Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 11:11, 6 December 2011 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: reply again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:11, 6 December 2011 by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrator views and discussion: reply again)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
] none none 2 December 2011
] Motion none 1 December 2011
] none none 29 November 2011
Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases

Initiated by Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! at 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön)

An acrimonious dispute has arisen regarding the sources that are useful for expanding the articles on astrological signs, and having far reaching implications for a large number of existing articles. The discussion has taken place on a variety of locations, including Talk:Scorpio (astrology), Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#General_astrology_sourcing These are the places I'm currently aware of now.

The dispute involves a number of rulings contained in the several cases collected at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. Everyone involved seems to be under the impression that they are keeping these principles, although the interpretations of them vary widely. Particular passages that I personally consider relevant include:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience

  • Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources

  • Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Basis_for_inclusion

  • In addition to firmly established scientific truth, Misplaced Pages contains many other types of information. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" (from Misplaced Pages:Verifiability).

The WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources guideline, which by my understanding was written at least in part as a summary of these arbitration cases, may also be relevant:

  • Reliable sources are needed for any article in Misplaced Pages. They are needed in order to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it; and for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.

    Reliable sources on Misplaced Pages include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

    …

    Subjects receive attention in Misplaced Pages in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Misplaced Pages policy prohibits original research. The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources.

The dispute centers around what are appropriate sources for the content of articles on astrology, and in particular the availability and usefulness of works by astrologers describing the content of astrological beliefs, to improve and expand articles on the elements of astrology, such as the individual pages for the several zodiac signs. A related issue is whether these articles are worth expanding and improving at all.

Astrology is an immense subject. Its literature goes back 2500 years, or more if you count the Sumerian omen texts; and also extends to the present day. New astrological books and magazines appear on a regular basis. It exists on multiple levels. On the one hand, you have horoscope columns, and charts cast to find the location of stray dogs. On the other hand, these guys invented spherical trig.

The literature of astrology is rich in technical detail. Astrologers attach meanings to the several planets, orbital points such as the lunar nodes, the various signs of the zodiac, various fixed stars, the rising, setting, and positions of signs and heavenly bodies, and other elements. My opinion is that all of these details of astrological belief and practice are articles that should be written if missing, and improved by expansion if present.

The literature of Western astrology alone is so extensive at various levels of high seriousness that I believe it is possible to speak meaningfully of "mainstream astrology" as well as "fringe astrology".

Others disagree. Dominus Vobisdu, in particular, claims that all writing about astrologers for astrologers constitutes "in universe" writing. "In universe" is a phrase that comes from our guidelines for writing about fiction, where its purpose is to curb extensive plot summaries and detail about fictional narratives that are not considered to be important outside the fiction itself. Referring to astrology as fiction is in my opinion a manifestation of bias.

The underlying claim appears to be that astrology is incoherent. It is or should be impossible to write about astrology using astrological texts as sources. Because astrology is fiction, astrologers who write books about it have no expertise in astrology; there isn't a subject for them to be experts in. No astrologer is an independent source; to be independent, a source must have no relationship to astrology as a field. Since astrology is not science (I don't think anybody is claiming it is, myself), every astrologer can and does make it up anew, and without regard to prior work. Even the publishers who print astrological sources regard the subject as a joke. Because of this, Misplaced Pages editors cannot review astrological sources, collate what they say, and rephrase it to create articles on astrological topics; this will always be original synthesis. The omission of information on astrological belief and practice does Misplaced Pages readers no disservice.

Other editors have given even more startling opinions, such as a claim that astrological beliefs cannot be presented unless they have been scientifically demonstrated.

I find no support for these positions in the precedents set by ArbCom on issues relating to fringe and pseudoscientific topics. I find no support for them in the WP:FRINGE content guideline. My opinion is that they show bias, and are an attempt to lawyer up a regime under which all that can be said about the notional content of astrology is that "True science has rejected it. This is all you need to know."

I can't go along with that. Whether you believe in astrology, or believe along with Jim Morrison that it's "a bunch of bullshit," it's a big subject with a rich literature, plenty of historical depth, and appropriate for fairly detailed coverage here. Astrological sources are in fact plentiful. The current guideline suggests that we ought to cover it in detail.

No, astrology is not science. This means that it isn't a scientific theory that requires science sources. Its methods are mediæval. Our article on pseudoscience helpfully points out that its methods and substance have not changed much for two thousand years. In subjects like this, progress and truth do not come from testing hypotheses, but by fidelity to and expanding on the auctores. Astrological claims, even pop culture claims like 'Scorpios are dark and sexy', are "true" in the same sense that " Wednesday's child is full of woe" is true. My opinion of astrology is that it's a baroque sort of two thousand year old, learned folklore.

The usual method of Misplaced Pages editing, of collecting, rephrasing, and reporting what the sources say remains appropriate here. This is what we always do, because this is what we must do. We can do that with astrology as elsewhere without making original synthesis. We are entitled to rely on astrological literature as a source for astrology. Publication by mainstream publishers is an indicator of reliability and significance. Publication by astrological specialists may in fact indicate higher regard on the technical details of astrology, and is in fact an indication that other astrologers find that text worthwhile.

What I would ask for is a clarification of the prior rulings from ArbCom on these sorts of topics. Specifically, I'd propose that:

  • Astrological writings and authors can be reliable sources for the substance of astrological belief and practice. Their reliability as sources can be determined by their reputation and influence in the astrological community.
  • The appropriate level of depth and detail in articles on astrological topics is determined by the number and detail of available reliable sources. These sources are not discounted by being written by astrologers for astrologers.
  • Articles about astrology can be written from astrological sources, collecting, rephrasing, and reporting what the sources say, without original research.

Yes, this is wordy. I'm a Gemini. You could have predicted it. (wink) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest for Knowledge: Comment. My understanding was that this venue did not necessarily relate to conduct, and I meant to accuse no one of misconduct, only call attention to an apparently intractable dispute about the meaning and application of the rulings to astrology, which I think presents unique challenges as a subject. I sought only to name and notify participants in the debate. If being named here is a black mark on your record, I will be happy to remove your name, or that of any other editor I named. Nobody is being accused of anything. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, @A Quest for Knowledge: Again, I apologize, and am not even accusing the people who disagree with me strongly of misconduct. I thought this might be productive, because the page is for "clarification", clarification is needed, and portions of the previous decisions did indeed seem to me to be rendering opinions on the appropriateness of content. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment, for @Dominus Vobisdu, @Jclemens, and generally. I may be a latecomer to this whole dispute. I had rescued (Stars in astrology) or started (Tetrabiblos) a number of articles on astrology related subjects over the past year or so, and saw that a lot of the astrology articles seemed to be lacking in content and otherwise unintelligible or deficient. My first thought was to expand them with lightly edited text from public domain astrological texts, of which there are plenty; in many other situations, this is a solid first step. This.... did not go over well. I'll agree that astrology is no longer a mainstream pursuit; once it was. There are contemporary writers who are engaged in interpreting classical astrological texts; the issue is, they're astrologers. I do strongly disagree with the claims that astrology is somehow incoherent or improvised, or that there is no internal consistency in it, so that any attempt by editors to restate its ideas is original research. There are books of instruction in astrology and its methods that seem serious-minded and have all the usual indicia of reliability. The books I have closest to hand are On the Heavenly Spheres by Avelar and Ribiero (American Federation of Astrologers, 2010, ISBN 0866906096); and DeVore's Encyclopedia of Astrology (Philosophical Library, 1947); other, more popular sources, like Derek and Julia Parker's The Compleat Astrologer (Bantam; don't have it handy) would also be a potential source. All of these works are written from a POV that assumes that astrology is worthy of study.

I'd like to grow our articles with information from astrologers that discuss, for example, the characters attributed to the sun signs, houses, and planets, and that set forth how these interpretations flow out of the qualities attributed to the bodies by astrology. But there isn't much point in trying if all that means is enrolling as a footsoldier in an endless edit war. I'm not asking that anyone be sanctioned or punished, and if that means that there's nothing ArbCom can do so be it. Rather, I was hoping for clarification of the prior rulings and the WP:FRINGE guideline, because they did seem to contain decisions on content and sourcing. And if the threat of misconduct is needed to persuade ArbCom to act, I would note that many of the anti-astrology editors seem to be affiliated with the "rational sceptic" movement, if not the actual projects, and use its dismissive jargon (e.g. "woo") to refer to astrology content. If there is misconduct here, I'd locate it in the attempt to use "rational sceptic" assumptions to invalidate the subject and its literature, which strikes me as inherently non-neutral. The bottom line is that the current climate makes improving these articles next to impossible even if I'm not complaining about any formal rule violations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

asked and answered at RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The fact that this was extensively discussed at RS/N; that opinion was overwhelming, voluminous and undivided; that Ihcoyc was upset with this response from the forum for reliability consensus building; and then came to arbitration for clarification of a content issue that was already resolved by remarkably consistent community consensus is the basis for requesting a warning over IDHT and forum shopping behaviour. If you go to the community, you accept what the community says. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

I'm not I'm happy that I was named as someone "involved or directly affected". I'm not interested in astrology and to the best of my knowledge have never edited Astrology or Scorpio (astrology) articles. As many regular editors of Misplaced Pages know, there's been a content dispute between various editors in astrology topic space for the past 6 months. A few months ago, I made a relatively minor number of comments at the Astrology talk page to help move forward some of the discussions between the editors of the article. In any case, I pretty much stopped following the astrology discussions after Ludwigs2 was topic banned.

My current level of participation is only that I'm a regular patroller of the Fringe Theory noticeboard, and I responded to someone else's request. (I'm number 23 on the list of its most frequent contributors). I know that WP:INVOLVED only applies to admins, but I felt that my comments at the Fringe Theory noticeboard were in an uninvolved capacity. In any case, my advice on how to proceed was rejected so I walked away from that thread this morning.

I don't expect anything to come of this request for clarification since it's mostly about content issues, not conduct.

As I recommended earlier, I think the best path forward is for the editors of these articles to try informal mediation or formal mediation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I am against all 3 of Smerdis of Tlön's proposals. At best, an astrological source is only reliable for the opinions of its author. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön's: ArbCom doesn't rule on content issues. Instead, it only rules on conduct issues. Your proposals are basically asking ArbCom to make a content decision and they're not going to do that. IOW, you shouldn't have filed this request. And that's not a knock or criticism of you. Misplaced Pages's rules are vast and complicated. Most people learn them through experience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön's: No apology is necessary. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't directly involved in the dispute, only that I provided help (or at least I tried to help) resolve the disputes. Anyway, just to avoid any further tension, I'll strike through my first sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

I don't understand exactly what needs to be clarified here. Both WP:RS specifically state several times that sources that are not reliable and not independent cannot be used on WP at all, except perhaps to provide information about the author themself, and only the author, in the case of SPSs, and then only with caution.

I guess the basic question being asked is whether sources written by astrolgers that have received no serious attention or mention in independent sources outside of the "astrological community" can be used as sources for factual content on WP.

The sources that certain editors would like to use are neither reliable nor independent. They are not scholarly in any sense of the word. The various sources include:

1) Popular guides and coffee-table books written by astrologers for the astrological community. outside of which they are not considered either authoratative or reliable.

2) Astrological websites and blogs.

3) Self-published books published by vanity presses or non-existant presses.

4) Articles published in pseudoacademeic journals that claim to be "peer-reviewed" but are not.

5) Articles and books by the very few genuine academics in the field that are published WITHOUT peer review.

6) Ancient and pre-modern primary texts without reliance on modern scholarly sources for interpretation.

There are numerous problems with these sources:

1) The field of astrology is not recognized as a genuine field of study in the real scholarly community except at a single university in Wales (The Sophia Centre), which offers online degrees in "cultural astronomy and astrology".

2) Unlike other fringe fields like creationism or Intelligent Design, modern astrology has receive very little attention from serious scholars or journalists, and there is therefore a suprising paucity of high-quality and mid-quality reliable independent sources that discuss the field.

3) The sources proposed and have received next to no attention in serious independent sources, making it impossible to determine whether the claims presented should be given any weight without resorting to original research.

4) The authors of these sources have likewise received little attention in serious independent sources, making claims of expertise or authority impossible to verify without resorting to original research.

5) Unlike other fringe fields, astrology has few if any experts or authorities, or centers of authority, that are recognized by outside of the astrological community. It is also impossible to determine whether such recognition exists within the astrological community itself without resorting to original research.

6) It is impossible to determine which beliefs are widespread among modern astrologers because no independent researchers have conducted serious research comprehensive enough to base an assessment upon without resorting to original research.

7) There is no evidence that any of these sources have been subjected to editorial review or peer review or any other manner of fact checking with regards to factual content, despite occasional dubious claims that they are.

8) Many of the authors of the sources and the organizitations that publish them misrepresent themselves as genuinine scholars and scholarly societies, and their books and journals as genuinine scholarly, academic or scientific publications. The mainstream scholarly, academic and scientific communities do not recognize these claims.

9) Many of the sources produced promote a particular type of astrology, and cannot be considered representative of the astrological community as a whole, or even a significant part of it.

10) Many of the proported experts in the in the field are actually entertainers who have no demonstrated expertise or qualifications to write seriously on the subject. This is especially true for newspaper and magazine astrologers.

11) Most, if not all, of the popular books in the field are published for entertainment purposes only, making it impossible to use them as sources for factual content here on WP.

12) Much of the content that these sources are used to support is properly the domain of genuine scholarly, academic or scientific disciplines such as history, philosophy, sociology, psychology or the natural sciences, but does not meet the scholarly requirements for those disciplines.

13) The content that these sources are used to support is presented in WP's voice without in-line attribution as if it were derived from genuine scholarly, academic or scientific sources.

14) Even if the content were attributed, it would still not be suitable for inclusion because there is no way to determine its noteworthiness or how much weight it should be given without resorting to original research.

15) Some of the sources are ancient or pre-modern primary sources, and have been used without any reliance on modern scholarship for interpretation.

16) On a more worrisome note, many of the proposed sources originate from or are endorsed by the most visible astrological society, the Astrological Association of Great Britain and the closely allied Sophia Centre. This group is very "elitist" and ardently assert that they don't endorse the most popular varieties of astrology. It is impossible to determine how widespread the variety they do endorse is without resorting to original research. Furthermore, their writing are more concerned about astrology as they think it should be rather than about astrology as it really is at the present time. The core of this group is small and incestuous, so it is impossible to consdider their views as widespread within the astrological community as a whole. In fact, they seem to be considered a fringe movement not only by the mainstream scholarly community, but by most of the astrological community as well.

In short, the conflict over sourcing on astrology-related topics is a long-standing and serious problem that has been difficult to resolve with numerous RfCs and discussions on RSN and FTN. The paucity of genuine reliable independent sources severely limits what we can report on the topic of astrology, especially modern astrology. Editors wishing a fuller treatment of the subject have aggressively campained for relaxing WP sourcing policies. I strongly object to their demands, and feel that sourcing policies should be as strictly enforced on astrology-related articles as they are, or should be, on articles on other topics. What good is a fuller treatment of the topic to our readers if that treatment is based on unreliable sources. The proposals made by Smerdis of Tlon grossly violate WP policies, and must therefore be rejected. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I agree with your point about organizations being considered authors. I assumed that from the start. Yes, there has been some misconduct, but none bad enough to bother arbcom with at this point. The dispute is about how low we should go in providing sources. The "pro-astrology" editors favor no restrictions that I can see, espcially with regard to in-universe sourcing as Tlon's proposals demonstrate. They had a little field day for a while before someone blew the whistle on them. That's when I arrived and stated an RfC that brought plenty of new eyes to the article, and a second RfC when the pro-astrology editors refused to acknowledge the consensus from the first. That brought even more eyes. The end result was that 25000 kb of cruft and nonsense was deleted from the article. The "pro-astrology" editors are not happy, and still filibustering and wiki-lawyering about sourcing. I don't know what Smerdis hoped to acchieve by starting this clarification discussion. I really don't think this is the right venue, though it would be nice to have an authoratative statement on in-universe sourcing of fringe topics that is wiki-lawyer proof. But I know that that is not yours to give. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Itsmejudith

I want to see good coverage of astrology as a historic cultural tradition. There are plenty of academic sources for that, and they should be used. It is not a fringe topic. By contrast, present-day belief in astrology is a fringe topic. I'm not sure that the pro-astrology group of editors recognise that distinction. The notion that there is an unbroken continuity of astrological belief and practice from high antiquity until the present day is itself a fringe viewpoint. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Zachariel

I do believe this has now become a matter for Arbcom. I would ask the arbitrators to understand that these matters have already been referred to the RS noticeboard several times, but no one – even there – seems capable of bringing clarity to the interpretation and use of RS guidelines in relation to this topic. For some reason it has been singled out as subject to the most purist ideals of WP sourcing policies, which are taken to the most stringent extremes imaginable. It is no longer helpful to have these ongoing multiple noticeboard discussions; they are only generating more confusion and not bringing resolution.

There is another ongoing thread on the RS noticeboard, where the problems described demonstrate more clearly the level of disruption being caused and how this (I believe) is contrary to the aims of Misplaced Pages. That discussion shows that there are behaviour issues involved here too, so perhaps Arbcom should be taking a critical look at the conduct of some of the editors involved. Specifically myself, Itsmejudith and Dominus Vobisdu, since we regularly get locked in content disputes when I try to contribute referenced text, and meet with persistent blanking of the content without indication of specific reasons - just something like "all these references are unreliable". (There is no question of bad conduct from Ihcoyc, A Quest for Knowledge, or anyone else that has been listed as involved and requested to comment here).

Regardless of whether this endlessly frustrating style of editorial blocking constitutes misconduct, I would like to find a way to work more collaboratively, and not have to engage in a 3-day discussion every time I want to make what should be a 3-minute edit to improve the quality and information value of content already present on WP. Much of the astrology-related text is crying out for improvement, but unless we get some clear Arbcom statement that content relating to astrology may indeed by verified by reference to famous, notable, influential and popular astrological texts (without them being automatically rejected as primary, fringe, unscientific or not published by a scholarly press) then this situation will be nothing but hopeless.

Ihcoyc’s proposals look like perfectly reasonable common sense suggestions to me. If others disagree it is probably because Dominus Vobisdu has completely misrepresented the situation regarding the sources proposed and the state of astrological consensus. I would like to demonstrate that with a response to his statements, but since I need to go out for a little while I am posting this now, primarily to say that I hope this Arbcom request is not closed without attention, or without giving everyone involved a chance to comment, identify the real issues, and hopefully find the best solution. -- Zac Δ 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

To explain my involvement, I have a reliable knowledge of this subject and have made a fairly broad input into the astrology-related pages; so I understand the issues that Dominus Vobisdu is referring to, and believe I can give you a more balanced picture on the sources he says the astrological editors are wanting to use.

I should also say the state of the zodiac sign pages disappoints me. I have little personal interest in them but have tried to improve them, feeling that they should be much better than they are. So I’m mainly responsible for the state of the Virgo page today – which looked like this when I started working on it. I recently initiated a WP:astrology project discussion in the hope of establishing a project group to create guidelines, and develop content for the series of pages, using that page as a model for discussion; but I’ve lost heart to take that further right now because of constant arguments over issues like this that are a total time-sink.

With regard to the types of sources Dominus says are being proposed (I have cut/copied his list):

1) Popular guides and coffee-table books written by astrologers for the astrological community. outside of which they are not considered either authoratative or reliable.

Only to demonstrate what the writers of the popular coffee-table type publications have to say on the subject.
No, these types of books are not written for the astrological community (taken to mean those who have good knowledge of the subject and practice it or are seriously involved in the study of it). They are written for the general public, are simplified accordingly, and demonstrate a type of astrological approach that the general public can readily relate to.
So, for example, on Virgo (astrology), where the key characteristics of the sun-sign personality type is defined, reference is given to Martin Seymour-Smith, author of The New Astrologer (Sidgewick and Jackson: 1981); Linda Goodman, Linda Goodman’s Love Signs (Harper Paperbacks: 1991 - don't like her myself but she's very popular and her books have sold millions); Joanna Watters Astrology for Today (Carroll & Brown 2003), etc., to demonstrate what these popular-end writers say about the commonly reported personality traits of the Sun-signs. This is given in the style of

Joanna Watters (2003) defined a keyphrase for this sign as "I serve", and summarises the Virgo reputation for over-analysing emotions by saying:"One of the Virgo lessons in life is to learn that to err is human, to forgive divine, especially when it comes to love".(ref) Martin Seymour-Smith (1981) suggested that appropriate keywords for this sign include: Discrimination, analysis, calculation, loyalty, tidiness, hypochondria, the cutting out of the useless and wasteful.(ref)

These books are readily identified because they are popular, well-known, and published by reliable, established publishers. The page also features a reference to Sasha Fenton, who is very well known, although I have argued that reference should be replaced because it goes to the Readers Digest, which is not subject-specific. So to me that is too trivial to be of any real merit.
My view on this: if the publisher is a credible one, and the astrologer well known or known to be well trained with an established reputation, these sources should be deemed reliable for what they are aiming to do. They are not authoritative, but neither is that information. This is concerned with content that might be found interesting and curious. Being told that my Chinese horoscope sign is The Tiger, with a certain degree of idle curiosity, or maybe because my school project requests it, I might want to look on the WP page for that sign and see what it is supposed to mean to be a Tiger in Chinese astrology. Disappointingly, the page doesn’t tell me anything at all about that – it used to do, but at some stage all the information regarding the traditionally reported characteristics was removed because it didn’t have any references.

2) Astrological websites and blogs.

I have not seen editors with knowledge of astrology arguing for the addition of references to a website or blog. I have only seen these types of references given by editors who are clearly hostile to the subject, and then because they lead to something that ridicules the subject. However, I have placed references to published papers and good quality articles that have been previously published in reliable sources and then reproduced on the web, giving details of both the original and online publication.
Using that Virgo (astrology) example again. The page includes reference to an article written by a well known astrologer, Deborah Houlding, whose explorations of the zodiac signs are notable as a series of features originally published in the The Mountain Astrologer. This is a leading astrological journal with an excellent reputation and high-standards of editorial control. Hence the combination of good author, good content, and previous publication in a popular and well known subject-specific journal, combine to make this a reliable source for showing what astrologers have to say about their subject IMO.

3) Self-published books published by vanity presses or non-existant presses.

The only recent example I can think of where a self-published text was proposed as a reference is detailed in the Scorpio mythology thread on the RS noticeboard. No one has presented an argument against the use of that reference within the context of its use (as explained in that thread), and I don’t believe there is a good argument that can be made against it in that context. But so often context is forgotten.
Another example: I want to substantiate content on some pages by reference to John Frawley’s works. Everyone in the astrological community knows his reputation, and very few do not have at least one of his books on their shelves. But his books - though widely available - are self-published. Is he is to be excluded without any consideration of his prominence, notability or worth?
I can see it's a problem that other editors don't know which sources are the reliable ones. This is because they don’t have the knowledge and experience of the subject that members of the Wiki:astrology project do have. It would save a lot to time is all such arguments were deferred to members of the astrology project to decide. Editors with good knowledge of the subject can recognize instantly if a text is generally considered reliable and representative within the astrological community. Recourse to the RS noticeboard could then be reserved for specific queries with the knowledge that the source is deemed to be a reliable one within the community, but for other reasons there are concerns attached to it.

4) Articles published in pseudoacademeic journals that claim to be "peer-reviewed" but are not.

There are only two peer-reviewed astro-journals I am aware of: Correlation: Journal of Research into Astrology, published bi-annually by the Astrological Association of Great Britain, and Culture and Cosmos, Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy, which publishes proceedings of academic conferences, etc.
Submissions for both are peer-reviewed by reputable academics with appropriate subject expertise; the former is sponsored by an astrological society while the latter is a university publication. I would say these journals gain no special weight other than to suggest that the publication involved has an established reputation for reliable knowledge of its subject and an editorial policy that is concerned with fact-checking. So long as the point being made is not one that breaks other policies (like using Correlation to counter claims made by mainstream science journals in a way that would create UNDUE weight - a point of controversy in the past) then I believe these journals are appropriate for reference. Dominus Vobidus wants them to be entirely excluded as prohibited sources, regardless of the context of their use. This is because their subject matter is astrology: a fringe subject (therefore these are 'fringe publications' which, in his eyes, must not be considered reliable sources, not even for reporting fringe).

5) Articles and books by the very few genuine academics in the field that are published WITHOUT peer review.

To prohibit this would mean a book like A History of Western Astrology by Nicholas Campion, senior lecturer in the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Wales, Lampeter, cannot be used because it wasn’t issued by a university press.
This will also rule out the prospect of adding a reference I proposed (in the RS thread given above) Gerald Hawkins' Mindsteps to the Cosmos where the relationship between mythology and zodiac symbolism is described.
I argued that Hawkins was professor and chair of the astronomy department at Boston University, a reputable author and famous for his work in the field of archaeoastronomy, so surely acceptable to verify a bit of sun-sign mythology that is so well known it is reported all over the web and in many other books similar to (and so just as useless as) this.

6) Ancient and pre-modern primary texts without reliance on modern scholarly sources for interpretation.

The example here relates to the use of astrological texts that are so famous, influential and historically significant that they remain authoritative text-books.
We are not talking about references to dusty manuscripts, but modern type translations of texts that are widely available, in hardback and paperback, and all manner of forms of modern reproduction, because they are considered essential astrological reference works and are used to establish and authorize traditional techniques.
An example is Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos. Another recently brought up for debate, is William Lilly’s 17th-century Christian Astrology, the first major astrology text to be written in English rather than Latin. Check this Google books result to get some idea of how extensively this book is used and made available.
Lilly's text is the only authoritative source of reference for the principles of horary astrology – his book is so important for that subject that the use of horary astrology was effectively abandoned until his book was brought back into mainstream circulation about 30 years ago. Since then his work has become considered the most reliable and useful source of reference for astrological principles - many astrologers can name the page references for where certain points are made without needing to have the book in front of them.
I used this source to give references for the association between astrological signs and body parts. Lilly tells us (in English - on p.97 of his book) that the sign of Sagittarius is given astrological rulership over the thighs. I am told that I cannot use this as a reference to verify existing astrological content (such as the statement that Sagittarius rules the thighs), to demonstrate that this is a reliable statement concerning astrological belief, and that some WP editor hasn't just made that up. I am told I must find a modern scholarly source which interprets the meaning of Lilly's remark and confirms the intention of what he wrote. Yet here is is, right in fornt of me: “Sagittarius: It rules the thighs” (CA., p.97). It's a textbook that modern astrologers study and which most astrologers either have or know about. There should be no question that these influential traditional astrology texts can be used for refrence of traditional astrological principles.

Sorry this is so long - may be because I'm a Tiger (alas: no way of knowing what that means) -- Zac Δ 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Fifelfoo. Reqgardless of whether arbitrators are able to clarify some issues here (I sincerely hope they can) your suggestion that Ihcoyc should receive a warning for "not liking what he got told" is illogical. Read the other editor's posts: both sides agree this matter is causing great disruption because the forum discussions have only added to the confusion. I have demonstrated this, and Dominus Vobisdu expressed it succintly in his final para of 3 Dec: "In short, the conflict over sourcing on astrology-related topics is a long-standing and serious problem that has been difficult to resolve with numerous RfCs and discussions on RSN and FTN".
Forumshopping? Itsmejudith has initiated several discussions simultaneously and this has not been helpful, but has Ihcoyc done this? This appears to be the only discussion he has initiated, and his motive was clearly to bring an end to time-wasting.-- Zac Δ 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@ Dominus Vobisdu – your 16 point list is tiresome for being almost completely misrepresentative. I am not going to waste time on most of it, except to say that your summaries are unreliable. Eg, for 8, can you specify an author who purports to be a “genuine scholar” in contradiction to what is recognized by the scholarly academic society? I am not talking about scholars who publish in journals that make no/little impact on the mainstream scientific community, but your implication that astrological authors pretend to untrue academic qualifications.
Your 16th point “On a more worrisome note”, makes allegations against two societies with good standing, and what you say is false. This is a toning down of slanderous remarks you made on 18th Nov. against named persons in the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. That is why I called for that thread to be closed, and have refused to contribute further while it is used to publish such false accusational remarks. There you also said this:
"the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association, posted on the talk page a couple of months back that here organization wanted nothing to do with sun sign astrology, the most common form, and that the wikipedia article be rewritten to reflect "real" astrology, namely her own brand."
This is not true. What she said was this, and this:
"Perhaps it would be best stated that 'the practice of sun sign astrology is a very small part and recent phenomenon of the history and full body of knowledge on western astrology' and have a link through to the sun sign astrology page? Thank you for guiding me to the COI page. As you have read, I am the Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain but the views expressed here are my own and not representative of the organisation’s members."
You could have pointed to those diffs yourself. This is indicative of the extent to which you regularly present twisted, inaccurate information in alarmist terms. Being aware that you have quoted a contributing editor, you should also have given that editor some notice to create a chance for clarification. I turned a blind eye to the Fringe notice board misrepresentation but since you insist on repeating these allegations, as if there is substance behind them, they deserve to be taken seriously. Please qualify or retract your untrue remarks here and in the post that still shows in the Fringe notice-board thread. -- Zac Δ 13:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@Fifelfoo. The only thing that is overwhelming in the RS 'general astrology sourcing' discussion is the amount of words and lack of clarity. Opinions are certainly divided and the discussion continues. This is what happens when too many issues are presented at once. There is no sense of authority in the posts, and the matter is blighted by contributors not understanding what this is all about. This is why the astrology project should hold these discussions and make refrence to the RS thread for specific circumstances that can be understood according to their context.
I have never contributed, but will copy over my post - though I'm sure the only thing it will add now is more disinterest from a broader community who must be exasperated by all this. BTW, no one has contributed any support for the suggestion that the Babylonian myth refs were not satisfactory after I made my post to that. I believe that is because the suggestion that the refs are not satisfactory is unsupportable. If you disagree please comment there and explain your reasons why. -- Zac Δ 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow, John Vandenberg, that is a striking remark. Do you have a reliable, verifiable source for when astrology ceased to exist, by which you can justify your argument that it may only be discussed in historical terms? Can you point me to the WP policy which states that editors must adopt the view that astrology is no longer recognised in contemporary culture and society? Presumably some kind of policy is needed to support your comment that to suggest otherwise "is begging for a ban" -- Zac Δ 14:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
John Vandenberg, you are correct in saying that astrology has not ceased to exist. No one here has suggested that it be presented as a science. I am pleased to see the endorsement of the need to respect all people and their beliefs. Can you affirm that extends to astrologers and their astrological beliefs, and confirm that no editor is "begging for a ban" by reporting what these are (according to the astrological sources)? -- Zac Δ 01:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Agricolae

My involvement in this dispute is sort of peripheral to the issue being raised here except for serving as a straw-man. I answered a specific question as to what would be a reliable source for attributing human characteristics, "dark and sexy", based on astrological signs. Contrary to what Smerdis is suggesting, I said that if one were to present this information as fact, it would need to be supported by a scientifically reliable source, but I also distinguished this from (clearly) presenting it as belief, for which the sourcing would differ (e.g. we don't present medical quackery as fact, just because the quacks believe it, but there are circumstances where as long as it is made clear this is what is being done and it is balanced with the modern medical counter-belief, we might present the beliefs of quacks if their particular flavor of quackery is notable). What I am trying to avoid are cases where Misplaced Pages becomes a vehicle for propagating such beliefs based on nothing but the whim of an editor citing their favorite astrologer and presenting their beliefs in-universe. There is no coherent organizing body or accepted literary canon and there is essentially no academic scholarship into the views of modern astrology, so it is problematic to treat the writings of any modern astronomer as reliably representing the consensus within their universe, let alone that of the more general community. Presented as simply individual opinions, one must wonder about what makes this particular astrologer's opinion of specific merit that it is singled out for mention. (Sagittarius (astrology) is an example of a current page that presents one astrologer's view about personality characteristics without broader context. Scorpio (astrology) is even worse, making medical claims regarding reproductive fecundity and pregnancy in violation of WP:MEDRS.) Misplaced Pages should not be taking the role of the newspaper astrology column in forwarding these beliefs, unbalanced by the counter view that it is all bunk. That all being said, my concerns were not specifically drawn from the cited ArbCom decisions. Agricolae (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nuujinn

My involvement with this is limited to the discussion at RSN. I do think that a review of that and other discussions might be useful, as it seems there are some strongly held opinions. Agricolae has a good point that we should not simple repeat the view of newspaper astrology columns. But I think some editors are pushing a bit hard in requiring peer reviewed academic sources for astrology in general--most of our articles do not rely on such sources. We have found some sources that appear promising, but all of this appears to me to more of a content discussion appropriate for other venues. Perhaps what is required is more general discussion about how one might determine who is and is not worthy of consideration as a reliable source for this topic. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't think that issuing the clarification here is necessary. There are other places to use the principles set out in that arbitration case, namely the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). The page mentioned in this clarification request is noted as outdated. Also, while the Committee has set out principles (based on Misplaced Pages Policy) on what constitutes a reliable source, we're not in the habit of declaring that "This site is a reliable source" or "This site cannot be considered a reliable source" SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've seen the positions the requester articulated above advanced occasionally over the years with respect to religious topics, and my personal thoughts on them is as follows:
    Ultimately, NPOV means Misplaced Pages doesn't take a stance in Misplaced Pages's voice on anything. Everything ultimately gets attributed to someone, but when something is extremely common and uncontested knowledge, we drop the in-text attribution for readability's sake, and let the footnotes suffice. Thus, having an article on a particular belief system doesn't mean it's true, just "verifiable".
    I have heard editors suggest that religious sources were not independent for the purposes of describing religious claims. That not only attempts to build a bridge too far, in my opinion, but it also falsely sets up Misplaced Pages as in the business of evaluating religious claims. We can describe any particular belief system appropriately, using both the sources within the particular new religious movement, denomination, group, etc. (per WP:SELFPUB if independence is indeed compromised), as well as mainstream reliable sources. The sad bit here is that mainstream reliable sources never seem to go into the depth and detail that sources close to the belief system do.
    This does not excuse advocacy, which is itself an NPOV violation. Our job is to describe accurately (WP:V) and neutrally (WP:NPOV) things within our scope (WP:NOT) which are of general interest (WP:N). Of course, as a one sentence summary, that's a horrible oversimplification. Likewise, I haven't had time to examine the dispute in detail, so these thoughts are based on my previous experiences, rather than the specifics of this dispute. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    @Dominus Vobisdu, I think you're overly-narrowly interpreting the rules in your first paragraph. If an organization publishes a primary source, that primary source can be used about that organization since it is the author, under the terms of SELFPUB--that is, an author may be an individual or an organization. I've stayed out of fringe topic areas, entirely on purpose, but I confess I don't understand the sourcing dispute at all. Could someone explain to me the desired endgame here? Having read through the above statements, I'm still not sure what ArbCom has to do with this, or what either party wants of ArbCom, since no misconduct is alleged and ArbCom does not make content decisions. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with SirFozzie; this is not really a request for clarification of the earlier Arbcom decision, but a request to declare whether certain types of sources should be considered "reliable". This needs to go to the reliable sources noticeboard. Risker (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I concur that this is not a case where we can intervene. As my colleagues stated, we cannot rule on the reliability or usefulness of individual sources (nor should we); the reliable sources noticeboard is the proper venue to raise consensus on this. — Coren  14:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Per my colleagues. The reliable sources noticeboard is the proper venue for this.  Roger Davies 15:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Writing about Astrology should be done from a historical studies viewpoint, using history studies academic output. Modern day astrology is not science, nor is it art. There is no need to use the writings of modern day astrologists; doing so is begging for a ban. John Vandenberg 08:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    @Zachariel, Astrology has not ceased to exist entirely, however it has ceased to be a science. There are many dates on the timeline of this transformation of Astrology from science to myth. In crude terms, astrology has been demoted from high culture to low/pop culture. Current day practitioners of astrology do so in spite of all available science contradicting their beliefs. When modern day practitioners attempt to assert that there is a grounding in science, even by inference, they are peddling pseudoscience. Those current day practitioners should be discussed from a historical & academic viewpoint, as they are believers of a science that only had currency (as a science) in ages long gone. The only exception is for current day practitioners who unambiguously treat astrology as pop culture, or clearly portray it as a religion based on faith rather than on science. As previous arbcom decisions have tried to elucidate, our terminology about modern practitioners can be firm regarding pseudoscience while still being sensitive to the need to respect all people and their beliefs. John Vandenberg 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    @Zachariel, low/pop culture (inc. modern astrological beliefs) should be sourced to academic sources. Modern astrological sources are works of fiction, and should only be used as sources for the authors own astrological beliefs as they lack any credible peer review, so they can not represent state of the art or current science. That is all. John Vandenberg 11:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, the Arbitration Committee's remit is user conduct, as opposed to article content, or policy. What is being asked here, to some extent, is a matter of policy, and to some extent, article content. Consequently, I agree with my colleagues that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to provide a ruling. Instead, I would suggest trying the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or starting a Request for Comment. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 03:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Timotheus Canens

How is Remedy 1 ("IP editing prohibited") supposed to be implemented? Does that mean that all 1572 pages listed on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/List of abortion pages (which, as I understand it, includes all pages in Category:Abortion and its subcategories) should be semiprotected immediately for 3 years? T. Canens (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note related discussion at WP:AN#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
@Roger: Semiprotecting 1500 pages is not "hard" to implement technically: it takes, at most, half an hour to write a script that performs the protection and adds the relevant tags. I guess a better way to put the question is, did arbcom really intend that all those 1500+ pages be immediately semiprotected for 3 years? T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Since various members below think that a motion would be appropriate, I'd suggest getting on with it before someone's bold and actually writes that script.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: During voting, I preferred R1.1 "IP editing restricted". It didn't pass but it is significantly easier to implement. If there's any support for replacing R1.0 with R1.1 from my colleagues, I'll propose a motion here replacing the remedy.  Roger Davies 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't want to play whack-a-mole with at least one dedicated, IP-hopping, banned user agitating things, but it seems we spent more time discussing the time length than the implementation. I would welcome suggestions on a simple, painless way to accomplish blocking the bad IP editor(s) with the least collateral impact on other IP editors. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I also hadn't frankly realized that this would affect such a large number of articles. Our options are either to (i) replace the mandatory semiprotection of all relevant articles with a remedy indicating that semiprotection should be used liberally where needed in this topic-area, or (ii) to confine the initial semiprotection to a few specified core articles (such as the ones mentioned by name in the decision) and give administrators discretion to proceed from there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Other non-public issues had come up which indicated this might be a prudent way to proceed. Given the competing remedies, I'd be happy to take a mid-way path and let admins have a very low threshold of semiprotection and to let the committee know of any problematic editing by IPs for review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As I've said elsewhere, this is best interpreted as allowing the semiprotection of any article in the topic area rather than demanding the semiprotection off all articles now. Granted, the remedy as worded now has implication beyond the immediate intent, and I don't mind a motion to alter it accordingly. — Coren  16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Like Coren, I saw this as a broad approval of liberal semiprot use instead of demanding protection, which I realize looking back was a bad reading. If necessary, a motion to tweak the wording should be sufficient. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, recused. Risker (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed motion (1)

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at their discretion, for a period not to exceed three years from the conclusion of this case. Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under a single additional account not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.

Support

  1. Proposed. Minimal modification to the substance of the original remedy to allow the semiprotection rather than require it preemptively. — Coren  14:44, 4 December 2011
  2. I hate the fact that we may need to play whack a mole to deal with a banned user here, but on reflection, maybe it was a step too far to mandate semi protection for so many articles. SirFozzie (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. John Vandenberg 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  2. unnecessary to specifically mention socks and concerned that by raising it specifically is a bit like Streisand Effect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. There's some advantages in version 2, such that I don't want to oppose this, but I would rather see a version that incorporates the best parts of 2, without removing the discussion of appropriate use of alternate accounts. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed motion (2)

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
There are 15 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so the majority is 7.

Support

  1. Proposed. This varies from (1) in that it:
    • sets up logging for the long-term semiprotections (we probably need to keep some sort of track on this as it's for so long and potentially so widespread);
    • takes out the bit inviting editors to create second accounts just for the topic (is that really necessary? and should we be encouraging it?)
    • and puts a fixed date that the semiprotection runs from (the case is already closed but it may not be clear whether the three years runs from then or from the date when motions etc conclude).
    Copyedits welcome,  Roger Davies 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    CE: "at their discretion" > "at his or her discretion" otherwise we have two their's relating to different subjects.  Roger Davies 16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  2. Over first motion. Clarity is probably best. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  3. First choice. John Vandenberg 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  4. First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  6. second choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  7. Either works, with no preference. The first alternative was basically the "minimal change" version, this one is more explicit.

    Also, I'm agnostic about the mention of alternate accounts, it works with or without as far as I'm concerned: this is already provided for in policy and we are just restating. — Coren  04:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. While the sock account bits are redundant to current policy, I would prefer to not remove them from the description of the remedy. I would not have proposed the expansive use of semi-protection without an express declaration that it is a countermeasure against disruption, not an attack on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously in the topic. I would not oppose the rest of the text here if they were retained; I just don't see them as "extra", but rather an integral part of the remedy. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral




Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:EEML

Initiated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me at 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Piotrus

I am regretfully reposting this request for clarification, as it was archived without a single arbitrator commenting clearly on the issue I asked. Instead, the previous request seemed to have been hijacked (in an AGF meaning of this world) by the off-topic (to my request) discussion about the effectiveness and applicability of i-bans with regards to other editors. I kindly ask editors to not comment on broad topics; my question is very narrow and simple: was FSP correct in declaring that I was violating my i-ban and thus threatening me with sanctions if I failed to remove myself from the AE discussion or not?

I am seeking clarification of Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted ("The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Misplaced Pages, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.").

Let me state, clearly, that I have no desire to interact with Russavia, and that to my knowledge, he has not commented on me. This is, in fact, not about Russavia at all, but about the interpretation of the interaction ban (if I was to put it simply, how close can I get to a discussion in which Russavia is involved?). I participated in a discussion where I did not interact nor comment on Russavia, but I was nonetheless warned by an admin that I violated the i-ban. Did I indeed do so?

Here's the short sequence of events that lead to me posting this clarification requests:

  • Biophys posts an AE request on Russavia; I have no interest in it, have not read it then or even now;
  • VM comments in that thread; I have no interest in it but as he is a fellow editor I respect for his essays and thoughts on wikipedia, I read his post there. Of further note for my eventual involvement is that I took the notice of the part of VM's statement where he notes that he found an article edited by Russavia by following edits of other editors;
  • discussion grows and brings an increasingly large peanut gallery; I still have no interest in joining it, nor do I read most other comments, beyond admin's;
  • admin FSP makes a comment on the futility of interaction bans in general, suggesting that admins should not enforce them. That makes me concerned, as I credit them with lessening the amount of hostility directed at me since they were put in place. Next, FSP comments that VM "went there after him ". At that point I decide to post a comment, stating that as a party to the bans, I've found them helpful, if in need of some clarification; I also point out to FSP that VM has already explained how he became involved in this issue. I also noted that if any admin considers my comment in this thread to be a violation of an i-ban, to let me know that and I'll remove it. Please note that I have not commented on Russavia, only on the i-bans in general, and on VM comment in particular;
  • almost at the same time I posted my comment, SarekOfVulcan blocks both Russavia and VM for a week. I expressed my disagreement with his action on his talk page in User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Unfair_treatment, pointing out to my comment and suggestion for i-ban clarification, and suggesting reducing blocks, in particular for VM who I believe has been involved in much lesser violation of the ban. I also note on SoV's talk page (User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#AE_thread), again, that if any admin believes my involvement there is in violation of the i-ban, to let me know and I'll remove my posts. (Having been blocked once by a trigger happy admin who misunderstood a topic ban, and unblocked through AE appeal, I prefer to be very careful with regards to such restrictions, and ask for clarifications, rather than an unblock);
  • approaching the end of this story, an admin (FSP) did post to my talk page, suggesting that my involvement in that thread was a violation of an i-ban (I also note that he has not responded to either of my two comments directed at him w/ regards to his posts in that case). In any case, I have self-reverted my three relevant posts (one to AE and two to SoV page), in a show of good faith (when in doubt, self-revert and ask for a review).
    • for the full record, do note that VM's block was indeed shortened.

So now I am asking for a review and clarification. I do not believe I have breached the i-ban: I am not concerned with Russavia, I am not commenting on him; at AE I was simply commenting on i-bans in general (an issue of interest to me since I am under one), and later, on SoV's page, commenting on a block of VM (with whom I have no i-ban, of course). VM's ban was related to Russavia, but that is of no concern to me, I was concerned that an editor (VM) was treated unfairly, and I believe I have the right to express my opinion on this (he was not treated unfairly by Russavia, so I am not commenting on any action of his). After all, we have freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages, and I believe we are allowed to comment on anything that is not explicitly prohibited (I am explicitly prohibited from commenting on Russavia, but not on VM's block, whatever its circumstances are). As a reminder, the i-ban I am in states: "...prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia" - yet despite the fact that I was not commenting on or interactign with Russavia, I was threatened with sanctions by an admin.

To put this in a wider perspective, I believe that if editors A and B are under i-ban, and editor A becomes involved in something - like designing a policy, or is part of an arbitration, or an enforcement that results in a policy change, or block or such, editor B has the right to participate in the discussion (policy discussion, etc.) and/or comment on the outcome (a policy change, or a block of editor C, with whom B have no i-ban), as long as he does not comment on editor A or interact with him directly.

Is my interpretation correct and I did not violate my i-ban by commenting on VM's block? Or is my interpretation wrong and I violated it, and thus FSP was right to threaten me with sanctions?

If the latter, I'd very much like a clear explanation how one can stretch "prohibited from interacting with or commenting on editor A" to "prohibited from commenting on editor B". It is my belief that if such acrobatic justification is presented, it will support some extreme interpretation of i-bans, encourage admin abuse of powers (confirm that they can threaten editors with sanction on such extreme interpretations) and thus be a blow to free speech on Misplaced Pages. I hope that the Committee will not open that Pandora's Box, but a ruling on who was right here is necessary to clarify the situation.

Or the committee can just say that I was within my rights to comment on VM's block, admins should be more conservative in i-bans interpretations and threats than in the instance discussed above, and we can move on.

I'd appreciate Committee's thoughts, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@FSP: "To my mind, this was a clear breach of the interaction ban." The problem is that your mind and the wording of the i-ban ("prohibited from interacting with or commenting on R.") exist in two different universes. Did I interacted with R.? No. Did I comment on R.? No. It's as simple as that. By interpreting it wider you assume bad faith, encourage wikilawyering and battleground mentality. If the Committee or anybody had a problem with me being able to comment on AE in general, or on other editors in general, or on VM in particular, or from discussing i-bans, and so on, they would have issued other tailored restrictions and banned me from AE, from interacting with VM or others, and so on. Since they did not, the only restriction on me is from "interacting with or commenting on R." which I most explicitly did not do. I believe I was within my rights to go to this AE thread and dispute the length of VM's block. Whom I was there for should be crystal clear from what I was asking: I was asking for a reduction of block on VM, not for an extension it on R. And there is nothing, nothing in the restriction on me that should prevent me from being able to discuss VM's block. Your arguments to the contrary are, I believe, an attempt to reduce my right to free speech on this project, with no basis in any existing restrictions. I am saddened to see that you assume bad faith on my part and that you assume that I came to the discussion to support an editor because of who he is, not because of the unjustice I perceived (and that was eventually recognized by others and led to the shortened block). From where I stand, sadly, if I was to abandon good faith, I could say that your action looked like you did not take kindly to me disagreeing with you, and threatened to sanction me if I did not withdrew from the discussion (with a distinct ring of admin power abuse in the air). But I refuse to let bad faith take me over; instead I still believe you acted in an attempt to improve the situation, not for any selfish personal reasons. I do believe, however, that you misinterpreted the boundaries of the i-ban in question, and in consequence, you set a dangerous precedence (see below for why and on what). Lastly, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd AGF my actions and consider I am acting for the good of the project ("believes an editor was wronged and acts because of that"), and not for any personal ("defends a friend because he is his friend") reasons. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@FSP and others: "If A is in a conflict with B and admins are considering sanctions against either of the two, and C is a friend of B's but interaction-banned from A, then the last place in the world C has any business hanging around is that noticeboard thread." I disagree with this. First, I do not believe this is covered by the i-ban. Either the i-ban need to be clearly clarified with this very example, to prevent future confusion (because at least for me, this does not flow in any way whatsoever from the wording "C is prohibited from interacting with or commenting on editor A", or a separate sanction should be applied to relevant cases (stating that "C is also prohibited from commenting on any editor whom A is in conflict with". Second, I believe such a restriction of free speech for no good reason would be detrimental to the spirit of this project in general, and would deprive those discussions of valuable input. I understand the need to limit the criticism and negative reinforcement, this is the purpose of i-bans I fully support. But the above interpretation would achieve the contrary - limit support and positive reinforcement. In other words, we do not need more persecutors, but we do need more defenders and advocates for leniency that can stand up to to the system and its enforces (admins) and speak out in favor of the accused. Penalizing people for saying good things on others and arguing for more lenient approaches is, to me, very much against the spirit of this project. PS. I linked a number of essays I wrote on the subject of wikigovernance to reinforce my arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@FSP: I am willing to consider that some of my references that you cite where too direct and should not have been made, even if they were made with regards to another editor, and where not intended as criticism, merely as a comparison example. At the same time, you have already alleged here that there was something improper in my first post at AE you've cited (), and your lack of clarification as to what you considered problematic caused me to also blank this post. Whereas I can see where you are coming from with regards to my second post, I stand by what I said above with regards to my first and third posts. In hindsight, I think that the best way to deal with this would've been for you to ask me clearly to blank my second post only. If you would agree with me that nothing in my first and third post constituted a violation, I can certainly take your comments about the second post to heart, and we could end this discussion here and now, shake hands, both of us having learned a little through this, and hope to avoid misunderstanding in the future. (For the record, we wouldn't be here if you had replied to me directly with clear examples and explanation earlier when I posted on your talk page in reply to your message to me (here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I have previously stated my detailed proposal for how i-bans should work, which I can re-post here. i-bans should in no way accord de jure ownership of any page on WP based on who got there first. That's censorship, plain and simple. The current interpretation of i-bans is inappropriate and an open invitation for abuse, aggravating—not dissipating—acrimony. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

@Fozzie: Let's not mix up the issues. This wasn't about "forcing people out of topic areas", and it wasn't about commenting on any article topics. I do in fact share your reservations about the use of interaction bans when it comes to article editing, but the case Piotrus is asking about was something different. It was about commenting on an AE thread. And this, I maintain, is the one area where interaction bans actually do make sense, and I therefore stand by the warning I gave him in the situation. One of the core problems with the EEML team back in the day was that they had this habit of always turning up together as a tag team in noticeboard threads, supporting each other and pressing for sanctions against their common opponents together. This, I understand, is the main reason why the interaction ban with respect to Russavia was imposed. And these tag-teaming structures are still very much active. Even today, you will hardly find an ANI or AE thread involving any one member of the EEML team where at least one or two of the others don't immediately turn up in his support.

In the present instance, there was an AE thread in which Russavia was one of the parties involved, and had received a sanction, and his opponents were other members of the EEML group. Piotrus, who had no prior involvement in that specific conflict, turned up to argue for the use of interaction bans in general , which, in this situation, amounted to an argument for applying sanctions against Russavia. He then made another comment to the administrator who had just imposed sanctions on Russavia and one other party (Volunteer Marek) . In this comment, he was making a comparison between Russavia and VM which was designed to paint Russavia in a worse light than the other party; hence, this too amounted to an argument in favour of sanctioning Russavia. He can now argue all he likes that he wasn't there because of Russavia but because of the other guy, but the fact remains that the effect of his intervention was to add pressure to the anti-Russavia side. To my mind, this was a clear breach of the interaction ban.

This is the message we really want to send through interaction bans: people, stay away from noticeboards; mind your own business. If A is in a conflict with B and admins are considering sanctions against either of the two, and C is a friend of B's but interaction-banned from A, then the last place in the world C has any business hanging around is that noticeboard thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@Piotrus: are you still denying you were commenting on Russavia? This is mind-boggling. I'll quote from the exact posting of yours that's at issue here: "an editor with a history of i-ban violations and multiple diffs showing recent violations one editor has two previous blocks (including from this summer) I do not believe they deserve equal-length blocks the number of current incidents/violations the number of sanctioned violations one editor has been asking a lot about the i-ban, and presumably knows a lot more about the boundaries than the other one" – The "one editor" to whose sanctions you were referring was Russavia. Can you tell me in what world of your imagination each of these sentences is not a "comment about Russavia"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
About your first posting at question : If editor A has an obvious stake in a noticeboard thread, because he is either the principal instigator/accuser or the principal defendant in the complaint at issue, or the potential subject of sanctions being deliberated, then any posting in that thread amounts to "interacting with" editor A. That, to me, is so basic and so blindingly obvious I really have to wonder why you apparently can't wrap your head around it. About the content in detail: you were responding to a posting that could be understood as an argument in favour of not sanctioning R.; you were arguing against that view, so you were, in effect, implicitly arguing for sanctioning R. Which means you were not just interacting with R by virtue of simply being there; you were negatively interacting with him (independently of course of the merits of your arguments, or of the preceding ones you were answering to.) More directly, though perhaps less importantly, there was also your question "why is a post by a non-admin still present in the admin only discussion?", which was referring directly to R. and obviously constitutes a direct comment on him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Question from Russavia

For the Committee, I only have one question...in 27 parts.

If you refer to Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted, I am restricted from interacting or commenting with editors from the EEML case. Firstly, this is somewhat vague, because one could wikilawyer until the cows come home (as is evidently prevalent in this area) that this could prevent me from interacting with say FPaS, given that he gave evidence, and hence is "from the EEML case". However, common sense, and the non-wikilawyering editor, would tell you "from the EEML case" clearly means EEML members. This restriction was placed on me ostensibly for reporting editors who were breaking their topic bans, or acting on behalf of banned editors, and at no time were my reports found by the Committee to be vexatious in nature (this was even stated by Shell Kinney).

On the other hand, we have Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted, only those editors who were named in sanctions are banned from interacting or commenting on me. This, ostensibly, is because of issues such as harrassment and vexatious reporting as described at Misplaced Pages:EEML#Improper_coordination.

I made mention of this weird interaction ban at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. One can refer to the current amendment request for a prime example of how that problem has played out.

A few weeks ago, I became aware of a potential sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:Poeticbent (User:A. Kupicki). I was made aware of a possibility that Poeticbent was socking. Once I glanced at the talk page, it was plainly obvious that we had another sock on our hands. Because of the interaction ban which the Committee placed on myself, I didn't report it. But it makes no sense to me that I, as an editor in good standing, would be unable to directly bring to the community's attention a sockpuppet of an indeffed user. This is kind of unusual, in that I have zero tolerance for sockpuppets, as does the larger community, but in this situation I was unable to do anything about it at the time. Some four weeks after I was made aware of the sockpuppet, another editor has obviously clued in on the situation and the sockpuppet has now been blocked. But shouldn't socks be nuked on sight? Eight weeks of clear sockpuppetry is eight weeks too much.

Additionally, although I tend to stear clear of topics which are magnets for nationalistic POV-pushing and which are favoured by these sockpuppets, instances can arise whereby I could find myself editing an article which has seen editing from an editor who is such a sockpuppet. What is one supposed to do in such circumstances? Because happily editing along with someone who the community has indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry is not something that any editor should need to put up with. There should be an avenue in which I can openly bring to the community's attention evidence of sockpuppetry. I would ask the committee to look at that, and advise accordingly, because it makes no sense that I should be prevented from presenting evidence on disruptive banned users having a presence on WP. This would entail Jacurek (talk · contribs) and Poeticbent (talk · contribs) and I should state that whilst I do not keep tabs on any editor, obviously situations will arise where it is necessary to address issues, and without fear of dramuh or sanctions being enacted upon me.

Additionally, I would also like the committee to look at formally completely lifting the one-way interaction ban on myself with the following editors: Molobo (talk · contribs), Digwuren (talk · contribs)***, Alexia Death (talk · contribs)**, Biruitorul (talk · contribs), Dc76 (talk · contribs)*, Hillock65 (talk · contribs)*, Ostap R (talk · contribs)*, Tymek (talk · contribs)*, Sander Säde (talk · contribs)*

My reasoning for this is as follows. Those without * identifiers are active users, but I have not interacted, nor commented on them, since I don't know when (long time ago). Those with a single * are only occasional editors and it makes no sense to prevent editing on my part when things such as WP:BRD can easily be adhered to in instances when they are required, whilst also ensuring that commenting is only related to content. Those marked with ** are indefinitely blocked from the project. Those marked with *** (i.e. Digwuren) are still technically under Misplaced Pages:EEML#Digwuren_restricted, to be followed by Misplaced Pages:EEML#Digwuren_banned, and then followed by Misplaced Pages:EEML#Digwuren_topic_banned; in this case it makes no sense to technically stop me from editing when for all intents and purposes this editor has abandoned the account completely.

In many instances, I have never actually interacted with some of these editors, and my only involvement with them is that they were EEML members. So I would request that the committee look at those, and lift the interaction bans with individuals accordingly.

Given that Piotrus has stated that he has no desire of interacting with me, which has thrown me aback somewhat, interaction bans with Piotrus, Radeksz, Martintg and Vecrumba can stay in place, until such time as amendments are brought for the committee's action. The rest I see as a partial way to look forward in editing, which can only be a good thing. Russavia 15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I've stated before I have concerns that if Interaction Bans are being used as a blunt force instrument to force people out of topic areas ("I'm there already, so you can't edit the article because otherwise you'd be breaching the interaction ban!" Perhaps it's time to convert them into topic bans, to reduce the chance of this occurring. Furthermore, there is such a web of inter-connected people in this area that it becomes impossible to comment on one part of the topic area without engaging others in which you are not supposed to be interacting.. again, it argues that a different tact needs to be taken. I am disinclined to tell admins working in this highly heated topic area to be looser on the reins, but I will wait for further statements. SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I was answering one side of this, while looking at the other side (which I touched on in my previous statement). The question I would ask myself in enforcing the interaction bans... "Would a reasonable person consider this commenting on the person they have an interaction ban with". If the answer to that is yes, then there's your answer if it's a violation of the interaction ban or not. A reasonable person would conclude that yes, he's at least bringing up the person he has an interaction ban with, so it would be a violation, and as such, should at least be warned not to continue with that line of conversation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If the issue in a noticeboard discussion is "did X violate a sanction?" and Y is banned from interacting with X, then Y should not comment on the issue. On the other hand, if the discussion evolves into discussing a much broader general issue going beyond the specific case (e.g. "how should interaction bans work?) that can become a precedent, then I can understand why Y would want to comment and could reasonably perceive he was not violating the ban. I think this is such an intermediate case. Unfortunately, I don't think there can be a bright-line rule for these situations, and all I can do is urge both Piotrus and the AE administrators to be cautious and thoughtful and to avoid borderline cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Recused on EEML,  Roger Davies 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)