all getting up to speed on an inordinately large number of issues, cases and previous discussions. I know the majority of my wiki time has been spent reading previous discussions and cases, while still keeping up on the current emails, requests and cases. We are reviewing the RfC results and some previous cases, but please give us a bit of time to get settled in. Vassyana (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Decline for now, per Vass and others above. I know I don't have time yet for this. Wizardman 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Decline per John Vandenberg's rationale. I also agree with Tony Sidaway—seldom-used policies are not problematic. It might be that BLPSE no longer has any teeth (if it ever did). It might be that invoking BLPSE should be safe, legal, and rare (not unlike another of our policies). It might be necessary to have an actual controversy to determine whether the remedy is working. In any case, it would be best to resolve this later. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal
Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
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.[28] 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)
- Response to Geoff:
- If evidence was not presented during the case to support the finding, then your proposal, "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy", would, barring a very strong case for it being an unreliable source (which has not, nor really should be presented here [it should be presented to the community after this is dealt with]), make the Arbcom look bad, as it'd effectively be saying that a finding for which both sides agree no evidence was presented to justify was nonetheless right - despite such evidence still not having been presented. Better to remand it to the community, and the cases for and against can be presented at the appropriate venue: WP:RSN. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Response to Coren:
- The finding is entitled "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee". If the committee did not intend to name Quackwatch as an unreliable source, then they did an appallingly bad job at getting their meaning across. As well,the committee has repeatedly found, in numerous cases, that encyclopaedias present science in line with mainstream thought. It's hard to see how this fits in with calling a widely-respected mainstream medical source "partisian" because it advocates for the mainstream scientific thought that the encyclopaedia should be using. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Fred Bauer
- An Arbcom decision is not a place to advocate your point of view, particularly in the absence of strong, reliable sources that back it. There is no strong evidence for acupuncture: most studies with a positive result lack blinding, placebo, or large sample sizes, and large-scale studies tend to show random effects: a recent one, for instance, found sham acupuncture was better than real acupuncture - typical of statistical noise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Carcharoth
- I really don't think that "partisian" is appropriate either. It's a highly loaded term, and the change proposed does nothing to get at the heart of the problem: It would still be a decision that the mainstream medical view of Alternative medicine is "partisian". If the committee wants to focus on Fyslee's behaviour, it would have been possible to demonstrate a lack of NPOV in their edits at the time, at this late date, however, there doesn't seem much point to trying to reanalyse the situation and make a valid FoF; may as well just keep the caution to Fyslee to edit from NPOV in the remedies and consider that sufficient. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Second response to Carcharoth
- Be that as it may, I don't think that Arbcom should be ruling on it: The reliable sources noticeboard is perfectly capable of handling problems with specific Quackwatch articles or uses on a case-by-case basis. This is true for all sites, and there should be no need for the Arbcom to use loaded language to discuss one in particular. The simplest remedy, withdrawing the finding, does not mean that policies related to reliable sources are withdrawn; it's simply an acknowledgement that the Arbcom does not determine content, and that well-established community procedures could handle it instead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposals
- The finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" is withdrawn, and no longer forms part of the findings of Barrett v. Rosenthal. This does not affect any other findings, nor does it affect the caution to Fyslee to edit according to NPOV, as all editors are expected to.
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
- Furthermore, Proposal 1 misrepresents policy. The actual statement in WP:NPOV begins with the crucial qualifier "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence..."
- We are discussing fringe medical theories. WP:UNDUE applies here, rather strongly. Leaving out the crucial qualifier misrepresents policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To Flonight
- I don't really understand why it's necessary to make a ruling on Fyslee's use of the source. It doesn't seem particularly relevant to the rest of the case, and the COI aspect, e.g. that Fyslee wrote for the site (insofar as it's accurate) seems quite sufficient to justify the remedies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Fyslee
archived bad start. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Revised/calmer version
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:
- I did not use or abuse unreliable sources;
- Quackwatch is not considered an unreliable source by the mainstream scientific and medical world, only by pushers of fringe POV, quacks, and known (and often convicted) healthfrauds. A simple study of the many authoritative sources that recommend Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett (we only use a few in their articles) will give an idea of what mainstream science, medicine, universities, professors, librarians, consumer organizations, and governmental bodies, think of them, and it's very positive. They are considered authoritative and can be used as good opinions. Yes, attribution is a good idea, but don't give the impression that they shouldn't be used. For more comments on Quackwatch, I suggest reading the discussion at the other RfArb Workshop page.
-- Fyslee (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Response to User:Backin72's many points
- Of course there is "evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine." He shares this bias with countless scientists and mainstream personages, many of them quite notable. Such a bias and vast experience as the world's foremost authority on quackery and healthfraud make him even more qualified to sift the chaff from the wheat when dealing with healthfraud and questionable claims. His bias and stance on evidence is the same (read here) as that held by many others, including Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM):
- "It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine -- conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments."[1]
- He is a scientific skeptic, which means he holds extraordinary and fringe claims to a higher standard of evidence: "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." We follow the same verifiability principle here at Wikipedia. That is a legitimate and necessary form of "double standard", and it's one that is standard practice among scientists who possess critical thinking skills. You will always find Barrett in good company, along with other scientific skeptics, Nobel prize laureates, and notable authors. He was named as one of the top 20 scientific skeptics of the 20th century.[2][3] He thinks like other skeptics.
- The wording of the Village Voice article should not be taken in isolation from Barrett's actual practice. He recommends and supports chiropractic for the things it is proven to be good for, but still opposes the widespread quackery, scams, and pseudoscientific claims that still plague the profession, and especially the pseudoscientific and metaphysical basis for the whole profession (vertebral subluxations, Innate Intelligence, misuse of spinal manipulation, etc.). Likewise for acupuncture, where the claims are required to be backed up by good research. (There is plenty of disagreement about the quality of such research, and Barrett is far from alone in that matter.) We (and you especially) know that acupuncture is associated with many claims that are nonsense or not backed up by research. Barrett's actual practice is not as extreme as indicated by that old article. It is quite normal in medical and skeptical circles. He's just one of the most notable skeptics in that area.
- Lest Barrett become a straw man diversion here, let's remember the subject is Quackwatch, not Barrett. He is the prime mover behind the website, but a whole host of others help in the endeavor. Most of the front page articles are written by him, with fact checking and research conducted by helpers, but even more material on the site is from other authors. The website is the largest database on such subjects on the internet, with a vast collection of articles, news reports, scientific research, government documents, and historical records, and as such it is often the only source for those references. When we reference Quackwatch for those types of sources, for example a Congressional report on quackery, the reference carries the same degree of reliability we would accord the Congressional record.
- Of course Quackwatch should be used with discretion, and that's what we should do with all sources. That is a given with all our sources. No new rule or application of existing policies is required for a special case here. It is already covered by our V & RS policies. We should prefer better sources when available, and use attribution when necessary, but QW is often the only or best source available for many fringe subjects. It is often a notable, significant, controversial (among quacks), and highly respected opinion source, and should be used as such. We constantly use sources of far less quality without blinking, or with them being subjected to uninformed and deprecatory remarks in an ArbCom. Why? Because quacks' incomes aren't being threatened, and scammers aren't being named with backing from the FDA and FTC. Unlike many opinion articles we reference all the time, it provides its sources, and we can sometimes use them instead of, or in addition to, QW itself. When it is used as a source for a scientific article unavailable elsewhere, it is just as reliable as any scientific article, and for that type of use MEDRS would apply. Just use common sense in a case by case manner. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to John Vandenberg
- I fully agree with you. The implication of the "finding" is that Quackwatch is always an inappropriate source, and that's very, very wrong. It can be used on a case by case basis, just like other sources. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal (websites are not "peer-reviewed"!), and thus scientific research would rate higher as a source, per MEDRS, for nitty gritty details of scientific matters, but can be used like any other source for matters of opinion related to those subjects. Like most of our other sources, it is a perfectly good source for certain purposes. In fact it is often a better source for articles related to fringe subjects, which alternative medicine subjects are by definition, where there is a dearth of scientific expression on the subject. Since scientific research isn't for opinions, you won't find scientific research that states a matter is nonsensical or quackery, because research doesn't deal with such matters. The same scientists will write such opinions, but they do it in other venues, such as articles and websites. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to other critics here
- While I'm not surprised that believers in fringe POV would appear here with their attempts to smear Barrett and Quackwatch, please get your facts straight before making statements. I do appreciate that Geoff Plourde did recognize (in his "reponses") that his initial statement was way off base on a couple points. In fact most of his statement is quite inaccurate.
- As I wrote elsewhere, I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up. Find anyone who is doing it, and you'll find such an editor....or someone who just doesn't have a clue, possibly because of ignorance of the issues regarding healthfraud, consumer fraud, and quackery. Please take this opportunity to understand the issues (by using Quackwatch) and become informed. That can only be done by studying both sides of an issue. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Backin72's response to John Nevard
- Maybe you didn't read my comment above, but to trust a newspaper columnnist's editorializing based on one statement taken in isolation, without also looking at Barrett's actual practice is naive. Since his actual practice often deviates significantly from that one statement, it is obviously being misapplied and applied to broadly. The guy obviously has much more nuanced views than that! He obviously does follow along with the scientific evidence and when the evidence is strong enough, he has been known to change his position, which is the logical and proper thing to do. To top it off, his articles are reviewed by many experts in the field and thus go through a form of informal review process. He seeks advice and gets help when preparing articles, and if you find something outright inaccurate (not just a difference of opinion), then by all means email him and get it fixed.
- The evidence for many of acupuncture's claims is far from a settled matter in the scientific community, and Barrett is one of many who are unconvinced by most of the studies - which happen to be of poor quality. There is no scientific consensus about acupuncture, so this is just a difference of opinion which exists in the scientific community. This is an ongoing process. As such it's also a content decision and the editors of the acupuncture articles are perfectly able to deal with it. The "double-standard" is the standard applied to all extraordinary claims. Unusual claims are subject to this standard rule: "the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Nothing new in that. If someone told you that one of the Moons of Pluto was made of cheese, you would likely adopt the same position as Barrett or any other person who possesses even a smidgin of critical thinking - you would consider it unworthy of investigation and would hold such claims to a much higher standard of evidence than other claims. There are many claims in alternative madicine, including some of them in acupuncture and chiropractic, that are unworthy of exploration by scientists. Let the ones making the claims provide their evidence. If they do so, it will be looked at, and if found worthy of consideration, THEN Barrett and others will certainly encourage investigation. It only makes common sense to say what Barrett said. His statement shouldn't be stretched too far, which is what you seem to be doing. That's certainly what Donna Ladd did in her article.
- All this discussion about acupuncture would be fine for the acupuncture article's talk page, but it's not appropriate as the subject of an ArbCom or ArbCom decision. That is indeed a content matter. No one here has a right to deem Quackwatch or Barrett unfit as a RS because they share a common disagreement that exists in the scientific community. The next thing we'll be banning any source that has a POV at all. If Quackwatch stood on the opposite side of a fully uniform, existing scientific consensus, it would be another matter, but that is far from the case. All I'm hearing is the disgruntled complaints of believers in acupuncture, who are far from unbiased in this matter. You have a financial COI related to acupuncture, and Fred should have recused himself based on his preexisting bias against Barrett and for alternative medicine. I was tempted to point it out during the ArbCom, but was fearful of doing so. I had alread been the victim of my evidence being deleted and disallowed in the events leading up to the ArbCom, and was pretty much paralyzed and unable to effectively defend myself against the libels I encountered all the way through what often felt like a kangaroo court. For some reason, all our rules against personal attacks, BLP, etc. did not apply at that time. There was no due process, and no one jumped in and got critics to stick to the point. It was a free for all, with some of the worst perpetrators still editing here. Their lies were found to be just that, but nothing happened to them. The finding of fact had already been written before any evidence had been presented, and when the so-called evidence was shown to be without foundation, was it revised??? No, not at all. Instead ONE pitiful diff (the Clayton diff mentioned by Fred) that showed I had RESTORED (not ADDED, as claimed) an existing link (IOW a consensus of editors had found it worthy of existing) was used as evidence of my foul behavior. There was no finding of fact. It wasn't true, so I was judged using faulty evidence of something that isn't a crime at all. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Fred Bauder
- Your statements aren't clear, since you have shown no wrongdoing, only that you don't like what you found. Are you claiming that Barrett is incorrect in his criticisms of the Clayton mail order diploma mill, one of several which the founder has established? Regarding your statement that you are more anti- than pro- alt med, your actions have spoken louder than your words. Even at the beginning of the ArbCom, I was aware of your biases. Whatever the case may be, you don't like Barrett or the POV at Quackwatch. Whatever. That's your right. Those who are anti-anti-quackery, are by definition for quackery, so please be more careful with your statements. Maybe that's not the case, but it could seem so. You really should have recused yourself, and now, with these comments of yours,
you should do it now.You are a former lawyer and know that a judge with your POV would be disqualified in such a case. Claiming that this isn't a court of law (a claim I've heard before) doesn't free you from the obligation to provide a just forum for deciding cases here. Injustice mustn't be allowed. Recusing yourself isn't a dishonorable thing to do. In fact, not to do so would be dishonorable.
- Your statements aren't clear, since you have shown no wrongdoing, only that you don't like what you found. Are you claiming that Barrett is incorrect in his criticisms of the Clayton mail order diploma mill, one of several which the founder has established? Regarding your statement that you are more anti- than pro- alt med, your actions have spoken louder than your words. Even at the beginning of the ArbCom, I was aware of your biases. Whatever the case may be, you don't like Barrett or the POV at Quackwatch. Whatever. That's your right. Those who are anti-anti-quackery, are by definition for quackery, so please be more careful with your statements. Maybe that's not the case, but it could seem so. You really should have recused yourself, and now, with these comments of yours,
- Regarding your citation from Quackwatch about "there is no alternative medicine." That is not Barrett, but George D. Lundberg, a physician, board-certified pathologist, and, since February 1999, editor of Medscape. For 17 years prior to joining Medscape Dr. Lundberg served as editor of the JAMA:
- "There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is "Eastern" or "Western," is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest. We recognize that there are vastly different types of practitioners and proponents of the various forms of alternative medicine and conventional medicine, and that there are vast differences in the skills, capabilities, and beliefs of individuals within them and the nature of their actual practices. Moreover, the economic and political forces in these fields are large and increasingly complex and have the capability for being highly contentious. Nonetheless, as believers in science and evidence, we must focus on fundamental issues -- namely, the patient, the target disease or condition, the proposed or practiced treatment, and the need for convincing data on safety and therapeutic efficacy."[4]
- His idea is echoed by Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author known for promoting the gene-centric view (in his book The Selfish Gene), coining of the term meme, and atheist activism:[2][3]
- "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."[5]
- "Either it is true that a medicine works or it isn't. It cannot be false in the ordinary sense but true in some 'alternative' sense."[5]
- You are welcome to disagree with all of them, but don't imply that Barrett is someone with an oddball belief. He is in very notable company.
- As to your claim about him "blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures", he is very clear about the distinction. In fact the very citation you use makes it clear, almost as if you are quoting him! ("blurring distinctions"):
- "To avoid confusion, "alternative" methods should be classified as genuine, experimental, or questionable. Genuine alternatives are comparable methods that have met science-based criteria for safety and effectiveness. Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation. The most noteworthy is use of a 10%-fat diet for treating coronary heart disease. Questionable alternatives are groundless and lack a scientifically plausible rationale. The archetype is homeopathy, which claims that "remedies" so dilute that they contain no active ingredient can exert powerful therapeutic effects. Some methods fit into more than one category, depending on the claims made for them. Blurring these distinctions enables promoters of quackery to argue that because some practices labeled "alternative" have merit, the rest deserve equal consideration and respect. Enough is known, however, to conclude that most questionable "alternatives" are worthless.[6]
- "Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental. Methods that sound scientific but are nonsensical can also be classified as pseudoscientific."[7]
- "Do you believe there are any valid "alternative" treatments?
This question is unanswerable because it contains an invalid assumption. "Alternative" is a slogan often used for promotional purposes, not a definable set of methods. Methods should be classified into three groups: (1) those that work, (2) those that don't work, and (3) those we are not sure about. Most described as "alternative" fall into the second group. But the only meaningful way to evaluate methods is to examine them individually, which we do. We discuss this subject fully in our article "Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods."[29]
- "Do you believe there are any valid "alternative" treatments?
- See also:
- Quackery, Fraud and "Alternative" Methods: Important Definitions, Stephen Barrett, M.D., William T. Jarvis, Ph.D.
- -- Fyslee (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- See also:
- Response to Carcharoth
- Thank you so much for your well-reasoned comments. Simply deleting the word "unreliable" would be fine. The source was not deemed unreliable at the time, and even the charge by some that I had misused the source was never proven.
- Thanks for the information about Fred's status. I'll strike that comment right now.
- The use of the word "partisan" is problematic, in that it indicates a negative attitude towards the site, IOW Wikipedia itself is expressing a POV based on a judgment of the POV of the site. That's none of our business. The site has a POV. Most sites do. Big deal. [begin sarcasm] Does that mean we are to label every single site with a POV as "partisan"? In fact, by not doing so, but doing it to Quackwatch, sends a very bad signal. How about labelling Joseph Mercola's and Gary Null's websites "partisan". Now they are all being branded by Wikipedia, and editors and readers get the impression that they are all bad. Believe me, they all have POV, and Quackwatch is the only one with a POV favorable to mainstream science! Either we deprecate all sources that express a POV, or we actually forbid their use. Then we can have a nice, tame, and very boring Wikipedia that fails to document the real world. [end sarcasm] Of course not. Our existing policies are good enough and we don't need special depracations from ArbCom. Quackwatch, like any other site, should be used sensibly and not blindly. No site is perfect.
- Of course this would violate a principle we already have in our NPA policy:
- That principle should (in a certain sense) also apply to Wikipedia's official statements about sources. Sure we all have our personal opinions, but let such remain personal POV. They might come up on talk pages, but articles and policies should be spared for such language. Save it for very problematic hate sites and such. If we are to have any official statements at all about how to use "sites with a clear POV" (don't use the word "partisan"), let's just advise the use of caution and common sense. Our fringe and weight guidelines already prefer we give more prominence to mainstream sources in matters of science and medicine, and Quackwatch is definitely against the fringe and for the mainstream. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment on motions
- First motion. This motion isn't necessary. Our existing policies cover this, and making a special case places Quackwatch in a bad light, while ignoring other commonly used partisan sources which hold the opposite POV (IOW pro-quackery and fringe POV). It is doubly troubling in that it cites a phrase from NPOV that is itself problematic and needs tweaking. It seems to require that sources used not only abide by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but give equal time to truth and error. If a website or source takes sides in the issue (QW sides with scientific evidence, wherever it leads), then it is deprecated. That's just plain wrong. That phrasing needs tweaking, and it shouldn't be used in a motion here. We are still discussing the stance of where SPOV fits into things here. Right now there is a movement to make the SPOV a part of policy regarding the way scientific subjects are presented. We are actually moving towards deprecating fringe POV based on anecdotes used by scammers and flakes. Deprecating sources that hold the SPOV is counterproductive to making Wikipedia a reliable source and a respectable encyclopedia. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Tony Sidaway
- Very insightful comments! You are quite correct. The NPOV wording (and thus wordings suggested here) are unclear. What is meant by "balanced"? Do we mean giving equal weight to truth and error, mainstream and fringe? Do we accord the anecdotes, claims, and false advertising of quacks, scammers and/or unscientific practitioners equal weight with mainstream scientific sources, and those who side with them? Are we really to treat them as of equal value? Barrett is clear about how providing that type of "balance" is improper in this type of setting. He doesn't give them equal time. He deals with the issues and takes the side backed up by evidence. When it's not clear, he sometimes makes it clear that the method is experimental or untested. If it's been tested and found wanting, it declares that to be the case.
- Basically this is not the place to be making such pronouncements. It should be done in the normal way - at NPOV talk. There a revision of the questionable wording should be proposed and debated by the community. This ArbCom setting should not shortcircuit the normal processes, especially when it isn't necessary. Let the community decide content matters. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Geoff Plourde
- If you could even quote Barrett properly, your statements might even be worth a response, but given your extreme prejudice, admitted belief in alternative medicine, ignorance of science and of Barrett's knowledge base, and thereof misleading and inaccurate statements, I'll just note that your statements must stand on their own merits, which aren't much. I won't dignify you with a detailed explanation of how many details and concepts you've got wrong, since it would take far more time than it's worth. Suffice it to say, you don't understand both sides of the issues, and you don't understand Barrett or Quackwatch. You've got alot to learn about both.
- You ask "If chiropractic was quackery, why would they pay for it?" I will provide you with a source that provides the answer to your question: Some Notes on Subluxations and Medicare. Barrett does his homework, and has even created the history at times. He knew Doyl Taylor, the creator of the legal wording that was designed to trap chiropractic in the mumbo jumbo of its own creation. You can also see and hear Alan Alda and an ex-chiropractic professor discuss how chiropractors define a subluxation. See Adjusting the Joints video from PBS. Go to the "Adjusting the Joints" section. Then turn on your speakers and watch the video. The WHO recognizes that a chiropractic vertebral subluxation (VS) is not the same as a medical subluxation (see the subluxation disambiguation page and read the WHO refs). You are totally dependent on a chiropractor's interpretation of the existence and location of their VS. There's no objective proof they exist. Chiropractors are still discussing how to define it, and more and more are calling for the profession to drop VS altogether.[30] -- Fyslee (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Shoemaker's Holiday
- I'm not sure what you're referring to in your last comment, but I have never written anything for Quackwatch (wish I had!), nor had anything to do with the website. I do share the same POV on many issues, and the implications of the rest of the charges was that sharing such a POV was wrong.
- I was "cautioned". Being "cautioned" implies I had done something wrong:
- "3.1) Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV...."
- The clear implication is that I had not used RS, and not edited from a NPOV, both of which were never established. Now we are here. Will this miscarriage of justice get fixed?
- Looking back over the "Proposed findings of fact" and "Proposed remedies" is an interesting experience, since only one of the "findings" was an unquestioned "pass": It was found that I was a "health activist", apparently a terrible misdeed, which was implied by the rest of the findings/charges. Fortunately a number of ArbCom members questioned those findings. The wording should be revised to:
- "3.1) Fyslee is encouraged to continue to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV...."
- Note to everyone
- Please read in detail the section Quackwatch#Notability at the article. Read the references. Keep in mind that this is a fraction of the available evidence, since critical editors have done all they could to keep such favorable mentions out of the article. There are plenty more from mainstream sources. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- References
- ^ Angell M, Kassirer JP (1998). "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies" (PDF). N. Engl. J. Med. 339 (12): 839–41. doi:10.1056/NEJM199809173391210. PMID 9738094. Retrieved 2007-12-28.
- ^ a b Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century.
- ^ a b Signers of the statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine" Signers of the statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine", welcoming the founding of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. It is a long list of notable individuals, including five Nobel laureates, all of whom are thus signalling their critical attitudes towards alternative medicine.
- ^ Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. Alternative medicine meets science. JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.
- ^ a b Richard Dawkins Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
{{cite book}}
: More than one of|author=
and|last=
specified (help) - ^ Stephen Barrett. Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods
- ^ Stephen Barrett Quackery: How Should It Be Defined?
Statement by DreamGuy (talk)
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)
- Response to User:Geoff Plourde's comment that "Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques." -- of course it doesn't, because they are not considered real medicine by any accepted medical expert or authority. That's like trying to argue that no biologist can weigh in on how absurd the notion of Nessie or Bigfoot existing in the real world because university biology courses and DNA studies do not include dissection practice on cryptids. Medical studies have examined chiropractic, acupuncture and other techniques. The individual behind QuackWatch is aware of these studies. That's why he says what he says, not because he is ignorant and incapable of saying anything educated on the topic, but precisely because he is well versed on the fields from a medical and scientific viewpoint. It's absurd to try to use your own personal opinion to rule anyone who disagrees with you as a bad source and expect Wikipedia to just follow whatever you say. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by 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. DurovaCharge! 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Geoff Plourde
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)
- Response to Shoemaker's Holiday
- Review of the case page did not turn up evidence to support my position. However I believe the finding about Quackwatch was based on behavior and not content. In no way does the Committee rule that Quackwatch is bad, simply that Fyslee has used it as a partisan source. this is supported by cursory review of Quackwatch and its purpose. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Response to Fyslee
- I must respectfully disagree with as regards the accuracy of Quackwatch. I present a statement by Ray Sahelian, MD [31] Dr. Sahelian is a currently practicing board certified family practitioner who in this statement points out the errors of Quackwatch.
- Second Response to Fyslee
- I am highly disturbed by your divisive statement, "As I wrote elsewhere, I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up." This stone age method of thinking is harmful to Wikipedia as it actively prevents dissent, and would grant de facto ownership of all alternative medicine articles to pro Barrett editors, which would be a serious violation of OWN. Fyslee, I honestly believe that Quackwatch is a crock of shit written by a retired shrink with an box of axes to grind. His blog site is worthless for all intents and purposes and poses a clear and present danger to advancement in medicine. Regardless, I agree that the purpose of this Committee is not to make content judgements which should be addressed in other fora, hopefully without your attitude as a rule.
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)
- Response to Dreamguy
- I don't think your example was particularly accurate in this context. A researcher who does not understand what he is researching cannot accurately research the subject. Judging from the articles written by Dr. Barrett, he has absolutely no idea what he is studying and is proceeding from a biased point of view. As to the statement that no authority recognizes chiropractic, that is patently false in the context of the USA. The Medicare program will pay for acute treatment of vertebral subluxations by chiropractors. If chiropractic was quackery, why would they pay for it? Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:51, 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 [[32]]. My 2 cents:
- Barret is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, and in quackery. From his own bio:
- a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. [33](not a literal quote)
- but we can't use him as source because "he's engaged in advocacy"? No. (not to mention that there are not defined criteria to determine advocacy, so all sources showing a fringe belief in a negative light will inevitabily be accused of advocacy)
- Barret is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, and in quackery. From his own bio:
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.
Statement by User:Martinphi
"As a result, the ACSH has been accused of being more of a public relations firm, and less of a neutral council on Science. " [34]
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)
Statement by User:Backin72
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.
"I won't even look through that telescope"
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.
Quackwatch is "occasionally informative"
From the same Village Voice article, regarding Barrett's anti-evidence-gathering stance:
- "He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours."
Exactly. Barrett not only lacks objectivity, he derides it.
Ultra-mainstream IOM held to double-standard by... not-too-mainstream Dr. Barrett
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.
Conclusion
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)
Reply to John Nevard: Do you think Barrett is a reliable source on his own views?
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)
Statement by User:John Nevard
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.[35] 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.[36] 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)
Statement by Fred Bauder
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)
- The fundamental principle which is being enforced by deprecating a blatantly partisan source such as Quackwatch is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is no reason to characterize such enforcement as a content decision, as, if verifiable, the information excluded from Quackwatch can be found in a reliable source. Take a look at 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. One of his points of argument is "Falun gong, which China banned several years ago, is a Qigong varient claimed to be "a powerful mechanism for healing, stress relief and health improvements." That brings up the argument that aspects of alternative medicine, particularly acupuncture, have cultish aspects, but does not do so in a scientific way, but as guilt by association. The quote, "which China banned several years ago" is a good example of the type of irrational argument one encounters on the site; China banned Wikipedia. Fred Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The material from Quackwatch cited in the founding of fact in dispute, "Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a good example of the sort of self-published material to be found on the site. Fred Talk 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by User:Crohnie
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. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment & Question: If Fred Bauder wrote the motions why did he not recuse when he obviously has a very strong POV about all of this? This affects not only the use of the source but it affects the editor to whom he voted against. I am sorry but I think this is wrong. Just my opinion but I feel this is too personal for this arb to be making motions like this. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion, Since Fred Bauder admits he wrote the finding and also admits he has a strong POV personally about it I suggest the whole thing should be erased. Since he is no longer an arbitrator and didn't recuse at the time, then the section he wrote should be cancelled by the arbitrators now sitting. I understand that he doesn't think he should have recused himself but it obvious from comments being made that he should have at the time. This can be fixed by removing the sections written by him that had no evidence to prove it. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to say that I agree with what Tony Sidaway points are below. Clarification would be appreciated, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement by User:DGG
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)
Statement by User:Tony Sidaway
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 use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation. (emphasis mine).
The wording as it stands seems to imply two things:
- that it is impossible to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies and misconduct by giving a balanced presentation.
- that giving a balanced presentation of the field of frauds, myths, etc implies refraining from criticising such practises.
The problems with these interpretations are as follows.
- Nothing in a balanced presentation can say anything about fraud except that it is wrong. A presentation that purports to defend the right to defraud, even if "balanced" by the victim's point of view, would be a sham. "These fellows harm their customers by their actions, and they do not care about it. On the other hand they make a lot of money which they may spend on philanthropic works." Obviously that's a mockery of balance.
- A balanced presentation of any field, moreover, would necessarily cover it reasonably comprehensively. If there are active fraudsters at work, a balanced presentation will say so in sufficient detail to enable the reader to recognise the kind of problems at work and how to avoid them.
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)
Statement by Mihai cartoaje
Casliber should recuse because of his conflict of interest: Quackwatch has an attack page on Peter Breggin.
Clerk notes
- Clerk note: 2 things: 1. Fred Bauder was the original author of this finding, and 2. there were multiple sections that had the same content in the original proposed decision page, see this and its subsections. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Side (i.e. non-clerk view): I think Fred meant this: Stephen Barrett's argument that China banned Falun Gong is irrational argument, as China also banned Wikipedia. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Motion 1.1 Is passing, due to be enacted in barring 4 arbiters changing their votes, will be enacted when motion 1's fate is determined. Motion 1 is currently not passing, and is due to be archived in 24 hours unless there are signs of more voting.--Tznkai (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I did not agree with several aspects of the ruling at the time. The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The title and text of the finding could have been better phrased and better explained, because Quackwatch can in some circumstances be used as a source. As I understand this request for clarification, it is largely asking for a ban on Quackwatch to be lifted. That is not possible because there was no such ban: It is not the job of this committee to determine whether sources are reliable. The substance of the finding stands in relation to the original case: Quackwatch, as a campaigning site, should be deprecated in favour of sites which do not have a particular agenda to promote. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree in part with Sam above; I think more has been read into that ruling than was warranted. There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan, and should not be a preferred or exclusive source, but not that it is not a reliable source as is generally understood. — Coren (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- We can and should revise the wording of this FoF. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest that we should revise the wording through issuing a clarification or correction, rather than changing the finding itself (which might have the effect of attempting to rewrite history). Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Sam. We should not be changing past rulings themselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, that is what I meant. I would not be surprised if there is an appropriate FoF buried in the current wording, as there would be times when QuackWatch is an inappropriate source, however the current ruling implies that it is always an inappropriate source, which is wrong and needs to be corrected. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fred, China also banned Falun gong; could you clarify your point please? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest that we should revise the wording through issuing a clarification or correction, rather than changing the finding itself (which might have the effect of attempting to rewrite history). Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deeming a source to be reliable or unreliable is almost always going to be a content decision and as such beyond our remit. However, as Sam says, the substance of the finding (that partisan sources should not be misused) stands; cf. this principle, for example. --bainer (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tentatively agree with several of the comments above, but could a clerk please advise the arbitrator who wrote the original decision of this thread, as I would like to get his input, if any. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- From what I can see, the main contention comes from the wording of the header in the finding of fact: "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee". Suggest that the simplest change (if a new finding of fact is needed) is to drop the word "unreliable" to leave: "Use of sources by Fyslee". That takes the focus away from the reliability of the source, and focuses on the behaviour of Fyslee. The actual wording of the finding of fact still uses the word "partisan", which I think is reasonable, and the associated remedy (which passed 7-0) should still be fit for purpose: "Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits." That all seems fine, so I think that all that needs doing here is some way of noting that the header of the original finding of fact should either have "unreliable" removed, or that this word be replaced with "partisan". Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fyslee has called for Fred Bauder to recuse himself "now". This misses the points that Fred Bauder is no longer an arbitrator and hasn't been since December 2007. The issue of recusal at the time is long gone and the focus here should be on what to do now, not what could or should have happened. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Responding to Shoemaker's Holiday's comment on the word "partisan", several other arbitrators have used this term. FloNight said "...gives it a slant and makes [it] lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources..."; Sam said "Quackwatch, as a campaigning site, should be deprecated in favour of sites which do not have a particular agenda to promote."; Coren has said "There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan..."; Jayvdb has said "there would be times when QuackWatch is an inappropriate source"; bainer says "the substance of the finding (that partisan sources should not be misused) stands". Nearly every arbitrator so far has commented on the need to take care with the use of material on Quackwatch because of the nature of the site. Such sites can change over time, but the basic nature of the site, its raison d'etre, doesn't seem to be disputed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I think people are missing the forest for the trees here. I am convinced the Quackwatch issue is a thin cover in many, but not all, cases for nettlesome conflict, winning battles, and slamming points. There is some good faith disagreement, but largely it's just a stone for people to grind the same old axes in the general subject area. Quackwatch is obviously a biased source. It is just as obviously as reliable source. It clearly evinces a strong point of view, which is in essence the sort of strong skepticism usually seen among secular humanists. It is also clearly regarded as a reliable source by reputable bodies and figures within the relevant field (medicine). We use such sources all the time without such great controversy and conflict following standard conventions (such as WP:UNDUE). Vassyana (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Motion
- There are 17 active arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority. 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
1) In the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case, the following additional finding is added:
- The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation.
- Support:
- Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 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. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)— Coren (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)I misread 1 and 1.1 as alternatives; I think 1.1 suffices for now, and we can revisit sourcing issues if needed in the current Fringe science case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Worded in such a way as to create the impression the source should not be used. See my general comments. Vassyana (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still not comfortable with the direction of this finding of fact. Too much focus on judging the source, which can change over time and should be left to the editing community to judge. The original finding of fact was sufficient, and the header change below is all that is needed, in my opinion. As below, 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. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- In retrospect, I agree that the motion below is sufficient to address this finding being misused, and that the formulation here might cause further misinterpretation. — Coren (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain:
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. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Switched to oppose. 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. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Per my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arbitrator Discussion of motion:
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".
- Support
- Proposed. To supplement motion (1) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect. I was getting ready to add this exact wording. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I actually feel the is the more important of the two— NPOV handles normally in this case, but the association of "unreliable" with "Quackwatch" because caused undue interpretation. — Coren (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support, as this was a suggestion I made. I think this alone may be enough, but see comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obvious correction. Vassyana (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Per previous. We need neutral headings. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. This should be sufficient. Risker (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Arbitrator discussion of motion: