| Revision as of 20:38, 13 October 2009 view sourceManning Bartlett (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users8,107 edits →Conversion Therapy: rejected, case is moot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,349 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == Quantum mysticism article == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] ] '''at''' 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Lightbound}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Likebox}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|OMCV}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Peterdjones}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|William_M._Connolley}} | |||
| *{{admin|RHaworth}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Mbilitatu}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Simonm223}} | |||
| *{{admin|Vsmith}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ronhjones}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Count Iblis}} | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| * Likebox, . | |||
| * OMCV, . | |||
| * Peterdjones, . | |||
| * William M. Connolley, . | |||
| * Admin, RHaworth, . | |||
| * Mbilitatu, . | |||
| * Simonm223, . | |||
| * Admin, Vsmith, . | |||
| * Ronhjones, . | |||
| * Count Iblis | |||
| ;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 --> | |||
| * Third opinion request. | |||
| * A diff from user OMCV, asking administrator assistance: | |||
| * Another admin intervention on edit warring notice board: | |||
| === Statement by Lightbound === | |||
| The ] page has a history of edit wars and conflicts. I responded to a request from OMCV on a help page. Edits resulted in ] being blocked.. I interpreted the name of the article to dictionary sources and dozens of books on the subject as per ] and ]. The debates continued despite talk page discussion before and after, blocks, other editors, and assistance. Request arbitration to end the reverts, edits, and conflicts. Article has long history of problems. | |||
| ==== Response to Arbitrator request from filing party (Lightbound) ==== | |||
| Due to the history of the page, I strongly recommend that outside force be used to set some standing issues with the page. Every other feasible attempt has been made, including administrator intervention, to solve the conflicting issues on this page. Below I will list some of the fundamental issues. Please note that no side was willing to relent until arbitration was filed. I did not file arbitration for any other purpose than to have an outside party, with authority, address the specific fundamentals of the article, so that all parties concerned could continue in a unified way. I value the healthy rationlism, of which I subscribe, of those parties educated in physics. It is my strong opinion that if arbitration is denied, that debates will continue, unnecessarily, which may end up taking more administrative time and effort, or worse, that those editors concerned will simply give up and the quality of the article will suffer for it. I realize it is a potentially murky subject, but if arbitration goes forward, I am prepared to provide objective evidence, related to policy, as to address the issues on the page. Here are a few of the issues, of which few can agree on, and that future individuals are likely to also bring up in a debate. | |||
| * What should the subject matter of an article named "quantum mysticism" be? | |||
| * How to interpret ] and ] in light of the grey areas between the science, metaphysics, and philosophcial concepts of the subject. | |||
| * Can the scientific criticism be exluded, if and only if, the subject of mysticism, based on the quantum of the natural world, is presented in a completley netural and disinterested voice? | |||
| * The developing issue of redirects pointing to ], such as ], which has now spurred more debate and brought other editors into the above issues. | |||
| Lastly, I want to officially state that my goal for filing was to have someone make concrete and final decisions on some of these issues. Splitting the article does not solve all of its problems; it only solves a problem between two editors. There are multiple views, debates, and issues going on. The split is also questionable, as there is already a mind body duality article on Misplaced Pages. I also want to officially state that it was not my intention at any time, nor to I cite the need, to block anyone. It is clear that blocking Likebox will not stop him. As that has already not worked. Despite his interpretation that I am "new," I have been editing Misplaced Pages for nearly five years. I did not formally make this user name until recently, as I got more involved. | |||
| --] ] 19:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Simonm223 === | |||
| and found it a mess. There were two editors who had been competing over two versions of the page and neither struck me as neutral, properly designed or particularly legible. I tried to suggest a third option, a rewrite, but since I'm not a physicist I could only approach the article through my background in philosophy and theology. Although the article was approximating a position between religion, philosophy and science this still left me cautious to start making edits because I wasn't entirely expert in the material. | |||
| However Lightbound came to the article and had a vision for the article which made it coherent, clear, concise and much more encyclopaedic. I have strongly supported these edits, which I feel improved the article. | |||
| Lightbound has been meticulous documenting changes and proposed changes on talk and discussing the issues however when one of the other editors who had been involved prior to either of our arrival at the page was blocked there was little debate so changes progressed quickly. | |||
| That editor returned, found the page substantially changed and wasn't pleased. | |||
| However I stand by that Lightbound's edits have created an article better than what either of the original to editors had created and better than I could have created. ] (]) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Likebox === | |||
| The topic of "quantum mysticism" appears in the literature in two distinct forms. From 1927-1975 it appears sporadically in the physics literature as a pejorative description of the Copenhagen interpretation by Einstein and others. It also appears in the correspondence of Wolfgang Pauli, describing the nature of quantum mechanics, but Pauli didn't use the term pejoratively. He admired the mystical aspects of quantum mechanics. In 1961, the separation of observer and observed was codified by Wigner into a quantum mind/body problem, and this article marks the rebirth of the debate in the postwar American-centered literature (the early scientific literature was European). | |||
| In the 1970s, Heisenberg encouraged Fritjof Capra to write "The dancing Wu-Li Masters" to popularize the topic. Starting with this book, and through the 1980's, "quantum mysticism" was turned into a new-age topic, with the publication of some popular books and self-help books. This is a second more recent focus of the term. | |||
| The original article, before lightbound's recent edits, discussed the physics aspects of quantum measurement, the subject of "quantum mysticism" in the years 1927-1975, and the relation to the mind/body problem. The recent edits have made the focus entirely the modern new-age/self-help literature. This is not a problem by itself, but the old material on the debate was not moved to other articles, it was just deleted. | |||
| Lightbound has suggested that the scientific material be separated into an article on quantum mechanics, and this suggestion seems sensible, considering that the two kinds of literature are entirely different. The basic outline that lightbound has provided is reasonable for a "quantum mysticism" article on the new topic, while the old material can be moved to the appropriate quantum mechanics page. | |||
| There used to be a free-standing article called "Consciousness Causes Collapse" (CCC), which focused on Wigner's 1961 paper. This article was deleted, and merged with "quantum mysticism". The new "quantum mysticism" article no longer reflects the contents of Wigner's article, so I recreated the CCC article as ]. That article can serve as a home for the general discussion of interpretations of quantum mechanics which were previously on the quantum mysticism page. | |||
| Because the discussions on how to split the material are still ongoing, I believe that this arbitration request is premature. The material can be split and keep the quantum mysticism article mostly faithful to lightbound's version. | |||
| However, lightbound has also erased sourced material from critics of the modern new-age kind of quantum mysticism, which is inappropriate. That material should be restored to the article. This issue of excluding criticism is important. Lightbound's article must be expanded to include the sourced criticisms of quantum mysticism by prominent authors, which make the claim that this type of quantum mysticism is pseudoscience.] (]) 22:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I believe that arbitration is unnecessary, since we seem to be converging on the split idea. Lightbound is relatively new to Misplaced Pages, and might not realize when arbitration is appropriate.] (]) 23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Since OMCV has considered my contributions inappropriate, I would like to describe the events from my perspective. The page on quantum mysticism was a standard skeptical article until consciousness causes collapse was merged into it. When I saw that this had happened, I added material which talked about the 1961 Wigner article, which is interesting and famous within physics. In order to respect the science, which is very serious (Wigner is a nobel lauriate, and a founder of quantum mechanics) I wrote a context for the material, spending many hours in the library to find the appropriate citations. This material was unchallenged for over a year. | |||
| ::: OMCV came to the page, and did not believe that the material was properly sources. In particular, he was concerned that the material from Dennett did not accurately reflect Dennett's position. He also was concerned about the idea that quantum mechanics is being used as a model of reality in the article, as opposed to a strictly empirical recipe for calculating the probabilities for results of observations. | |||
| ::: We debated this topic for a long time, and eventually, I changed the wording to be "Dennett says X" and "Dennett says Y" to attribute the material properly. At this point, OMCV did not respond any longer, and lightbound began to delete all the science content from the page. | |||
| ::: I have been contributing to Misplaced Pages for many years, and I have written dozens of articles on scientific topics sometimes from scratch. The opinions of OMCV were debated honestly, the section in question became better sourced, and while OMCV did not like my opinions, they were supported by other scientifically minded editors, in particular 1Z and Count Iblis. The article on quantum mysticism has been split, the science moved to another article, and there is no reason why this should not satisfy all parties.] (]) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Count Iblis === | |||
| There isn't anything more that this arbitration can achieve that the involved editors can't do themselves on the talk page, other than imposing sanctions. But if this arbitration were to move in the direction of imposing sanctions, you can be sure that the existing tensions will be amplified and that will likely make collaboration impossible. ] (]) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by OMCV === | |||
| I came to ] after noting a misrepresentation of classical mechanics and making an attempt to the problem. My efforts to correct this material was by Likebox. I then which sections needed sourcing and that was reverted. I then demanded on what source the section was based multiple and was eventually on my talk page. I read the source () and become more with it than Likebox. The contested text was clearly an example of Synth. The discussion developed into specious arguments and etiquette issues. The most frustrating part is that Likebox would conveniently forget or not understand things and often his talk page activities did not match his behavior on the article itself. His veiled personal comments, familiar tone ("dude"), and repeated requests to "go away" were a minor annoyance in comparison. Likebox has since admitted that he his material is and described his (first few added paragraphs) which correlates with the synth. Lightbound reworked all of Quantum mysticism considerably improving it by moving to a more encyclopedic voice and in the process removing the synth and the text I added in an attempt to comprise. After attempting to revert Lightbound's work Likebox was (near bottom). Likebox responded to this setback by moving his ]ed essay material to ] including the synth ] which originally brought me to the ] page. During this time I did my best to follow ]. I responded to the situation with a ] (no response), ] request (conflicting responses), ] (), I reported both of us for edit waring (]), and a couple of RfC. I understand that this page might concern a content issue but should that be the content of ] or ]? The reason a content discussion has not been viable is the active disruptions of Likebox in an attempt to ] his . I think Likebox is a detriment to Misplaced Pages given his current behavior and it would be best to implement a long term block.--] (]) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If any further citations are requested I can readily supply them.--] (]) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by 2over0 === | |||
| Part of this material is covered by ], about which at least Likebox (I did not check any of the other editors) does not seem to have received a formal notification. ] has serious problems as a fork and partial recreation of a deleted article, but I think this can be cleared up through normal discussion. - ] <small>(])</small> 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Michael C. Price=== | |||
| The (re)creation of ] seems to remove the need for arbitration. This article is evolving productively with input from many of the involved editors. Conflict over. Resolved. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/0) === | |||
| *Could the filing party please address whether arbitration is necessary here or whether other means could be used to try to resolve these disputes, in light of the other parties' comments. Thanks. ] (]) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Leaning toward decline based on the most recent statements, but allowing a couple more days in case of developments. ] (]) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline'''. ] (]) 02:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 10:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' Other methods of dispute resolution are helping so no involvement needed by ArbCom. I think the Community can resolve the issues so no need to escalate to ArbCom. ]] 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''; it appears as though this can still be handled by the community with reasonable odds of success. — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' - appears to be heading towards resolution without the need for arbitration. Would urge that some over-arching guideline be established for how to handle articles where science and philosophy overlap like this (which is rather a lot of articles, I know), and whether to keep the differing science and philosophy interpretations separate (to a degree) or to have a well-written summary of the history somewhere (including the evolution of the terminology). In particular, how to handle mystical and new age interpretations should be amenable to a guideline approach. As long as the differing interpretations are accurately sourced, and not synthesised, and are carefully weighted, it should be possible to cover these topics in Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per the above comments, it's largely content, and DR seems to be working.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| 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.
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.
General guidance
|
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.