Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: 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 18:43, 12 May 2011 editPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,353 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 16:48, 21 May 2011 edit undoNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience: archivingNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
= {{-}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} = = {{-}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} =
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header}}

== Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Pseudoscience}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# "Deprecation by ScienceApologist" 11a) Using strong negative language, ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories "well-known woo-woos", The Electric Universe (book) "discredited" "Completely unauthorative, argumentative"
# "Discretionary sanctions" 12) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Tijfo098}} (initiator)
* {{admin|Maunus}}

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
(Maunus notfied)

===Amendment 1===
* ]
* I'd like the wording to be modified to include not only statements that some branch/discipline is pseudoscience, but more explicitly include equivalently derogatory labeling such as "".

==== Statement by Tijfo098 ====
It seems trendy to now bash on scientific theories and disciplines using language not directly covered by the pseudoscience arbitration case, but which have effectively the same meaning or worse. 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To SirFozzie: because it's not clear (to me) that a WP:AE request would be considered in scope. ] is deleted now, so I have no idea what that was about, but I suspect it was a more ] topic than ]. On the other hand it's clear that many ]s (Maunus identifies himself as being one) do not hold EP in much esteem. For instance ] writes in his book ''What is Anthropology?'' that "Most anthropologists are unenthusiastic about evolutionary psychology." (p. 138); and then describes some "academic turf wars". Is this sufficient to put the matter in scope of the ''Pseudoscience'' case? 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For instance, Mathsci below writes that it doesn't fall withing that scope, so a clarification seems useful. I'm merely seeking a clarification for future events like this, not seeking to have anyone sanctioned in this particular incident, which appears resolved already. 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another, kinder(?) commentary of ] is comparing EP with ], again without providing a source . The current Misplaced Pages article on identifies it as pseudoscience and quackery. Does this type of "pseudoscience by comparison" declaration fall under the remit of the ''Pseudoscience'' case? ] (]) 01:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, since some here make allusions to my motivation, my only recollection having participated in that article is responding to a RfC 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by Maunus ====
I am not going to defend my use of the word "cult" which was clearly uncivil and uncalled for regardless of whether it is included in any sanctions, and for which I have already apologized. I would like to note that this happened after a protracted dispute in which I have been repeatedly labelled as an "anti-EP'er" a "marxist" and a "cultural determinist" by the user to whom the comment was directed in spite of having made expicit statements that I am neither of those. It does not seem fair to me to single out my example of incivilty for an ArbCom remedy when other editors on the page have been repeatedly breaching WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. I apologize for my uncivil language, and accept any sanction that might be deemed justifiable as long as the transgression is seen in its proper context of prolonged incivilty by {{user|Memills}}. ] 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
::For the record I do not consider Evolutionary Psychology to be a pseudoscience or a cult. I consider the particular editor to be unable to understand that there are different perspectives on the discipline and that not everyone who disagrees with some of EP's conclusions do so out of spite or for political motives. This obviously does not extend to all EP practitioners. It is correct that many of EP's critics have been anthropologists, but many have also been philosophers or psychologists from other subdisciplines. ] 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
::User:Leadwind has repeatedly referred to anthropology as being the carrier of "Marxist ideology" does this mean that his statements fall under the scope of Eastern Europe arbitration?] 01:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by completely uninvolved Mathsci ====
This request seems absurd and ]Y. It is related to a current thread on ] on ] (EP) in which both named parties are participating. It is an unnecessary escalation of something that has been clarified by Maunus there (e.g. where Maunus also makes an apology). This is forum-shopping gone wild. Although EP is regarded by some as controversial, it does not fall within the realm of ] (as far as I am aware). ] (]) 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
:Tijfo098 has explained some of his motives for tabling this amendment . ] (]) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
:] had its own case and rulings ]. ] (]) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
====Statement about EP ResidentAnthropologist====
Extreme EP theories tend to conflict with other fields of scientific knowledge and thus receive accusations of pseudoscience. Moderate theories of Evolutionary psychology have substantial recognition as scientifically valid theories and are used in the cross-disciplinarily in fields involving human evolution and Human cognition. The most vocal proponents are those who hold the extreme theories that rule out cultural elements and are the source of conflict between Anthropologists and EP. More Moderate Evolutionary psychologist who recognize the significant interaction between culture and the mind tend to work pretty much in harmony with Anthropologists. Two of my mentors are both Cognitive Anthropologists who work closely with Evolutionary psychologists so we must be careful when saying that they are competing disciplines 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

===Amendment 2===
* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
* Details of desired modification

==== Statement by your username (2) ====
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

==== Statement by other editor (2) ====
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

=== Further discussion ===
:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*I'm a bit confused. They may be using alternative language, but why wouldn't what your suggesting fall under: '''that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.''' I would think accusing other editors of being members of a cult would fall under the above? ] (]) 20:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
*I have reviewed this request and don't see a need for an amendment. ] (]) 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
*In regards to Amendment 1, being the request to modify remedy 12, I am also confused (or dont see the need) as the only mention of "pseudoscience" in that remedy is intended to be broadly interpreted.<br/> Regarding ], I suspect there are some individual theories within the field that should be referred to be pseudoscience, and would therefore fit within the remit of the Pseudoscience case, however the entire field is not. Comparing evolutionary psychology to Homeopathy, or referring to proponents of the former as a "cult", would fit within this arbitration case irrespective of where these comments are made, however that is up to the discretion of uninvolved administrators, who should be looking at context, and seeking corrections instead of remedies, unless it is a reoccurring problem. If inappropriate terminology becomes a reoccurring problem on articles relating to evolutionary psychology, unfortunately those articles would need to be included in the scope of the pseudoscience case. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 16:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
*Concur with SirFozzie and Newyorkbrad - I don't consider an amendment is necessary. ] (]) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
----

Revision as of 16:48, 21 May 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

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
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for amendment

Use this section:
  • To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
  • To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

  1. Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
  2. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
  3. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
  4. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

  • It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
  • Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
    1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
    2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
    3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
    4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
  • Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
  • Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.