Revision as of 23:29, 4 January 2015 view sourceKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →Involved parties← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:31, 4 January 2015 view source Kww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →Involved partiesNext edit → | ||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | ||
* | |||
* Link 1 | |||
* ] | |||
* Link 2 | |||
=== Statement by Kww === | === Statement by Kww === |
Revision as of 23:31, 4 January 2015
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Acupuncture | 4 January 2015 | {{{votes}}} |
Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsRequest name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal | none | none | 23 January 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Acupuncture
Initiated by —Kww(talk) at 23:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- LesVegas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jayaguru-Shishya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- diff of notification John
- diff of notification LesVegas
- diff of notification Jayaguru-Shishya
- diff of notification A1candidate
- diff of notification QuackGuru
- diff of notification Roxy the dog
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Kww
I am bringing this here because any effort for me to resolve it would likely provoke wheel-warring between me and User:John, obviously an undesirable situation. This is also a holdover of our existing pseudoscience arbitrations, in terms of its application to acupuncture.
Acupuncture appears to have been the victim of flooding, wherein multiple studies with ambiguous results are listed in separate subsections in great prominence, all to give the false impression that the effectiveness of acupuncture is under wide and serious study. It's not: acupuncture is generally viewed as a placebo treatment with no scientific foundation. This summarizes it well: several thousand studies have failed to show any consistent application in which acupuncture is beneficial. Traditional Chinese medicine, the foundation of acupuncture, is also recognized as pseudoscience, a classification which has been mightily resisted by pro-Acupuncture editors. A quick read through that last link will demonstrate how unlikely it is for forward progress to be made. Accordingly, our section on the effectiveness of acupuncture should say just that: not shown to be consistently effective for anything and lacking in any theoretical foundation.
There's no doubt that the pro-science editors have not behaved admirably, but they are faced with entrenched editors that are padding the article with any study that presents acupuncture in a favourable light, misrepresenting those studies, lying about discussions that have taken place elsewhere. John's reaction has been to try to deal with this as an NPOV issue, requiring discussion between the editors: clearly fruitless at this point. He has focused his attention on QuackGuru and Roxy the dog, parties that have, at times, acted poorly out of sheer frustration.
My view is diametrically to John's: that it is our role as administrators to actively detect the users that are attempting to block a reflection of scientific consensus in the article, block them as appropriate, and help provide an environment that will allow our scientifically-minded editors to prevail. I would resolve this problem by blocking or topic-banning LesVegas, Jayaguru-Shishya, A1candidate, and, indeed, any and all editors that attempted to portray acupuncture as having medical legitimacy. This is the Martinphi vs. ScienceApologist problem all over again, and dealing with these people as legitimate editors leads to unsatisfactory results.
I bring this here primarily because it is a systemic problem, and a legacy of the inadequacy of the earlier Arbcom decision, which tells the project that we should strive to be in line with scientific consensus, but does not specifically tell adminstrators to deal with editors asymmetrically: blocking and banning those that would undermine that scientific consensus while encouraging those that attempt to support it.
Statement by John
Statement by LesVegas
Statement by Jayaguru-Shishya
Statement by A1candidate
Statement by QuackGuru
Statement by Roxy the dog
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Acupuncture: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Acupuncture">
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)