Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Disambiguation links added |
|||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:If you feel that the proposed amendment is not the best way forward, other solutions such as opening a full case with a narrower scope may be more viable. But I request that Arbcom please not pass the buck back to the community, because the community has already tried and failed to resolve this issue several times. I think you're the arbitrator who has the greatest familiarity with this background, so I'd appreciate your guidance on the best way to address it. -[[User:Ferahgo the Assassin|Ferahgo the Assassin]] ([[User talk:Ferahgo the Assassin|talk]]) 20:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC) |
:If you feel that the proposed amendment is not the best way forward, other solutions such as opening a full case with a narrower scope may be more viable. But I request that Arbcom please not pass the buck back to the community, because the community has already tried and failed to resolve this issue several times. I think you're the arbitrator who has the greatest familiarity with this background, so I'd appreciate your guidance on the best way to address it. -[[User:Ferahgo the Assassin|Ferahgo the Assassin]] ([[User talk:Ferahgo the Assassin|talk]]) 20:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{ping|Barkeep49}} Alright. If you need specific evidence of something within Arbcom's remit, then I suppose keeping this request focused on general issues of policy won't be possible - and Generalrelative has already linked to one of the earlier discussions anyway, which makes it obvious what topic area precipitated this request. I'm going to focus on the issue of misrepresented sources here, because while it isn't the only behavioral issue in this area, it's the one where Arbcom is most likely to understand the nature of the problem. |
|||
*26-27 April 2020: NightHeron changes the lead of the [[race and intelligence]] article from "there is no direct evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component" to "there is no scientific evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=953327603] On the talk page, he argues that sources aren't required for this change because the hereditarian hypothesis (that group differences include a genetic component) is classified as a fringe theory. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=953354163&oldid=953349877] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=953362010&oldid=953356761] |
|||
*2 May 2020: NightHeron makes the same alteration to the body of the article, changing "no direct evidence" to "no scientific evidence". In this case the original wording was supported by three sources, and NightHeron changed the text without changing the sources that it cited. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=954449862&oldid=954449193] "No direct evidence" had been the exact wording of the three sources cited there, or a very close paraphrase (see Gardenofaleph's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=1012120302 summary here]). This distinction between "evidence" and "direct evidence" is more than just a semantic change: for example, [[James Flynn]]'s well-known book [http://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Race-IQ-and-Jensen-James-Flynn.pdf ''Race, IQ and Jensen''] contains a chapter titled "Direct evidence and indirect", in which Flynn argues that there is indirect evidence for a genetic cause, but direct evidence for an environmental cause. |
|||
*April-May 2020: NightHeron removes most of the material from the article that had been cited to [[Earl B. Hunt]]'s textbook ''Human Intelligence''. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=953602643&oldid=953512420] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=953935080] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=954884270&oldid=954853761] NightHeron and other editors justify these removals on the grounds that this book is in favor of the position that group differences in average IQ scores have a genetic component, and thus material in the book presenting this view is inadmissible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=953752483] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=953742720] |
|||
*June to August 2020: Generalrelative changes the wording of this part of the article article from "There is no scientific evidence that the test score gap has a genetic component" to "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups". He also adds the same material to three other articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligence_quotient&type=revision&diff=963848910&oldid=962918357] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heritability_of_IQ&type=revision&diff=963826760&oldid=963816853] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Achievement_gaps_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=944951686&oldid=944518850] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=973359447] Finally, in the edits to [[Intelligence Quotient]], [[Heritability of IQ]], and [[Race and intelligence]], he adds a citation to Earl Hunt's textbook ''Human Intelligence'' for this statement. |
|||
*Let me call attention to two things about Generalrelative's citing of Hunt's texbook for this statement. First, this is the same source that has had most of its citations removed on the grounds that it is arguing '''in favor''' of a genetic contribution. Second, earlier the same month Generalrelative had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=962396192 added a quote] from this book saying "The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence", which is obviously not the same as saying there is a consensus that no evidence exists for a genetic contribution. For the book's actual position on this question, see the quote that I posted here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#Issue_2:_WP:Verifiability_concerns] |
|||
*13-14 March 2021: Three editors - Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, and an IP editor - raise objections that this part of the article is not supported by its sources. However, NightHeron doesn't allow the material be modified, arguing that these editors' objections are invalid because the material is required by consensus. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARace_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=1011816706&oldid=1011815115] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=1012132540&oldid=1012130152] |
|||
*18-23 March 2021: Stonkaments raises the issue of these misrepresented sources at the NOR noticeboard. After about two days, JzG shuts down the discussion there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1013319771] When challenged about this closure in his user talk, JzG explains that in order to raise his objection that sources are being misrepresented, Stonkaments first would have to successfully argue that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, and that Stonkaments will likely be topic banned if he makes further attempts to raise the issue. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=1013641550] |
|||
*1-2 May 2021: I open a RFC at the RS noticeboard about the issue of misrepresented sources, as well as the fact that older and lower-quality sources are being given priority over more recent sources of higher quality. This RFC is shut down by JzG after about 12 hours. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=1021007335&oldid=1021007089] |
|||
*3-5 May 2021: Shortly after the RFC has been shut down, a discussion begins about opening a new RFC which would examine this question of sourcing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#Proposal_to_start_a_new_RFC] However, while that discussion is still underway, NightHeron opens a new RFC on the article's talk page which avoids the question of sourcing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=1021272655] He explains that he is opening this RFC in order to prevent anyone else from opening one that examines the sourcing question. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Generalrelative&diff=prev&oldid=1021262383] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=1021286344] |
|||
*9 May 2021: AndewNguyen tries to open a separate RFC to examine the sourcing question. This RFC is immediately shut down by an uninvolved user, with the explanation that it is inappropriate to open a new RFC in addition to the one that is already open. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1022309895] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mackensen#Please_reconsider] Thus, NightHeron was successful in the strategy he described in the two comments linked above: that he could prevent the community from discussing his misrepresentation of sources by opening an RFC which avoided this question. |
|||
Something I should point out about this sequence of events is that since March 2020, the race and intelligence article has had a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Editnotices/Page/Race_and_intelligence special restriction] (implemented by you) saying that anyone who misrepresents a source will be subjected to "escalating topic bans". But no admin has been willing to enforce this restriction, and during the year and a half that it has existed, no one has ever been sanctioned under it. However, editors who tried to raise the issue of misrepresented sources have been threatened with topic bans for doing so, JzG's response to Stonkaments that's linked above being one example. In summary, this is a behavioral issue (misrepresentation of sources) that the community has persistently been unable to address, in part because the sourcing restriction that you imposed turned out to be unenforceable. |
|||
Finally, let me call attention to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence_(June_2020) previous arbitration request] last year about more or less the same issue (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Reply_to_NightHeron Literaturegeek's summary]). In that discussion, [[user:SMcCandlish]] predicted that if Arbcom declined to act on the earlier request, the same issue would inevitably come back to Arbcom again. That's exactly what has happened. This time could Arbcom please deal with the issue, so that it won't have to be brought back to Arbcom a third time in 2022? -[[User:Ferahgo the Assassin|Ferahgo the Assassin]] ([[User talk:Ferahgo the Assassin|talk]]) 05:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by David Gerard === |
=== Statement by David Gerard === |
Revision as of 05:42, 22 October 2021
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Fringe science | none | (orig. case) | 21 October 2021 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Amendment request: Fringe science
Initiated by DGG at 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- To the clause
In this ruling, the term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science.
should be added "This should be interpreted according to the community guideline at WP:FRINGE''
- To the clause
- Replace the statement
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.
should be replaced by Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." in order to match the guideline at WP:FRINGE
- Replace the statement
- Add a clause: In particular, WP:NPOV requires that High-quality sources should not be excluded from articles purely on the basis of the viewpoint they represent. Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent. Likewise, WP:V requires that every statement in an article be directly supported by a reliable source. Material must not be included in articles only on the basis of communicating the "correct" view, if it is not supported by the sources it cites."
- Add a clause: Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science. The above definitions do not apply. The fundamental policies WP:NPOV and WP:V do apply ; in particular, WP:NPOV requires that sources should not be excluded from articles on the basis of the viewpoint they represent.
Statement by DGG
The reason for this request is the arguments on sources that keep occurring on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, when dealing with minority views, where the arb com rulings have been used to prevent the inclusion of reasonably reputable sources. This includes among others recent discussions in the scientific areas of Covid, Race & Intelligence, Genetically modified organisms, climate change, and various aspects of medicine, and in the areas of American and other national politics, nationalism in different regions, and various conspiracy theories. See WP:DSTOPICS
The hope is to focus the arguments over sourcing, decrease the need for AE and discretionary sanctions, make further requests for arbitration cases in such areas unnecessary--and possibly even reduce the need for some of the discussions and arguments that arise.
I am not necessarily saying that all of the areas mentioned should rightfully be included under WP:FRINGE; I am certainly not saying that all or most of the arb com decisions or the community decisions based on them were improper, or led to incorrect conclusions. I have been involved in many such discussions at WP:RSN and elsewhere; sometimes the views I supported have been upheld, and sometimes not. I have no intention of re-arguing any of them here, or of using this request to challenge or overturn any previous decision by arbitrators or the community. The purpose of this request is to act as a guide for future discussions.
I am not naming parties, as this applies to everyone who might be working in these areas. I am notifying WP:RSN and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
- @brady: you are being asked not to "reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" but by letting other sources be used to a limited extent in a proper qualified way, instead of being rejected out of hand. Rather than "denying them priority", I would say "reducing their priority when necessary for NPOV. " I am not suggesting removing the key prnciple in the case
Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
- @Sowhy, About half the arb com decisions have been indirect rulings on content This is to some extent inevitable because content disagreements are at the root of most of WP's long standing disputes Every case dealing with ethnic or nationalist issues is at heart a dispute over content, carried out by attacking sourcing. I certainly was aware of the content implications of the cases in my 5 years, and I think other arbs were also. One tries to not let it over-influence one's decision, but an awareness is always in the background.
- @David Gerard, re-analyzing all of the fringe-related disputes at RSN over the last 12 years would take many times my 1000 words; even just discussing the other fringe-related arb cases would; and the responses of everyone interested in all of them would make a discussion here totally impossible. That's why I decided to keep this as general as possible, and why I decided not to challenge here the results of any of the discussions..
- Based on the comments of various arbitrators, the principles and FoFs in this case should not be used to justify actions regarding individual articles or sources. However, @brady has also commented that they would want to see how these changes would affect particular controversies, which implies they are authoritative principles . Perhaps this should be treated as a request for clarification? Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify in arb policy that the statements in any one case apply to that particular case only, but not to any future instance involving the same principles. But presumably that would only apply to decisions not resulting in DS or similar sanctions about specific articles and topics--since in such cases the principles and FoF are specifically or implicitly used as the basis for the sanctions. Is that the intended meaning? DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Would it help if the wording didn't say Non-academic, but minority academic? DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Alexbrn
I don't think arbcom should have jurisdiction over content decisions, so the current ruling is an unfortunate artefact from the past. Revoking it may, however, give the impression that somehow restrictions are being lifted. The proposed amendment looks even worse, in that in some respects it seems to want to make an end-run around core policy. In particular, for fringe topics the proposed text "WP:NPOV requires that High-quality sources should not be excluded from articles purely on the basis of the viewpoint they represent" is simply wrong, since for fringe topics WP:GEVAL has:
... plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it ... (emphasis mine)
The proposed amendment would allow the pseudoscience in apparently "high-quality" sources (e.g. peer-reviewed articles in homeopathy journals) passage into Wikipedia, or at least fuel drama over arguing for it. It is important that Wikipedia does not include fringe ideas except through the lens of accepted academic scholarship, where it exists.
If there's an issue with policy, fix the policy text. I say: don't try and provide additional layers of amendement to an area which is already plagued by WP:WL and drama. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Pyrrho the Skeptic
Clerk note: the below was to respond to bradv. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused over point 6, because WP:MEDRS states: The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles
, but this amendment seems like it would state that popular press is fine in fringe medicine, if that same source is used for, say, politics. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
ADDING: There appears to be some conflict regarding defining "fringe theories" vs defining "quackery" in medicine. If the amendment is made to be consistent with this language from WP:FRINGE ...but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.
, then that makes sense. But then I feel like a distinction needs to be made between WP:FRINGE being applied to "fringe theories" and WP:MEDRS being applied to "quackery". Otherwise you might always have disputes with editor 1 using ArbCom/WP:FRINGE language to justify "non-academic" sources and editor 2 using WP:MEDRS to claim only peer-reviewed, medical, secondary sources be used in a given content dispute. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Ferahgo
This request relates to an issue that I recently discussed in general terms on the Arbcom mailing list, and also in more specific terms with Arbcom member Barkeep49. There are a few closely-related issues that need to be addressed, but I think this request is mostly directed at the fact that there are a few topics where journalistic sources (such as articles in newspapers and magazines) are being given priority over academic journals and textbooks. In some cases, the academic sources have been declared unreliable sources on the basis of the viewpoint they present, because they contradict the view presented in journalistic sources, which is assumed to be the mainstream one.
I am not sure what the best way to address this would be. The matter of general policy raised here needs addressing, but there is also a behavioral aspect. Over the past year or so there have been several cases of editors adding material to articles that misrepresents its sources, with the justification that WP:FRINGE requires this material to be included, and every attempt to challenge or remove the material has been rejected on the same grounds. There have been a few attempts to raise this issue with the broader community, but none of the discussions about it at noticeboards have resolved anything.
I would rather not get into specific examples, because I'd like to keep this request focused on general matters of policy, instead of specific topics. But I can provide more specific details about the background if necessary, either here or on the Arbcom mailing list (I'd prefer the latter). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: The problem is something like this: several topic areas have recently had similar problems in which WP:FRINGE has been used as a justification for ignoring other content policies, such as requiring the inclusion of material that misrepresents its sources. There are two topics in particular where this has been happening over the past year. My understanding is that in the past few months one of the two topics has improved somewhat, but the other has not.
- I think this request ought to stay focused on general issues of policy, but I've gone into more detail in our email correspondence. As I mentioned in that correspondence, there have been multiple noticeboard discussions that tried and failed to resolve the issue, and one of the recent discussions about it concluded that it could not be resolved without Arbcom's intervention. DGG's and my hope with this request is that Arbcom could address it by addressing the policy principles, which apply to multiple topics, instead of the specifics of just one or two topics.
- If you feel that the proposed amendment is not the best way forward, other solutions such as opening a full case with a narrower scope may be more viable. But I request that Arbcom please not pass the buck back to the community, because the community has already tried and failed to resolve this issue several times. I think you're the arbitrator who has the greatest familiarity with this background, so I'd appreciate your guidance on the best way to address it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Alright. If you need specific evidence of something within Arbcom's remit, then I suppose keeping this request focused on general issues of policy won't be possible - and Generalrelative has already linked to one of the earlier discussions anyway, which makes it obvious what topic area precipitated this request. I'm going to focus on the issue of misrepresented sources here, because while it isn't the only behavioral issue in this area, it's the one where Arbcom is most likely to understand the nature of the problem.
- 26-27 April 2020: NightHeron changes the lead of the race and intelligence article from "there is no direct evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component" to "there is no scientific evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component". [1] On the talk page, he argues that sources aren't required for this change because the hereditarian hypothesis (that group differences include a genetic component) is classified as a fringe theory. [2] [3]
- 2 May 2020: NightHeron makes the same alteration to the body of the article, changing "no direct evidence" to "no scientific evidence". In this case the original wording was supported by three sources, and NightHeron changed the text without changing the sources that it cited. [4] "No direct evidence" had been the exact wording of the three sources cited there, or a very close paraphrase (see Gardenofaleph's summary here). This distinction between "evidence" and "direct evidence" is more than just a semantic change: for example, James Flynn's well-known book Race, IQ and Jensen contains a chapter titled "Direct evidence and indirect", in which Flynn argues that there is indirect evidence for a genetic cause, but direct evidence for an environmental cause.
- April-May 2020: NightHeron removes most of the material from the article that had been cited to Earl B. Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence. [5] [6] [7] NightHeron and other editors justify these removals on the grounds that this book is in favor of the position that group differences in average IQ scores have a genetic component, and thus material in the book presenting this view is inadmissible. [8] [9]
- June to August 2020: Generalrelative changes the wording of this part of the article article from "There is no scientific evidence that the test score gap has a genetic component" to "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups". He also adds the same material to three other articles. [10] [11] [12] [13] Finally, in the edits to Intelligence Quotient, Heritability of IQ, and Race and intelligence, he adds a citation to Earl Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence for this statement.
- Let me call attention to two things about Generalrelative's citing of Hunt's texbook for this statement. First, this is the same source that has had most of its citations removed on the grounds that it is arguing in favor of a genetic contribution. Second, earlier the same month Generalrelative had added a quote from this book saying "The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence", which is obviously not the same as saying there is a consensus that no evidence exists for a genetic contribution. For the book's actual position on this question, see the quote that I posted here: [14]
- 13-14 March 2021: Three editors - Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, and an IP editor - raise objections that this part of the article is not supported by its sources. However, NightHeron doesn't allow the material be modified, arguing that these editors' objections are invalid because the material is required by consensus. [15] [16]
- 18-23 March 2021: Stonkaments raises the issue of these misrepresented sources at the NOR noticeboard. After about two days, JzG shuts down the discussion there. [17] When challenged about this closure in his user talk, JzG explains that in order to raise his objection that sources are being misrepresented, Stonkaments first would have to successfully argue that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, and that Stonkaments will likely be topic banned if he makes further attempts to raise the issue. [18]
- 1-2 May 2021: I open a RFC at the RS noticeboard about the issue of misrepresented sources, as well as the fact that older and lower-quality sources are being given priority over more recent sources of higher quality. This RFC is shut down by JzG after about 12 hours. [19]
- 3-5 May 2021: Shortly after the RFC has been shut down, a discussion begins about opening a new RFC which would examine this question of sourcing. [20] However, while that discussion is still underway, NightHeron opens a new RFC on the article's talk page which avoids the question of sourcing. [21] He explains that he is opening this RFC in order to prevent anyone else from opening one that examines the sourcing question. [22] [23]
- 9 May 2021: AndewNguyen tries to open a separate RFC to examine the sourcing question. This RFC is immediately shut down by an uninvolved user, with the explanation that it is inappropriate to open a new RFC in addition to the one that is already open. [24] [25] Thus, NightHeron was successful in the strategy he described in the two comments linked above: that he could prevent the community from discussing his misrepresentation of sources by opening an RFC which avoided this question.
Something I should point out about this sequence of events is that since March 2020, the race and intelligence article has had a special restriction (implemented by you) saying that anyone who misrepresents a source will be subjected to "escalating topic bans". But no admin has been willing to enforce this restriction, and during the year and a half that it has existed, no one has ever been sanctioned under it. However, editors who tried to raise the issue of misrepresented sources have been threatened with topic bans for doing so, JzG's response to Stonkaments that's linked above being one example. In summary, this is a behavioral issue (misrepresentation of sources) that the community has persistently been unable to address, in part because the sourcing restriction that you imposed turned out to be unenforceable.
Finally, let me call attention to the previous arbitration request last year about more or less the same issue (see Literaturegeek's summary). In that discussion, user:SMcCandlish predicted that if Arbcom declined to act on the earlier request, the same issue would inevitably come back to Arbcom again. That's exactly what has happened. This time could Arbcom please deal with the issue, so that it won't have to be brought back to Arbcom a third time in 2022? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by David Gerard
Speaking as an editor who works in WP:FRINGE-plagued areas and is a regular participant in WP:RSN: This request needs more details on precisely what requests were the issue, and precisely how the present rules resulted in a bad outcome. I recall several cases where editors brought fringe conspiracist views on COVID-19 to WP:RSN claiming that mentions in the popular press meant they belonged in more medical articles as supported views, or conversely, where questionably-reliable journals were being used to claim academic imprimatur for a fringe conspiracist view; but, rather than second-guessing the proposer's intent, I would like to know the precise difficult cases that would convince someone who thinks the present rule works very well in practice (e.g., me) that normal processes had clearly failed disastrously enough there was a problem needing action. I'm willing to be convinced, but I would have to be convinced - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG fair enough, it just seems to me a claim that could really benefit from clear examples - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
additional note: in fairness, I can see a case in principle for bring the question back to the arbcom - I have referenced the arbcom decision myself in disputes over WP:FRINGE issues, to indicate the issue has teeth - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by North8000
I have a sidebar but important point. Fringe is MUCH broader than fringe science (which the current scope wording pretty well defines....e.g. purports to be science...) Introducing the much broader wp:fringe into the arbcom scope statement would make a mess out of the scope definition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Firefangledfeathers
Has anyone at RSN ever cited the Fringe science arbitration case? I am looking for examples and finding none. WP:FRINGE is cited frequently, but I haven't found anything referencing the case and I'm 2/3 of the way through the search results. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by jps
Oooh! I'm a party to the original case! Do I get extra points for that? Anyhoo... I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie. In this case, I have not seen much in the way of misuse of these particular rulings. I am actually much more concerned with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science which has been used to tie the hands of editors over at psychoanalysis, but last I brought that up, the committee demurred for much the same rationale as they seem currently wont to offer. Fair enough. Let's preserve the history and move on. jps (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Generalrelative
Anyone who is perplexed by DGG's request may want to take a look at this discussion on a user talk page for background. I’ll ping Stonkaments as a courtesy since it’s their page. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by RandomCanadian
From a quick read, this looks like "overriding established policy [including NPOV] via ArbCom". Not only is this usually something entirely out of the scope of ArbCom (whether via an amendment request or otherwise), but this hasn't even been attempted through the regular channels. Bradv's summary seems correct, and "we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" smells like an absolutely horrible idea (we really want to give equal weight to recognised experts and to Johnny Idiot writing in conspiracy theorist sham journal?) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by XOR'easter
Regarding the proposed addition Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science
: this is a highly touchy point, and a matter where lines of demarcation are difficult to draw. People advocate fringe science for political, social, and/or religious reasons; sometimes, a view could reasonably be called all of those things. I think it's a bad idea to try separating them with the force of wiki-law, as it were. Doing so would deprive editors of the freedom to address thorny questions and gray areas on a case-by-case basis as necessary.
The second bullet point proposes a modification in order to match the guideline at WP:FRINGE
, but the current text seems entirely in accord with WP:FRINGE, while the replacement is less so. WP:FRINGE says, If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review.
And, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal
(emphasis added). In other words, peer-reviewed articles are always to be preferred when the subject is within the purview of the regular academic literature. WP:FRINGE doesn't say material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas
; it says they may be the best available option outside of these areas.
The third bullet point suggests adding the instruction Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent.
This seems an unwarranted restriction that would, on the face of it, make many discussions at RSN invalid. Perhaps it is not always a good argument, but it is not a genre of argument that should be forbidden by wiki-law. Again, we should not deprive editors of the ability to discuss their way through gray areas on a case-by-case basis. XOR'easter (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Fringe science: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Fringe science: Arbitrator views and discussion
- If I understand this request correctly, we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources. I welcome statements from the community on whether these changes are desirable, what impacts they would have, and whether they would be consistent with the principles and findings of the Fringe science case in question. – bradv🍁 17:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- On second look, this is even more confusing. The items we're being requested to adjust here are not remedies, but principles and findings of fact which informed the outcome of the case. These principles make reference to and contain quotations from the NPOV policy, but we're being asked to instead make them dependent upon the FRINGE guideline, which presumably existed in a different form 12 years ago when this case was written. Furthermore, there are several comments here about how these intersecting policies and guidelines have been misused in various fora, which in my opinion is a reason to investigate those instances and patterns rather than reform the underlying principles without analysis or investigation. In other words, if revising this case is going to affect the intersection of fringe science with any of the topics listed in this filing, we should examine those topics one at a time, either in the form of an ARCA or a case request, rather than trying to argue the general without knowing the specifics. – bradv🍁 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused tbh. Requests for amendments are usually for the addition, change or removal of sanctions (as the red box on top says). This request seems to ask for the change of principles and FoF from the old case. But they just reflect the principles that existed at the time of the decision and the facts that the decision was based on. Principles are based on policies and guidelines and those can change over time. Maybe those colleagues who were on the Committee back then can shed some light on why WP:FRINGE was not referenced explicitly despite already existing as a guideline? That said, correct me if I'm wrong but the decision contains to authorization for DS or similar, so shouldn't it be sufficient to declare that ArbCom does not rule on content and the FoF and principles from the old case thus cannot override a guideline on the topic that has community approval? Regards SoWhy 18:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to examining how WP:FRINGE, a content guideline, interacts with Discretionary Sanctions around a particular case at AE or better yet a pattern of cases/sanctions. As has been mentioned there has been communication with the committee and with me specifically about this and so that is what I had been expecting to see. However, as SoWhy points out the FoF that were found at that time is what was found at that time. Changing anything but a remedy 12 years later strikes me as something that would be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, while this (how to handle FRINGE/minitory views in contentious areas) seems like a regular ordinary difficult content problem. The sense I get is that I'm being asked to amend a case because some people are quoting from it at RSN and that doesn't seem like the right basis for an amendment request. People can quote what they want and anything that is not a policy or guideline (that is something with predetermined community consensus) only matters as much as others in the conversation agree that it does, that is it gainsconsensuss of the participating editors. Essays get quoted approvingly all the time and form the basis of consensus for instance. To the extent that this understanding of the request is wrong, please correct me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Except @DGG that's not quite true either. We have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles for a reason. I know drafters, including me with IRANPOL, make an effort to reuse those. Of course sometimes the principles are slightly different which is why you see a million variations on that page. But ultimately I go back to what I said before: people are welcome to quote whatever they want. It only has weight if other people agree it does - either by making it into a policy/guideline or by agreeing it matters in the context of a discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC) @Ferahgo: I don't want to divulge what all you sent in email to me and to the committee but in re-reading that I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts that. Specific evidence of something in our remit (i.e. not just a content dispute) is generally needed. That is what I'm looking for here regardless of the scope of what we're talking about. Obviously amending a case is in our remit but besides thinking it's a bad idea in general, I'm also not seeing evidence as to why it's needed now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm with bradv on this one - if a case is being improperly referenced or referred to, that is an issue with the editor(s) providing that link. As stated both here and in recent ARCAs, we should not be changing anything other than Remedies from past cases; the FoF and Principles reflect Wikipedia at the time and we should not be changing them just to keep them current. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)