Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Fringe science

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pcarbonn (talk | contribs) at 17:40, 1 January 2009 (→‎ScienceApologist has repeatedly violated NPOV: more examples). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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 JBnote 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

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. The Durga's Trident evidence was originally presented by sock. I claim the Durga's Trident evidence as my own, and present it to the Arbitration Committee as my own. I vouch for it, and you may consider it as presented by me. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of context

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?). ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debunkery

"I have a list of people I think should be banned from editing articles relating to pseudoscience. I've been successful at getting a number of people banned in the past... I see it as Wikipedia's job to explain to people how kooky they all are with respect to the ideas out there which are manifestly conceded to be not kooky."

Debunking has several parts:

1. Biased wording, using WP:WTAs

2. Use of bad sourcing per the against-policy section of FRINGE called WP:PARITY.

3. Censoring information which is well sourced.

4. Claims which cannot be sourced, such as claiming "science" says so-and-so when there aren't any sources to back up the claim.

  • []

5. Demeaning the sanity or credentials or reliability of individual scientists purely because of what they study or what they believe, in the absence of other reasons.

6. Promoting the ideas of individual scientists purely because they believe what the debunker wants to say.

7. Demeaning organizations without sound scientific reasons for doing so, purely because they take positions which are not mainstream. 

[12]

8. Rejecting sources as reliable for statements about what they say about themselves (Yes- IOW, you aren't a reliable source for what you say you believe).

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.[13] 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.[14] 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,[15] a decision that I find unjust, and dangerous for wikipedia.[16] Since then, many well-sourced, notable arguments in favor of cold fusion have been removed from the cold fusion article.[17] I have issued an appeal of the ban to Jimbo Wales.[18]

Isn't it time to look at ScienceApologist's motivation? Should I disclose his real name, as he has done to Ronnotel and me?[19][20] I have investigated the circumstances that lead him to issue his death threats to other editors.[21] 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[22], Ron Marshall,[23] ...)

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. It would encourage witch-hunt. 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 overall balance of contributions to the world ? No, the same laws 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 and others clearly suggest here.[24] Pcarbonn (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has repeatedly violated NPOV

ScienceApologist has repeatedly suppressed or mischaracterized reliable secondary sources, for the purpose of presenting the so-called "mainstream view" as the only valid one, and in violation of WP:NPOV which says : "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.".

In particular, he has repeatedly suppressed official statements from the 2 reports of the Department of Energy, by far the most notable reviews of cold fusion, sometimes to the point of edit warring on them (in bold below). Here is a partial list:

  • "When members of the panel were asked about the evidence of low energy nuclear reactions, twelve of the eighteen did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing", and one was entirely convinced." (DOE 2004) [25][26][27][28][29][30] [31][32][33][34]
  • "Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic." (DOE 2004) [35][36]
  • "The reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field" (DOE 2004)[37][38][39][40][41]
  • ""Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons." [42][43]

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.

Wikipedia should not encourage popular misconceptions about science

Science provides a method to understand the natural world. Many claimed phenomena in the natural world, such as paranormal experiences or alien abductions, lie outside science and up until now have a large question mark hanging over them. Sometimes within science inconclusive experiments cannot be repeated or new theories are inconsistent or based on erroneous calculations; despite this proponents continue to push these controversial theories, even when their work cannot be published in peer-reviewed academic journals. It is not up to wikipedia to give a new definition of science which encompasses these as new "folk theories". The Encyclopedia Britannica usually does not write separate articles on controversial theories, but mentions them in passing in the context of a larger accepted theory. Wikipedia articles on pseudoscientific theories should explicitly state when a would-be theory has not been accepted by the scientific community. The misnomer that a more neutral point of view is available, independent of the scientific method, when discussing these kinds of problematic theories can be traced back to inadequate education in science. Wikipedia should not promote these myths and misconceptions, no matter how much their readership might hanker after such things.

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

User:Stirling Newberry User:Hillman User:WCityMike User:KimvdLinde

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)

Limited Factual Response to Dick Lyon

User:ABlake has admitted he is Aaron Blake, a paid employee of Eric Lerner. To accuse Science Apologist of having a conflict of interest when he disagrees with Aaron Blake is, perhaps, the LaBrea Tarpit calling the off-white teapot black. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See also his reply to this evidence on my talk page and his "refactoring" of his accusation with the sarcastic edit summary "User:B thinks "protection racket" is uncivil". --B (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

Evidence presented by Bishonen

I bring no new information below, but I provide certain contexts from the history tab of Science Apologist's talkpage. Considering the abuse of context-free diffs from that history in the evidence sections of Jehochman, Seicer, and Pcarbon, and considering the role played by FT2 in the dialogue on SA's talkpage, I believe my analysis will be labor-saving for the committee.

Bad faith "evidence" against Science Apologist on this page

In their evidence sections above, Jehochman, Seicer, and Pcarbon all quote pieces of sarcasm from an angry SA . To give these quotes without context, as Jehochman does, makes SA appear as a hater of Wikipedia and all who sail in her, and SA's intentions as malicious.[44] Seicer misleads more blatantly and actively, offering a fake context.[45] [46] The actual context of SA's sarcasm is this:

When SA was blocked by Elonka on December 1, a storm broke out on his talkpage. I see 59 [sic: fifty-nine] messages posted to the page over the course of 30 hours, without a single post from SA,[47] most of them attacks. (23 of the 59 edits were by Levine2112, posted in only 5 hours[48]: that would be twenty-three "You have new messages" banners in 5 hours from Levine2112 alone.) Eventually, SA replied ("Get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE"[49]). As soon as he broke his 30-hour silence, it unfortunately brought out FT2, not previously heard from, to tell SA that "You just can't keep posting like that to people." [50] (my italics). FT2 then "tweaked" his own post over and over, as is his habit, until SA broke out into his much-quoted statement that "Well, if that's the alternative you offer me, 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?".[51] This, if it's read in good faith, and read with the brain rather than with the medulla oblongata, is obviously a sarcastic summary of the attacks that have been rolling in, especially of FT2's statement (SA's post is directed at FT2 specifically). It's quite depressing to see Jehochman and Seicer leave out the conditional clause when they "quote" SA's post above, making it look like the sentence starts with "I promise"—you see how misleading that is? It's a downright misquote. The amazingly poor timing and wording of FT2's post is a pity, too. (I don't call FT2's actions deliberate baiting, but they were pretty darn unhelpful.) There is nothing surprising, and certainly nothing malicious, in SA's part of this history tab. There is simply a lot of anger and of concern for the project from him; and a lot of baiting from some other people. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Tony Sidaway

The main purpose of this evidence is to raise consciousness of the problems facing us in our objective of creating the most comprehensive and reliable body of general information on science.

Fringe science advocacy affects many science articles

Although the main focus of this arbitration is on articles about fringe science, articles about well accepted science may sometimes be affected by the addition of fringe science concepts or the removal of barriers to acceptance of fringe science concepts. Examples:

Commercial interests are campaigning to subvert and misrepresent science

See Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and especially Operation Berkshire. See also The Denial Industry by George Monbiot.

This is the context in which much advocacy work for pseudoscience takes place. Science has become politicized and manipulated.

Wikipedia is targeted

  • See this article in which the principal writer of an academic study of pharmaceutical information in Wikipedia (Dr Kevin A Clauson of Nova Southeastern University in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida) reports that "representatives from drug companies have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia pages, information which might make their drugs seem unsafe." The study finds that although in general information on Wikipedia is accurate, it tends to omit important detail such as side-effects:
    "One potential dangerous adverse effect of the anti-inflammatory drug Arthrotec (diclofenac and misoprostol) is that it can cause miscarriage, yet this piece of information is omitted. Another example of missing information is the possibility of the herb St John’s Wort interfering with the action of Prezista (darunavir), a HIV drug."

Wikipedia is frequently a target of advocacy campaigns involving the manipulation of scientific evidence

Mainly through, but not restricted to, tendentious editing, argumentative behavior, open advocacy and disruptive editing, and campaigns of personal vilification.

The community has found it difficult to deal with even blatant advocacy

  • See here for a very hostile response to a challenge of a blatant case of a practising acupuncturist who performs a considerable amount of editing of the article on acupuncture. One editor even ventures the tendentious claim: "An editor's vocation does not create a COI." (conflict of interest). Acupuncture is a controversial field in which scientists have made little headway in distinguishing results from confounding effects. At present the lead section lacks a clear statement to this effect [52], instead using various circumlocutions to give the impression that acupuncture has considerable clinical acceptance.
  • See Condon Committee which to this day, despite some work by me earlier this year, contains a very large amount of criticism and blatant denigration based on obscure primary sources written by minor participants in the Condon investigation. Editors need encouragement to be bold in such cases and stub articles right down and start again (as we do with the biographies of living persons). I regret that I bottled out because I don't want to have to deal with fanatics.

Dangers of misframing

These conflicts are sometimes represented as being between mainstream science and fringe science. This is a subtle misdirection. There is a continuum of debate within science, based on widespread consensus on the scientific method and materialism.

Sources and arguments should thus be evaluated with respect to their acceptance within that debate. There is not some alternative science in which fringe views are more valid than they are held to be elsewhere. Scientific theories are accepted or rejected on the basis of their conformance with the body of scientific work, and a theory that demands the rejection of much that has been tested repeatedly requires especially persuasive evidence.

Wikipedia's overall science coverage has attracted praise

  • The famous Nature study of articles on scientific subjects, conducted in December, 2005, gave Wikipedia good marks on scientific subjects, based on the assessments of experts in the field. Though this was the subject of a rebuttal by the editors of Britannica, it is convincing evidence that Wikipedia's science coverage does not disgrace itself.

Evidence presented by Brothejr

Mainstream Vs Fringe

This could also be called: Skeptic Vs Believer or Debunker Vs Promoter.

One of the problems we are facing here is this idea of a war going one between the fringe and mainstream science. We continue to hear various editors state that we must fight the fringe and keep them from promoting their POV's. One example from this vary own arbcom is this:

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)

We see this time and again with people railing on how we should not give any fringe topic/article credit and also we should, as an encyclopedia, present the subject as something loony. The problem with this idea of mainstream science prevails over all, is that it is not Wikipedia's job to promote or discredit anything. We are here only to present the topic with as much factual information to inform the reader. Wikipedia is not here to dismiss or discredit anything. To do so would be considered Original Research. We are here only to report of what the topic is in a way to leave the reader better informed without imparting a bias for or against the topic. This is a constant across Wikipedia and does not change because it is a science article.

NPOV, The Reader, and You

One of the most significant issues with this battle between Mainstream Vs Fringe is that various articles have degraded in style and writing. As editors fight between each other over wording, they tend to forget the third party that is also very quietly involved: the Reader.

One example of how articles degrade with these battles for and against the fringe is to take a look at how such fighting can degrade articles: Here is the Cold Fusion article when it was promoted as a Featured Article: [53]. Here is the same article after it had been reduced to a Good Article: [54]. Finally, here is the same article again after it had been delisted as Good Article: [55]. Take a look at the intro paragraph and how it was written from a FA article all the way down to a delisted GA article. In the FA version, the lead was clearly written and stated what Cold Fusion was without imparting any controversy to the Reader other then to mention that there was a controversy surrounding it. Now take a look at the article after it had been delisted as a GA article. The writing has changed to debunk Cold Fusion and to impart to the Reader a sense that it is nonsensical, whether the editors meant it or not.

When we write articles, we must remember that NPOV trumps everything, even mainstream science and the fringe. It trumps the now disused SPOV and it's reincarnation under WP:MAINSTREAM. This means that no article should promote or debunk any subject as it is not this encyclopedia's job to debunk anything, but to straight report the facts to the reader and let the reader come to their own conclusion.

Evidence presented by Dick Lyon

This case was just pointed out to me; sorry if I'm joining late; this is all about last night.

I re-encounted SA yesterday in a bit of edit warring on Eric Lerner. Reading the talk (Talk:Eric_Lerner#Activism / LaRouche), it appeared that it would be easy to make a compromise that people could be OK with, within policy: just don't use the irrelevant info from the flaky source; OK, that was naive, but then it seemed an actual compromise would be easy: instead of arguing over how reliable the source is, just include what it says that's relevant to the bio, in a neutral way. So I tried that; didn't work; see edit warring and disruption evidence below.

I'm sure everyone is aware that SA is here to push the anti-pseudoscience POV, and that's OK. What I didn't know is that he is into astronomy/cosmology, and this is the apparent reason for his particularly vehement opposition to any positive phrasing in relation to Eric Lerner or his work. This is not NPOV editing. Sanctions against him need to escalate until he gets it.

ScienceApologist has a conflict of interest

On that talk page, User:ABlake pointed out that User:Elerner himself had (in this comment on his own talk page) clearly pointed out both what's wrong with the material about Lyndon LaRouche that SA wants in Lerner's bio (last March!) and that SA has a clear WP:COI in trying to denigrate alternative cosmology ideas. That he takes his science-related POV and COI into pushing "guilt-by-association" on non-science-related details shows how dedicated he is to smearing persons who hold alternative views.

I asked SA if he has either declared or denied his conflict of interest. It seems that he denies it. On my talk page, he explains that "I really only want the LaRouche stuff in there because it is fascinating how the connections between pseudoscience get made." I still call that a COI/POV problem, since there's absolutely no source to imply the connection he's trying to make.

He says there, "you seem to think I'm on a particular endeavor with respect to Lerner"; that's not what I think. I've seen his destructive negative editing and tactics in many other places, too, all based on his fanatically anti-fringe POV or COI (and I'm no friend of fringe science myself, but I think it needs a chance to be represented more neutrally, and that its proponents shouldn't be attacked).

ps. I thank User:Hipocrite for pointing out above that User:ABlake also has a clear COI, as an employee of Eric Lerner's company. I don't think this much affects my assessments of ScienceApologist's behavior. I recommend we ask both of them to refrain from editing articles in which they have COI. Dicklyon (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist works by edit warring and disruption

In yesterday's fight, after User:Will Beback (a sometimes SA allie) put back what I removed, I realized that some of it was OK, and put in this sensible compromise here. SA reverted with a summary trying to tie his LaRouche connection to better sourced and non-derogatory non-contested information about Lerner; if he can't have the bad stuff in, he wants the good stuff out, which User:ABlake then did; he is obviously trying to compromise and settle with SA, but SA's point and method here just lead to article destruction, as others have mentioned above. So I put it back, and SA reverted me as being tendentious (the best defense is a good attack, he figures?).

ScienceApologist synthesizes negative forms of information from neutral sources

In this edit, he adds the words "though not receiving a degree" to a paragraph that doesn't really need it, from a source that doesn't really say it. The sources doesn't say he got a degree, and wikipedia shouldn't either, but to turn that around to an unneeded negative is just his way to trying to poke at the person. It's not neutral.

In this edit, he removes the EL to the subject's personal home page, and calls him a "devotee of Lyndon LaRouche", citing the word "LaRouchian" in the source, which would be more neutrally interpreted as that Lerner was a member of one of the organizations, which is already accepted and in the article. There's no need to try to make Lerner look more odd than he is by this "guilt-by-association", which is specifically disallowed in WP:BLP as I repeatedly told him in talk-page warnings and edit summaries.

Then he says "Let's quote King directly", which is back to where we came in, pretty much, with this attack book that King wrote on LaRouche having the few words "former Larouchian" easily misconstrued about Lerner; that he was a member of NCLC is fine; calling him a "LaRouchian" is derogatory and not well sourced, from a biased book not about him, and not relevant to his notability, and therefore in clear violation of WP:BLP where it says: "

  • Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

ScienceApologist spins the issues in a non-productive way

In his presentation slide show online, SA concludes "The Wikipedia community needs to decide whether it is going to provide reliably vetted articles or if it will accommodate those pseudoscience POV- pushers who have the motivation to promote their ideas nearly full time."

Obviously, this is meant to polarize, not converge, different points of view. This is what he does every place he comments. He has not been willing to live the consensus view that fringe theories be presented with appropriate weight on their own terms, plus criticisms. He instead regards anyone who attempts to do so as a "POV-pusher", and attacks them personally as he's doing by trying to smear Lerner with guilt-by-associatin with LaRouche. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist pushes SPOV over NPOV

The scientific point of view is great, but wikipedia is supposed to present a more neutral point of view. I tried to take Eric Lerner to a more NPOV position tonight, and SA fought it hard, with edits linked and detailed in this talk item of mine at Talk:Eric Lerner#Big bang section -- what_happened?. As shown there, each of his changes was to move away from a neutral presentation and toward one based on the assumption that Lerner is wrong and the mainstream is right; we're not supposed to take sides in controversial issues, which is what was guiding my edits, but he can't stand to see that article not take the mainstream science side. Then here he seeks sanctions to stop me, and accuses me of adding "innuendo" and such; I suppose he means because I added identification of the negative reviewers as proponents of the Big Bang theory; I don't see how it's appropriate to omit that, or why he would characterize it that way; it's much easier to understand the reviews and rebuttals in the context of who the people are and what their backgrounds are. Dicklyon (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Olive

Response to Mastcell : SPOV discussion archived on discussion page of WP:NPOV [56]

{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.

Evidence presented by Eldereft

Wikipedia exists as a service to our readers (everybody)

Perhaps I am wrong, as my most in-depth source is a case study (N=1) of an atypical user, but it is my impression that our readers come here to be rationally informed, not to receive the proselytory ramblings of fringe promoters or participate in the righting of great wrongs. Ideally, an article will provide essentially the same understanding that a reasonably intelligent but naive reader would attain if they were to read and fairly evaluate every non-Wikipedia source treating the topic.

Most readers have a mainstream perspective

Most readers do not share the peculiar perspective of adherents to certain of the topics covered by Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Unmeasurable putative energy does not exist, NASA did not fake the Apollo program, conservation of energy is more than just a suggestion, magnets do not stimulate the human body's innate ability to heal itself, there is no clinically relevant R3→R3 mapping between the ear and the rest of the body ... and no reader should be required to assume so just to make sense of an article. We have {{in-universe}} to bring attention to articles written about works of fiction that treat the fictional universe on the same footing as the one we happen to inhabit - similar attention should be paid to the use of specialized terminology in the context of fringe ideas. Homeopathy should define potentized as the term is used by homeopaths, but should generally use diluted except in direct quotes. The parallel is imperfect, but Meridian (Chinese medicine) and Immaculate Conception should be treated in roughly the same manner - sourced expository prose free of evangelism.

Weighting by reliability is not the same as weighting by depth of coverage

Once notability has been established, it is entirely appropriate to source the major claims of a fringe theory to its adherents. Most of the sources which mention the Bates method will simply state that the muscles surrounding the eye, not the lens, are responsible for accomodation. Our article, however, is charged with weighting all sources by their reliability for the statements made, and should relay this as a claim unique to proponents.

ScienceApologist is currently under a mentorship agreement with Durova

The conduct complaints I see against ScienceApologist seem to me to fall into essentially two categories (I can dig up difference links if we really need them): ScienceApologist is too abrupt in deleting or minimizing another editor's preferred sources or in upgrading the perspective of an article; or ScienceApologist has assigned base motives to another contributor. The first kind of complaint may be dealt with through WP:BRD and the several noticeboards (preferably WP:RS/N or WP:FTN, as those WP:AN/I threads tend to close with 'no intervention necessary' after protracted irrelevant drama). Recognizing persistant abuse of sources (by misrepresenting sources or by treating them outside of their prominence or reliability) as a potentially bannable conduct problem might help calm this sort of complaint. Disruptive flare ups by advocacy-only accounts should be consistently deemed meritless. Behavior leading to the second kind of complaint is sometimes provoked by baiting, trolling, stalking, and other social nonsense; nevertheless, it contributes to a decline in the local collegial editing atmosphere, and should be avoided. ScienceApologist is currently being mentored by Durova, and no sanctions undermining this relationship should be applied.


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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Evidence&oldid=261289008"