Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Martinphi (talk | contribs)
Martinphi (talk | contribs)
→‎ScienceAplogist should be permanently banned from Wikipedia: Agree with seicer and Jehochman that ScienceApologist should not be banned because he has a mentor
Line 1,460: Line 1,460:
::Not at long as there is a willing mentor and signs of progress. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
::Not at long as there is a willing mentor and signs of progress. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
::We have one willing administrator who can act as a mentor for SA, so I'm not for sure this is necessary at this point. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
::We have one willing administrator who can act as a mentor for SA, so I'm not for sure this is necessary at this point. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
::Agree. All anyone needs to avoid the ax is a nice neck warmer fuzzy admin mentor. I'll remember this, and recommend it next time I see someone like Pcarbonn on the block. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


:'''Comment by others:'''
:'''Comment by others:'''

Revision as of 04:32, 4 January 2009

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary Probation Request

1) User:ScienceApologist is placed on probation for the duration of these proceedings. Acts of incivility, WP:NPA, WP:GAME, WP:TE and other breaches of Wikiquette will result in site blocks a/o topic bans of increasing duration for science articles, broadly construed (including fringe science).

Comment by Arbitrators:
I do not believe that, at this time, singling out any specific editor would be productive. — Coren (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Jim Butler (t) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comes across as punative, so I'm not infavor of this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally opposed, but if it's going to pass it needs a clause stating that admins taking the actions absolutely have to be neutral parties with no previous interaction or disputes with SA... and preferably in which any known friends/associates of those admins recuse themselves as well, since it'd be trivially easy for these admins to call in others that they'd expect to take their side sight unseen. One of the major problems SA has had is with overly aggressive admins making the problem worse through threats and bans. That problems needs to be de-escalated, not actively encouraged. DreamGuy (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such a probation could be useful — if it were extended to include all editors of fringe science articles, and it incorporated explicit reference to WP:TE and WP:GAME via the tools of 'civil' POV-pushing (including WP:IDHT, WP:WEIGHT problems, etc.). A proscription on actions by previously involved admins (per DreamGuy) would be worthwhile as well. (Let's be honest here — mostly we're trying to keep Jehochman and SA from poking each other, and I don't care whose fault it is.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly unrealistic and immoral and wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has already had a 1 year civility parole. If that didn't work, how would this? If that did work, why is this needed? Either way, this is useless. (It didn't work, obviously, but this is useless even if someone thinks SA is civil.) GRBerry 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well-intentioned but very likely to cause drama. Little good would come of this. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Civility paroles are misguided. We are all subject to civility all the time (ahem), there is no need for any extra burden William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per William's comment above. In addition, he is already on probation, which has all but failed. seicer | talk | contribs 13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jim Butler

Proposed principles

Two wrongs don't make a right

1) Incivility is not a part of WP:DR, and is not an acceptable response to, or remedy for, civil POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Seems WP is so debased we have to ask the ArbCom to say this. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Jim Butler (t) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. If existing remedies and tools don't solve perceived problems, either develop new tools (in a civil manner) or accept that not everyone agrees with your perception of the problem. Use of incivility to enforce new or existing rules is not an acceptable procedure. Coppertwig(talk) 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Already clear wiki policy, pointless to restate, and the section name doesn't fit the proposal William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden rule

2) If everyone persistently violated Wikiquette, Wikipedia would collapse. Therefore, there are no exceptions to Wikiquette, no matter how noble an editor's agenda may be.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Within reason. Editors should not degrade the collegial atmosphere. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Jim Butler (t) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious logical syllogism deduction. Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both invalid and unsound. Invalid because the conclusion is not supported by the premiss. Unsound, because the premiss is false. Nor is it a syllogism, Mathsci. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But a 'dubious' deduction would not be a deduction, would it? Peter Damian (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VIth form debating society is third door on the left next to the fire extinguishers. Bring your own biscuits.Mathsci (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk abut getting bogged down in minutiae. Martinphi's formulation conveys the idea well, doesn't it? --Jim Butler (t) 12:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all. In my experience the problem with pseudoscientific presentation on Wikipedia is that its proponents are incapable of putting their ideas in the form of coherent, logical language. The question is not whether the formulation 'conveys the idea well', but what idea is meant to be conveyed in the first place. But as soon as you try to explain the flaws in logic, you get accused of 'getting bogged down in minutiae'. Peter Damian (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "get off your high horse"? That sound like a good one? --Jim Butler (t) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Act only on a maxim whereby thou canst will it should become a universal law. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The addition of Martinphi's proverb makes it a true syllogism (I think?); in any case, I agree with the conclusion. Coppertwig(talk) 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If everyone persistently violated Wikiquette, Wikipedia would collapse. Act only on a maxim whereby thou canst will it should become a universal law. Therefore, there are no exceptions to Wikiquette, no matter how noble an editor's agenda may be. " This is still not valid. Try "If everyone persistently violated Wikiquette, Wikipedia would collapse. If anyone violates Wikiquette, everyone violates Wikiquette. Wikipedia must not collapse, therefore no one should persistently violate Wikiquette". Peter Damian (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it invalid? Try this: "If some people violate Wikquette while others do not, those who violate it have an unfair advantage, and it's counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia (NPOV) to allow some editors to have an unfair advantage. It wouldn't work to solve this problem by letting everyone violate it, so let's solve it by letting no one violate it." Coppertwig(talk) 16:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even an argument. That is just a series of statements. An argument is one whose conclusions follow logically from its premisses, that is, such that the conclusion cannot be false when the premisses are true. For example, it does not logically follow from the fact that some people violate Wikiquette while some do not, that those who violate it have an advantage, or an unfair advantage. Peter Damian (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. Coppertwig(talk) 16:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As before: we already have rules for civility. Most people obey them, but in some cases they need enforcing, and it will always be necessary to use judgement to enforce them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Editorial process

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Standard. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
But consensus does not mean "a small group of people hanging around the talk page of an article on a controversial topic banding together to vote to take actions that violate the clearly stated community wide consensus that built policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV" and so forth, which is unfortunately what is happening on many articles on fringe topics. Consensus on topics that effect hundreds of articles should not be fought on every single article one by one by whomever happens to be hanging out there, especially as the people most likely to be hanging around a fringe topic article are followers of that fringe belief. We need consistent application of policies, not coordinated gaming of the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot that at least as many debunkers hang around. I agree, this is very well put. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't forget it because who hangs around isn't ultimately what should matter, policy should matter. Community consensus should always beat local talk page consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmhmmm, that's the main way I get rid of debunking, is to draw in outside editors. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Standard. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Standard, but so often used as a rod to beat the backs of those who are fighting to maintain scientific consensus. Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that endlessly pushing the same counter-encyclopedic agenda with the same cherry-picking from the same unreliable sources is not considered a breach of decorum. Expressing frustration at such tactics is, often, considered a breach of decorum. MastCell Talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I subscribe to Giano's version of civility where actions speak louder than words. Argumentum ad nauseum and the other polite, disruptive tactics are grounds for banning an editor from a locus of dispute. Perhaps I will rewrite this definition of decorum to include those thoughts. Jehochman Talk 22:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat disagree with mastcell. I think that repetitious argumentation is disruption, the challenge is getting enough attention from someone to show that, without creating a whole festival of dramatic activity. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In these debates, both sides, since they are ideologically driven, repeat ad nauseum. Further, those who are NPOV repeat ad nauseum, since they are talking to ideologues who won't compromise. Don't act like the debate is between NPOV and pro. It's between pro and con with NPOV caught in the middle- or leaving the article. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not proponents v. neutral point of view most of the time, but rather some mix of pro and con view points that struggle to be phrased neutrally. And anyone who repeats ad nauseum is distrupting and should be delt with appropriately. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that repeating ad nauseum is not necessarily a bad thing, but a symptom. If you explain over and over to a non-NPOV editor what NPOV is, that isn't disruptive. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In reply to Peter Damian: if so, then perhaps some of those who wish to maintain what they consider to be scientific consensus need to find other methods to do so. I agree with Martinphi that repetition is not necessarily disruptive; however, opinions differ as to what is NPOV. Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no hindrance of whatever sort - pretended incivility, accusations about behaviour, and so on, that prevent scientific consensus being presented on Wikipedia. Are you saying there should be a hindrance? Peter Damian (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying "there should be a hindrance". I'm saying that incivility should not be used as a tool to enforce (what one perceives as) scientific consensus. When it's clear and obvious to the community what the scientific consensus is and what the article should say, then there are other methods that will work to achieve that goal. The problem comes when it seems clear and obvious to some editors but not to others. Believing that one is right is not an excuse to override policy or broad consensus. Coppertwig(talk) 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic coverage of science

3) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Standard. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under SPOV, we represent mainstream science. Under NPOV we present all sides of an argument according to WP:WEIGHT. The Committee has to choose which it means. If our editing must be "in line with" a particular POV, it cannot be NPOV. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, our editing must be "in line" with the best reliable sources on the subject, and to edit with that goal in mind validates NPOV rather than negating it. Here is the central dispute in a nutshell: there are people editing Wikipedia who don't believe in the fundamental purpose of an encyclopedia or the core policies of Wikipedia. As to the "SPOV" vs "NPOV" distinction, this is an artificial distinction that this editor has been trying unusuccessfully to sell for the better part of the year. "SPOV" was never accepted as a useful concept and was never adopted; it is generally accepted that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to represent the mainstream view of a subject, whether science or any other subject. Woonpton (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you "represent the mainstream view" of certain fringe topics, you automatically violate NPOV. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
However, Wikipedia does this via the definition of 'reliable sources'. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Martinphi distinguishes between a scientific point of view and a neutral point of view seems extremely problematic. It appears to be his own personal interpretation. It does not seem in any way to reflect wikipedia core policies and should be examined in detail by the arbitration committee. (MastCell has subsequently added evidence about exactly this point.) Mathsci (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Coren and the rest of the ArbCom. I've been saying that the general consensus of editors on these articles is SPOV leaning debunker. I'm not just making things up. I'm not interpreting things till they are far away from the source. Mathsci's statement is clearer than some, but it is the general consensus, and I can give you many quotes like that. Either take a stand against debunking/SPOV, or just allow WP to be that way... but if you allow it to be that way, please let's change the rules formally. Let's not lie. This is what's been going on for years. You have to do something, and this is your last chance because nearly all the more neutral editors are gone already. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an "NPOV editor". Anyone who thinks they are is deluding themselves, and I know at least one editor who has claimed to be such an editor (I'm not speaking of yourself). We all have our POV, which is a good thing, but we also should aspire to edit in an NPOV manner. No one has an inherently NPOV. NPOV is a useful and invaluable contruct for making this a unique encyclopedia. It's not a natural human trait. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fyslee, I changed it. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts.... Speaking of NPOV and SPOV, the SPOV functions in a manner similar to Wikipedia's sourcing policies and other policies. There are aligned with each other. Why? Because scientists and skeptics think like Wikipedia editors should, if they are following policy. Scientists and skeptics want verification for things. Wikipedia wants verification too. Scientists and skeptics want to know how reliable and valid a piece of information is. Wikipedia wants reliable, valid information. Claims, anecdotes, and unsourced content just don't qualify. Critical thinking is essential to Wikipedia. (Paraphrased from someone else, I'm not sure who.) By demanding that editors follow existing policy, we are already requiring them to use the scientific method for verifying sources. The typical alternative medicine and fringe thinking patterns, where anecdotes and wishful thinking are good enough, just don't work here, which may be why those editors are often flakes who run afoul of our policies. Fortunately their sources are likewise flakey and rarely qualify as V & RS, IOW they run into sourcing problems, while SPOV editors have an abundance of V & RS available, because those sources are written using the scientific method, with peer-review and fact checking. They are simply better. The truth will out. Verifiable reality really is a trump card here. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, Fyslee, which is why the word "pseudoskeptic" comes in handy. No good editor has anything against skepticism, if sourced. Debunking, or the application of pseudoskepticism, however, violates basic WP policy. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wording could use a tweak. --TS 14:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. See my comment to Tony Sidaway's first principle. I agree with Martinphi that SPOV and NPOV are not necessarily the same thing. Wikipedia policy is to present NPOV. Often this is interpreted as being the same as SPOV for many articles, which is fine, but for some articles it is not the same thing. The Arbitration Committee may wish to direct the community to work on defining NPOV more precisely. Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Science has no point of view. Science is a method. Peter Damian (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, but all people (editors in our case) do have a point of view. And management of that point of veiw to have neutral articles is our goal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Science, even ideal science, has a POV. For example, that the scientific method is a way to understand the universe. Other POVs hang on to science's skirts, such as materialism, or "energyism." Another POV is that logic is a valid means of debate. Another, that insular groups of people are best at deciding whether or not something is valid, per peer review. Just examples. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Most community comments to the proposal for a WP:Mainstream have been negative[1]. A gradual adoption of a new policy WP:Mainstream via a number of ArbCom rulings would break the core principle of NPOV according to which different POVs are represented according to their prominence. NPOV already gives the Mainstream view the upper hand. I fear that every new ArbCom ruling in favour of a WP:Mainstream will be abused by the pro-establishment POV pushers to suppress legitimate minority views[2] and establish a pro-industry, pro-government, pro-establishment hidden political right-wing agenda. MaxPont (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the assumption that Encyclopedias are generally expected really means Wikipedia should be expected, then it isn't clear that this is standard, and is worth considering for that reason. In which case, as the discussion above indicates, it isn't really clear what this proposal means; but arbcomm discussion of it might be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point Of View

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Standard. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicts with 3 "Encyclopedic coverage of science," and with the comments of most editors here and the attitude of most editors presenting evidence. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support. Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In line with Jimbo Wales vision for Wikipedia[3] MaxPont (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose (the motion, not the policy). Waste of time: already non-negotiable policy. Arbcomm should not be re-iterating policy. This feels like some kind of attempt to creep up on what you actually want to say: in which case, please just say it without these elaborate preliminaries William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

5) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or propaganda.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
From WP:NOT. Even if an idea is correct, Wikipedia is not for marketing ideas. Wikipedia reports; it does not argue. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Could you write it to make it better cover biased wording per WTA? That is one of the major problems. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
While true, based upon other comments it seems User:Jehochman has a peculiar way of interpreting that, as he has been labeling overwhelming scientific consensus as mere propaganda. Wikipedia reports and does it in a way the accurately represents both the arguments of various sides but also how seriously they are taken by the academic world at large. If a certain fringe theory is a fringe theory, someone reading the article needs to know that right away from something in the text of the lead or first subsection -- and of course doing so by appropriate sourcing and neutral language objectively describing the mainstream scientific opinion. Not including this information not only slants the whole context of the article but ends up being propaganda for the minority view. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be wikilawyering to suggest that this part of WP:NOT was applicable to mainstream science (see Jehochman's companion proposal below where he clarifies his use of the word "advocacy"). One of the goals of wikipedia is surely to promote an increase in the knowledge of mainstream science amongst its readership. Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately scientific consensus is not 'marketing ideas'. Wikipedia reports scientific consensus. What's the problem? Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is my understanding. I am not sure why others feel the need to battle over facts. Just spell them out, and if anybody is behaving unreasonably, use dispute resolution to stop them from disrupting. Jehochman Talk 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lurked through the cold fusion ARB process, and what the issue is is that people disagree over what the actual facts are. The CF discussion pretty much boiled down to "That's not a reliable source", "Yes it is", "No it isn't"....There was a lot of WP:IDHT on both sides. For me, my hope is that we can figure out how to handle fringe sources on fring subjects. I would hate for WP to become like those "documentaries" about the Loch Ness Monster that leave viewers thinking it might actually exist.Quietmarc (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking - STRUCK

6) Debunking is a form of advocacy that seeks to dismiss and damage the reputation of a subject through the use of rhetoric or argumentation.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
A novel proposal. A debunker may be correct in their assertions, but the tone of a debunking piece is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Our article on colon cleansing may report that the practice is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.[4] However, Wikipedia itself should avoid using a term like quackery to describe a subject.[5][6] (Reporting that X calls Y quackery may be appropriate sometimes.) We should use precise, accurate terminology, and avoid rhetoric. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Novel indeed. If I were to say I agree, I'd have to disrupt the wiki by putting it ten foot high letters. Also fully agree with Jehochman's comment. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This proposal seems poorly thought out and possibly tailor-made for SA. It goes completely against the method of checking wikipedia articles on fringe science. To see why it is flawed, please take a look at motionless electromagnetic generator and many other similar articles. Mathsci (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that this proposal (re)defines a widely-used term or concept in a particularly negative way. I fear that such a definition will be used to frame subsequent discussions or remedies in a harmful manner. Our article on debunker links to a neutral definition which accurately reflects the way that the term is actually used.
Debunk: verb...to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.
...
Debunk: tr. v....To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. - Dictionary.com
Exposing claims and assertions which are false, pretentious, or exaggerated is a key part of evaluating sources for reliability, maintaining an appropriate perspective in articles, and avoiding overly-zealous reporting of fringe topics in Wikipedia. (If anything, the proposed (re)definition turns the situation on its head. Debunkers are often responding to advocates who have sought "to dismiss and damage the reputation of a subject through the use of rhetoric or argumentation".)
If there are specific user-conduct issues to be addressed, then describe them in a FoF. There's no need to create a label. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal takes the side of fringe advocates by adopting the language of fringe advocacy, and seems to ignore the fact that articles are based on reliable sources and that we simply follow how the most reliable sources represent the subject. It might be an acceptable proposal, if it weren't for the fact that anyone trying to represent the mainstream view on a fringe subject, even if using measured and neutral language, is called a "debunker," in an attempt to dismiss, disallow, or discredit the mainstream scientific view of a fringe subject. I'm not sure I follow the example; it seems muddled. No, Wikipedia shouldn't call something "quackery" without sources, but if a source calls a subject quackery, and if that view represents the view of most objective experts on the subject, certainly it's encyclopedic to cite that source as written. The fringe element on Wikipedia has been working steadily to push the idea that fringe subjects should be exempt from core policy and should be represented from within the fringe universe, in other words from the POV of fringe advocates; if most sources that cover the topic are advocacy blogs and self-published books and pamphlets, those sources should be allowed for these fringe subjects and the view of the subject these inferior sources represent should dominate the article; any sources that present a more realistic point of view on the subject are dismissed as "debunking." This is not a good direction for the encyclopedia to go. There are some subjects that really need to be dismissed and discredited, if the encyclopedia doesn't care to be considered a laughingstock in the eyes of the world outside this particular wiki.Woonpton (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Debunking is a core concept to understanding mainstream handling of fringe science. Respected scientists doing nothing other than their jobs of science routinely debunk fringe claims as a matter of day to day operations. Trying to claim that debunking means ridicule or to suggest that by its very nature the act of debunking is hostile, uncivil, etc. is wikilawyering to a shocking degree. The idea that this would even be offered up seriously by someone who had some involvement in editing fringe-related topics and who took it upon himself to supposedly act as a neutral administrator capacity is, frankly, extremely troubling. It's essentially actively pushing an extreme anti-science and anti-rational thought agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While rhetorical excess is to be avoided, there are ways to provide an neutral debunking of an idea. This proposal seems to be getting at the folks who spend time trying to 'debunk' other editors, which is a problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Debunking other editors is not a problem... in fact it is a vital process in the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. You might as well be saying that any attempt to prove that what another editor wants in the encyclopedia doesn't meet our criteria is automatically uncivil. A proposed finding has to be worded accurately and say what it means. We shouldn't have to peer under the hood to try to assume what he really means and approve that, especially when it seems likely from other comments that he means exactly what he says. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
when the 'debunking' is of editors and not their ideas it is a problem. I don't support this proposal as written. It doesn't deal with an actual problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are topics that are described by RS as "quackery" (Homepathy, by E. Ernst, comes to mind). Reporting that is not debunking. Echoing several high-quality notable scientific RS on how a certain theory is not, can not be and will never be valid is not debunking. Neither is explaining the relevant reasons given by those same RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Jehochman has a point. The Arbitration Committee overstepped its bounds by passing the fringe science definitions, and it's really made more heat than light, and FRINGE tends to be used more for demonising non-mainstream viewpoints than actually keeping neutral (e.g. the furore over the Rosalind Picard article a few months ago). It's really a problem in cases where there is a vocal yet minority viewpoint. Take for example, Scientology. While I take the side of 4chan in that it's a crackpot religion, our article shouldn't say that. Yet our article on Scientology isn't neutral. Suffice it to say that, if they came to GAC or FAC, I would not support any fringe articles because we focus too much on the scientific viewpoint (which is a viewpoint none-the-less, and shouldn't, per NPOV, be presented as the one and true viewpoint) which ends up on losing a lot of certainly historical and maybe sociological context, and ends up with really stunted writing, which, while passing NPOV, tends more-often-than-not to fail WEASEL. Take for example, the ID article. While it is an exemplary article in the FRINGE area of articles, it does betray our content policies in some places, even as early as the third paragraph. Remember what WP:MORALIZE (part of NPOV) says: "You won't even need to say [Saddam Hussein] was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary." While the ID article does do this, the other articles don't because of how FRINGE is used. We really need to retool FRINGE to be a useful subset of NPOV, and not just a weapon for silencing the unscientific minority or accusing administrators of POV pushing when they aren't. Discouraging people from the current obsession of lead-section vague debunking, and instead focusing more on the historical and social contexts of non-science, will yield better articles and a much more pleasant environment. Sceptre (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said "cases where there is a vocal yet minority viewpoint", which encompasses things like Scientology. And the title of the guideline is fringe theories, not fringe science, which explicitly includes any article with minority viewpoints. It's all the same, really: proponents of leading theory vs proponents of challenging theory duking it out on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if they're not viewpoints, why is it an NPOV issue? Hint: it wouldn't be. And this is really the problem with people like you and SA: you immediately label anyone who opposes you as trolls. Struck per this. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'm all for a scientific outlook, but not in the current way. Sceptre (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, debunking is a side effect of science. It's science 101. To make up an example, if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the British National Health Service, and the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Canada all say a given homeopathic remedy has the same net effect on you as if you'd never consumed it, that's not negative. rootology (C)(T) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Those would be factual statements that we can repeat. I am concerned about statements like, "Homeopaths are charlatans who rob and put their clients lives at risk." That sort of rhetoric is not for Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. Science uses falsifiability, not debunking. Also, USFDA and other sources said that homeopathic remedies have the same effect as placebo, not that it had no effect. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how this engages with the current issue. Exposing fraudulent or fringe views is of itself original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. Careful citation of authoritative sources (and, importantly, exposing poor or misleading or even fraudulent citation) should be enough. And the use of rhetoric and argumentation is poor encyclopedic practice. Neither of these are problematic in the case of ScienceApologist, who has an excellent grasp of how citation should work, and of assessing reliable sources. Peter Damian (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my comment above, I cite a source, and show two edits I made. That's the point I am trying to make. It is not our purpose to expose, discredit or warn. We simply report what the reliable sources say. QuackWatch is not as good a source of medical information as the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance. I am making a simple point. Various folks are jumping to wild conclusions about what I mean. Jehochman Talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should use, and adopt the tone of, the best (i.e. the best academic) sources available. Such sources are rarely written with an intent to expose, discredit or warn. Instead, they may be written from an anthropological, sociological, or psychological perspective. Such sources do make clear that the topic is a "fringe" topic, and indicate to the reader how far removed from the mainstream it is, but they are not in competition with the fringe world view. They simply study and describe it. Ideally, primary sources of opponents like QuackWatch should (almost) be treated the same way as primary sources of proponents: quoted only to the extent they are quoted by secondary sources which describe the conflict. Jayen466 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quackwatch is recommended by many mainstream medical organisations, the US government, and many other similar sources. Why should something well within the mainstream fold be treated as equivalent to some collection of advocates that noone recommends but themselves and other half-bit promotional websites? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that. Quackwatch specifically does actually have a small number of top-class citations in scholarly literature, as well as being subject to occasional scholarly criticism (I guess that's par for the course). [7] But I would give preference to scholarly, non-advocacy sources. They'll likely say the same thing, but say it in a more matter-of-fact way. Jayen466 12:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Debunking is how we examine arguments to see if they stand up. If somebody argues that we should mention Genesis in an article about human evolution, I'll examine his arguments for validity, and debunk the specious ones. And that is a good thing. We could not construct a neutral enyclopedia if we left our critical faculties at the door. --TS 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

7) In articles about science or fringe science academic works and mainstream peer reviewed journals are preferred as sources. Sources that engage in advocacy should be avoided, except when used as primary sources to establish their own views.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
For example, QuackWatch should not be used as a secondary source in our article about colon cleansing.[8] When people come to Wikipedia, they are looking for a neutral presentation of the facts, not hype. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with original statement. Since WP "does not" (as they say) engage in advocacy, the fringe claims can be fully presented -not "represented"- under this proposal. Fringe views can be fully described in their own articles. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is SOP. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
The basically turns reliable sourcing on its ear. QuackWatch is a highly respected website by respected sources that meets our citeria for reliable sources far better than a lot of the fringe journals out there that use scientific-sounding names but are advocacy publications with no peer review. A standard tactic of fringe true believers has been to go around presenting "peer reviewed journals" that are anything but and to remove any mainstream sources that disagree with them. On top of that, looking for true scintific journals on colon cleansing means our sources are going to be both very hard to find (most fringe science topics are never covered in mainstream science journals because they are considered so wacky) and very diffuclt for a lay person to follow. Encyclopedias are written for people off the street by people off the street. QuackWatch *IS* the facts, from the scientific view. Just calling the whole site "hype" shows an extreme POV, and one that absolutely CANNOT be pushed onto this encyclopedia. User:Jehochman seems to be actively promoting fringe topics, whether it be intentional, out of ignorance of the effects of what he is saying, or out of trying to get User:ScienceApologist any way he can and not worrying abut the collateral damage to this project. 17:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (added by DreamGuy)[reply]
The issues with quackwatch, imo, are not so much the ordinary reliable source issues, but the polemical tone it's articles often take. So, while not an unusable source, for many articles it should not be the only or main one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All fine and good that that's your opinion, but it's clear User:Jehochman doesn't want it used at all and I think it's perfectly fine as a main source along with some others. ArbCom should not endorse a proposed finding in which the person who wrote it clearly states that he interprets it a specific way that goes against Wikipedia policy, ESPECIALLY when current rules of ArbCom say any admin may interpret ArbCom sanctions against any editor any way and take whateve steps they think are necessary and that those actions cannot be undone by any other admin or group of admins without explicit ArbCom approval. If Jehochman states his intent to go around removing a reliable source because he doesn't like it, it's only natural to assume that he will, and the way things are going there'd be nothing anyone else could do about it without dragging it back to ArbCom every. single. time. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barret he is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, and in quackery. From his own bio:
a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. [9](not a literal quote)
but we can't use him as source because "he's engaged in advocacy"? No. (not to mention that there are not defined criteria to determine advocacy, so all sources showing a fringe belief in a negative light will inevitabily be accused of advocacy). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say can't use. I said academic sources should be preferred. QuackWatch could be cited as an opinion of a notable expert in the field, but it is clearly a polemic source and should be identified as such. We cannot count on them providing a neutral, factual assessment. Jehochman Talk 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be neutral. If they look at the evidence and form an opinion, that's what scientists -- and experts in general -- do. That's what those academic journals you want treated as better than QuackWatch do alo. We can't count on any of them being factual and neutral... sciences don't just assume the results of one study are factual, they go with combined results of several studies. You get something like that better from a source like QuackWatch that tackles the whole topic based upon the results of multiple studies and on a broad range of related findings. The fact that QuackWatch has opinions doesn't make them any less of a source. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea, as per above. And if there is a lack of reputable archaeologists bothering to refute, say, Erich von Däniken, the very fact that the peer-reviewed journals that do cover Däniken's work are Journals of Religion speaks volumes. Jayen466 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, you need to be more careful about how you word things. You have made some statements above that need to be tweaked, since they are already giving ammunition to fringe POV pushers who wish to see Quackwatch and Barrett banned as sources here. A simple study of the many authoritative sources that recommend Quackwatch and Barrett (we only use a few in their articles) will give an idea of what mainstream science, medicine, universities, professors, librarians, consumer organizations, and governmental bodies, think of them, and it's very positive. They are considered authoritative and can be used as good opinions. Yes, attribution is a good idea, but don't give the impression that they shouldn't be used. Some of your previous statements give that impression. BTW, when dealing with any controversial subject, "a neutral, factual assessment" is not a legitimate option. Presenting the "factual assessment" is by nature not a "neutral" act. We choose sources here, not because they are neutral, but because they exist and are often not neutral. They provide opinions about the real world as it exists, and if they are in V & RS, we use them.
I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up. Find anyone who is doing it, and you'll find such an editor....or someone who just doesn't have a clue, possibly because of ignorance of the issues regarding healthfraud, consumer fraud, and quackery. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is up to a consensus at the article talk page or WP:RSN to determine what is a reliable source. I happen to have three doctors in my family and have seen what they read and what websites they visit. I have an idea of what constitutes a reliable source for medical information. Jehochman Talk 04:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure we agree on that. What we're talking about here isn't MEDRS stuff or peer-reviewed scientific literature, but V & RS in general, and when it comes to opinions about healthfraud, quackery, and fringe medical subjects, Barrett and Quackwatch are considered among the most reliable there are. The team behind Quackwatch is pretty knowledgeable about such things. I think we can both agree that they wouldn't be the best sources of information for purely scientific articles, but when it comes to medical controversies involving fringe science and fraud, even on those articles, then they can be useful sources. It's a matter of differentiating when to use what. Each has their appointed place in the grand scheme of things here, and fringe POV pushers, quacks, and marketers of quack products and methods would love to use anything negative said here about Barrett and Quackwatch as weapons in their continued battle to eliminate any source that exposes them for what they are. They are very RS for certain things here, and when they aren't the best, Quackwatch still provides its sources, which are often excellent ones we can use. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must not use promotional sources for statements of fact. Quackwatch is a promotional source, as the ArbCom confirmed before specifically. It can be used with very good attribution as an opinion. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional" source? Please explain. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, fyslee, it's obvious, and it was your own ArbCom [10]. Unless you see a big difference between "partisan" and "promotional?" ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Partisan 1. A fervent and even militant proponent of something. 2. An ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity 3." As an adjective, "1. Affiliated with one party or faction. 2. Devoted to a cause or party" IOW, promotional. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 07:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that wasn't a good finding and wasn't backed up with any evidence that it was true. It was careless wording adopted before any evidence had been presented and it was never shown to be the case that the sources used were unreliable. No evidence was brought forward to back up that finding! It just was written and lay there as a ticking bomb. Accusations are not evidence. Keep in mind that my opposer is the one who got banned, and I was "cautioned" to do exactly what I had been doing all along. You aren't the only one who has used that unfortunate wording to further an improper agenda. It was never proven that I used unreliable sources, and Quackwatch was never shown to be an unreliable source. Search the whole ArbCom and you will only find accusations, never proof. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fyslee -- ArbCom was certainly wrong when they implicitly criticized you for using Quackwatch as a source, since many other editors had done so and there was no general agreement that it was unreliable. However, I certainly agree that Barrett is partisan, QW is biased, and it should be used with care. That's a judgment call, something over which reasonable people can disagree, not a fact or falsehood. There was plenty of discussion of QW and Barrett during that case. The evidence page is blanked now. However, if I remember correctly, some critical opinion was cited, e.g. here. I think ArbCom probably did take this stuff into account in making their finding.
I've posted before about Barrett's use of disingenuous arguments and double standards, e.g., criticizing members of the IOM's panel on CAM for having professional affiliations involving CAM: this is a completely non-unique criticism; an IOM panel on radiology would have on board several radiologists receiving grant money to study radiology. At this point Barrett is likely to say, "oh, I don't criticize mainstream medicine; that's outside my scope". Disingenuous by any definition. Anyway, Fyslee, as you know, I defended you in that case and was unhappy you got slimed at all. Still, I think ArbCom's characterization of Quackwatch was a defensible and fair judgement call. --Jim Butler (t) 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Barrett and Quackwatch are biased. They have a SPOV bias, they defend science, they defend use of the scientific method, and they expose persons and methods who take the opposing POV. Thus their bias is a mainstream SPOV bias. Anyone who doesn't have well-chosen biases (which, BTW, aren't the same thing as prejudices) will likely not have opinions worth listening to. Barrett is conscious of his biases, as are most scientific skeptics. They have examined both sides of the issues and have found that the scientific position is the most defensible. In that they are similar to Wikipedia editors who follow our sourcing rules. In Barrett's and Quackwatch's case, they use their POV and knowledge to expose quackery and healthfraud, and thus are looked upon very favorably by governmental agencies and consumer groups who are also involved in exposing fraud.
As far as the ArbCom's dubious "finding", I have always been grateful for your friendship and honorable defense of my situation at the ArbCom. Thanks for that. I just wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular "finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom, most performed by my now-banned opponent, her dishonorable mentor, and her major defender. Unfortunately this particular blunder was made by the ArbCom itself. "Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, not upon false charges brought by my cowardly attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. You can't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly. That finding was just plain wrong. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people are biased toward SPOV, but the issues I mentioned above about Barrett go well beyond that: double-standards, disingenuous arguments, and claims that we shouldn't even bother to study chiro or acu at all. These show a lack of partiality (he doesn't even want to gather or examine the fucking evidence!) and an overt anti-alt-med bias. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A case has just been opened on this matter. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this proposal (as amended) is not particularly problematic, I think we need to keep in mind WP:PARITY. Some topics are so fringe that they are barely discussed at all in peer-reviewed mainstream journals. *** Crotalus *** 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example that we can debug? If something has such minimal notability that it does not appear in any sort of reliable source, perhaps we should just delete the article. Jehochman Talk 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories comes to mind - the existence of these theories is definitely notable and verifiable (Fox even once ran a primetime TV show discussing them), but no one is going to publish a peer-reviewed paper saying "yes, we really did go to the Moon," so we have to rely upon sources like Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" that are willing to get down in the dirt with the fringers and challenge them. *** Crotalus *** 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an example I haven't personally dealt with, by the way. I have had two personal dealings with fringe topics: Satanic ritual abuse, and Asian fetish (or whatever it's called now). Both cases were brought to my attention via WP:FT/N and WP:RS/N. In the first case, I and a few others were able to run off the POV-pushers and get the article into shape, but I had a hard time finding reliable sources - after the hype of the 1980s, there really wasn't a lot published on the issue at all. I finally managed to find some good sources on JSTOR. Asian fetish was even worse, in my opinion it probably should have been deleted, almost no one notable ever discussed the concept at all, and it was a POV-pushing playground for one particularly problematic user. *** Crotalus *** 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, leaning towards support. It sounds good, but choosing reliable sources can be difficult to generalize about. Re moon landing: it says such sources are preferred; but implicitly, if such sources cannot be found then other sources are used, so I don't see that as an objection to this statement. Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that QuackWatch is a reliable source when used for a lot of fringe topics. I keep seeing editors wanting to get this source banned from the project. Unfortunately the ones I see wanting it banned though are POV who insists that it's not reliable because it not peer reviewed. Personally I find that most things there are copies from peer reviewed articles that are at times expanded upon. I would hope that Wikipedia would not remove this as a reliable source. I also think the past ARB decision should be rewritten to remove the doubts that some editors now hold about all of this. That arbitration was full of emotion and during the time there was a lot of evidence provided. I especially remember two editors giving evidence. One tried to show that Fyslee was abusing the use of QW and of the now banned user. Another editor took days to gather difs and proved that editor was cherry picking quotes and comments and proved that all but like three comments were wrong. It's hard to remember all of the details of the blanked discussions but it was a real eye opener for me since I was a new editor at the time. So is QW a reliable source, heck yes it is. If you go to the new request to change the wording you will see that Flo has stated that errors occured with the motion. I really don't understand all of this arguing when QW is stated to be a good site by so many goverment agencies, as can be seen in the article. Please consider this when making a motion. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Quackwatch can be used sparingly when we need to document the position taken by critics of "quackery". It is not a neutral source. A medical journal is a better source in many situations. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is non-judgmental; The facts speak for themselves

1) Wikipedia is non-judgmental. Wikipedia articles may report the opinions of reliable sources, but Wikipedia itself does not attempt to sway readers with rhetorical or emotional language. The facts speak for themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Our article on colon cleansing may report that the practice is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.[11] However, Wikipedia itself should avoid using an emotional term like quackery to describe a subject.[12][13] (Reporting that X calls Y quackery may be appropriate sometimes.) We should use precise, accurate terminology, and avoid rhetoric. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is SOP. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Misrepresenting the actions of charlatans and quacks is not desirable. When there is no legitimate scientific debate on a matter we should say so. We don't pretend that those who steal or lie are engaged in a debate with society about the nature of property and truth, so we shouldn't pretend that those who abuse scientific terms to gull their victims are engaged in legitimate debate about the nature of science or medicine. --TS 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this in general. Wikipedia should not use a loaded term like "quackery" to describe something as Wikipedia's opinion. On the other hand, Wikipedia can certainly report that reliable sources call it quackery. In those two links you cited above, I think you were right to remove "Colon cleansing is considered quackery, with no basis in science or gastroenterology" (though that was a matter of degrees, the statement is accurate, but could use a slight tone tweak or citation on who exactly calls it quackery), but I think you went too far in removing both sources completely instead of using them to support a claim that, say, doctors warn people off of the practice. DreamGuy (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a judgment call. Feel free to add whatever you like. Yes, tone is important. We do not want our articles to have a polemic tone. Sometimes the battle between science and POV pushers results in both sides putting forward unacceptable content. In that case it is necessary to remove the disruptive editors from the article, rather than to battle them. I am willing to show anybody who will listen how to do that. We have to be careful that our reaction to POV pushing is not to reduce our standards to the level of those who would harm the encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the "impartial tone" in WP:NPOV; as such, it's a basic part of one of our core principles. Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't really correct as written. Wikipedia goes where reliable sources go. If all or virtually all reliable sources are critical of a subject, then the Wikipedia article will seem largely "critical" or "judgemental" as well, assuming it respects WP:WEIGHT. A blanket statement that "Wikipedia is non-judgmental" is an open invitation to wikilawyering aimed at whitewashing or editorially dampening critical but reliable sources, in my opinion. MastCell Talk 07:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I think we agree on what it ought to mean, but it's a matter of nuance and exactly how those particular words are interpreted. Perhaps this proposal could be reworded to be more like WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. Would it help to change it to "Wikipedia is non-judgemental, but lets the facts speak for themselves"? Coppertwig(talk) 14:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do like that wording better. I agree - I think we're on the same page, but I'm just being a stickler for wording to head off issues down the road. MastCell Talk 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added The facts speak for themselves. Jehochman Talk 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

9. Disruptive editing techniques may not be used to prevent the formation of consensus. Administrators may use blocks to counteract the persistent use of disruptive editing techniques, including:

Comment by arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is meant to counteract the tactics used by "polite POV pushers". I have placed such blocks and they have stood up to review. Unfortunately, many administrators are shy about enforcing the disruptive editing guideline. Perhaps the ArbCom can help by sending a message that they will support administrators who attempt to control disruptive editing. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lordy. You want to block people for "wikilawyering." You'll be issuing a lot of blocks. It would work both ways. This would favor the fringe side of things, were any non-SPOV admins to take hold of it. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support per my comment here. Rather than allowing people to get away with behaviour until other editors are literally exhausted and then suddenly indef-blocking them, unacceptable behaviour should be defined, and clear warnings and escalating blocks used to control it, to minimize damage. Coppertwig(talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this hands too much power to admins. Although it's a serious problem, polite POV pushing is a fairly localized problem so it's probably better to resolve it by naming the articles and providing enhanced powers. This kind of approach has been applied with success in the past. --TS 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DE has been on the books for quite some time. Some of us already exercise this power regularly. We need more encouragement from the Committee so that more administrators will feel comfortable doing so. Jehochman Talk 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

10. A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern. Wikipedia's Civility policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

Comment by arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Lifted from WP:CIVIL. I wrote part of this. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but enforcement is difficult. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support. Basic policy. Coppertwig(talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thick skins

11. Administrators are expected to have thick skins. When an administrator blocks or sanctions a user, the user may react with incivility towards the administrator. In such cases, editors generally do not receive additional sanctions unless the incivility is extreme.

Comment by arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
It is important that we not cause disruption by needlessly escalating conflicts. I think that incidents involving User:ScienceApologist have also escalated because SA tends to react with hostility towards any administrator who attempts to control their use of disruption or incivility.
No, I guess you've never been a parent, eh? ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There can be exceptions. One time an editor I warned for canvassing responded by posting a picture of The finger on my talk page, and I blocked them as a disruption-only account. User:Newyorkbrad may remember the incident. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but with exceptions. This is difficult to enforce. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Point taken. Coppertwig(talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to enshrine in an ArbCom finding the notion that users who have earned a sanction for their poor conduct automatically get a free pass to be obnoxious. Why would we tolerate, condone, and encourage temper tantrums on Wikipedia which we would never put up with in a real-world volunteer group? (See also Penny Arcade's GIFT; not safe for uptight workplaces.) I see far too much opportunity for wikilawyering and abuse in this principle. Both admins and the recipients of sanctions ought to recognize that these situations are stressful and both parties should conduct themselves accordingly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking of saying something along those lines. Let's not hand out free passes to abuse people! Admins take too much abuse already. I like what you said, "both parties should conduct themselves accordingly." How about "Wikipedia editors are expected to have thick skins. If blocked from editing for a good or bad reason, they are expected to respond in a professional manner." I don't think it's fair to assume that admins necessarily have any thicker skin than anybody else. We need our admins. Perhaps if an editor habitually gets abusive when blocked, it would be reasonable to escalate the length of their blocks at a higher rate, to minimize the total amount of abuse. Coppertwig(talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have another larger problem: aggressive users with a strong support base who retaliate and intimidate admins who enforce sanctions. If admins become fearful of enforcing correct sanctions, Wikpedia will become a lawless place where thugs with a strong support base are given a free rein. MaxPont (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:B

Proposed principles

Anti-science mischaracterization

1) Few, if any, editors are "anti-science".

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
It's about time someone sought to curb the slanderous accusations of the debunkers. When I say "debunker," I am talking about a well defined set of behavior. When a person says "kook" "idiot" contrasts others with "reality based editors," or calls others "anti science," they are not talking about behavior, but assumed mental attitude. Further, any NPOV editor who comes and tries to curb debunking will have such epithets flung at him. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the labeling of any editors "pro-science" and "anti-science" for the purpose of this RFAR and elsewhere. Input should be based upon merit and the validity of sources and text, not on their particular viewpoint overall. seicer | talk | contribs 13:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Maybe this isn't the best way to articulate this, but I am really tired of anyone who disagrees with the "scientific consensus" on a particular issue being dismissed as "anti-science". Nobody is anti-science any more than a politician voting against a particular Medicare bill wants senior citizens beaten up and left for dead on the streets. If this term would slip from the collective vocabulary of the "pro-science" (or whatever) editors, the probability of harmonious editing would increase by 21.3%. (That percentage is not based on a scientific study. Yes, this sentence is intended to be ironic.) --B (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it has a decimal place, which makes it 37.7% more scientific. :) Yes, I think this would be a good general idea, if not necessarily an ArbCom finding. MastCell Talk 20:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To really be scientific, it needs some big words - "based on chi-square distribution analysis of the expected value and variance, with special emphasis on umbral calculus, of a stratified random sample gathered last Thursday, we infer a 37.7% increase." --B (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all it takes is a p-value to fool the masses. MastCell Talk 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joking aside (I loved the gobbledeegook), I have modified my evidence in view of B's proposal, with which I agree. Mathsci (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, entirely. Sceptre (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-science" is an epithet, a slander, an insult. Using this term to describe editors is a violation of WP:NPA. Dlabtot (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this because it's so obviously untrue. We have banned people in the past for pushing extreme anti-science viewpoints. The history of the evolution article shows persistent vandalism by anti-science editors who replace it with a quote from Genesis. My evidence section shows a history of arbitration cases in which scientific evidence has been misrepresented and manipulated, primarily by those with fringe viewpoints and, it must be said, often little science education. --TS 21:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It may be true and acceptable to say "This editor deletes material which I consider to be scientific", but it's far too easy to call someone "anti-science" because, using the scientific method, they arrived at a different conclusion than oneself, or because the person interprets the NPOV policy as calling for mention of a certain POV in an article, regardless of whether the person actually agrees with that POV. One could simply call everyone who disagrees with oneself "anti-science". Does anyone call themself "anti-science"? Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Oppose: Creationism, for instance, is an explicitly anti-science movement: Proponents often attack basic qualities of the scientific method, such as changing one's mind when confronted with evidence, as proof that the "unchanging" Bible is a better source (For instance, Answers In Genesis). Also, alternative medicine POV-pushers and advocates often say that science is merely one way of knowing, and that other, unspecified ways of knowing should be given equal weight to the ones that actually collect evidence (e.g. intuition or insight, or traditional knowledge). This is explicitly anti-science. I'm sure the term has been used to readily, but I see no point in claiming that no editor does not respect science, when my experience shows this is clearly not the case. I do not think that it is either useful or appropriate for the Arbcom, who, by and large, have no or little experience with such articles (though with notable exceptions, of course) to say that no editor holds views that some clearly do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I accepted your contention that creationism is an anti-science movement (I maintain that it is not falsifiable and therefore is science-neutral), calling a person "anti-science" is a pejorative. Simply disagreeing with the scientific consensus on a single issue doesn't make someone anti-science. Personally, I believe in the Biblical six-day creation (not so-called "young-earth" creation - Adam and Eve could have been chilling out in the garden for kazillions of years while everything else was going on in the world), but I agree with the so-called "pro-science" editors on basically every other science issue (quackery, global warming, etc). Yet you would call me "anti-science". --B (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a biology major, I have edited many evolution and science-related articles. The creationists I've dealt with, and which I am refering to implicitly - if not explicitly, for which I apologise - are the groups led by people such as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and similar, who explicitly attack science in their online material. It is possible to believe in creationism without being anti-science, but I believe it's fair to say that the vast majority of the leadership of the movement and most of its visible followers on Wikipedia primarily seek to attack well-established scientific theories, mainly evolution, and to use said articles to denigrate these theories in order to (in their view) increase the prestige of their creationist views. It's so bad at evolution that it's full-protected and has an editable copy that admins move content over from. But this was not my point: Your proposed finding is that "Few, if any editors are anti-science": Clearly, the actions of many editors demonstrate anti-sciene views, even if we merely limited it to just the prominent vandal editors, such as Kdbuffalo (et al sockpuppets) and the Genesis vandal, etc. Denying there is a problem is not helpful, even if you yourself hold views that many who are part of the problem hold, even though you yourself are not part of the problem. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a bit more: To hold a religious belief is not anti-science; however, if you are lying and misrepresenting the views of others in order to attack those on the other side - as most prominent creationist advocates do, and that other side is biology, then, yes, you are anti-science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we cannot agree that modern forms of creationism (including old earth varieties) are good examples of the anti-science viewpoint, I think this is part of the problem. There is science on one hand, and there is believing some crap because it's written in an old book on the other. --TS 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little more care is required here. Freeman Dyson is an example of an individual who has worn two hats, that of theoretical physicist and that of theologian. The two disciplines were kept separate. Another example, probably not quite as distinguished, is John Polkinghorne. Mathsci (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, there are distinctive disciplines involved. There is a considerable overlap, though, and a lot of the history of science has been the steady retreat of theological models in the face of scientific discovery. In Christianity, the problem was recognised quite early on and we still often remember Augustine of Hippo's work on Genesis in which he castigates those who make their religion look stupid because of their insistence on using the bible as an authority on matters of the real world. --TS 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should not label our opponents for rhetorical reasons but if it is a correct description we should use it. MaxPont (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per SH. Few will *call* themselves anti-science, because of science's prestige; but editing in an anti-science manner is all too common William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Peter Damian

Proposed principles

Stricter enforcement of policy

1) There should be much stricter enforcement of policies on use of reliable sources. Editors who persistently cherry-pick primary sources against WP:DUE, or who cite unreliable sources, should be indefinitely blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
It takes some fortitude, but I have had good luck using WP:AE to clear out such accounts from certain 9/11 articles, and I was able to use WP:RFAR to remove such an account from Cold fusion. There is no way to legislate common sense and backbone. We need to create a culture that rewards editors willing to do difficult work, even when such work causes "drama". Unfortunately, we have a fair number of sheeple who bleat "no drama, no drama". Jehochman Talk 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is administrative enforcement of content, which even the Arbitration Committee does not do. Such behavior is grounds for desysoping. I agree that one should be strict -much stricter- about sources. Unfortunately we have a fair number of Dirty Harrys who roar about "defending the wiki" by any means, "Well, do ya, punk?" This is just a civil means for an admin run the wiki ScienceApologist's way. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; if a specific editor habitually pushes low-quality sources, ignores feedback, and refuses to heed WP:WEIGHT, then it's a behavioral issue of the sort that any admin is theoretically empowered to deal with. Blocks are intended to protect the encyclopedia from damage, and I would submit that this sort of behavior is at least as damaging, if not more so, then name-calling and silly GEORGE BUSH IS TEH GHEY vandalism. MastCell Talk 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Low quality sources" may be a fringe, but peer-reviewed journal put up against Quackwatch. Literally. People try to get editors banned for trying to push the peer reviewed journal while at the same time arguing that Quackwatch is a good source. And some admins happen to agree.... Thus I don't think admins should be enforcing content. Consensus can do that. Consensus is the mechanism WP relies upon for content enforcement. Now, if an editor is going against a clear consensus, that is different. The editor must form a new consensus, or they are being disruptive. The admin can use tools relative to disruption. But not relative to sources. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I purposely did not specify what I meant by "low-quality sources". Depending on the context, Quackwatch may be a low-quality source. Some "peer-reviewed journals" may be low-quality sources. So perhaps we are in agreement. MastCell Talk 05:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're asking too much if you expect any nuance around here. Arguing that different sources are reliable or unreliable for different statements and articles has gotten me about nowhere. I still say that no matter what the source, it's consensus that enforces content, and the admin can only intervene if consensus is disruptively violated- IOW, a behavioral issue, not a content issue. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively agree, but not to an indefinite block right off the bat. seicer | talk | contribs 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each case should be decided on the merits. More enforcement would be useful. ArbCom saying that they won't (verb) an admin who attempts to enforce policy would be helpful. See Hoffman for an example of such a (verb)ing. (I have a verb in mind, but it isn't polite.)Jehochman Talk 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
There should be much stricter enforcement of all policies. Disruptive editing - of whatever form - should be swiftly dealt with, especially through the use of topic bans. It's usually not really very hard when examining a dispute to discover the primary movers of that dispute. Ban those not working towards consensus from the area of dispute and let them edit articles about which they are less passionate. No one is indispensable. Dlabtot (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like the policy we adopted in biographies of living persons, which has emboldened people to stub down problem articles and start again, would be great for science. We should also discourage the creation of articles on fringe subjects that function only as POV forks of science articles. --TS 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stricter enforcement of policies is fine, but content policies are enforced by all editors, not specifically by admins. I agree with Martinphi: people can be blocked for going against consensus, but admins should not take decisions about which content is better into their own hands by blocking for violation of content policy directly (except obvious vandalism etc.) Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for procedural reasons: In the current case, editors are attacking Cirt for source usage that they never discussed with him or anyone else prior to this case opening; a violation of basic five pillars consensus building. In such an environment, this finding is inappropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoemaker's Holiday: It doesn't seem particularly helpful to confuse two different but concurrent ArbCom cases, one on fringe science and one on scientology. The issues are completely different. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I was looking over the current Arbcom cases earlier, and got confused. These things all start to look alike after a while. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... I think. This one really requires trust in the administrators' judgment, general transparency, and second chances after explanation. My experience with college students is that it genuinely does not occur to many of them that a direct quote can be used to misrepresent a source or that "Dr." and "peer-review" do not grant an automatic pipeline to the truth. People who are capable of reform after having a silly mistake pointed out should be encouraged to continue editing. There usually seems to be a fair bit of clue wandering around AN/I, so I feel comfortable that mistakes can be rectified. Such blocks and topic bans should be logged at this case if the motion passes, if I understand the arbitration conventions correctly. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Committee or board to deal with sourcing

2) The process of identifying reliable sources should be assisted by establishing a committee or board to deal with the appropriate use of sources. The members of the committee do not have to be subject-matter experts, but they will have to be expert in the methods and procedures and principles used in the academic world to ensure that sourcing is reliable.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
We have WP:RSN. Let's not create another layer of bureaucracy. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the proposal, per MBisanz below: I also liked it then. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I liked this idea at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed_decision#Sourcing_Adjudication_Board and I still think it could work if done correctly. MBisanz talk 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be a good idea. WP:RS/N is too often inconclusive. *** Crotalus *** 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While RS/N is imperfect, self-selecting by area seems a better solution to source review than guaranteeing that most editors examining a source will have primary interests elsewhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not have another bureaucratic process, please. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Coppertwig

Proposed principles

Death threats

1) Death threats are unacceptable. Even if a threat is couched in humourous or ambiguous terms, the recipient may still feel threatened, and even if a death threat is not a credible threat of actual death, it may still be intimidating and may be seen as indicating a degree of anger or determination that might later be expressed in aggressive on-wiki behaviour. It would be counterproductive to allow users to use death threats as a means of influencing or controlling others' on-wiki behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. Sarcasm of not, Wikipedia takes all death threats seriously. As part of SOP, nearly all death threats reported to AN/ANI have been investigated, and the approperiate authorities notified. seicer | talk | contribs 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Don't try this at an airport or you'll get arrested. Plenty of topics are available for joking. This is not one of them. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed an essential element here - death threats such as that made by SA are not so much an attempt to threaten or coerce as they are an attempt to dehumanize the target. It's much easier to engage is acts of violence (verbal violence in this case) if you first strip away the humanity of the intended victim. Despotism 101. Ronnotel (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is a major violation of WP:AGF as you specified that SA's alleged threats qualified and could only be explained in this way. "Verbal violence"? "Despotism 101"? Can you try to be a little less histrionic here, please, as these sort of wild claims seem more likely to portray someone you don't like as someone who deserves whatever he gets and whose good actions can be completely ignored than the comments you are complaining about. "It's OK to do whatever we want to SA, because he's just a despot dehumanizing people..." Come on, get serious here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One editor has made the point that this may have been misplaced sarcasm. No doubt the committee will look to see if it's part of a pattern. --TS 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with "misplaced sarcasm". SA makes comments that are too sarcastic, which is bad, and then (some) people take them as serious statements, which is also bad. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

2) Users do not own their user talk pages. While users sometimes request that others refrain from editing their talk page, and users often choose to comply with such requests, there is no requirement to do so. Since user talk pages are used for notifying users of breaches of policy and of steps in dispute resolution, user talk page messages are often productive and acceptable even when they may be unwelcome to the recipient.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. FWIW, ScienceApologist once said that he doesn't archive his pages because it makes it harder for people to look for evidence. But don't ask for a diff on that, as it would be very hard to find since he doesn't use edit summaries much and he doesn't archive his talk page. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 02:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SOP. seicer | talk | contribs 13:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Relevant to ScienceApologist's use of death threats. Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree because of experience dealing with people who felt they could leave all sorts of bad faith notices, vandalism and outright harassment on a talk page and keep putting them back if they were removed. The user talk page (indeed all talk pages) is supposed to be about helping to improve the encyclopedia. All too often that's not at all what the comments become. Initial messages are usually fine, but many times, especially when disputes are flying, the talk page devolves into a schoolyard shouting match that has no potential for improving the editing environment for anyone. Frankly, every time I see the little orange message notice I cringe because I wonder if it's one of my old harassers back to make some taunts... and sometimes it is. That little message indicator has become one of the most stressful things I encoutner on this site. I think people should be able to control their talk pages in general... I would make an exception for admins who are neutral and not already engaged in a preexisting dispute for regular Wikipedia business (and if someone needs to contact the editor they had a dipsute with they ought to be able to find a neutral admin to place the notice there -- that alone usually brings the tone of the message down so it's not so accusatory and threatening), but otherwise, functionally anyway, there's no practical necessity that anyone post to a user talk page. If someone has a suggestion about a particular article, those comments should be directed to the article talk page instead. And so forth and so on. If someone tells you to stay off their talk page and you deliberately go back, you are escalating the problem instead of making a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about your negative experiences with talk page messages and hope that ways are found to control such annoying messages. The point here is that incivility and death threats are not an appropriate way to create a new policy or to establish control over territory. There are appropriate ways of doing that; but at the moment there is no policy requiring staying completely off someone's talk page when asked, and I think it would be inappropriate to use this forum to create such a policy. I suggest WT:Talk page guidelines. This certainly does not mean that it's OK to post annoying messages or that posting to the talk page of someone who has (civilly, one hopes) requested that one not post there is the same thing as posting to any other talk page, so I don't understand the reason for your strong disagreement; maybe you've read more into my statement than I meant? Perhaps it needs to be modified: "no absolute requirement" or "while it's civil to comply, it is not required" or something. Coppertwig(talk) 01:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Use of death threats to intimidate

1) ScienceApologist has used death threats in an attempt to influence certain users not to post to SA's talk page. Although the death threats were presented in the form of jokes, the aggressive use of obscenity in the same edit makes it clear that they were not friendly, good-natured jokes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With findings like this, often the Committee links to the relevant diffs/evidence sections in the form "(see evidence)", which may be a handy thing to add for these. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This completely misses the point: they were not actual death threats. No sane people will seriously believe that he was actually threatening their lives in any way or form. Not when the section title is "I'm assembling my armies of the night", and not when you read to the end and see that he intends to kill anti-fluoridation editors with Water fluoridation. Not when the next paragraph starts with "Seriously". Of course, if you only read certains part of the message then it does look like a death threat.
btw, diff for the "death threat" --Enric Naval (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. as a target of the death threat. MaxPont (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with this. Serious or not, they create unnecessary drama at best. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE. was the bit intended to make people not post to his talk page. The "joke death threats" were regrettable and in my opinion should be blockable, however. Unfortunately we appear to have a policy that downplays incivility on users own talk pages; if we do have such a policy (I dislike it), then I don't think we should effectively try to get round it by blocking for such "death threats" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has been warned about incivility

2) ScienceApologist has been previously warned about incivility and has undergone a one-year civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Surely you jest. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 02:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of intimidation

2) The users against whom the death threats were directed have not edited ScienceApologist's talk page after the threats were issued.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be titled Effect of intimidation but Users finally doing what good faith should have made them do in the first place after they were told it wasn't helping -- So they don't post to the user talk page... is that some great loss to them? (By the way, the clerks have said that this process is supposed to be about fringe science articles in general and less about individual editors. You seem to be exclusively targeting SA here, which isn't particularly helpful and only helps prove the case that these conflicts are out of control and have become witch hunts instead of good faith efforts to resolve disputes.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, where was this said by a clerk? I am the case clerk, and have said nothing of the sort. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not feel'n this one. I more agree with DreamGuy's comments. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that if I tried to start a separate case about ScienceApologist's behaviour, that likely I would be told that it was supposed to be handled under this case, so I decided not to do that. One way or another, these issues need to be addressed. I believe the arbitrators usually look at the behaviour of all participants in cases. I don't think having some items about ScienceApologist's behaviour will prevent discussions in other sections from occurring about the other issues. There are ways of getting users to do what they're supposed to do or be blocked; incivility and death threats are not part of WP:DR. Coppertwig(talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some things that should be mentioned here is that the editors shouldn't have been posting things on SA's talk page to begin with. It should have been stopped immediately and it wasn't. Accusations of socking with lists of 'possible socks' don't go on a users talk page yet it did. The editor did finally say he shouldn't have posted there but it was too late by then. SA was on a break if I remember correctly, yet when he looked at his page there were a whole bunch of bad faith accusations there. I think anyone would have gotten angry. Maybe everyone should think about treating everyone with more respect. I personally don't see this as a one editor problem after watching that fiasco go on unabated. And calling what SA did a real death threat, lets be real here. I can't believe anyone took it seriously as a threat to harm. It was used more to enable a ban that was refused previously. Please lets give this a rest already. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty in effectively retracting threats

2) It would be difficult or impossible to restore a feeling of freedom to edit ScienceApologist's talk page to the level that existed before the death threats.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be absolutely fair, the page prior to Science apologist's offending comments was not in a desirable state. --TS 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was heavy baiting going on, and SA cracked under the pressure. This is a case where both sides are wrong: the baiters and the editor who made mock death threats in response. Jehochman Talk 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile editing environment

2) With incivility, death threats and a stated intention to "attack" other users,(17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)) ScienceApologist has created a hostile editing environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SA is certainly not the only one to create a hostile editing environment, so should not be singled out in a proposed finding. Sceptre on these pages has called all "vocal science editors" to be people who call anyone who disagree with them trolls. We have someone above calling SA a dehumanizing despot. People leaving countless accusations and threats of bans and rehashing of old disputes that were already taken care of by ArbCom is also a hostile editing environment. Solving the problem can't happen until people realize and acknowledge the full nature of the problem instead of scapegoating a single participant. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the behavior continues despite repeated sanctions and warnings is not really a mark in the editor's favor. 'Rehashing old disputes' is an odd way to characterize the presentation of evidence that an editor has a long history of disruption and unwillingness or inability to learn to work within WP policy. If ArbCom has sanctioned an editor and the sanctions were ineffective, it would be inaccurate to describe the problem as having been 'taken care of'. I agree, however that no editor should be 'singled out' - policies should be applied consistently to all editors. Dlabtot (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It fails to take into account that it was POV pushing what poisoned the talk pages on the first place, and it's stubborn POV resistance to neutralize the articles what keeps the huge fights up (this not limited to fringe science articles, it's general for all articles with strong POVs). SA's behaviour is not stellar, but, as Dreamguy points out, he is not alone on that, and people are rehashing all SA's actuations without looking at their opponent's behaviour at that time. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out "and a stated intention to "attack" other users". I had based this on the quote "I promise to continue to attack ...", which as Bishonen points out was taken out of context: the sentence did not begin with "I promise", but with an if-clause; to quote it without the if-clause changes the meaning of the sentence. I apologize, ScienceApologist, for getting this wrong. Coppertwig(talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, per Bishonen. Coppertwig(talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

ScienceApologist is banned from editing Wikipedia

1) ScienceApologist is indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose. As long as he is involved in mentorship, there is hope for improvement. If mentorship fails, then alternatives can be considered. Jehochman Talk 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. I regret not having had the opportunity to engage in debate discussion and collaboration(03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)) with ScienceApologist on any of a number of interesting topics. Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)(17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Well, your agenda is certainly clear here, especially with the uncivil tone of the comment attached. DreamGuy (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you perceive my agenda to be; I realize there may be alternative remedies even if others agree with my above proposed findings. My attached comment, beginning "I regret", is intended to be civil, expresses my actual sentiment, and was included only because I believed it was more civil than saying nothing; could you suggest how I could refactor it, and/or explain why you perceive it as uncivil? Do you think it would be better for me to strike it out? Coppertwig(talk) 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not seeing how this flows from the findings above. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is going to happen. The acceptance votes by ArbCom made it clear that the purpose of this arbitration was to come up with appropriate, forward-looking solutions for fringe science topics in general (hence the case title), not to single out one particular editor. *** Crotalus *** 19:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I favor a temporary ban of one year. If he is not banned, even temporarily, I'd like the ArbComm to explain more clearly why I was banned and not him. See double standard. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, the Committee has considered bans of one year to be the maximum it can issue, and has rarely (if ever) issued bans longer than 12 months, although it has occasionally confirmed community-based indefinite bans. Just a casual observation, Daniel (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, per Jehochman, Bishonen and Daniel, with apologies to ScienceApologist. Coppertwig(talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Pcarbonn

Proposed principles

Due weight is based on the preponderence of opinion in published, reliable sources

1) To determine proper weight, we look at the preponderence of opinion in published, reliable sources on the subject, not at the preponderence of the view among "most scientists" or in news articles. If available, secondary scholarly reviews of the topic, as published in the most reliable sources available, should be used to determine such preponderence of opinion.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. News articles can sometimes be good sources, but are not the best especially for scientific subjects. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed to clarify "mainstream". Statements of what "most scientists" think are not relevant in determining proper weight. Most scientists cannot be a reliable source on every subject. News articles are considered less reliable than scholarly sources for scientific subjects. See also the next principle.Pcarbonn (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more complex than that. For instance the Holy See is a good, authoritative source for official Roman Catholic opinion--as reliable as you like on that subject--but I would not expect their opinion to be taken into account, for instance, on the efficacy of condom use. --TS 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Content issue; beyond the scope of ArbCom.
Necropsy findings: Judging by the degree of lividity and rigor mortis, I'd estimate that this horse has been dead for at least 2 weeks, though many of its traumatic injuries were acquired post-mortem. MastCell Talk 07:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it funny that those who pretend to defend good science are the ones who reject the first principle of scholarly study in favor of tabloid sources ?Pcarbonn (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The preponderence of opinion in published reliable sources need to take into account the varying reliability of sources

2) The preponderence of opinion in published reliable sources need to take into account the varying reliability of sources. Sources of lower reliability must be given lower or no weight when determining preponderence.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Bad sources, such as promotional ones, are often significant POVs, and should be included with proper attribution. "Most scientists" is just original research, and forbidden. For determining the most WEIGHTty view of the subject, the most RS sources should be used, per a strict reading of RS. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Some topics are well covered by the most reliable sources, such as secondary review articles in Nature (magazine). Others are not so well covered, but still notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In that case, one should look at the most reliable published sources available. Sources with a lower reliability should be ignored and only the best one available used. This is consistent with the previous principle, where "most scientists" and "news organisations" are less reliable on scientific topics. See also Parity of sources Pcarbonn (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: content issue; beyond the scope of ArbCom.

Proposed findings of fact

There is a significant minority favorable to cold fusion

There is a significant minority of scientific opinion favorable to cold fusion.[14][15][16]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. I know that this is a content issue, but this could be a way for the ArbComm to start enforcing NPOV.
Oppose Content decision, and one only passingly relevant to the case at hand, citing evidence and commentary from a completely different case. Arbcom content decisions have been absolutely disastrous in the past, and I can't see how this would be any less problematic. This is neither an appropriate time nor place. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this case was brought by Seicer, who made extensive reference to the cold fusion article in his initial statement. So, this question is relevant. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some examples of "absolutely disastrous content decision" from ArbComm. I'd be interested to understand this better. Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a particularly contentious statement (it's actually the impression I get from reading the cold fusion article) but we're supposed to arrive at evaluations like this by discussion, not appeal to the arbitration committee. What makes it contentious, I think, is the conduct of a few editors in seeking to use this minority opinion as a wedge with which to give undue weight. --TS 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (a) I think the finding is wrong: there is an insignificant minority support (b) I doubt arbcomm want to start making findings of this nature William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; the arbcom ruling on Cold Fusion is still warm (ahem) and attempting to reopen it so soon is borderline tendentious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cold fusion has already been discussed recently by ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has repeated violated NPOV

ScienceApologist has repeatedly violated NPOV.[17]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed.Pcarbonn (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could replace "ScienceApologist" with any random name, including yours, mine and User:Jimbo_Wales. I question whether it's humanly possible for any single individual to be "NPOV." See especially m:MPOV. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an attempt to revisit arguments already considered in the "cold fusion" case, in which the Committee found that "the vast majority of the evidence presented related to questions (and disputes as to those questions) about the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various points of view, content questions which cannot be resolved by the Committee." (emphasis mine). The Committee did find that Science Apologist edit-warred and was uncivil. --TS 02:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose (a) per TS (b) I disagree with you; the evidence shows SA trying to maintain NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Tony Sidaway

Proposed principles

Science and consensus

1) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that reflect the current consensus of scientific thought with due consideration for significant minority views within the scientific community, and regard for the historical debates which have formed the current consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. This is NPOV. It would be much easier to go over to the d- I mean to SPOV, since nearly all the editors in this area feel that anything which is fringe/paranormal/unusual is to be basically debunked. The main thing is that WP not be deceptive about its actual orientation. Please adopt this only with full awareness of what "scientific consensus" actually means. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. I think the use of the term "mainstream" is misleading. There is a pluralism in science with legitimate debate. For instance, the extreme contingency of Gould, and the adaptationism of Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, both find a place under the umbrella of natural selection. The classicism of Einstein and Schroedinger versus the radical interpretation of the Copenhagen school represent another debate. In most of these debates one view tends to predominate (adaptationism tends to prevail in natural selection to some extent, and the Copenhagen school has triumphed in physics), but the debate must be described in its fullness if only for historical reasons. --TS 14:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This indeed avoids the use of "mainstream", a weasel word, and is in line with NPOV. I wish that principle be applied to the current version of the cold fusion article.[18]Pcarbonn (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The scientific establishment is a source of a huge amount of very reliable information. Nevertheless, it can be subject to influence from those who pay for ads in scientific journals; from those who fund research; and from processes such as ideological inertia and interpersonal dynamics, and therefore that information still needs to be taken with a small grain of salt. There are other sources of information which cannot always be totally left out of the NPOV equation. Furthermore, this is not the forum for creation of new policy. Coppertwig(talk) 01:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is intended as a clarification of the application of neutral point of view. That's certainly not new policy. --TS 01:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science and politics

2) Encyclopedias must take care to avoid the politicization of their science coverage. Evidence uncovered by the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and elsewhere (example) demonstrate systematic and well funded attempts by commercial interests to misrepresent science and discredit inconvenient scientific discoveries. Wikipedia operates an open editing environment and, as a resource dedicated to the public interest, must perforce encounter and confront such attempts to mislead the public.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support. It would help a great deal to note that some organizations undertake misrepresentation of science for purely ideological rather than commercial reasons. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Let's put this out in the open. --TS 15:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the proposed phrasing discusses only the danger of organised conspiracies, while the sum of individual interest can have the same effect. This may very well apply to "Cold fusion vs Hot fusion", as well as "Homeopathy vs Physicians / Pharmaceutical companies". Even sticking to scholarly sources does not protect us fully from the danger you describe, but it sure helps. Keeping a plurality of views also help, as you suggested above. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a red herring for this particular case, although this could undoubtedly be a problem. Mathsci (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts perhaps this just muddies the waters. Although this is the context in which the advocacy takes place, much of the advocacy we see on Wikipedia involves good faith perceptions of the scientific community itself as some kind of manipulator. Such impressions are encouraged by the tobacco and fossil fuel advocates, amongst others, but they did not all originate with those campaigns of disinformation. --TS 18:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure whether this helps. Reliability of sources is worked out via discussion on article talk pages, etc.; there are no simple general answers. Coppertwig(talk) 01:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure on this, though the thought is good, it kind of reads to me like a conspiracy theory a bit. I would like to see this add a little bit towards editors with different POV's to also not use politicization like what is being said in multiple threads on this page. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (the relevance, not the principle) per Mathsci (and TS's comment). It *could* be a problem, but perhaps surprisingly it doesn't seem to be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science and propaganda

3) Advocates of notions that have little or no scientific support often manufacture a controversy over established science in order to make their alternatives appear more palatable. (see Teach the Controversy). Where it has been established as a fact that such deceptive tactics have been used, editors should be careful to distinguish their application from legitimate scientific dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Attacks on evolution provide the most famous case but there are similar propaganda techniques in operation with respect to global warming and passive smoking (the latter established by evidence disclosed due to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement). The term "established as a fact" is intended to refer to reliable external sources such as the courts. --TS 05:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I am understanding correctly what is being proposed here then the Chiropractic article is also a good example of some editors disrupting the progress with different tactics being applied. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this is useful. There is nothing from the courts over GW, for example. And as far as I can tell, the CF advocates are sincere (but wrong) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and POV pushing

4) Superficial civility is not enough. Editors are expected to be cooperative and to observe all other policies. Acting in a manner that frustrates and angers other editors, or wears them down by repeatedly agitating for a point of view, is not in keeping with the level of civility required of Wikipedia editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. Lovely. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also known as disruptive editing. Enforce that guideline, and many of these problems can be resolved. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. This is aimed at civil POV pushers. --TS 06:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the motivation am concerned about unintended consequences. I can easily see it being used against editors who adhere to our content policies, since experience has shown that this "frustrates and angers" those who want to include badly-sourced tiny-minority viewpoints. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the idea is that we can distinguish those who persistently wikilawyer about including minority views from those who use discussion to build consensus on which are the more important views. This proposal is an attempt to strengthen the case for editing restrictions in such cases that reach arbitration. As such it's aimed at future arbitration cases. I assume that the intent of this case is just such forward-looking thinking. --TS 18:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add something to indicate that circular or endless arguments are not allowed. Editors are expected to recognize when such unproductive situations develop and use dispute resolution rather than attrition to solve disagreements. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I think that WP:TE needs to be enforced better than it is right now. I agree with Jehochman that if this is enforced better that a lot of the problems seen now will go away. I feel civility is important to the project but unfortunately too many time the civility patrol hinders resolving the problems that caused the incivility in the first place. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the idea, but rather unsure that it can be made into workable policy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

The scope of the problem

1) Advocacy of fringe science concepts and non-scientific concepts has affected not only articles about those concepts, but is also a problem for articles about well established scientific topics such as human evolution, evolution as theory and fact, and influenza vaccine (see evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Illustrating the scope of the problem. --TS 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I don't think I need to say anymore, this states the problems pretty well. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Brothejr

Proposed principles

1) This proposal is that we apply WP:RS principles to all sources with regard to fringe, pseudoscience, and other such related articles. What this means is that we cannot accept any source that comes from a blog, opinion piece, a web site that does not have a peer review system in place, or any site that has a stated bias for or against the topic. We should only accept sources from respectable third party peer reviewed sites/organizations/magazines/etc. Any site that professes a bias for or against can only be accepted for it's opinion, not fact, despite the accuracy of it's research. Blogs and essays may be used only for their authors opinions on the topic, but cannot be used as a reliable source to back up any stated fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I would support this totally if only you rewrote it with a awareness that such promotional sources can sometimes be notable as opinions, though they are not very WEIGHTy. There is no reason to leave out Skeptic's Dictionary completely, but it is not a good source for unattributed statements of fact. But it is a notable opinion. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Brothejr (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Arbitrators: When looking at this proposal, take a look at the comments below and how people worded them. More people are worried that they would not be able to add any criticism if this proposal would be put in place. This brings up a good question: if any of the sources for the criticism does not stand up to the WP:RS policy, then why are they using the sources then? It seems as if they don't want to apply the same policy to their sources that they apply to the fringe sources. Now I am neither advocating for or against any fringe, but instead saying that the WP;RS policy applies to all sources and that every source should come from a third party peer reviewed journal, site, etc. If their sources stand up to the policy, then it should be used without question. Brothejr (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Our articles would be very much poorer if we did not, for instance, refer to Phil Plait's excellent debunking of various fringe theories. Such sources are universally held to be very reliable, and only draw ire from those who wish to persist in their fringe beliefs. --TS 21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, have those sources been peer reviewed? Do they come from third party sources that have no stated bias? If the answer is no, then those sources violate the WP:RS policy and cannot be used. If they have been peer reviewed and come from a RS, then they are perfectly fine to use. While, these sources may be universally held to be reliable, have they been peer reviewed? Has an editor/scientist checked their claims and verified that they are sound? Has their article/essay/whatever been published in a peer reviewed journal? If they have not, then no matter how true they are, they still fail the RS policy and could even conceivably be considered Original Research. This is the standard across Wikipedia and it cannot be changed, altered, or ignored. Brothejr (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brotherjr is correct that such sources are often not reliable. For example, the Skeptic's Dictionary describes itself as one-sided and closed minded (or words to that effect). They are notable opinions, they just need attribution. They do not necessarily represent consensus, let alone "scientific consensus" on a subject. I'm surprised TS would promote the JREF as a RS- JREF is a highly partisan source, an even when what it says it true, it should be used as such, and more weight given to scholarly sources. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't equate Phil Plait's writing (or that of Carl Sagan or James Randi) with that of the various writers in fields which they debunk. This is because they tend to involve themselves in fringe topics where clear thinking is not evident in the advocacy--their stated purpose in writing is to introduce that missing clarity of thought. I am not familiar with the Skeptic's Dictionary so I couldn't comment. --TS 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not familiar with the really broad range of fringe topics. Randi and such are extremely, well, right in most of what they say. I merely contend that they are not reliable in the sense that you use them for bald statements of fact, as they are wont to be used. So I agree. I deal in the highly scientific parts of fringe, not the normal stuff which is complete bunk both in fact and in terms of the level of thinking. I would think we are in agreement, so long as we pay close attention to attribution. Let me give an example of debunking: James Randi says parapsychology is a field of science, but ScienceApologist and others have been dead set against calling it that in Wikipedia. That's debunking, when even the skeptics say something, but debunkers here want to be even more negative. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 09:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't depend on Randi for the question of whether parapsychology is or is not a field of science--it's beyond his field of competence. He's pretty good, for instance, on how one can reproduce Uri Geller's various tricks. Phil Plait's debunking (and we should not be afraid of that word) of the Apollo Hoax nonsense has been recommended by NASA. --TS 19:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure- with parapsychology it was much better sourced than Randi, and badly sourced the other way. I would not avoid Plait's work, only attribute. My point was, debunking is when they won't accept good sourcing. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 08:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Under specific circumstances, blogs can be used to establish that a certain person said a certain thing, for example. It's difficult to make generalizations about RS. Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This throws WP:PARITY down the toilet. Fringe topics with no mainstream coverage will suffer a lot from it. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PARITY is against WP:RS, and must be thrown out. It was created by ScienceApologist as another trick so he could insert unreliable sources into WP. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify your persistent opposition to WP:PARITY? It sounds like you're arguing that it's OK to argue fringe ideas using weak sources while mainstream rejoinders to those ideas face more stringent requirements for sourcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No not as worded. I think a lot of articles would suffer with this proposal. Some references that are notable would be lost for use with this. I've seen WP:PARITY used a lot for reasons in debates, so other than the fact that User:ScienceApologist wrote it, what is the problem? Even if he wrote it I'm sure its been heavily edited by other editors so it isn't SA's words or thoughts, it's the community that put it together. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. RealClimate is used as a RS for various climate related articles, and wiki is the better for it. Blogs written by accepted experts in their field can be used as RS. The problem this addresses is an important one: fringe folk will push wacky ideas that as so wacky that mainstream journals don't even bother debunking them; expert blogs can and do solve this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking Vs. Promoting

2) Wikipedia is not here to debunk or promote a fringe topic. As such, all writing in the fringe article must be narrowly written to avoid the use of Weasel Words to promote or debunk the topic of the fringe article and must refrain from any sort of bias in favor for or against the topic that would violate the WP:NPOV policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree, nicely put. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed as standard. Brothejr (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Arbitrators: Take a look at the various editor's wording down below. Look how they are arguing that this encyclopedia should not follow the WP:NPOV policy due to the fact that it might lend more weight to the fringe. What I have been arguing here is that every article be written in a neutral manner. This proposal brings into question various editor activities that look to supplant WP:NPOV in favor of one side or the other. Brothejr (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unworkable. How does it apply to motionless electromagnetic generator and other perpetual motion machines? Published peer-reviewed criticisms are WP:RS, WP:V and are therefore valid sources for wikipedia articles. The use of the word "debunking" in the proposal is unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this unworkable? Any topic can be written in a neutral manner neither promoting or debunking and that is what NPOV says and that is what every editor should strive for. Also, the word debunking (As is promoting) is appropriate for this as it is the correct term for the action in question. Brothejr (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you mean by "debunking"? Please look at motionless electromagnetic generator or water memory, two theories rejected by the scientific community. These are written using peer-reviewed refutations of these theories in academic journals. Wikipedia reports on that using those sources. I don't see where "debunking" comes in. Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me ask you a clarifying question. Take a close look at those articles and how they are written. Does the writing seem biased? Does the writing seem to be pushing one point or another? Does the article answer the simple question of what it is without throwing all sorts of rejections or promotions at the reader? Also take a look at the meaning of the words: debunking, skeptic, rejecting, etc. You may see that all those words are the same or similar. I am not arguing the sources, but the writing itself. As long as the sources come from a third party peer reviewed sources, then they are fine. As long as the scientists who are rejecting the fringe are backed up by science that has been proven correct by their peers, and reported in a third party source, then it is worth using that source in the article. As I stated, I'm talking about the wording, how the articles are written, and keeping any sort of bias out of the articles. Brothejr (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We would be failing in our duty to inform if readers left an article without access to the best information on the subject. Debunking of fringe beliefs should not be equated with advocacy. --TS 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not arguing that. As long as it is written neutrally without imparting any bias to the reader. Plus, the information is backed up by sources that have been peer reviewed and come from reliable third party sources, then we should impart that information to the reader. Yet, if there is no peer reviewed papers/articles/etc written to back it up, then we cannot report it without violating the WP:RS policy. Brothejr (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Debunking, by its very nature, is advocacy. Read the article. Any debunking source like like JREF or Skeptic's Dictionary is advocacy, and though it may be notable enough to include, it should be done only with attribution. There is a difference between studying (and coming up with no positive results) and debunking. There are many examples of scientific "null or negative results." The difference is usually obvious. Speaking of debunking sources as appropriate for WP is a step beyond mere SPOV, of course. I do not know why TS is here promoting debunking and other places seeming NPOV. Debunking by its nature promotes the idea that fringe views are bunk. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia Wikipedia certainly should highlight the faults in fringe ideas that stop them being accepted by the scientific consensus. This is inevitably going to look like debunking to those who accept the fringe ideas. If we were not accused of being debunkers we would not be doing an adequate job--which is not to say that we should be actively partisan, only that we should present the science adequately. We should be unrelentingly partisan in our commitment to the neutral presentation of the facts and the avoidance of poor thinking. --TS 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir. We should be unrelentingly partisan in our commitment to neutral presentation of the sources. Most sources will contain poor thinking, since most human thinking is poor. We do not judge that. If you're after presentation of "facts," you're just committed to POV pushing your version of the world, the Truth. You depend on editors having the right consensus on "the facts." That is why Wikipedia is supposed to rely on sources and present them by WEIGHT. So we don't do what you just said. After all, there are a lot more Creationists out there than evolutionists. You want to "highlight" something? You get to do that if the sources do that, not otherwise. You don't get to decide WEIGHT. What you just said is SPOV, or rather, debunker POV. If that's what you want, I suggest you put it into the decision, that we favor the truth of mainstream science and it's okay to cherry pick sources or do OR to "highlight" a certain POV.
To someone, it will always look like debunking. But as I said, other encyclopedias such as Britannica, don't debunk IMO, so why do we? ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 01:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I described is neutral point of view. Certainly we weight sources, which is why you won't find creationist nonsense presented as fact on Wikipedia. When I say that we present facts in a neutral manner, I'm referring specifically to statements such as "Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago" (Human evolution). We do not present well established scientific facts as opinions just because some people may differ with the scientific consensus. --TS 01:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you did, as I explained, but I doubt we would have any difficulty in editing an article together. The result would normally be the same, but I would not think it proper to take an otherwise unreliable source such as a blog and insert it as "the scientific consensus" just because it was the only source on the matter. I would rather rely on a statement that the fringe view was "not accepted" rather than saying it was rejected by the scientific consensus. That is a more practical way of explaining where I'm coming from, grounded in what actually happens. I also do not think that Quackwatch and such are RS for bald statements of fact, but they are notable and fine when attributed. One must make sure that a true scientific consensus exists before just stating facts, but there is a scientific consensus on Creationism. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 08:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if we're arguing to cross purposes. I certainly wouldn't take the contents of a blog as authoritative on anything except the contents of the blog. Material specifically written by Barrett is a reliable source for his opinion as an expert in medical fields and as a longtime watcher of medical charlatans or quacks as they are known. I'd give far more weight to him on medical matters than, for instance, Ilena Rosenthal --TS 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a matter of attribution. And you don't refuse to explain Rosenthal's ideas on an articles about said ideas, just because Rosenthal is a bad source. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 08:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't cover Rosenthal at all except as a defendant and a former editor. --TS 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as currently worded. It could be taken as implying that the SPOV and a fringe POV should be presented with equal weight or as equally likely to be true, which would go against WP:UNDUE. Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As far aas I can tell, "debunking", as used on Wikipedia, is just a loaded term for "including relevant criticism from scientists". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This reads like a way to give more weight to fringe ideas that is allowed. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as wholly inconsistent with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV#WEIGHT. We summarize what reliable sources say without hiding either negative information ("debunking") or positive information ("promotion") from the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but debunking here is not about reporting debunking. Further, negative information is not debunking. Debunking by its nature is not scientific, therefore not "information." But a notable POV. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Etymologically, to oppose de-bunk-ing is to prefer bunk. So I would prefer a clearer phrase like "skeptical bias". Art LaPella (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's this kind of "your with me or against me" kind of attitude that makes for debunking. Debunking violates NPOV. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPOV, Fringe POV (FPOV), and NPOV

3) SPOV and FPOV are both points of view on the subjects, yet neither overrules NPOV and each must not give themselves more or less undue weight in accordance to the reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
What is FPOV? ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FPOV = Fringe POV --B (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Agree then as standard. But very necessary for the ArbCom to state. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed so that we can identify the points of view in relation to NPOV, undue weight, and reliable third party peer reviewed sources. If there are enough RS that show that so and so theory, finding, etc is the main prevailing thought concerning the fringe topic, then we must report it so in a neutral and unbiased manner. Brothejr (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Arbitrators: This proposal was made as an addendum to proposal number two. Simply put, both sides are points of views and they should be regarded as such. When we are dealing with fringe articles and only fringe articles, then we must be fair and neutral. We must not give one side or another any bias for or against and present the article in a neutral manner so that the reader can come to their own conclusion. Brothejr (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely ill conceived proposal. When discussing topics treating science, there is no "alternative" point of view independent of the scientific method. The peer-reviewed literature produced by the scientific community is the main source for writing this type of wikipedia article. In general fringe science is work that has been rejected for publication in peer-reviewed journals due to errors or inconsistencies, whether accidental or deliberate. Often it can just be incompetent junk. It is a fallacy to suggest that it represents an alternative point of view, just as it is a fallacy to think that various parts of science are in a finished state: this is evidently not the case in theoretical physics, where various competing theories are still being developed and usually not classified as fringe or otherwise. It might be helpful to give an illustration from my own discipline, mathematics: the world is full of would-be provers of Fermat's last theorem; most are incompetent amateur loners with delusions of grandeur; and what they produce is junk science, unpublishable anywhere. Fringe science or pseudoscience can make it onto the pages of wikipedia because of the notoriety of the originator or the proposed theory itself (eg see the BLP of Jack Sarfatti or the Bogdanov affair). I have also witnessed the willful falsification of experimental evidence in chemistry; when results are faked in real life, this can be a very messy business, particularly if academic degrees are involved. In one case the perpetrator tried to get support by representing what he/she had done as a "paradigm shift". Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying the SPOV (Scientific Point Of View) is the same as the scientific method and that only scientists practice the scientific method? Also, are you saying the SPOV is the same as NPOV? Brothejr (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one other question I wanted to ask: how is the scientific method applied to writing an encyclopedia article? Brothejr (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From experience, prior training is required in reading scientific literature. I'm not sure why anybody should find that surprising. It's one reason that the university system exists in real life. At present, I couldn't even start to read an article or review in molecular biology, even if I have friends who are world experts in the subject. Mathsci (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good reason why sourcing is supposed to be from reliable secondary sources, not primary. I have written a number of articles without having any prior knowledge of the subject, e.g. Zermelo set theory, simply by using the citation and sourcing rules I learned as part of my own academic discipline. Peter Damian (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit] On the question about whether the 'Scientific point of view' is the same as the scientific method. Again THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW. There is just a method. There is also something called 'scientific consensus', which changes all the time, as a result of the method. Peter Damian (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be reworded; could be taken as implying that FPOV and SPOV are to be treated with equal weight. WP:UNDUE says "Articles ... will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Does "fringe" mean the same thing as "tiny-minority"? Coppertwig(talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then what would your suggestion be on wording to strengthening this to take into account undue weight? One of the main issues here is what is SPOV and does it trump NPOV? Everyone keeps on bandying about SPOV as if it is the same as NPOV or that it overrides NPOV. The problem I see is that NPOV trumps everything else. Plus, looking at it from an outsider perspective, SPOV and FPOV are both just POV's and neither are neutral. I am not arguing to give any fringe undue weight as much as in our push for SPOV, editors are breaking a major policy here (I.E. NPOV). If you want to show any "mainstream viewpoint" on a fringe, then it has to be couched in the same strong sources that is stressed for the fringe. If there are no sources to back up a fringe theory, then we cannot report it truthfully. Also, on the reverse side, while we have people saying that so and so fringe theory is completely false and crazy, and there are no strong peer reviewed sources that can truthfully back up that statement, then we cannot report it as fact, but opinion. My reasoning to this is this: if there are more sources that point to the fringe being truthful then there are sources that point against it, we need to neutrally present it that way and it also the same in reverse. Just because an editor feels/knows that the fringe is wrong, does not mean their POV overrides the other. They still need to back it with sources for it to be asserted. Otherwise their POV can only be considered an opinion. This is part of the fundamental problem here. Brothejr (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't have a suggested rewording at the moment. One problem is I'm not clear on exactly what point you're trying to make: perhaps just re-iterating that NPOV is the policy. In reply to your comment, though: on fringe articles, it doesn't work to define due weight based on the preponderance of opinion in the sources on that topic, because most of the material on the topic may be promoting the fringe view; perhaps the fringe topics are ignored and not mentioned by most mainstream sources. It's not easy to handle these situations. Coppertwig(talk) 18:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Desparately ill-conceived proposal. There is no "alternative" point of view independent of the scientific method, and other rules commonly observed in citation and sourcing. Must we really put up with this? Peter Damian (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is not the place for a wholesale rewrite of established policy and guidelines (see WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and others). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as long as the fringe point of view is weighted as it should be: not overwhelming the whole article, but not removed if it is a known viewpoint. In nearly all cases the scientific point of view is the same as the neutral point of view, but where the two slightly diverge, people should go for NPOV, not SPOV. Sceptre (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Seicer

Proposed principles

1) Reliable sources from mainstream academic documents and peer-reviewed journals are preferred. Promotional web-sites or documents, web-sites or documents created or maintained by involved parties, and pseudo-science web-sites or documents should be deprecated or not accepted.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. seicer | talk | contribs 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not strong enough. This still allows WP:PARITY. Should say "prohibited." ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

2) It is understandable that editors can become frustrated in dealing with editors on various articles, however, severe incivility, personal attacks and harassment on- and off-Wikipedia should result in sanctions. Minor or general incivility reports, whereas the filing party has requested sanctions or blocks, for comments that hold a depreciated merit in light of situations or influences brought upon by other editors or the filing party, should be ignored and closed. Continued persistence by the filing party, in the way of stalking one's edits for fishing purposes, should be treated as frivolous.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I believe that this can eliminate many of the frivolous requests for action regarding the most minor of offences. seicer | talk | contribs 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Maybe once or three times, but after a while you have to look at whether a slightly uncivil editor is degrading the collegiality of the environment. As Jimbo has said, we need a better environment, not a worse one. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although, perhaps if you translated that into English I might find something to agree with... ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Content policies and guidelines

1) In order to further the project's goal of creating a respected reference work the Wikipedia community has adopted a number of content-oriented policies and guidelines. These policies state that content should be verifiable and notable, that content should be presented from a neutral point of view and with due weight, and that content should be derived from reliable sources, among other requirements.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This would be boring, except basically, it's SPOV in fringe articles, as editors here have made clear. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CrohnieGalTalk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators and content disputes

2) Although not explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia's policy page for administrators there is a community consensus that administrators not serve as referees in content disputes; i.e., they are not to decide which point of view in disputed content is right or wrong.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Wonderful. This is so, and some don't seem to notice it. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. There may be an arbcom case on this somewhere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, they are to act with other editors in a civil and collegial manner, leading by example, in determining content by consensus. Just like any other editor but with knobs on. Egregiously poor judgement in use of the tools is considered a desysopping matter. Specifically: "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." (from Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct). --TS 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators and content policy

3. As distinct from ruling on content disputes, administrators have a constructive role to play in enforcement of content policies. This may include reminders, warnings or sanctions for editors who persistently violate content policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Yes. Often, the persistent content policy violations go hand in hand with behavioral violations, particularly disruptive editing. Jehochman Talk 03:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not even the ArbCom rules on content, usually. Certainly, admins don't. Also, you are destroying your own case: if there are behavioral issues then you don't need to enforce content. If there are no behavioral issues, such as pushing against a large consensus, you should not enforce content. This is just another way of saying that we elect admins to judge the content of articles, and if they don't like the content, sanction the editor who put it in. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing instead that content policies cannot be enforced, and that editors may disregard content policies at will and with impunity? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to the extent that they do not disruptively violate consensus. That's the way WP works on a very basic level. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the functions of administrators. Persistent POV pushing is not an uncommon block reason. It's all part and parcel of dealing with disruptive editing. --TS 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Admins are abusing their tools when they enforce content alone. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is justification in the blocking policy and the disruptive editing guideline. It isn't about enforcing (one admin's notion of) the content policy--you'd be right to say that is abusive sysopping. It's about dealing with disruptive editors, and we can and do enforce everything up to indefinite community bans, subject to community consensus that an editor's conduct merits it. --TS 06:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what SBHB is saying is straightforward: it's very easy to get blocked for replacing content with "GEORGE BUSH IS TEH GHEY". It's very hard to get blocked for repeatedly abusing sources and ignoring consensus to push an unencyclopedic agenda (in this recent case, it took 6 months and an ArbCom decision to resolve one of the most blatant cases of abusive agenda-driven editing I've ever seen - it should have taken a week). I think SBHB is proposing we level the playing field - let's acknowledge that unencyclopedic, agenda-driven editing is, if anything, a BIGGER threat to the encyclopedia than silly vandalism - and let's treat it as such. This has absolutely nothing to do with admins enforcing their view of appropriate content - that's a red herring. MastCell Talk 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a given and needs to be enforced to stop certain behaviors. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support: should be boringly standard, though perhaps worth reminding people of, but it appears that some disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Extremely sensible proposal. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Martinphi

Proposed findings of fact

1) ScienceApologist has contributed to a hostile editing environment on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support. Massive evidence sush as these[19] can't be ignored or excused. MaxPont (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this finding, but it's incomplete. If we're listing people who have contributed significantly to a hostile editing environment on Wikipedia, this finding needs to add a dozen or so names to be anything other than a selective attack on an opponent. MastCell Talk 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there is evidence missing from the case, you should provide it. Add the 'dozen or so names' along with diffs of their egregious behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you MastCell, but I don't know how to do it in a practical sense. Any ideas? ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought it was a good use of my time to present more diffs here, I would. In practice, Wikipedia's processes - including Arbitration - are so clunky and painful that I try to deal with all but the absolute worst POV-pushing by other means. To me, it's obvious who the problem editors are, and one of the reasons they're problems is that their behavior defies easy encapsulation in a few diffs. I'd rather see this case focus on the means available for dealing with harmful editing practices, rather than banning a list of "evildoers" and then having a new group crop up in a few months. MastCell Talk 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I'm totally curious to know who's on your list besides me and SA. You could email me.... (: ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) There has been debunking of fringe views on Wikipedia. By "Debunking" we mean the denigration or expunging of notable fringe views.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. This will be supported especially by the views of the mainstream scientists. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Does this carry the implication that fringe views should instead be accepted uncritically? If not, please clarify. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a finding of fact, Boris. Please see number 11 under Proposed principles below. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful definition of the word "debunk" (see Merriam-Webster online for the accepted meaning). I've seen this definition used in fringe circles, where it seems to function as a plug of cotton wool in the ear. --TS 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful dictionary definition. It leaves out the intent. Just fiddle with it and say "to write an article with the intent to expose the sham or falseness of an idea," and you have why it's wrong on WP. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exposing sham and imposture is an important part of vigorous intellectual debate. If for instance some people persistently push the 1989 DOE report on cold fusion as something it is not, the imposture will be relentlessly exposed. That's debunking. We can't adopt the neutral point of view if we permit ourselves to be misled as to the facts. --TS 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page. Debunking is fine on the talk page. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 05:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that in your view the articles have been written to debunk, and you distinguish debunking, principally, as a matter of intention? As you put it, "to write an article with the intent to expose the sham or falseness of an idea". Well obviously if we write an article about, say, intelligent design, it would be wrong to present it in such a manner that did not correctly describe it as a deliberate and planned attempt to misrepresent religious concepts as scientific. In that sense, debunking is inevitable. Because, you know, the creationists really want everybody to believe that intelligent design is a scientific alternative to evolution.
Similarly there has been so much nonsense in the global warming controversy that one does have to say things like "to the extent that a controversy exists [over whether antarctic cooling trends contradict global warming models] it is confined to the popular press and blogs; there is no evidence of a related controversy within the scientific community". This is necessary just as it is necessary to say, in the article on Searches for Noah's Ark, that "Despite many rumours, claims of sightings and expeditions no scientific evidence of the ark has ever been found" for the existence of the remnants of a large old boat corresponding to descriptions in the traditional tales. Yes, we debunk Noah's Ark! And so we should.
We're here to present a neutral point of view written from the reliable sources. Much of what is believed by people who have not read our encyclopedia does not come from reliable sources, and we must be polite but firm in our approach to this. We cannot ignore folk wisdom and urban legends, and at times we have to say "despite what you may have heard, we find no reliable source confirming it" and (possibly) "on the contrary we find much opinion to the contrary from reliable sources." --TS 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martinphi is a strong promoter of Fringe views, who has repeatedly stated that no fringe ideas should ever be challenged in articles on their subject ((changing policy; likewise in this link, for instance, first paragraph, he says that What the Bleep Do We Know?!, a movie that was widely criticised by huge numbers of scientists, should have no discussion of those scientists' views. Martin does not want NPOV, he clearly just wants his POV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how your attack against Martinphi is relevant here. Should I list what I perceive as your shortcomings? Would that be relevant? Dlabtot (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comment to make about the proposed finding of fact? Dlabtot (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed an attack. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, you have a history of editing policy to better attack others (You specifically admit that was your intent in some edits of WP:CIVIL here), or to push your POV more effectively. One does not want you gaming Arbcom as well. You have abused Arbcom findings in the past, notably, after the Paranormal case, you insisted that parapsychology should always be considered as mainstream science. ([20] and elsewhere). In the clarification launched over the finding you were using, (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FParanormal), you argued against the Arbitrator's clear statements, saying that it should be a statement of how parapsychology should be treated even as they all told you that it should not be. Then threw a fit and said the Arbcom should be thrown out. It would be better for everyone involved if we avoided bad findings which you have shown that you will abuse to push your POV, which will then have to be clarified as not justifying your use of them later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would again ask you if you think it would be relevant for me at this juncture to list your shortcomings and to provide diffs to edits that illustrate them? Are your past moral and intellectual lapses relevant to this conversation? Dlabtot (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I proposing findings of fact and proposed decisions that would assist me in pushing views in ways that have been rejected by the community? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your unwillingness to address my question, you are implicitly acknowledging that you are engaging in a personal attack here. I suggest you refactor. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's relevant to the case I suggest that it belongs on the evidence page. I think it probably is relevant to the overall case, but I'm not sure these instances demonstrate a serious or protracted enough problem in the particular to need arbitrator intervention. Martinphi has decided to retire from article editing in any case so it's probably moot. --TS 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he'll be back. This is his fifth or so "retirement", and I've never seen one last more than a week or two. But now isn't really the time for findings about Martinphi, I merely seek to point out that the findings he seeks are likely to be abused badly if passed, as he has a long history of such behaviour. Here, he seeks to get the Arbcom to say that "debunking" is a problem, at which point, as he defines "debunking" as "critical views presented effectively", would be used to justify massive content deletions. His behaviour after the closure of the Paranormal case with the "Three layer cake with frosting" and "Cultural artifacts" findings demonstrates this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should institute a formal retirement process, whereby anyone who 'retires' is permanently banned from Wikipedia. Now that's something that would enormously lessen the high-school-level drama around here. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be fair to clarify here that Martinphi's retirement as clearly stated by him on his user talk page is from editing in general/articles, and that he clearly indicates he will be taking part in this ArbCom. Since his retirement is based on a discomfort with the environment surrounding "fringe", also stated on his user talk page, it would seem logical that he would submit evidence which in his mind would improve that environment. This is not a topic for discussion here, but also the above comment may have cast an unfair light on an commenting editor on this case.(olive (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed principles

3) Sources which promote a particular point of view, may represent notable points of view in Wikipedia per WP:WEIGHT. However, care should be taken to properly attribute such sources, and preference should be given to descriptions in sources which meet the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed as standard NPOV practice, at least, and per WP:CONTROVERSY. The attribution bit is commonly violated. Other proposals take sides in the debates. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
First off, this is part of Martinphi's long-standing campaign to remove the "Particular attribution" section from WP:FRINGE. His proposals have been rejected by the community repeatedly.
Secondly, this is how Martinphi uses attribution: [21]. By attributing views to a tiny, fringe organisation with a name that "sounds good", he manages to make a tiny fringe scientific view sound much more respected than it is, and in other places has named individual critics in order to make majority views seem to come from only a single person. Discussion of his behaviour is in, Talk:Psychic/Archive_5#Lead_section_and_npov, which includes him claiming that the position paper of an organisation set up to promote fringe views is more relevant than a report by the National Academy of Sciences. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martinphi has a history of abusing findings to force things well beyond what the Arbcom intends. Here, for instance, he claims that the Arbcom insists that Parapsychology must be treated as a science, and that it should be considered the mainstream view, while attacking by name several policies which go against his desire to present psychics as real. I gave another examples from the Paranormal case above. Hence, I would encourage the Arbcom to take care with these findings of facts, as they are created by a person who has a history of abusing such findings to his own ends. I think that is relevant, and must be said, or we'll just end up with another request for clarification down the line, after massive disruption has taken place. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3.1) Reliable sources are mandated on Wikipedia. Promotional web-sites or documents, and web-sites or documents created or maintained by involved parties should not be accepted.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed- stricter version of seicer's proposal. I wish this could pass. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Hell no. Martin would just use this not just to remove Quackwatch, but to remove every skeptical site out there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that lousy sources are being used.
No. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely wary of how this innocuous-sounding proposal will be put to use. The American Cancer Society, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and M. D. Anderson Cancer Center all provide excellent scientific reviews of alternative cancer treatments. Are they "involved parties" because they treat patients with cancer using "conventional" (tested, proven, effective) therapies? I can guarantee that someone will make such an argument within minutes of such a principle being ratified. On medical articles, we already have serious problems - when respectable, reputable sources are cited to discuss unproven treatments, some editor can be counted on to say: "Well, of course the American Cancer Society disparages snake oil - it's a threat to their revenue stream." ([22], for example). MastCell Talk 04:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4) The weight given to a source is relative to the subject under discussion. Subject to editorial judgment and consensus, a source which is appropriate for an article on a fringe subject may be excluded from an article on a mainstream topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
WP:RS already makes this distinction: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process"[23]. This is important: it often occurs that a source which fully meets the requirements of RS, is excluded from a fringe article because it isn't mainstream. Similarly, the same RS source may be inappropriately inserted in a mainstream article. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:


5) Attribution is especially important in articles on fringe topics, where nearly every point is disputed.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. This is often ignored or actively fought against in order to push a particular POV. See also WP:CONTROVERSY. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
See above. Martin abuses attribution badly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6)For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Quoted from RS. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

7) The scientific consensus on any given topic may be derived from explicit statements by the relevant academic community.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Standard but ignored ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
According to Martinphi, the relevant community is the proponents of the fringe subject: [24]. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to choose between expert and non-expert opinion. As clarified by FT2 and others when (was it you) asked for clarification on the Paranormal ArbCom, people who deny that parapsychology is science are POV pushing. However, those who wish to exclude the opinions of skeptics and any mainstream sources are also POV pushing. Yes, if you are studying psi, parapsychologists are the tiny bit of the scientific community which has studied it, and their consensus is relevant. Also relevant is the fact, [25] that the rest of the scientific community has not accepted these results. Also relevant is the fact that the skeptical community has rejected these results. I stand by what I did in that diff, it is a completely proper use of attribution.

8) The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Standard (and quoted)[26] but badly ignored. As ScienceApologist says "Simple statements of fact such as “there is no scientific evidence for this belief” are challenged through reinterpretations of various Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and ironically, as of late, WP:NOR." Yup. Ever seen a scientific journal state that "there is no evidence for this belief?" No, you probably haven't, because that's not scientific, it's pseudoscience. Rather, they point to their results and say "no evidence was found." Rather state that the belief is not accepted within [relevant academic community]. Of course there is the occasional exception, like when Nature said one should burn Sheldrake's book for the same reason the Inquisition burned books, because it was heresy. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

9)Science is not monolithic, but divided into fields of specialty. The scientific consensus is not the opinion of all scientists, but the opinion of specialists in a particular field.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Obvious but ignored in favor of statements of what "scientists" believe. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
"Scientific consensus" is a well-defined term, but as said above, [Martin believes that scientific consensus should favour fringe scientists over that of mainstream when talking about fringe science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10)Administrators on Wikipedia are not empowered to rule on content policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This has become an extremely major issue. Several admins are proposing to enforce content policies by use of admin tools. MastCell, Jehochman, and Short Brigade Harvester Boris (who still has an admin account). Please do something about this. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

11)Wikipedia articles should not debunk or promote a fringe topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed as blitheringly obvious, but in extreme need of statement. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
"Debunk" is a loaded term, and appears to be used as a synonym for "criticize". We can and should criticize a fringe subject, and not present non-science as science, where necessary we should make it clear that a scientific term is not used by proponents of a fringe subject in a way that any scientist would use it, e.g. Quantum mechanics. In this link, Martin complains that What the Bleep Do We Know?!, a movie strongly criticized in multiple reliable sources for misrepresenting science, uses those sources to discuss its claims. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated elsewhere using Searches for Noah's Ark as an example, it is inevitable, and a good thing, that we must confront popular prejudice and state clearly when all reliable sources tell us unequivocally that a popular belief is false. An article on this example subject that left the reader with the impression that the stories they had heard were substantiated would, by omission, be biased. Not only may we debunk, sometimes the requirement of the neutral point of view leaves us with no choice.
On fringe science, if we leave the reader with an understanding of why the subject is on the fringe, we will have done our job of conveying the information about the subject in a neutral manner. We should do so by presenting the subject in a fair-minded but not oversympathetic manner, and by avoiding undue weight. Necessarily there will be some proponents who, like Martin, think that's wrong. --TS 07:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the gratuitous personal attack? Can you provide a diff in which Martin asserts that we should not be fair-minded, where he asserts that we should be oversympathetic, or where he says we should not avoid undue weight? To sum up, why are you engaging in an off-topic, and completely unsupported by evidence, personal attack? Dlabtot (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot, how about this quote:
From [27]. The FAQ he mentions is WP:NPOV/FAQ, and the section he objects to, WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, is as old as WP:NPOV, which the FAQ was split from a couple years later. Q.E.D. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday. I think it's clear now that Martin is even uncomfortable with something as innocuous as the statement that claims of psychic phenomena are rejected by the scientific community. This is what I meant. No version of psychic would be complete if it did not make that statement, but Martin does not want it to be there and argues for the position that those committed to this dubious field of investigation should be regarded as the fount of scientific consensus on the matter. It's obvious that we cannot write a neutral article that so blatantly misrepresents the scientific consensus. --TS 08:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be really clear on this: as we brought out in the Paranormal ArbCom, the claims of parapsychology are not rejected by the scientific community in general. The nearest they ever got to that was in the late 80s, where they said they found no evidence. Parapsychology's best results have come in since then, so the situation now is not clear. However, it is clear that parapsychological results are not accepted. Further, there are scientists who study psychic phenomena. Some of them call themselves parapsychologists. Some don't. You should read this, it is a clear statement of the layers of the debate:

In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking. [28]

also:

Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor. [29]

To say that the general consensus of parapsychologists cannot be cited in the Psychic article is POV pushing. To say that the conclusions, results, and writings of parapsychologists cannot be used in articles related to parapsychology is POV pushing. It is debunking. That has been confirmed by the ArbCom. If the ArbCom wants to change that, now is the time. If the ArbCom, on the other hand, as it recently stated [30], wants to stand by it, then it needs to say something to the effect that debunking is not acceptable.

FT2 said, as an example of how we might cover the issue:

Mainstream science tends to neither study, nor express interest in psychic matters. This is for various reasons based on professional culture, reputation, publication, falsifiability, conservatism, and past history of the field. A minor branch of science, known as "parapsychology", attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis, however the topic is generally treated as controversial and marginal by scientists outside its own field. Research outside the scientific world is usually not considered to meet the basis of formality needed to scientifically prove any given result, although some matters have been studied now and then, and skeptics ("debunkers") are often given credence in demonstrating the need for rigorous evidence-based testing.[31]

I agree, this is a generally NPOV overview, though detail-poor. I ask the ArbCom to confirm that this is the NPOV way to go, and that debunking is against Wikipedia. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the start of that very long comment you said "as we brought out in the Paranormal ArbCom, the claims of parapsychology are not rejected by the scientific community in general.", but you clearly admit that finding 3 describes parapsychology as "engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor." Better, our article on parapsychology states that:
The greater scientific community has not accepted that there exists evidence for psychic abilities. In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences produced a report that concluded that there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." Some science educators and scientists have called the subject pseudoscience. Psychologists such as Ray Hyman, Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology, stating that methodological flaws may explain any apparent experimental successes.
I think the article speaks for itself. The consensus of Wikipedia editors, at present, is that the scientific community "in general" rejects parapsychology. The wording of that section has not changed significantly for over two months and I see no ongoing discussion about the content of the lead section on the talk page during that period.
And you didn't just want to cite the opinions of parapsychologists in the article, you said: "We're dealing here with a topic which comes under the purview of the science of parapsychology. The consensus of the parapsychological association therefore represents the majority." You wanted the opinions of the parapsychologists to be taken as the consensus of scientists. That is pov-pushing. --TS 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make my case for me: the scientific community does not accept, while the Wikipedia community rejects. Big difference there. The scientific consensus is the consensus of experts in the field- like it or not, that's the definition. It may also be stated that the scientific community outside of parapsychology does not accept the results of parapsychology. FT2 understands these things: we present the information from the sources, and don't do OR by putting them together to form a specific conclusion. Debunkers do not understand this.
Let me be specific about scientific consensus: the scientific community can reject a thing which is accepted by the scientific consensus. That may not make much sense to the common person, but if you are going to insist on using terms such as "scientific consensus" in the first place, you have to deal with it. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you STILL trying to claim, after all the arbitratorrs told you it wasn't a content decision, it does not affect how articles should be written, etc, etc, that the Arbcom found in your favour in the Request for Clarification? [Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FParanormal Here's a link to the request for clarification], in full, and not cherrypicked by Martin. Martin was even slapped down by FT2 over his attempts to spin the Request for Clarification in the clarification itself:


WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at its finest. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be civil. My claim is the following, which is correct because I asked the ArbCom to tell me if I was wrong:
"Current understanding:

The Paranormal ArbCom is meant to give guidance as to when editors are being disruptive or POV pushing. It sets some basic parameters which are not restrictive in terms of article intellectual content. But they do show when an editor is POV pushing or being disruptive.

Example:

"3) Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor."[32]

Thus, if an editor denies there is controversy surrounding parapsychology, or attempts to say that the issue of its status or results is decided, that editor is POV pushing. Similarly, if an editor tries to assert that a parapsychologist cannot be a scientist, or that parapsychology as a whole is nothing but pseudoscience, that editor is POV pushing.

Example:

"6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling", or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."[33]

If an editor of an article which adequately frames and presents differing prominent views in its text is nevertheless insisting that doubt needs to be cast on the subject through means similar to those described by the ArbCom, that editor is POV pushing. Just as, in the opposite case an editor is POV pushing who inserts "Jeane Dixon is known for her amazing psychic powers."[34] ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) " ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a disconcerting amount of disagreement over the significance of past arbitration decisions, the meaning of words such as "accept", "reject", "debunk" and so on, and the application of the neutral point of view policy. I must confess I feel quite dizzy and do not envy the arbitrators their job. --TS 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. By now everyone has made their entrenched positions abundantly clear. I am taking this page off my watch list for a while to reduce temptations for making further comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Generally ignored amid cries that we have to tell the reader the truth about fringe topics. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:



Proposals by User:MaxPont

Proposed principles

Policy decisions by government bodies about for instance the safety of chemicals should not be equalled with a scientific mainstream consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:


Comment by parties:
Agree. You could stick to the standard format in your section... ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
Decisions by government bodies that nominally are based on science are very often influenced by politics and the agendas of powerful special interest. Therefore they should be mentioned as a government decision but not be portrayed as a Scientific Decision or consensus. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see making this a general rule at all useful; true, there are times governments act against scientific advice, but we should ask that a conflict be shown before presuming corruption. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what it says: it says, government pronouncement does not equal scientific consensus for the purpose of WP. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of political controversies should not be suppressed by claiming that one political position is unsupported by scientific consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:


Comment by parties:


Comment by others:
I fear that any ruling on favour of a “WP:Mainstream” or a harder ruling against Fringe views will be used by pro-industry POV-pushers to suppress legitimate minority POVs. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is a very bad idea: try putting a major controversy into it, say, creationism vs. evolution, or global warming. Presenting the facts requires explaining that one side is better or solely supported by the scientific evidence, and how much so. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want creationists to use this principle. Rather, to prevent e.g. pro-environmental POVs with some scientific support from being suppressed/deleted. MaxPont (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your point just isn't very clear. Can you try revising it and clarifying? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "Teach the Controversy" tactic. If the science is against you, keep going but yell censorship when someone ignores you. --TS 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not have a pro-industry right-wing bias

Comment by Arbitrators:


Comment by parties:


Comment by others:
This is glaringly obvious but it seems that it needs to be spelled out[35]. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that simply nominating an article for deletion is, in itself, a problem: Some subjects have far more articles than editors able to maintain them, so picking off the non-notable or barely-notable articles can be a viable way of making the subject more manageable, and does not, in itself, show that the nominator is opposed to the subjects appearing on Wikipedia in a more appropriate article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

ScienceAplogist is highly disruptive editor that has shown arrogance, contempt for the Wikipedia community, and consistently shown unwillingness to reform

Comment by Arbitrators:


Comment by parties:


Comment by others:
Other editors can manage to curb Fringe views without endless controversies. There are no more excuses left. Disruptions like these[36] just can’t be explained away. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

ScienceAplogist should be permanently banned from Wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:


Comment by parties:
Not at long as there is a willing mentor and signs of progress. Jehochman Talk 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have one willing administrator who can act as a mentor for SA, so I'm not for sure this is necessary at this point. seicer | talk | contribs 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. All anyone needs to avoid the ax is a nice neck warmer fuzzy admin mentor. I'll remember this, and recommend it next time I see someone like Pcarbonn on the block. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed above but withdrawn. I will propose that instead. Any other editor with this track record would have been banned a long time ago. If the community doesn’t ban ScienceApologist it is more or less official that all the elaborate WP policies and guidelines are nothing but a charade and that the guys with friends in the right places have immunity and can break every WP rule there is with no consequences. No more Dirty Harry on Wikipedia. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I thought this was about things in general that need attention? The request to ban/block SA I also thought was handled in the Cold Fusion case. Why is this still being requested? --CrohnieGalTalk 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

"Attack"

"I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned. That's my full and final goal." 01:08, 3 December 2008

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I retract the bit about "every person I'm in conflict with". A lot of conflict is good and I'm happy for it. I just had a conflict with User:Fyslee and I don't want to see him blocked or banned ever. While I recognize that the joy of Wikipedia is always taking comments out of context I will say this: there are a number of editors who are currently active on Wikipedia with whom I have come in contact whom I believe should be shown the door. I will also unabashedly say that I intend to help showing them that door. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for yet again confirming that you are out to get others, and Wikipedia is a battleground for you. This and other statements since show that you really mean it. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This was presented in evidence - could the users who presented this evidence clarify their interpretation? Also, without expressing my own view on this evidence at this point, I was wondering: is it really a bad thing when users are candid about their intentions? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; if one is clearly carrying out bad intentions, then there is no doubt that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But what of those who failed to make a statement of their bad intentions - would they get a lesser punishment because they were not candid? Something to ponder on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When one says something foolish, it is a good idea to retract the statement so that others cannot continue to present it as evidence. I'll remove that bit from my evidence if the editor publishes a retraction. Jehochman Talk 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jehochman, I would rather say that it would be a good idea for you to strike out your [pseudo]-quote of SA's obvious sarcasm in order to look less foolish yourself. It's ludicrous to offer that quote as evidence that SA has "bad intentions" towards the project. Please compare my own evidence section. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I think this throws more light on the general theme. This isn't a new thing. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I suggest you delete that comment and the link. It was made by a sock, User:Durga's Trident, and his so-called "evidence" was deleted by MastCell. You need to stick to using legitimate evidence here. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Martin wants to present that evidence using his main account, that's fine with me. I objected to the use of a sockpuppet in an ArbCom proceeding, as a general principle. MastCell Talk 05:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MastCell. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So SA would like some people banned. Other people have clearly made their intentions to have him banned quite public. Lots of people want lots of people banned. So SA says something that his opponents also say and do, and you want to single SA out for it? That's not particularly helpful if your goal is a fair resolution of conflict in which all parties are held to the same standards. Of course if your goal is finding a reason to ban specific editors, using evidence that they would like other editors banned doesn't seem particularly logical either. 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
He's not being singled out. Any of those users you mention would have such statements considered if they were up before ArbCom. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Statement taken out of context. The original statement (see diff above) did not begin with "I promise...", but with an if-clause. See Bishonen's discussion of the context of the remark. Coppertwig(talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Ct: this is clearly taken out of context William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examine it in context, then, but don't pretend it didn't happen. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: