Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Jehochman

ScienceApologist has declared an intention to attack other editors

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. Like it?[1]

ScienceApologist misuses noticeboards to attack those with whom he has content disagreements

While this request for arbitration was pending, SA started a frivolous thread at WP:COIN alleging that Jim Butler (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest in editing acupuncture because JB is an acupuncturist.[2] So long as an editor follows WP:NPOV and other relevant policies, we should welcome them to edit an article about their field of expertise.

Evidence presented by Seicer

I am currently out of town, and now have access to a laptop, but will have limited internet access until January 2. I will provide a fuller evidence statement, and condense my statements after that. seicer | talk | contribs 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a battleground

"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

Death threats

"First I'm going to get Hans Adler fired for loving homeopathy. Then I'm going to get JB^note imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor. The I'm going to kill Levine2112 by breaking his back with vertebral subluxation unrelated to chiropractic. Then I'm going to expose Elonka for being an amateur cryptographer with delusions of grandeur. Then I'll put fluoride in ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont's water to poison them.

Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE."

03:13, 3 December 2008

While not a serious death threat, death threats are explicitly forbidden under policy. We have blocked for far less in the past.

Retilatory and frivolous actions

"I think that at this point, requesting a community ban of seicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), similar in nature to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), would be appropriate. As such, I am in support of a community ban for an indeterminate period to be reevaluated at an undetermined point in the future." 15:42, 22 December 2008

After requesting a community ban after a fellow administrator supported such a measure, SA filed a retilatory and frivolous community ban request against myself. Such action was admonished.

Poor edit summaries or actions without consensus

• 21:44, 24 November 2008: Redirect initiated without consensus, with a poor edit summary.
• 07:18, 26 November 2008: Poor usage of TW by reverting discussions as vandalism. A reply to that was labeled as vandalism.
• 03:45, 30 November 2008: Falsely labeling editors as being banned from an article.
• Given the history of edit warring, three reverts in a matter of hours at [[]] is not appropriate: 18:47, 29 November 2008 23:00, 29 November 2008 03:45, 30 November 2008
• SA nominated List of alleged UFO-related entities for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related entities. It was closed as 'no consensus', yet he redirected the article in an attempt to circumvent the closure of the AFD. He began issuing a series of ultimatums: [3] [4] [5] [6]. He then began a campaign of POV-pushing: [7] [8] [9], SA then redirected the article again to a different article. When that was reverted, he tag-bombed the article. The original administrator who closed the AFD requested that if SA felt that the article needed to be deleted, that he take it to DRV -- which was never attempted. SA's actions has caused editors to leave the project.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, SA was banned from editing WP:FRINGE for 30 days, beginning on November 4, 2008. The ban was for edit warring in an attempt to implement a major change/revision without consensus or discussion.

SA disagreed with the ban, and then attempted to boldly remove the ban message from the guideline's talkpage. It was replaced by a fellow administrator, and it was agreed upon by another administrator.

On December 1, SA began edit warring on WP:FRINGE in violation of the ban, as noted here and here. When reverted, SA lobbed rather incivil comments, as noted here and here. SA was blocked for 48 hours as a result.

Evidence presented by Enric Naval

No adequate tools to deal with fringe science editors

The community does not have adequate tools to fend off fringe science pushers, so it all depends on individual hard-boiled editors (like SA) who have to basically kick the POV pushers out of the talk page in unfashionable but effective ways, like I had to do myself here and here, so they won't scare neutral editors out of the page.

(adapted from my evidence at cold fusion case here)

We can't take every peer-reviewed source seriously

Fringe science POV pushers can cite literally hundreds of cherry-picked primary sources to support their fringe view (examples below). On certain fields they can also cherry pick from hundreds of published secondary sources (in homeopathy,389 published reviews and meta-analysis).

Examples of piling-up primary sources for POV-pushing purposes:

• 47 sources in homeopathy, from socking POV-pusher User:Dr.Jhingaadey, who claimed he could gather hundreds of studies
• 353 papers in Cold fusion out from a list of 1390 papers gathered up by a researcher, just 11 days after the cold fusion arbitration case was closed
• 14 papers in Sudden infant death syndrome, only god knows what criteria was used since official organisms say that all scientific papers show the exact opposite.

POV pushers won't listen to reasoned arguments

POV pushers will fight nail and toe and wikilawyer endlessly to defend that the sources are valid because a)they are published and b)they are peer-reviewed (see the evidence of homeopathy case (deleted version) for multiple example). They will dismiss all arguments of being published by non-notable journal, being contradicted by more reliable/notable/representative sources, etc.

People fighting POV pushers are being punished

At some point someone has to call out the crap of this type of POV pushers and rebuff them completely, and all their sources with them, and clean up the articles from their pushing and sources. Editors with high visibility (like SA) will get accused of incivility when they do that.

At that point, we are indirectly punishing actions that defend NPOV on articles and indirectly defending civil POV pushers that wikilawyer about reliable sources, as well as preventing the cleanup of articles.

Chilling effect on moderate neutral editors

Constant POV pushing has a chilling effect on moderate neutral editors, who will think it twice before presenting sources on the talk page. They know that their articles will be attacked endlessly by POV pushers, who will present a series of minor sources that the editor will have to check one by one in order to rebuff them. Eventually, some of those neutral editors will take those articles out of their watchlists, leaving behind only the most polarized, stubborn, COI'ed, and/or POV-pushing editors, with the effects that you can imagine (aka, "collaborative environment" becomes "poisonous environment", see my [complaints] about how it's imposible to add anything to Homeopathy without unintentionally starting a revert war + full indef protection, and my statement about "editing on this page should look like").

Neutral editors usually pop back into the talk page once they see that the usual POV pushers have been neutralized. (see how collaborative editing on Talk:Cold fusion resumed inmediately as soon as User:Pcarbonn and Jed were banned from the page. In comparison, discussion at Talk:Homeopathy is still poisoned and neutral editors are still being scared away [10]).

If moderate neutral editors don't see that efforts are being made to keep wikipedia free of these sterile fights, then they will eventually reduce their editing frequency and even leave.

Punishing SA

Terrible idea. It would make as much good as punishing the editors who repeatedly revert rabid nationalists at disputed territories articles, and who frequently exchange nationalistist insults with them. Cut that stuff when it appears so it won't disrupt the editing process, but don't prevent them from doing their work. Remember that, like those editors, SA makes a dirty job against stubborn opposition. Now go do something that solves the underlying problem.

Evidence presented by Martinphi

I would like to formally submit the Durga's Trident evidence as presented here, and the evidence of Max Pont here.

Context and statement

I ask the ArbCom to forget about ScienceApologist's disruptive editing. Forget about his threats, sock puppeting, POINT making, edit warring, incivility, attacks, the amount of time people have spent trying to reform him, his attitude toward Wikipedia, his creation of his own policy, vested contributorhood (etc. etc.), and his divahood. What do those really matter, anyway? They are but the disruption of one single editor, however annoying. The real point is that ScienceApologist is a "debunker," not an "NPOV pusher."

This may be exactly what he ought to be- see below. However, if debunking is not appropriate, then the real problem the ArbCom has to consider, if this is to be about "Fringe science" rather than merely ScienceApologist, is whether or not debunking is to be tolerated on Wikipedia. Even SPOV, let alone debunking, is formally rejected by the community (till the recent Cold Fusion ArbCom at least). If debunking and SPOV are permitted to the exclusion of NPOV, two things will happen:

1, Wikipedia will be living a lie, per its pretense to NPOV.

2, Since on most complex fringe topics skeptics don't know enough to write the articles; and since proponents or even neutral editors won't put up with debunking; therefore, the articles will not acquire the information they need to be complete.

If you want to have complete articles on fringe topics, you will have to find a way to accommodate proponents. This does not mean you have to let the articles become shilling for fringe topics. But it does mean that fringe proponents have to have the same protections as other editors. It also means the the community has to take a firm stand against debunking, because no fringe or neutral editor will stay around to contribute to an article which debunks. And only the proponents know the subjects well. Note the dreadful state of the parapsychology-related articles: User:Annalisa Ventola, User:Nealparr and I could have made them very informative by now, but we've been driven off.

Also, you need to make a statement that although the mainstream view is notable and should be well explained, articles about fringe topics are to be mostly about those fringe topics per WEIGHT of the sources- their history, ideas, etc., rather than a discussion of those subjects from a mainstream POV. Many editors contest this. In fact, the Arbitration Committee has stated:

Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought. [11]

This is a statement that SPOV is the policy of Wikipedia (it is also policy creation by the Arbitration Committee). (see this for further explanation.) If the Committee really meant it, then it should be put into policy that Fringe articles are to be SPOV. But please don't lie to the readers about NPOV any more. The fringe articles are not NPOV.

The committee has come down hard on promotion of fringe views, but it has said nothing about debunking, as if it truly thinks debunking is a good thing. Please either ban fringe topics from Wikipedia, make sure they aren't debunking, or formally embrace SPOV/debunking (have you or haven't you already?). ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Pcarbonn

Destructive editing behavior + potential conflict of interest

ScienceApologist has stated that he wants to get blocked or banned every person he disagrees with.[12] A few weeks ago, he has wrongly accused me of having invested in a company with an interest in cold fusion research, and thus of a conflict of interest.[13] After several stages of forum shopping, such suspicion about my motives has eventually lead the Arbitration Committee to ban me from contributing to cold fusion articles 2 weeks ago,[14] a decision that I find unjust, and dangerous for wikipedia.[15]Since then, many well-sourced, notable arguments in favor of cold fusion have been removed from the cold fusion article. I have issued an appeal of the ban to Jimbo Wales.[16]

Isn't it time to look at ScienceApologist's motivation ? I have investigated the circumstances that lead him to issue his death threats to other editors.[17] I have now submitted evidence to the ArbComm that ScienceApologist works for a University with a strong involvement in "hot fusion" research. Could he have a personal incentive to defend such research from the competition of cold fusion one, just as he said I had a financial incentive to defend the reality of cold fusion ? That seems probably far fetched.

Yet, in 1989 already, Eugene Mallove and others have said that the protection of hot fusion research budget was one reason for the quick suppression of Fleischmann and Pons' discovery. They are many more nuclear physicists than cold fusion researchers, and thus many more potential Wikipedia editors with an anti-Cold-fusion interest.(I'm not saying that this is an organized conspiracy, just the sum of individual interests) Wikipedia is not a democracy, and significant minorities deserve a fair representation, per WP:NPOV. The editors defending such significant minority views have a tough job on wikipedia, since they are facing a majority: they should be defended, not banned. Too many editors who wanted fair representation of minority views have already left wikipedia in disgust, often after losing their civility. (Edmund Storms, Jed Rothwell[18], Ron Marshall,[19] ...)

Anyway, does ScienceApologist's real-world interest really matter ? Many editors chose to remain anonymous, and are thus immune from accusation of conflict of interest. Should we penalize those whose identity is known ? I don't think so. We should judge editors only based on their behavior, and check whether they have violated policies. In fact, that's what WP:COI says. There is plenty of evidence that ScienceApologist has violated policies repeatedly. That's what matters.

The Arbitration Committee would be well advised to look how real-word courts make their judgement. Are well-respected citizen allowed to commit crimes, considering their balance of contributions to the world ? No, the same rules apply to all, great or small. I wish Wikipedia would do the same. ScienceApologist is even more destructive when he has many followers, as Enric Naval clearly suggests above.[20] Pcarbonn (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mathsci

Polite POV pushing will always be a problem in fringe science

Since the creation of the internet, fringe science and pseudoscience have found their natural niche. The advocates of fringe science can apparently at last give their own view of their subject. Unfortunately this is completely at odds with the methodology of the world academic community of scientists, whether it be on the scientific basis of parapsychology and orgone or on some of the more extreme claims of alternative medicine. It is very difficult for wikipedia to give a balanced view of some of these topics and, in this sense, wikipedia is some type of ongoing experiment, where perhaps for the first time an attempt is being made to treat what are sometimes considered to be taboo topics in the academic world. Where medical issues arise, there can be a real danger in allowing certain claims to stand unchallenged. Small coteries of academics, often with no formal training in science, have used fringe science to explain racial differences, sometimes intentionally providing fodder for extremist hate groups. Fringe science can often be poor or bad science, frequently motivated by real-world problems such as the energy crisis. Perpetual motion theorists or would-be Einsteins should not be able to peddle their flawed wares on wikipedia unchallenged; likewise experiments that have never lived up to their exaggerated claims, as with cold fusion, should not be misrepresented by exceedingly polite proponents on wikipedia. Fringe science covers a vast range of disparate topics, from protoscience to pseudoscience, and it is not clear that lumping them all together is helpful as far as devising policies on wikipedia is concerned; it seems quite unhelpful for example putting acupuncture, which works for many people, in the same basket as orgone.

Content is far more important than civility in editing fringe science

The policing of articles on fringe science or pseudoscience is extremely difficult. Certainly content is the key here and, when administrators are not directly involved in editing the articles or are unfamiliar with sometimes highly complex material, this can be a well-nigh impossible task. Where tempers can frequently become frayed, it is often much easier to pick up lapses in behaviour than to understand larger intellectual issues. Administrators can develop "relationships" with individual editors, sometimes verging on hostility, with a consequent loss of assumptions of good faith; equally well, they can develop soft spots for POV pushers, eager to nestle under their wings. The repercussions of these personalized conflicts/attachments between administrators and editors appear to be completely unhelpful for building an encyclopedia. What has worked is where academic experts with a good knowledge of the subject have been present as editors and as leaders of discussions on the talk page. I am thinking of medical editors like Eubulides, MastCell, Fyslee, etc. Their presence seems to provide the necessary calm and rational ambiance for building balanced articles. It works much better than micromanagement, something that more than likely will drive this kind of expert away from problematic articles.

Those challenging the claims of fringe science should not act like religious zealots

It is commendable that those involved in mainstream science, like ScienceApologist, take a stand against polite POV pushers. Few wikipedians do this full time. However, they should guard against this becoming a battle on wikipedia, perhaps taking a leaf out of the book of the medical wikipedians. Sometimes it's hard to keep the temperature down when the rational scientific method seems to have been thrown out of the window. In SA's case, I think his mentor Durova's calm approach to problems will counter his own sometimes volatile tendencies, which can occasionally obscure his wholly laudable intentions. He should make every effort to stay cool. I do not believe that he has exhausted the community's patience: from where I stand, the community is far more concerned at having junk knowledge shunted onto the pages of its much read encyclopedia.

Evidence presented by Hipocrite

The pattern

Academic-related articles are filled with garbage

I use only economics articles, as it's the only sector in which I am qualified. There has been some improvement, recently, but here are some interesting statements:

1. Quantity theory of money - "It is the mainstream economic theory of the price level."
2. Monetary Disequilibrium Theory - "While most economists can agree that monetary policy influences real activity in the economy, the Real business cycle model ignores these effects of monetary policy."
3. Neoclassical economics - "It was later used by John Hicks, George Stigler, and others who presumed that significant disputes amongst marginalist schools had been largely resolved"

Experts get frusterated

Trust me. (evidence eventually)

Admins solve easy problems, ignoring harder, more relvent ones

Between some people who call themselves "Austrians" and some who call themselves "Neo-classicals." NPOV says we need to balance their views, right? (illustrative example eventually)

Admins enforce solutions

Trust me. (evidence eventually)

Admins become personally attached

Elonka

(to come)

Jehochman

(to come)

Seicer

(to come)

Admins become frustrated

Elonka

(to come)

Jehochman

(to come)

Seicer

(to come)

Admins break rules/escalate

Elonka

(to come)

Jehochman

(to come)

Seicer

(to come)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by User:Peter Damian

Wikipedia is not about debunking fringe views

The aim of Wikipedia is not to debunk fringe views (i.e. to discredit and expose claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious). It is to present scientific consensus as represented in reliable sources, i.e. reputable and authoritative secondary sources.

But Wikipedia is about neutrality

However, the community still does not have the will to enforce the neutrality principles, nor does it have effective tools to defend itself against the promoters of fringe points of view, and against those with a commercial or other vested interest in promoting fringe viewpoints. Because of this, and because of the lack of will , neutral editors representing scientific consensus are like SA are burning out and suffering persecution.

If such editors are persecuted, or allowed to burn out without being encouraged and supported, this will cause serious problems in the coverage of science in Wikipedia. As the increasing use of Wikipedia as an authoritative reference source leads to increasing awareness of such flaws in the editorial process, this will lead to considerable 'reputational risk' to the project. This may lead to funding being withdrawn and ultimately to the collapse of the project.

Wikipedia needs tools to enforce neutrality, not witch hunts

The problem could be easily solved by stronger enforcement of core Wikipedia neutrality principles. We must stamp out the current practice whereby fringe science POV pushers can cite literally hundreds of cherry-picked primary sources to support their fringe view, or cherry pick from hundreds of published secondary sources. I therefore propose:

• 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.
• 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.
• There should be a change of policy to prevent individuals with a blatant conflict of interest, or commercial interests, from editing.
• Editors experiencing burn-out should be supported and encouraged.
• Witch-hunts like the current arbitration should be ended forthwith.

Evidence presented by User:B

ScienceApologist attacks those he disagrees with

At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse, ScienceApologist libeled me by claiming that I ran a protection racket regarding Profg (talk · contribs). I was shocked at his accusation that I am committing extortion - when I challenged him on it, he did not reply. At a minimum, I would expect an apology. Harassment is not a weapon in a dispute - and that summarizes my problem with SA's behavior. --B (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MastCell

The "rejection" of SPOV

I'm going to confine myself, at this point, to addressing one recurring fallacy that's been annoying me. "SPOV" vs. "NPOV" is repeatedly presented as an either/or, usually with the corollary that "the community" has "rejected" SPOV in favor of NPOV. Let's go to the tape:

• Wikipedia talk:Scientific point of view

I see that this proposal was discussed by a grand total of 3 logged-in editors. Three. And those three didn't even "reject" it - they essentially agreed that SPOV was redundant and synonymous with NPOV on scientific articles, so a separate SPOV policy was unnecessary.

I'm loathe to shout, but this deserves the bold-italics: SPOV was not "rejected"; it was discarded because it was deemed redundant and synonymous with NPOV on scientific articles by the 3 editors who bothered to comment. Maybe I'm missing more detailed discussion; if anyone is aware of a more thorough discussion or rejection of SPOV, please share the links with me and I'll amend my evidence. But I currently don't see evidence to back the frequently repeated claim that SPOV was "rejected", nor that anything resembling "the community" even debated the topic.

More: SPOV and NPOV are not mutually exclusive. Any reasonable application of WP:NPOV to scientific topics will end up favoring the mainstream scientific point of view. ArbCom formalized this in the cold fusion case, but it's actually nothing new - their finding merely reflected the basic understanding of Wikipedia's goals and already-existing best practices. You can call it SPOV if you want - perhaps it is - but it's also NPOV. MastCell ^Talk 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.