Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Montanabw (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 11 May 2015 (→‎Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Montanabw: Another ce. OK done now). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For the former contest, see Wikipedia:Article rescue contest.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Complementary and Alternative Medicine   5 May 2015 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Initiated by A1candidate at 01:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by A1candidate

Opening statement

Over the past few months, I have bore witness to a recurring pattern of highly inappropriate and uncivil behavior of two longstanding administrators: JzG and Kww. On several unfortunate occasions, I have been at the receiving end of a diverse range of personal attacks, offensive insults, and false accusations thrown against me:

  • Kww has been engaging in a malicious campaign to eliminate me from Wikipedia. Beginning in early January 2015, he labelled me as an "accomplice" and plotted a case for arbitration against me. On 6 January 2015, he brought me in front of the Committee to face trial, stating that "dealing with these people as legitimate editors leads to unsatisfactory results" [9]. Even after being warned by John not to accuse other editors of engaging in "the promotion of quackery" on various talk pages, Kww refused to back down from his campaign to discredit other editors and continued to accuse other editors of having a COI [10]. He escalated the situation and accused me of dishonesty and "active deceit". After I denied these very serious and offensive insults to my personal integrity, he continued to imply that my edit summaries serve to "disguise the content and intent" of my edits. He also accused DrChrissy of "willful misinterpretation" of facts, and admonished them for lacking "a key discussion skill" and therefore looking like an "intentionally disruptive editor" [11]. He suggested that I had an "ESL difficulty", refused to accept my explanation for my edit summary and hounded me repeatedly on my talk page [12][13][14].

Despite the serious accusations thrown at me by these administrators, I retain a clear conscience, and I am not an advocate of any particular treatment (certainly not in a financial sense). Nevertheless, my best efforts to put an end to these personal attacks against me have so far proved futile. I tried to voice out these issues at WP:AE initially (since the talk pages were under discretionary sanctions), but my good faith attempts to highlight the problem was put down and I was accused of being "disruptive and likely tendentious". It is therefore my hope that this Committee will accept this case and hear me out. It is not my intention to disrupt or game the system, and I do not wish that these longstanding and experienced administrators be unfairly tried. All I hope is that their accusations against me and DrChrissy may finally come to an end. -A1candidate 08:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Roger Davies

@Roger Davies, would you be willing to reconsider your vote if we modified the scope of this case? Instead of treating this as a strict review of administrative behavior, the Committee could clarify how WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA guidelines apply to the topic area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), particularly on the usage of words that demean and insult the integrity of others. This will reduce the friction and hostility between editors and therefore contribute to a civil editing environment.

I hope you might give this a second thought. -A1candidate 09:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Two things stand out from the request.

  1. There have been no substantive prior attempts to resolve the dispute. As "evidence" of attempts to resolve the dispute, A1Candidate links to two user talk pages (without identifying any evidence of actual discussions) and one AE request that was promptly closed with no action because it was unactionable. Procedurally, the Committee should probably reject the case on that basis alone.
  2. The case is, as was the a previous rejected AE request before it, a transparent attempt to silence opposition in a content dispute. The Committee typically does not accept such cases. The title at filing was "Administrators behaving inappropriately". No evidence is presented that this was administrative action.

In passing I would note that even describing it as a content dispute is stretching the definition. Stats for the article Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

User Edits to article (source) Edits to talk page (source)
A1candidate 248 (ranking #7 by count #4 by bytes added) 356 (ranking #4 by count #7 by bytes added)
Kww 18 (ranking #57 by edits #107 by bytes added) 152 (ranking #12 by edits #12 by bytes added)
JzG 4 (ranking #210 by edits #266 by bytes added) 33 (ranking #44 by edits #33 by bytes added)

In A1candidate's mainspace contributions, there are a large number of articles on topics aligned to the supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) industry. Acupuncture, reiki, TM etc. A1Candidate is clearly positive about these things and edits tend to introduce supportive material ([15] [16], [17], [18]) or remove critical material ([19], [20]). In several cases speculative claims have been asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice, e.g. [21] which makes a clear implication of a proven mechanism for acupuncture which is inconsistent with the observed fact that sham needling has statistically indistinguishable outcomes.

See also Purinergic signalling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a WP:COATRACK created by A1candidate to promote a speculative mechanism proposed by advocates of acupuncture. Example: "The anti-nociceptive effect of acupuncture is mediated by the adenosine A1 receptor", stated in Wikipedia's voice, based on sources that are clearly written fomr the perspective of believers (one opens "Acupuncture has been widely used in China for three millennia as an art of healing. Yet, its physiology is not yet understood." Really? Edzard Ernst would (and does) argue that this is simply false, and that the mechanism is understood: placebo effects including the well-documented effect of distraction. Several sources also identify that acupuncture as practiced in ancient times involved instruments that resemble fleams, not modern needles, and characterise modern-day acupuncture as largely a creation of Mao Zedong - and this source actually tacitly acknowledges this by referencing the year 1971, the year of the Nixon visit with its now-debunked demonstration of surgery under anaesthesia by acupuncture, as the start of Western interest in the archaic practice.

The main problem is, as it was at the AE which was closed without action and which this request essentially simply reiterates, that I characterise this editing behaviour as advocacy: I do not think that is unfair but A1candidate appears to believe that it is not just unfair, but uncivil - more than that, a personal attack. So the relevant questions of fact are:

  1. Does A1Candidate advocate for acupuncture?
  2. Does describing A1candidate as an advocate of acupuncture, amount to a personal attack?

From the complaint, if you leave aside the terrible insults I hurled at a bot for repeatedly tagging an uploaded image with a rationale that did not use the correct template, you're left with a request to classify use of the word "advocacy" to describe systematic positive editing and commentary, as a personal attack and inherently uncivil. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio: Have you seen Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans? We already have arbitration precedents that work here, covering fringe claims and clearly identifying pseudomedical practices as falling within their remit. I don't think a case on the general issue of advocacy for SCAM will yield much benefit. Fringe claims are already covered, the issue here is that A1Candidate differs from Kww, me, and many others from the reality-based community, on the demarcation between fringe and non-fringe claims. Homeopathy is unambiguous nonsense, acupuncture is at least minimally plausible, albeit not as TCM proponents describe it.
The more I look at the discussions here the more it seems to me that this is really a demarcation issue, as between science and pseudoscience. I think the best route forward is to use the discretionary sanctions already available and not change mature articles without prior consensus on Talk. I think that would fix the problem, such as it is. It would probably work to A1Candidate's benefit as he clearly has a lot more time to devote to this than I do. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: I think the only reason existing discretionary sanctions aren't solving the problem is that people are reluctant to impose them for civil POV-pushing. The issue of civil POV-pushing is systemic and is a side-effect of our policies on civility, or more specifically the collision between civility and NPOV when people get wound up by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the like. I recently started using RfCs to break circular argument logjams, with some success. I don't know if that will work for acupuncture, it may be worth a try. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Olive: There is no such thing as "allopathic medicine". That is a meaningless pejorative coined by Samuel Hanhemann, the man who plucked homeopathy out of mid air, to characterise the then-prevalent practice of what is now called heroic medicine, which he hated. Both homeopathy and "allopathy" are part of the humoural tradition and have nothing at all to do with evidence-based medicine.
What you dismiss as "allopathic medicine" is merely medicine. If you want the arbitration committee to redefine policy in order to give equal weight to the views of scientists and pseudoscientists, as would seem to be the case from your comment, then I think you will be disappointed. The line in the sand has already been drawn through the cases that led to the WP:FRINGE guidance as currently stated, cases covering a number of topics, not just pseudomedicine. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleolive oil: I am afraid you are succumbing to the fallacy of false equivalency. While the issue of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a legitimate matter of debate for some subjects, for others the debate was over long ago. Homeopathy is bunk. Qi and meridians do not exist. These are not matters of opinion, and we do not pretend they are. The word allopathic is a flag word identifying that the speaker is operating within a world view different from that of Wikipedia. The reality-based community simply do not use the term. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleolive oil: From our article on allopathic medicine: "Allopathic medicine is an expression commonly used by homeopaths and proponents of other forms of alternative medicine to refer to mainstream medical use of pharmacologically active agents or physical interventions to treat or suppress symptoms or pathophysiologic processes of diseases or conditions." Allopathy was coined by Hahnemann as the opposite of homeopathy. It's irrelevant to modern-day medicine, and it's pretty much never used except by believers in SCAM. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy: The word dogma is an excellent one. Acupuncture, like most SCAM practices, is driven by dogma. The dogma says that acupuncture effects are yielded by some special effect gained only by inserting needles. Acupuncture researchers then set about explaining this in terms consistent with dogma. Science asks: doe the observed effects actually demand that needles are inserted? The answer appears to be: No. It doesn't seem to matter where you put the needles, or even if you insert them at all. Acupuncture responds by saying that even placebo acupuncture releases this marvellous magic. That's dogma. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out below, A1Candidate made this edit with the summary "format": a POV edit with a wholly misleading edit summary. I think that's quite likely to be enough to invoke existing discretionary sanctions. We may be done here. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to respond to Atsme's claims? Aside from the fact that most of them are unexceptionable (a warning was issued and retracted? and?), the overall point is that there was a content dispute, I initiated RfCs to resolve it after many weeks of circular argument, and Atsme did not get what she wanted. As Atsme points out several times, I like her and don't want to see her topic-banned or sanctioned, even after that heapin' helpin' of sour grapes. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

I stand by my characterisation of A1candidate: he advocates pseudoscience and damages articles related to alternative medicine. The accusation of active deceit came about today: there's no way that "format" described his repeated insertion of material over the objections of other editors or that "restore after extensive discussion" characterises an edit that had failed to gain consensus during that discussion.

I think it's getting time to take an Arbcom case over alternative medicine articles in general, and acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine and ayurveda in particular. All have become entrenched battlegrounds with advocates of these particular forms of quackery. Ayurveda is under indefinite full protection for the simple reason that our discretionary sanctions aren't working: they attempt to focus only on editor behaviour, but don't take into account that we have a serious problem with fraud here. Acupuncture is even more difficult because there is a legitimate scientific controversy over whether it has any effects, and that glimmer of hope is constantly seized upon as evidence that TCM isn't nonsense.

We need to authorize a set of sanctions that allow us to be uneven in our application of remedies, and to be able to immediately and promptly show pseudoscience advocates the door without going through this level of pain. My efforts in this area have only rewarded me with the classification of being involved, something that is bound to occur to any administrator that tries to keep these articles in some kind of factual form.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, your position flies against previous holdings by the Arbitration on pseudoscience, which included
  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  2. Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  3. Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Unless the dispute is a serious scientific dispute (not the case with TCM or ayurveda, and only on some points with acupuncture) we are supposed to "dismiss them out of hand in Wikipedia's voice". The misapplication of NPOV that you discuss is the core dispute here. Mysticism is not on par with science, and, as an encyclopedia, we might report what mystics think, but we don't use it in our editorial position.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Les, I "deceitfully twisted" material like "many within the field of science view acupuncture as 'quackery' and 'pseudoscience,' and its effect as 'theatrical placebo'" into "Many within the scientific community consider it to be quackery"? It's obvious that I'm not to be trusted.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 That simply isn't true: LesVegas repeatedly tries to treat yin and yang as science, and we have numerous editors on ayurveda that try to treat it as a legitimate medical system.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio Just take a look at John's efforts to enforce discretionary sanctions on ayurveda as an example. By taking a scrupulously content-neutral approach, all his effort has resulted in is a frozen article with edits paralyzed by constant controversy from supporters, and the sanctions are having the side-effect of encouraging and enabling those very supporters that we are trying to keep under control. What we need from Arbcom is a clarification to all admins involved in arbitration enforcement that the intention of discretionary sanctions is to prevent pseudoscience and alt-med advocates from damaging articles, and that they are expected to administer those sanctions with a clear view towards reducing and eliminating pseudoscience and alt-med advocacy. As it stands, too many admins are trying to achieve the false balance that we are attempting to avoid.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A1candidate: You persistent in identifying the symptom as the problem. If we didn't have a problem with pseudoscience advocacy, we wouldn't have the problem of pseudoscience advocates complaining about the terms people use to refer to them.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

I agree with Kww that it would be beneficial for ArbCom to open a case dealing with acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine, ayurveda and other naturopathic practices, but suggest that the case be as broad as possible. A narrowly-focused case will do nothing to reduce the overall friction between believers and those who wish to follow the scientific method as the controlling factor. BMK (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Olive: We are an encyclopedia. When it comes to reporting fact versus fiction, we are not "neutral", we report the facts as facts, and we report the fiction as the beliefs of some people, but not as facts. The "stab-in-the-back" theory in Germany after World War I was believed by millions of people, and we report that belief as fact, but do not present the theory itself as fact. BMK (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

I have had several of the alternative medicine articles on my watchlist for some time now, and I can second the accuser's complaint that one or more of the regulars in those articles frequently treat other editors with ridicule, personal comments, condenscension, and other tactics apparently designed to denigrate and discourage their inputs to the articles in question. Perhaps the accuser does appear to favor one side, but the other two editors in question unquestionably favor their side with just as much, if not more verve and stubborness. I believe the two editors in question think they can get away with it because they are siding with the "house POV" and have the support of several admins, one of whom operates an "anti-quackery" blog column off-wiki in real life. I think a case on this issue is appropriate and I'll help present evidence, because there is plenty of it. Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, arbitrators, that no one here is advocating giving "equal" time to alternative theories, this is a strawman tactic that defenders, like JzG, of one side in these disputes often use, and have used on this very page. I've noticed that Wikipedians are susceptible to using and believing logical fallacies like this, which is why established editors often resort to them to try to win disputes like this one. The issue here is presenting these topics in a neutral voice and in following WP's policies. Several of the editors in this topic area resort to bullying and personalizing arguments in apparent attempts to chase away or provoke editors they don't like. If WP wants to regard itself as a serious, encyclopedic effort, then this kind of behavior needs to be ended. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the advice that some of you have given to take this to AE is that AE is not as even a playing field as ArbCom. Often when an editor like A1 takes a complaint to AE about personal conduct in pseudoscience, two or three admins who normally don't participate in AE will suddenly show up, call "Boomerang!" and topic ban the accuser. ArbCom is really the only place where disenfranchised editors from alternative medicine, pseudoscience, and related topics can hope to get a fair shake. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

If you're going to accept this one you'd need to include a lot more pro-alternative medicine advocates than A1candidate - a range that stretches from civil reasonable editors, though users with COI problems right to serially disruptive fringe editors. There's a lot of all types. The problems are that (a) many edit irregularly (b) there are many sock issues, especially via IPs, and (c) there is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (see, for example, the need for a FAQ on Homeopathy). Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having had a read down the page, I'd personally decline this one. Unless you fancy slogging through reams of TL;DR stuff that basically boils down to "I don't like the fact that [Insert Pet Article Here] doesn't say what I want it to". Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

I note that A1candidate has, as far as I can tell, made no recent efforts to use existing, prior steps in the dispute resolution process. Given that alternative medicine topics (including, explicitly, acupuncture, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture) are covered by discretionary sanctions, it strikes me as rather remarkable that no evidence has been presented that that avenue has been tried (and failed) to resolve any user conduct disputes, thereby necessitating recourse to Arbitration.

Of course, it appears that much of A1candidate's complaint is an attempt to rehash, rewarm, and relitigate his AE request from 16 January of this year (filed a few days after the Acupuncture motion was passed), which in turn was simply a warmed over second bite at a similar request from 8 January (filed by a different editor). Neither AE request led to a sanction against JzG, and A1candidate was strongly cautioned at the time not to abuse the AE process. He avoided formal sanction at that time only because he had not, apparently, been officially notified of discretionary sanctions in the topic area.

Instead of wasting the time of admins at AE, A1candidate now seems keen on wasting the time of the ArbCom. (For an editor who self-identifies as having been on wikibreak since 9 January, he's been a busy bee.) While he probably deserves to get a boomerang for this nonsense here, I don't think it would be fair to waste the time of the other editors in this area by putting them through the effort and distraction associated with an ArbCom case—especially not the quagmire that a broadly-scoped "complementary and alternative medicine" case would produce. I would suggest a strongly-worded rejection of this case, followed by AE as necessary to restrict editors who persist in misunderstanding, misapplying, or ignoring WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, WP:TE, and WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT) with regard to complementary medicine topics.

In a similar vein:

  • LesVegas' last (and only, as far as I can tell) edits to WP:AE were 29 January, where he filed and then immediately withdrew a complaint against Quackguru.
  • DrChrissy has, as far as I can tell, never filed or participated in an AE request regarding complementary or alternative medicine.
  • Littleolive oil, as far as I can tell, last participated in an AE request regarding complementary or alternative medicine in July 2014 (if we count Deepak Chopra as falling in this category).
  • Cla68, as far as I can tell, last participated in an AE request regarding complementary or alternative medicine in June 2014 (if we count Deepak Chopra as falling in this category).

And on it goes. We have complainant editors who, by and large, have failed to avail themselves of existing, specifically-placed tools—I strongly suspect because they are already aware that AE usually doesn't reward vexatious litigation. In any event, this situation does not seem ripe for Arbitration. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original aside by TenOfAllTrades

I have mentioned (diff) this filing at WikiProject Medicine: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Arbitration case filing regarding complementary and alternative medicine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LeadSongDog

I often edit fringe and pseudoscience topics, but consider myself uninvolved with the alleged incivilities. I do, though, consider that there is a longstanding need to reduce the burden imposed by the advocates of fringe ideas. They do serve to promote discussion and understanding of the fringe ideas, but this comes at a cost. Treating Qi meridians or Water memory as if there was real credibility to the ideas makes a mockery of editors' efforts to create a trustworthy encyclopedia. We need to say what these ideas are, not lend them a veneer of credibility. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question by DrChrissy

Question Am I allowed to comment here? I am an editor who has been involved in some of the diffs presented in the case - does this make me "involved" or am I "non-party"?DrChrissy (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jim1138

Mainstream doctors and scientists, it would appear, have very little interest financially, professionally, nor intellectually, in getting embroiled in debunking pseudoscience and quackery. Other examples of avoidance include 9/11 and climate change. Sources challenging alt-med are limited and these, such as Quackwatch and Science Based Medicine are under constant attack. This can be a major time waste and relief is sorely needed. Jim1138 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keithbob

As a veteran of the Dispute Resolution noticeboard and a member of the Mediation Committee I have observed participants resorting to name calling and unfounded personal accusations when they can no longer defend their position with facts, sources and intelligent discussion. This kind of bullying drives competent, intelligent, educated editors away from the project, limits diversity and creates a house POV that poisons the neutrality of our project. Likewise, if an editor is ignoring consensus and edit warring then that needs to be evaluated and addressed as well. I therefore encourage the Committee to accept this case before there is further bullying, incivility and entrenchment of the opposing positions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

I don't see that there are admin related issues here, since I haven't seen admins misuse their tools. I do believe there are general behavioural issues related to editors on some WP articles. However, the real problem is more basic than behaviour alone.

  • WP is an encylopedia with the self assigned task of treating its content matter in a neutral way. The NPOV line-in-the-sand has been skewed in my opinion towards an implied position that supports allopathic medicine and treats any other health care modality as garbage. This includes traditional heath care systems. I don't know if a system like acupuncture works or not, and I don't care. I do care that our articles are written in a way that respects the information and knowledge connected to those systems, that our content clearly outlines the system with out the skeptical viewpoint being featured in the article or even the lead. Its necessary to compare alternative systems to western systems given this is an English language encyclopedia, and the MEDRS guidelines are critical, but it is also necessary to respect systems that have been the mainstays in other cultures besides our own. We are in my opinion ignorant and arrogant when we label other systems and practitioners with words like quackery and quacks. Quackery suggests a lack of honesty, training, and intent. While this is sometimes the case in alternative systems it is also sometimes the case in allopathic medicine but is not a given in either.
  • We have an environment that both condones and supports disrespectful language and behaviour towards alternative systems and practioners. There is implied support for incivilities towards those editors who are perceived to not support the often heavily weighted skeptical viewpoint. There are double standards per sources. I do believe A1 and other editors have been treated this way.
  • If the arbs can do anything it might be to work towards supporting an environment where the line between POV and NPOV is shifted. This requires a mind shift towards respecting information and knowledge while also being able to deal with criticism. I'm not sure how that can be done so that criticism of health care systems is presented, but also presented per accurate weight, but this may be the time to give it a try.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps I could me repeat myself: I am not suggesting some kind of equivalency, never have never will. I always do suggest WP:Weight.
And that using of the word allopathic identifies me or any editor in some way is nonsense. I have used multiple terms to describe various health modalities including, health modality, traditional medicine, alternative medicine, western medicine, science-based medicine and on, dependent on the situation. Not everyone uses the demarcation you use to describe medicine/ health care and I am very aware that some on WP use medicine as a word that describes only health care that works. Perhaps you should go into discussion with less preconceived notions of what agendas other editors have and positions they hold if you want conversations that accomplish what you want them to. You are accusing me of positions I don't hold, of saying what I didn't. I'm sorry you are doing that and I have to ask myself why? Since this is an arb request, I won't say more, but hope you can see your way to not accusing me again of what I didn't do. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@JZG: It seems odd to argue with someone about what they meant. And I find it disconcerting to think that you colour all editors who use a single word as a certain kind of editor. To that issue and for clarification and expansion of the term allopathy:

  • From John Hopkins University considered to have one of the top US medical schools:

According to MedTerms Dictionary, allopathic medicine is defined as "The system of medical practice which treats disease by the use of remedies which produce effects different from those produced by the disease under treatment. M.D.s practice allopathic medicine.

  • Indiana University medical school defines allopathy this way:

There are two kinds of practicing physicians in the United States: allopathic physicians (MD's) and osteopathic physicians (DO's). Both are fully licensed physicians, trained in diagnosing and treating illnesses and disorders, and in providing preventive care.

  • From a health-related website About Health:

Allopathic medicine refers to the practice of traditional or conventional Western medicine. The term allopathic medicine is most often used to contrast conventional medicine with alternative/complementary medicine, or homeopathy.

Statement by QuackGuru

User:A1candidate wrote "@DrChrissy - I've restored it back to where it belongs. Hopefully, the disruption will stop."[22] However, there is a specific section for related practices. See Acupuncture#Related practices. I removed text that failed to summarise the body. The text was being misused to counter the following argument: "TCM theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge,[7] and acupuncture is described as a type of pseudoscience.[8][9] Many within the scientific community consider it to be quackery.[10] Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry describe it as a "borderlands science" lying between normal science and pseudoscience.[11]" The information I removed from the lede was about effectiveness not TCM or pseudoscience. For information about effectiveness please read the second paragraph: "An overview of high-quality Cochrane reviews found evidence suggesting that acupuncture may alleviate certain kinds of pain.[16] A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain, real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture and concluded that there is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain.[n 1][8]" If you check the edit history funny things were happening to the lede. Editors were repeatedly deleting Quackwatch from the body against a long established consensus.[23][24][25] User:LesVegas is criticising me but he knows I rarely press the undo button. User:Adjwilley said "there was a huge edit war."[26] I think something has to change at the acupuncture page. We should identify who is improving the page and identify the editors who are not improving the page. Then we can decide what steps can be taken to prevent the edit war from continuing. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrChrissy

I support opening a case. Editing the Acupuncture article is not a pleasure - it has become a battle of wits to try and keep any edit that is not directly pro-dogma in the article. I try to edit as neutrally as possible, but in the past few days, I have found myself actually nervous about pressing the "Save page" button in the almost certain knowledge that I would soon have to defend my edit and/or become the subject of a personal attack!
In my opinion, a huge part of the problem on the Acupuncture article is that an "us and them" mentality has developed amongst the pro-dogmatists. This attitude has flourished and AGF appears to flown out the window when talking to non-pro-dogmatists - see here.[27] Editors placing material that is non-dogmatist, i.e. either neutral or indicating benefits of acupuncture, are almost immediately reverted. For example, Kww completely removed a substantial piece of relevant, appropriately sourced material (NHS web-site) here[28]. The edit summary was "undue weight to political opinion". A more collegiate action expected of an administrator would have been to incorporate that information elswhere in the article.
JzG's treatment of editor's can be just as uncivil. One of their responses to me is here (the last sentence is the main concern).[29] In another interaction, JzG dropped into a dispute I had with another editor, 8 days after the dispute was posted! This caused me to raise this issue on JzG's Talk page here;[30] their first response to me was here[31]...hardly the sort of response I would expect from an administrator posting to a thread on their own talk page called "Conduct unbecoming of an administrator".
The POV editing on Acupuncture is not limited to the admins above. I made a series of edits to include content from veterinary acupunture sources (see here[32]. The amount of non-human content that is included in a human article is, of course, a subjective editorial decision, but I can't help feel that the savaging of the vet content from this[33] to what was left after this[34] was way over the top, leaving me at least, wondering whether editors simply did not like the positive results found in animals and deletion of this content was the best way out.
There appear to be several suggestions that the scope of this case could be limited to a (small) group of editors related to their behaviour on Acupuncture. I can not speak for the original poster of this case, but I got the impression that is what they wanted - albeit only 2 editors. I would be willing to contribute to a slight expansion of the OP to a small group of editors.DrChrissy (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Arbcom wishes to look at editor behaviour, a perusal of this talk page sectionTalk:Acupuncture#Scientific consensus (and COI too), opened today, might be instructive to see how various editors approach discussion.DrChrissy (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rather curious message has been left in the statement by User:NeilN here[35]. I really have no idea what is meant. Please clarify.DrChrissy (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up people - the block on the Acupuncture page has only just been lifted and the fun and games have already started again!DrChrissy (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Doc James

Under confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried I see links to the two users talk pages and a prior arbcom enforcement request [36]. The only comment on JzG's talk page is a notice of this case filling [37]. What about all the other forms of dispute resolution such as ANI and RfC user?

Looking at the claim that Kww " escalated the situation and accused me of dishonesty and "active deceit" here he states "your edit summaries are beginning to approach active deceit" and links [38]. User:A1candidate how can you describe that edit as "format" when you removed this 2011 review, this NIH position statement, and this 2012 review?

You than added "Most medical textbooks in the field of anesthesiology assert that acupuncture treatment has proven efficacy" and reference a single textbook Miller's Anesthesia. I have looked at the textbook and it concludes "There are promising results supporting its efficacy for adult postoperative and chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and for postoperative dental pain". This seems like a reasonable question following the above edit and edit summary [39] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LesVegas

First, let me say that I have never edited with Guy and I don't know one way or another if he is a good Wikipedian, so I will gladly give him the benefit of the doubt. Kww on the other hand, I can definitively say is a WP: TIGER who has recklessly rampaged through several articles, disruptively destroying reliable sources, leading the charge in already hot battleground articles, reverting and edit warring and making angry accusations all because he perceives his biases as neutral.

I began to suspect Kww may have some deeply rooted judgement issues that could eventually become behavioral problems back in January when a new editor posted a systematic review and meta-analysis from a reliable peer-reviewed journal on the Acupuncture talk page. Since they were new to Wikipedia, I posted it to the article for them. Kww promptly scolded me because I included a meta-analysis which had "positive findings" for acupuncture, and he wanted it removed 1 2. In Kww's mind, how could anything be reliable if it showed positive findings for something so "obviously pseudoscientific?" When other editors also supported it and began commenting on the low P's, he finally called it a false positive of the highest quality and further pushed to remove it because it simply didn't fit his POV of how acupuncture works. Some of the ArbCom members probably remember that Kww tried getting retribution against the editors who supported this meta-analysis's inclusion by filing an Arbcom against us to have us banned for "trying to portray acupuncture as having medical legitimacy." Predictably, the Arbcom used sane judgement and roundly declined that portion of the case.

But now, the TIGER is out of his cage and Kww's judgement problem has become a behavioral problem. He has been making rude and uncivil COI accusations towards me and other editors , he has flagrantlly violated the 3RR with 5 reverts in 24 hours, 1 2 3 4 5, he has been and has been disruptively removing reliable sources like this this, and this in favor of twisting out-of-context sources like this to deceitfully make claims like "Many within the scientific community consider it to be quackery" using Wikipedia's voice, which I've challenged him to support using real sources he doesn't have to bend out of context, but he apparently prefers to ignore sound policies like WP: STICKTOTHESOURCE because he believes his particular POV supersedes all such policy. We don't edit like that. It's against everything we stand for as a community.

I don't know Guy so I can't speak about him, but Kww's words and actions have crossed a line. He recently said, I firmly believe that if we forcibly expelled every editor that spoke in favor of acupuncture, chiropractic, Ayurveda, and similar forms of false medical treatment we could make more progress faster. Spoke in favor? Are you kidding me? And who is we? And what are they trying to progress, POV dominance of more articles? Why is Kww using his position of authority to harass, intimidate and use his administrative esteem to gain followers to fight with him onto a BATTLEGROUND of his creation? He should not abuse the regard editors have for his administrative title like this. Kww needs to learn that crusades like this have no place on Wikipedia. We can't bend sources to fit our viewpoint, exclude reliable sources when they don't, bloodthirstily attempt to ban editors who have different views of the world, edit war, disrupt and be uncivil to fellow editors without facing consequences.

@Yunshui:: There are a few other editors who have even more egregious and perhaps even longer standing behavioral problems. Would you be willing to accept this case to include editors with the most severe behavioral issues? QuackGuru is one editor who recently appeared here for E-Cigarette, but discretionary sanctions were only recently added to that article at the time. However, discretionary sanctions have been on Acupuncture, for instance, for a very long time now and there are many diffs from both him and another editor I would be willing to add for the ArbCom to review if you wanted to expand this case to behavior of a small group of editors.

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

There's nothing here that can't be handled through ordinary dispute resolution or WP:AE. Really. Now let's all go back to whatever we were doing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayaguru-Shishya

This ArbCom case has been filed due to "recurring pattern of highly inappropriate and uncivil behavior of two longstanding administrators". I could easily recognize this when it comes to Kww. Let me try to review the history in short:

Kww's personal attacks

  1. Kww accusing LesVegas from "blatantly lying" (21:13, 3 January 2015): "Les, I disagree with you on a lot of things, but this is the first time I have caught you blatantly lying"[40]
  2. Again, accusing LesVegas of lying (2nd time): " LesVegas consciously and intentionally lied (in that he knowingly made a false statement with the intent of deceiving others)"[41]
  3. Again, accusing LesVegas of lying (3rd time): "I don't understand why you think that pointing out that not only did you lie, you defended the lie and now persist in the lie is of any benefit to you"[42]
  4. Again, accusing LesVegas (4th time): "LesVegas is an editor that is attempting to damage the encyclopedia"[43]
  5. Kww accusing both LesVegas and I, but without providing any citations: "Discussions at Talk:Acupuncture go nowhere because there are not very many good faith editors to deal with: we are left people like LesVegas and Jayaguru-Shishya. [...] Topic-banning LesVegas and Jayaguru-Shishya would be far less damaging."[44]
    1. I replied to Kww's accusation: "I find it pretty questionable from an involved admin to label someone as "non-good faith editor" to another admin. Especially since you didn't even provide any diff which would support this claim of yours. I am sorry Kww, but I see your actions not so convincing for someone who is entitled to work as an administrator."[45]
    2. I further asked Kww to provide exact diffs to support his accusations, but without any reply (my response, section 2 out of 3)[46]
  6. Kww accusing LasVegas, A1candidate and I to be POV and altmed/pro-TCM editors: "Does QG make rapid edits that don't take LesVegas's, Jayaguru-Shiya, and A1Candidate's POV into account? Certainly he does, and that's because he really isn't supposed to take their view into account. No one else gets to get in there and edit because of the flare-ups QG provokes. That's a problem. But the other problem is the near certainty that any other editor will also wind up provoking reverts from the pro-altmed/pro-TCM editors, and will wind up in exactly the same precarious position."[47]
    1. I asked Kww to explain my POV that he is referring to. He didn't answer, just made an accusation without anything to back it up. I also pointed out to him that I am perhaps the one emphasizing the most sticking to reliable sources, and to follow MEDRS.[48]
    2. At a very early stage (20:25, 29 June 2015) even, I have told Kww to exclude me from his presupposed "pro-acupuncture camp"[49]

Kww expressing his sympathies towards QuackGuru before giving ungrounded administrative warnings

As far as I am concerned, these incidents have occured before Kww got involved with the articles such as acuncture:

  1. Kww expessing his utmost sympathy to QuackGuru (an editor on the very articles, the relevancy becomes clear in the next sub-section): "You know that of any of the admins on this site, I'm one of the most sympathetic to your cause."[50]

Ungrounded administrative warnings

This period stems from the time before Kww himself was WP:INVOLVED, but closely co-operated with an editor that he has ever since been very closely connected to:

  1. Kww gave me an administrative warning for user QuackGuru's claims on "battleground behavior" and "wikihounding": [51]. Kww never provided any rationale.
    1. I have asked Kww multiple times to provide a rationale for his administrative warning (19:25, 25 May 2014)[52]. No answer.
    2. I asked for the rationale again at 20:24, 25 May 2014: "Anyway, could you please provide me the diffs Kww, as requested above."[53]. No answer.
    3. Even though giving me an administrative warning on the basis of QuackGuru's allegations about wikihounding, Kww later gave a warning to QuackGuru about not to present false allegations on wikihounding: " As for these hounding/stalking complaints, I'll go have a little chat. It looks like he has gone a bit past the line again."[54]. Here is Kww's post on QuackGuru's talk page: [55]. This was only after I had contacted administrator User:John.
  2. Kww also gave me an administrative warning here: [56]. First, he warned me 03:45, 23 May 2014 about "edit warring": "the next sign of edit-warring on any pseudoscience related articles, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely"[57]. Later, after my request, he changed it into the following: "Consider it to read "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block."[58]
    1. I further asked Kww for explanations: "How come I was misusing the administrative noticeboards? [...] I don't think my warning is really fair. There was no POV pushing from my part: you can even notice that I didn't take any part of that POV-related discussion there. Could you please have another look at it?"[59] Again, no answer.
    2. I asked Kww for his rationale again 13:25, 23 May 2014: [60]. No answer.
    3. ...and again 14:02, 23 May 2014: [61]
    4. ...and again 19:10, 25 May 2014: "Could you please provide me the diffs for my supposed "furthering of pseudoscientific POVs" at the administrative noticeboards, as you claimed at my Talk Page?"[62]

Kww got warned by John

Kww's behavior has not been left unnoticed as he got ultimately warned by administrator John: "Consider this your warning; I shall certainly enact sanctions if I see you (or anyone else) use language like this again. Please don't."[63] I hope this helps to lighten up the case. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

If Arbcom wishes to look at editor behavior, a perusal of this talk page section, opened today, might be instructive to see how various editors approach discussion. --NeilN talk to me 00:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, I hope you are more careful in articles when copying text. [64] --NeilN talk to me 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I think User:Littleolive oil said it best in her opening paragraph; i.e., general behavioral issues on certain articles. We tend to hold our admins in high regard and expect them to refrain from bullying, hounding and OWN behavior. We certainly expect them to be neutral when settling a dispute, but if an admin cannot recognize NPOV in a BLP or other articles, how can they possibly be neutral elsewhere? Granted, it takes two to tango but I have witnessed a few situations where boomerangs were wrongfully applied. Editors are generally hesitant to speak-up at ARBCOM - it can be rather intimidating if one is truly respectful of the committee's scope of responsibility. Few cases ever make it to ARBCOM because by the time it gets here, no editor's hands are clean - frustration tends to overcome virtue - but it should not dilute the fact that admins are charged with diffusing such behavior, not creating it. As an aside - I encountered one relatively minor situation with Kww, but I conceded as I should have, he was correct, polite for the most part in light of my behavior, and I happily went back to editing. January 7, 2015

The following further will help confirm A1candidate's statements above:

  • April 16, 2015 - but there is no doubt that Atsme is in danger of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.
  • April 16, 2015 - You're mistaking me for Atsme,
  • April 20, 2015 - I like Atsme. I think it would be a shame to ship her off to topic-ban land
  • April 24, 2015 - My response to Guy's relentless badgering I actually do understand how consensus works which is why I conceded as demonstrated by the absence of my edits. I have no desire to see anyone TB or blocked and hope that never happens, more so for you than me.

But the badgering continued even after I relented to the bullying:

  • April 24, 2015 - Jesus wept. Atsme, the roiginal version of your article was deleted because it actively invited people to assume the "pharma shill gambit".
  • April 29, 2015 - I do like you. I also find it maddening that you are unwilling to accept that you are wrong about the Griffin article in general

The prevailing definition of NPOV per Guy:

  • February 16, 2015 - In matters of science, the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view.

CAM and FRINGE issues by admins at a BLP:

Callanecc turned the attention away from BLP DS on Griffin, which I never quite understood:

Then he added Pseudoscience:

Then came the CAM alert - all three on Griffin. I would think BLP should take precedence.

  • April 29, 2015 - My response which included a link to how the Guerrilla Skeptics are recruiting WP editors.

Guy received the following warning and advice from Callan under Pseudoscience DS (but Callan removed the warning and deleted it from the log):

  • February 16, 2015
  • February 21, 2015 Callan advises Guy But what you don't want is for if/when this eventually ends up at AE for someone to look through your edits and believe that Atsme was pushed or harangued through incivility or personal attacks on your part. As that will very likely end up with a block or ban for you and a warning for Atsme.

Callan simply hatted Guy's rudeness:

The DS alerts are quite confusing:

If needed for my own defense, following is what I actually wrote that caused such a stir, and that earned the tattoo that follows me around as a promoter of quackery:

If I am wrong about what I perceive to be behavioral issues and noncompliance with NPOV regarding CAM and/or integrative treatments (because according to the skeptic's POV, it should not be mentioned at all) then I apologize and will immediately adjust my future editing to reflect same. I rarely edit such articles but I don't like being bullied, either, so staying away from them is not a big deal for me. Atsme☯Consult 17:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from The ed17

Given the diffs above, I'm really not seeing anything that needs arbitration at the present time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Montanabw

Wow! The levels of threats, vitriol and incivility in these articles makes the infobox wars look like an afternoon tea! I have to say that the ferocity with with the opponents of alternative medicine dismiss pretty much everything is over the top. I have brushed against this mentality a wee bit on articles about animal-assisted therapy and organic food, but I didn't realize how deep the attack mode goes. The acupuncture article is definitely the place where these issues will be decided, as there does exist material that would pass MEDRS, yet these facts don't seem to have any impact here. (Full disclosure: I have never had an acupuncture treatment, the concept of needles freaks me out). I don't know if this is the right place or the right parties for the ultimate arbcom case on this issue, but given that even simple disagreement gets people warned and threatened with sanctions, particularly if they are in favor of alternative healthcare, I do think that the emotions are pretty out of control here and someone needs to step in.

I DO have sympathy for the constant fight against true quackery and fringe theories (I know someone who died because they believed in the laetrile cure for cancer, so trust me, I am no fan of quacks) but there is a place to look at the evolving status of alternative healthcare, and to honestly and neutrally weigh its pros and cons. There is no NPOV violation in "teaching the controversy" and looking at all views with due weight. Frankly, "science" once held the geocentric theory of the universe as sacred and threatened those heliocentric advocates with death. Here, though I happen to generally believe in the critical value of the scientific method, the harshness of tone of those who advocate for the mainstream would get them sanctioned in most other areas of WP. I think that folks need to chill out, big time!

Yes, Montanabw is actually making a plea for civility, AFG and NPA. Wow. That's saying something. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • This is a general reminder that the limit on statement length at this stage is 500 words per editor. If I count correctly, five editors have statements longer than 500 words. Although this limit is not strictly enforced, when writing statements please keep this limit in mind. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary and Alternative Medicine : Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/8/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Renaming this to something more neutral, other than that, awaiting statements. Courcelles (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the problem I'm having. As this concerns A1candidate, I think this is a matter AE can deal with under a combination of the DS authorised in the Pseudoscience and Acupuncture cases. I think a CAM case is most likely gong to be necessary at some point, but that would be a much broader case with more people involved than three parties. This one really is a matter of scope, and I'm therefore struggling with what to do with the request. Courcelles (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept largely per Salvio, I don't think the DS from Acupuncture are being as effective as desired in the topic area. Courcelles (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia, which quite clearly entails that it should report scientific facts according to the current scientific consensus. Those who try to subvert that may be in violation of WP:NPOV and, depending on the circumstances, may be sanctioned. Those who oppose those they perceive as doing the POV-pushing should of course strive to be civil, but, in the end, in my opinion, the integrity of the encyclopaedia should be the paramount concern for all those who edit Wikipedia.

    In this case, I'm leaning towards accepting the request, but before finalising my vote, I'd rather read more comments. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is a difference, though, between saying "well, that's nothing but quackery" on a talk page (or on a noticeboard), which is merely uncivil, and saying it in Wikipedia's voice in an article, which would be a violation of our content policies. I haven't seen (admittedly, I haven't looked very hard) anyone suggesting that an article should read "X is a bunch of crock." Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @JzG:, re. We already have arbitration precedents that work here, covering fringe claims and clearly identifying pseudomedical practices as falling within their remit. I don't think a case on the general issue of advocacy for SCAM will yield much benefit. To be entirely honest, I don't really have much appetite for a case, here, but the feeling I get from some of the comments made by others is that discretionary sanctions are not solving the problem and, so, in light of that, that a case may be necessary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Accept. I believe that a case is necessary here, though the scope will have to be slightly different, to look into the issue of POV-pushing. If discretionary sanctions are failing to resolve the problem, and the editing atmosphere in the topic area remains toxic, it's our duty to intervene (and from the statements I've read so far, my feeling is that if we decline to hear a case now, since the same problems are likely to recur, we'll end up having to hear a case anyway in the near future). Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key issue for me is that Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV, and while that does mean that we report scientific facts according to the current scientific consensus, it does not mean that it is correct to describe everything else as "quackery" - we must fairly report the claims of the proponents of alternatives and fairly present the evidence for and against those not dismiss them out of hand in Wikipedia's voice. Equally, just because someone holds a view that differs from the mainstream consensus does not give anyone the right to be uncivil towards them nor to assume bad faith of them. Like Salvio, I'm leaning towards accepting a case but we will need to define a scope and comments to that end will be helpful - simply saying it should be "broad" or "narrow" is not helpful in this context. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrChrissy: Anyone who has something relevant to say may comment on a case request. Whether you are involved or not doesn't really matter at this stage. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept. While the above isn't quite as compelling as I would like to see, it is clear that the accusations of POV pushing and mistreatment of new editors are not going to go away any time soon as the discretionary sanctions do not appeal to be working sufficiently. While it's not ideal timing, given the committee's other case load, we cannot decline to look at problems simply because the timing of them is inconvenient for us. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline My preliminary thought is that the application of NPOV to any specific situation is a purely content matter. We do not have a good way of resolving intractable content differences and I am not sure that there is any good way within the limitations of open editing. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience back in 2006 when I had just joined WP went a considerable way into content matters, perhaps more than we would be comfortable doing nowadays, but has in practice served us very well, and is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be willing to accept this if the scope can be limited to a review of the behaviour of a small set of editors. However, this looks remarkably like it may end up being a rehash of previous rulings on CAM/pseudoscience, and that isn't a case that I think we need to hold at this time. Yunshui 雲水 10:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After re-reviewing the diffs presented, I'm not fully convinced there's enough for even a behavioural case, so decline. Yunshui 雲水 07:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not enough information here to consider this as anything other than a request to examine the two administrators' conduct. To that question, I do not see evidence to warrant opening an arbitration case. Decline. AGK [•] 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline As currently presented, the allegations about the administrators are insufficiently compelling to merit a case.  Roger Davies talk 07:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I don't see much in terms of concerns beyond the administrator conduct, which I don't think rise to the level of a case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=661918503"