Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:59, 13 February 2010 view sourceNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits →Statement by NuclearWarfare: c/e← Previous edit Revision as of 01:12, 14 February 2010 view source MBisanz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users126,668 edits →Zeno's paradoxes: archive as impossible at 0/8/0/0Next edit →
Line 41: Line 41:
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) === === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ===
* *

== Zeno's paradoxes ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 07:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Steaphen}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Ansgarf}}
*{{userlinks|JimWae}}

<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*Diff. 1 Notice provided to {{userlinks|Ansgarf}}
*Diff. 2 Notice provided to {{userlinks|JimWae}}

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
* link 1. ]
* link 2. ]
* link 3. ]
* link 4. ]
* link 5. ]

=== Statement by Steaphen ===

Since my first post in November 2006, there has been a consistent bias by editors of the ] article towards unsubstantiated claims that are, in the main, contrary to Wikipedian policy.

Primarily, that bias of behaviour is one that could be defined as being 'deterministic' -- the idea that we may resolutely and precisely explain and detail, by way of mathematics, the actual movement of physical things (e.g. of arrows, runners and tortoises, as originally exampled by Zeno of Elea).

The assumptions, common to the vast majority of editors, is that mathematics (in various forms -- e.g. algebra, calculus, geometry) can account for the detail of physical movement, and thus be used to 'solve' the paradoxes.

However, while generally such treatments are useful in the field of engineering and various sciences, the minutia of movement (as is highlighted by the theoretical developments and experimental evidence of quantum mechanics) is not able to be meaningfully resolved by such mathematical methods. That is, the mathematical treatments cannot be substantiated as having direct and unambiguous correspondence with the actual movement of physical objects. In other words, the theories (frequently offered on the main article page) cannot be correlated with the facts (as has been repeatedly observed in the field of quantum mechanics).

The call for formal mediation was initiated to correct content on the main page that echoed the above bias - e.g. "mathematics can be used to calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise." While this statement is (sort of) true – in the sense that you can perform calculations that for practical purposes (taking into account the margin of error normally allowed for macroscopic objects), produce an apparent "where and when" in question – it doesn't follow, in light of evidence from quantum mechanics, that such calculations provide direct congruence with movement in all its minute details.

Reliable Sources have been routinely and repeatedly requested to be presented that support said 'deterministic' statements, but none have been provided. As a result biased statements and opinions on the main page have persisted, despite requests for Reliable Sources in support of them. In effect, a continued and persistent violation of Wikipedian policy has occurred.

This arbitration has been called to clarify the inappropriateness of such deterministic statements (e.g. as cited above, and one that is, at time of lodgement of this arbitration request, still resident on the main article page).

Despite the common and "almost ubiquitous" acceptance that the above-mentioned mathematical treatments "solve" the paradoxes, there is, to my knowledge, no competent physicist who will attest that such methods account for the actual minutia of movement of physical things.

The main article, in view of the intent of Misplaced Pages towards being a reputable encyclopaedia, would need to clearly limit, or contextualise any statements that infer or directly support deterministic (mathematical) solutions to Zeno's Paradoxes. That is, the encyclopaedia would need to contextualise the various (and widely accepted) theories as being unsubstantiated in fact, and thus are no more credible in real terms --despite appearances in favour-- than various other beliefs and superstitions.

<div style="margin-left: 15px">
;Comment on arbitrators responses

Regarding the responses by ], ] and ]

The arbitration was called in light of the guidelines about behaviour, not content. Without going into detail ("content") statements have been, and continue to be made that are speculative, POV and not supported by Reliable Sources.

This is a matter of inappropriate behaviour, not content.

Perhaps the arbitrators are biased in their approach and opinions on this deep philosophical matter, and thus should recuse themselves.

Please address the issues of inappropriate behaviour.

;Reply to comment by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Are you meaning to infer or directly state that a period of time in excess of 3 years that still sees this dispute unresolved is "timely"? Could you indicate what you consider "timely" ... 5, 10 or perhaps 15 years?

In any event, the argument here is one of inappropriate behaviour. Statements have been made that are not supported by Reliable Sources. Ignore the content. Stick to the issue of inappropriate behaviour, thank you.

I note, somewhat incredulously that you have provided a link to a mathematics page. Have you understood the arbitration request? -- that mathematics in ANY form cannot be used to precisely account for the minutia of movement. No competent physicist will assert that mathematics can do what you infer can be done.

You have indicated either lack of comprehension of the inappropriateness of behaviour, or a bias that would require you to recuse yourself.

;Reply to response by Ansgarf (replicated on the Zeno's Paradox talk page)

I requested arbitration not because of the historical content about the paradoxes, but about claiming (or even inferring) that various beliefs, theories or literature, actually account for, or "solve" the paradox of physical movement. There's an important difference about reporting on the literature (and theories) and claiming that the theories "solve" the paradoxes.

This arbitration would not have been called IF the theories were put in their proper context -- that they remain unsubstantiated theories! and do not (at least not from the evidence I've seen) offer congruent, verifiable solutions to the paradoxes. Statements like "Using ordinary mathematics we can calculate, (or arrive) ..." are simply biased opinions with no basis in verifiable fact.

By all means report on those opinions, but to state that "using ordinary mathematics, we may ... " is wrong until proven and confirmed by a Reliable Source.

This arbitration is fundamentally NOT about content, but about the abuse of Wikipedian policy - in this case offering unsubstantiated theories that have no demonstrable basis in fact.

;Reply to Fritzpoll

The mediation was accepted, but was not followed up by any mediators within a 3 month period, as is clearly indicated on the formal mediation page.

In any event, arbitration is not about content. This arbitration was requested in view of the violation of Misplaced Pages policies relating to POV and lack of Reliable Sources in support of theories asserted on the Zeno's Paradox article page.] (]) 15:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
</div>

=== Statement by Ansgarf ===
'''On the topic''':

Zeno's argues that movement is an illusion. To do this he describes the movement of a hypothetical tortoise and a hypothetical runner mathematically, to show that motion is in theory impossible. A mathematical treatment of Zeno's argument is therefore legitimate. And it is also legitimate to use Zeno's assumptions, like that the position of an object is defined as a point, that in between any two points there is another, and that motion is essentially the same at all scales.

The fact that these assumptions do not or may not hold for physical system is a separate issue. It doesn't invalidate any of the mathematics, it only invalidates the classical model Zeno assumed to describe motion. These issues are only tangentially relevant for Zeno's paradoxes, and are best discussed in the entries on ]. To the limited extend that they are relevant, the current article does already mention them.

'''On Arbitration''':

] didn't fail, it was just never followed through.

=== Statement by JimWae ===

=== Statement by Pohta ce-am pohtit ===
* The editors involved are much more likely to solve the content matter in a timely manner by raising the issue at ]. ] ] 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

* Comment to NewYorkBrad: the argument here seems to be that the paradox cannot be "solved" in ] due to the ], which indirectly prohibits infinite-precision real numbers (see ]). Of course, Zeno's paradoxes are usually envisaged in ]. Interesting discussion, but not an ArbCom matter. ] ] 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
*'''Clerk note''' Archiving soon as mathematically impossible. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0) ===
*'''Decline'''. This appears to be purely a content dispute. I see no arbitrable user-conduct issues at all. For what it is worth, I think that the weight of reliable sources supports the geometric-series resolution of the "paradox", despite the filing party's disagreement. ] (]) 16:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Newyorkbrad, although I have no opinion on resolving Zeno's paradox. ] (]) 16:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''': ArbCom, much like the rest of Misplaced Pages, does not resolve content disputes. ] (]) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. I've noticed that mediation was accepted but not followed up, perhaps the parties may want to give it another try? - ] 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - if you didn't follow through with the mediation, it is your next obvious port of call ] (]) 13:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - I think heading back to mediation is a good idea. ] (]) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''': &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''': per all the above. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:12, 14 February 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Request for Permanent, Site-Wide Ban on Asgardian   13 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 none (orig. case) 3 January 2025
Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration


Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Request for Permanent, Site-Wide Ban on Asgardian

Initiated by Nightscream (talk) at 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Nightscream

Over the past few years, many members of the community have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the issue of User:Asgardian's serial violations of WP:OWN, WP:WAR, WP:ES, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDSUM, WP:SOCK, WP:POINT, and WP:CIVIL, and his use of WP:GAME-type behavior when said community attempts to address these offenses. His refusal to respond in an honest or civil manner during these attempts at resolution, most recently during his RfC, make it clear that the only way to prevent future abuse by him is to ban him permanently from Misplaced Pages. While I would not be averse to allowing him to return in say, a year, I would only favor this if he openly discusses the inappropriate nature of the behavior I have described here, directly answer questions about it, and agree to abandon that behavior, sincerely, and without further evasion. Barring this, he should be permanently blocked from editing. Evidence of his policy violations, both during edit disputes, and when his behavior is called into question, is copious, and will be furnished by me (and presumably others) when the case is opened.

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I am just idly asking, but is there any reason why this cannot be handled by an uninvolved administrator issuing an indefinite block if they feel that is appropriate, and defending it at ANI if necessary? NW (Talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

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