| Revision as of 19:08, 1 November 2021 editCaptainEek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,000 edits →Requesting feedback from CaptainEek and Barkeep49: slight amend← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:58, 15 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,472 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 26) (bot |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 23 |
|
|counter = 26 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{pb}} |
|
{{pb}} |
|
|
|
|
== Requesting feedback from CaptainEek and Barkeep49 == |
|
|
|
|
|
In {{U|DGG}}'s , {{U|CaptainEek}} and {{U|Barkeep49}} both said that they were going to look into the issue of editors misrepresenting sources (and the persistent inability of talk pages and noticeboards to resolve that issue), and have a discussion about how it could be addressed. However, the amendment request was closed by the clerks before that discussion could happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
Could either of you please clarify the status of that planned discussion, and how you think this issue ought to be addressed? As I said in my last comment there, if someone is going to request another amendment or a full case, I think first there needs to be more clarity about what Arbcom considers to be within their remit in this respect, and which case (Fringe science or Race and intelligence) it should be filed under. -] (]) 14:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{U|Ferahgo the Assassin}} I say this with the caveat that the committee might not agree with me. I think the answer needs to be either a new case request, i.e. "Race and Intelligence 2", "Fringe 2", or a better constructed ARCA. Alternatively, a community discussion of some caliber with the intent of brainstorming a solution/distilling the problem might be useful. |
|
|
:Part of the difficulty is that ArbCom is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. We can't intervene in individual content disputes or choose which sources are good or bad (except in a general sense). Further, the connection between the fringe principles and the issues at hand seemed tenuous at best. Part of the issue is that the topics of contentions were not made clear. I know DGG did this with noble intent, hoping not to drag us into a particular topic area. However, what we do is inherently topic specific. So if the problem is with race and intelligence and not Fringe, then it's race and intelligence we need to be amending or revisiting. If there are problematic editors who are citing things they shouldn't be, then for starters they should be taken to AE, and if that can't resolve the matter, then a new case request. |
|
|
:Although I have some interest in making ArbCom more of a mediator, in practice we just aren't. Thus, until an issue has been thoroughly exhausted, it is not generally within our remit. I'm not so sure that this issue has been exhausted. In fact, I think the underlying problem is the issue is unclear. There is some poor source usage, and both fringe and race and intelligence of course remain highly contentious topics. If someone thinks they can provide a concise summary of the underlying issue, we would be better suited to help fix it. But as long as the problem remains vague and nebulous, I don't see what exactly we can do. |
|
|
:This was a long and winding way to ask for more info and input, and to encourage some critical thought :) ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
