Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Fringe science	none	(orig. case)	21 October 2021

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Amendment request: Fringe science

Initiated by DGG at 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Fringe science arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science

   Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence

   Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence

   Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science

• To the clause In this ruling, the term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science. should be added "This should be interpreted according to the community guideline at WP:FRINGE''

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence

• Replace the statement Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. should be replaced by Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." in order to match the guideline at WP:FRINGE

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence

• Add a clause: In particular, WP:NPOV requires that High-quality sources should not be excluded from articles purely on the basis of the viewpoint they represent. Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent. Likewise, WP:V requires that every statement in an article be directly supported by a reliable source. Material must not be included in articles only on the basis of communicating the "correct" view, if it is not supported by the sources it cites."

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science

• Add a clause: Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science. The above definitions do not apply. The fundamental policies WP:NPOV and WP:V do apply ; in particular, WP:NPOV requires that sources should not be excluded from articles on the basis of the viewpoint they represent.

Statement by DGG

The reason for this request is the arguments on sources that keep occurring on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, when dealing with minority views, where the arb com rulings have been used to prevent the inclusion of reasonably reputable sources. This includes among others recent discussions in the scientific areas of Covid, Race & Intelligence, Genetically modified organisms, climate change, and various aspects of medicine, and in the areas of American and other national politics, nationalism in different regions, and various conspiracy theories. See WP:DSTOPICS

The hope is to focus the arguments over sourcing, decrease the need for AE and discretionary sanctions, make further requests for arbitration cases in such areas unnecessary--and possibly even reduce the need for some of the discussions and arguments that arise.

I am not necessarily saying that all of the areas mentioned should rightfully be included under WP:FRINGE; I am certainly not saying that all or most of the arb com decisions or the community decisions based on them were improper, or led to incorrect conclusions. I have been involved in many such discussions at WP:RSN and elsewhere; sometimes the views I supported have been upheld, and sometimes not. I have no intention of re-arguing any of them here, or of using this request to challenge or overturn any previous decision by arbitrators or the community. The purpose of this request is to act as a guide for future discussions.

I am not naming parties, as this applies to everyone who might be working in these areas. I am notifying WP:RSN and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

@brady: you are being asked not to "reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" but by letting other sources be used to a limited extent in a proper qualified way, instead of being rejected out of hand. Rather than "denying them priority", I would say "reducing their priority when necessary for NPOV. " I am not suggesting removing the key prnciple in the case Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

@Sowhy, About half the arb com decisions have been indirect rulings on content This is to some extent inevitable because content disagreements are at the root of most of WP's long standing disputes Every case dealing with ethnic or nationalist issues is at heart a dispute over content, carried out by attacking sourcing. I certainly was aware of the content implications of the cases in my 5 years, and I think other arbs were also. One tries to not let it over-influence one's decision, but an awareness is always in the background.

@David Gerard, re-analyzing all of the fringe-related disputes at RSN over the last 12 years would take many times my 1000 words; even just discussing the other fringe-related arb cases would; and the responses of everyone interested in all of them would make a discussion here totally impossible. That's why I decided to keep this as general as possible, and why I decided not to challenge here the results of any of the discussions..

Based on the comments of various arbitrators, the principles and FoFs in this case should not be used to justify actions regarding individual articles or sources. However, @brady has also commented that they would want to see how these changes would affect particular controversies, which implies they are authoritative principles . Perhaps this should be treated as a request for clarification? Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify in arb policy that the statements in any one case apply to that particular case only, but not to any future instance involving the same principles. But presumably that would only apply to decisions not resulting in DS or similar sanctions about specific articles and topics--since in such cases the principles and FoF are specifically or implicitly used as the basis for the sanctions. Is that the intended meaning? DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Would it help if the wording didn't say Non-academic, but minority academic? DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: To a considerable degree, you are right. What is said by arb com doesn't always necessarily make a difference in how things work, any more than does the wording of policy and guidelines. People do quote what they want, and interpret it however they want. The only thing that actually matters in the end is what gets decided in individual instances about individual articles, and that tends to be quite variable. (I've said myself that for many articles at AfD, I could equally well make a policy-based argument to keep or delete), PerhapsI should have continued my usual course, which is to concentrate patiently on these.

There is a reason I went back to this case from 12 ago: it has been the basis of most decisions in the general area since then. Checking User:Bradv/Arbitration cases by creation date there were earlier ones, but what may be the first Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming (2005), is from just before my time in WP. In 2005-07 WP was contending with the pushers of some really absurd doctrines--see in particular Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal (2007), which I do recall. A rather strict adherence to rules for sourcing was justified, though I remember even then saying how they could potentially be misused. . More recently, we know how to deal with the really strange conspiracy theories that arise, and arguments have usually concerned matters where the minority view has some degree of rational support--very small in some cases, but still within the bounds of the rational. I think with these the approach needs to be different--to be quite inclusive with both topics and sources ,while still avoiding veering off into nonsense. At RFCs at RSN, a majority does in practice have the power to shut out the views of a minority, and at AE it is very difficult to over-rule admins willing to remove editors of whom they disapprove; we need to at least specify some limits, even though we realize we can not fully enforce them. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Without going into the specifics of individual sources, the material cited by Ferahgo is a clear recent indication of my key points here : the error of narrow restrictions on sourcing, and the error of too broad an application of fringe to cover minority viewpoints. It also raises another issue I intended to deal with separately, the danger of how wording of arb com decisions can be used by individual admins at DS. It additionally shows the extreme risk to NPOV from the decision of arb com in their most recent case WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#Final decision, whereby DS may include ... moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute, which can prevent reconsideration of even the most biased closure. (as written it would seem to apply only to that case, but some arbs have said they would like to have it as a general rule, or that it already is a general rule). See WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Proposed_decision#Levivich's_section and User_talk:Barkeep49#Recent_Arb_Decision_on_RfCs . DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I notice that, referring to the Principles and FoF under discussion, @Worm says that it may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia while @Captain Eek says "Seeing as these have stood for over a decade, it appears they were correct and factual. ". It seems to me that those two statements are contradictory. There is not necessarily anything wrong or surprising in that-- there have always been disagreements, as any examination of proposed decisions will show. Perhaps @Barkeep's statement is correct that It only has weight if other people agree it does'

So far we've heard from 7 arbs--- it might be helpful if the other 8 were to give their opinion also. -DGG

Since it seems there are unlikely to be further developments, and sentiment seems clear, I'm withdrawing the request

In conclusion, I thought there was a chance this request might succeed, but from my knowledge or arb com I did not think it very likely--I've been a minority of one when I was a member several times. What I do hope is that it may lead other people here to reconsider the questions. Normally I work by trying to affect opinion in individual cases, not general proposals like this; I fail to win many of the cases, but opinion nevertheless shifts. That's what I am trying to accomplish here also. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Replying to CaptainEek's request : There are 5 recent situations that might make good examples, all of which the committee has had before it in some manner.

1.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 which was closed by motion without any attempt whatsoever to address the problem, except a reference to an earlier general ruling on Covid dealing appropriately with the non-scientific theories put forth by far-right sources. (As a result, I haven't the least idea of the views of arb com on the matters raised.) The problem is adequately discussed in the case statements, and epitomized by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, but I can summarize them as Consensus has changed and what was originally a far fringe theory from sources associated with conspiracy theories, became one seriously considered by both the medical establishment, and the most reliable possible news sources (WSJ, NYT--in a series of major articles). Various excuses where put forth for not covering it until it had been resolved by peer-reviewed medical sources in the future. This was a classic example of attempts to hide a minority view by over-strict interpretation of sourcing requirements. It differs from most similar cases in that I am unable to imagine any possible Real World motivation for the rigidity (except, conceivably, support for the PRC and its censorship apparatus, but I very much doubt that) See also [1] . This was also extensively discussed at [2], [Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information], and an RfC [3] where it was at least decided that history is not subject to MEDRS. (this entire series of discussions is marked by attempts to decide the scientific issue on a WP talk page based on OR from the primary sources.)

2)Race and Intelligence, adequately discussed below by Ferahgo --see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence This is similar to Covid, in that the difficulty is that Consensus has changed in the RW, but complicated by the discussions involving charges of racism. There's an understandable sensitivity to the horrific history of the misuse of this combination of concepts in the past (and in some circles, extending into the present). This can be seen as some explanation for the refusal to reconsider, though I do not consider this a reason to abandon NPOV.

3) American Politics, (too many links to quote here) where the bias in our coverage has been widely noticed outside WP. (again, too many links, but can be given if it becomes relevant) (This is a little complicated for me, because I agree very strongly politically with the side to which our coverage has been biased. I have argued on the basis that the best way -- and the only way compatible with nPPOV-- to show the absurdity and evil of the other side , is to let its proponents speak,, and that the refusal to do so indicates a fear that the other side might have a convincing argument if they were allowed to. Suspicion that this might be our motive would cause anyone not yet convinced of either side to distrust our coverage, and to consider it just an editorial.)

4) and 5) I could also mention Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Final decision, where the committee resolved questions of content by topic banning the principal advocate(s) on one side of the position, while simultaneously stating that "it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors." (I should mention that I personally agree very strongly with the eventual result in one of the cases)

How this should proceed--whether by arb cases, or otherwise, is clearly beyond my ability to resolve. I thought it could be done by attacking what I consider the root of the problem, but the consensus seems to be that this was far too general an approach. [User:DGG| DGG]] , 28 October 2021

Statement by Alexbrn

I don't think arbcom should have jurisdiction over content decisions, so the current ruling is an unfortunate artefact from the past. Revoking it may, however, give the impression that somehow restrictions are being lifted. The proposed amendment looks even worse, in that in some respects it seems to want to make an end-run around core policy. In particular, for fringe topics the proposed text "WP:NPOV requires that High-quality sources should not be excluded from articles purely on the basis of the viewpoint they represent" is simply wrong, since for fringe topics WP:GEVAL has:

... plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it ... (emphasis mine)

The proposed amendment would allow the pseudoscience in apparently "high-quality" sources (e.g. peer-reviewed articles in homeopathy journals) passage into Wikipedia, or at least fuel drama over arguing for it. It is important that Wikipedia does not include fringe ideas except through the lens of accepted academic scholarship, where it exists.

If there's an issue with policy, fix the policy text. I say: don't try and provide additional layers of amendement to an area which is already plagued by WP:WL and drama. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: Your long post about NightHeron's (and other's) editing is all very interesting, but what has this to do with the proposal at hand, on amending historical arbcom rulings? What you describe seems to be a dispute in a topic area under WP:AC/DS: if editors are misbehaving there, open a WP:AE case. Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pyrrho the Skeptic

 Clerk note: the below was to respond to bradv. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused over point 6, because WP:MEDRS states: The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles, but this amendment seems like it would state that popular press is fine in fringe medicine, if that same source is used for, say, politics. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ADDING: There appears to be some conflict regarding defining "fringe theories" vs defining "quackery" in medicine. If the amendment is made to be consistent with this language from WP:FRINGE ...but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas., then that makes sense. But then I feel like a distinction needs to be made between WP:FRINGE being applied to "fringe theories" and WP:MEDRS being applied to "quackery". Otherwise you might always have disputes with editor 1 using ArbCom/WP:FRINGE language to justify "non-academic" sources and editor 2 using WP:MEDRS to claim only peer-reviewed, medical, secondary sources be used in a given content dispute. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo

This request relates to an issue that I recently discussed in general terms on the Arbcom mailing list, and also in more specific terms with Arbcom member Barkeep49. There are a few closely-related issues that need to be addressed, but I think this request is mostly directed at the fact that there are a few topics where journalistic sources (such as articles in newspapers and magazines) are being given priority over academic journals and textbooks. In some cases, the academic sources have been declared unreliable sources on the basis of the viewpoint they present, because they contradict the view presented in journalistic sources, which is assumed to be the mainstream one.

I am not sure what the best way to address this would be. The matter of general policy raised here needs addressing, but there is also a behavioral aspect. Over the past year or so there have been several cases of editors adding material to articles that misrepresents its sources, with the justification that WP:FRINGE requires this material to be included, and every attempt to challenge or remove the material has been rejected on the same grounds. There have been a few attempts to raise this issue with the broader community, but none of the discussions about it at noticeboards have resolved anything.

I would rather not get into specific examples, because I'd like to keep this request focused on general matters of policy, instead of specific topics. But I can provide more specific details about the background if necessary, either here or on the Arbcom mailing list (I'd prefer the latter). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: The problem is something like this: several topic areas have recently had similar problems in which WP:FRINGE has been used as a justification for ignoring other content policies, such as requiring the inclusion of material that misrepresents its sources. There are two topics in particular where this has been happening over the past year. My understanding is that in the past few months one of the two topics has improved somewhat, but the other has not.

I think this request ought to stay focused on general issues of policy, but I've gone into more detail in our email correspondence. As I mentioned in that correspondence, there have been multiple noticeboard discussions that tried and failed to resolve the issue, and one of the recent discussions about it concluded that it could not be resolved without Arbcom's intervention. DGG's and my hope with this request is that Arbcom could address it by addressing the policy principles, which apply to multiple topics, instead of the specifics of just one or two topics.

If you feel that the proposed amendment is not the best way forward, other solutions such as opening a full case with a narrower scope may be more viable. But I request that Arbcom please not pass the buck back to the community, because the community has already tried and failed to resolve this issue several times. I think you're the arbitrator who has the greatest familiarity with this background, so I'd appreciate your guidance on the best way to address it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Alright. If you need specific evidence of something within Arbcom's remit, then I suppose keeping this request focused on general issues of policy won't be possible - and Generalrelative has already linked to one of the earlier discussions anyway, which makes it obvious what topic area precipitated this request. I'm going to focus on the issue of misrepresented sources here, because while it isn't the only behavioral issue in this area, it's the one where Arbcom is most likely to understand the nature of the problem.

• 26-27 April 2020: NightHeron changes the lead of the race and intelligence article from "there is no direct evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component" to "there is no scientific evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component". [4] On the talk page, he argues that sources aren't required for this change because the hereditarian hypothesis (that group differences include a genetic component) is classified as a fringe theory. [5] [6]

• 2 May 2020: NightHeron makes the same alteration to the body of the article, changing "no direct evidence" to "no scientific evidence". In this case the original wording was supported by three sources, and NightHeron changed the text without changing the sources that it cited. [7] "No direct evidence" had been the exact wording of the three sources cited there, or a very close paraphrase (see Gardenofaleph's summary here). This distinction between "evidence" and "direct evidence" is more than just a semantic change: for example, James Flynn's well-known book Race, IQ and Jensen contains a chapter titled "Direct evidence and indirect", in which Flynn argues that there is indirect evidence for a genetic cause, but direct evidence for an environmental cause.

• April-May 2020: NightHeron removes most of the material from the article that had been cited to Earl B. Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence. [8] [9] [10] NightHeron and other editors justify these removals on the grounds that this book is in favor of the position that group differences in average IQ scores have a genetic component, and thus material in the book presenting this view is inadmissible. [11] [12]

• June to August 2020: Generalrelative changes the wording of this part of the article article from "There is no scientific evidence that the test score gap has a genetic component" to "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups". They also add the same material to three other articles. [13] [14] [15] [16] Finally, in the edits to Intelligence Quotient, Heritability of IQ, and Race and intelligence, they add a citation to Earl Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence for this statement.

• Let me call attention to two things about Generalrelative's citing of Hunt's texbook for this statement. First, this is the same source that has had most of its citations removed on the grounds that it is arguing in favor of a genetic contribution. Second, earlier the same month Generalrelative had added a quote from this book saying "The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence", which is obviously not the same as saying there is a consensus that no evidence exists for a genetic contribution. For the book's actual position on this question, see the quote that I posted here: [17]

• 13-14 March 2021: Three editors - Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, and an IP editor - raise objections that this part of the article is not supported by its sources. However, NightHeron doesn't allow the material be modified, arguing that these editors' objections are invalid because the material is required by consensus. [18] [19]

• 18-23 March 2021: Stonkaments raises the issue of these misrepresented sources at the NOR noticeboard. After about two days, JzG shuts down the discussion there. [20] When challenged about this closure in his user talk, JzG explains that in order to raise his objection that sources are being misrepresented, Stonkaments first would have to successfully argue that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, and that Stonkaments will likely be topic banned if he makes further attempts to raise the issue. [21]

• 1-2 May 2021: I open a RFC at the RS noticeboard about the issue of misrepresented sources, as well as the fact that older and lower-quality sources are being given priority over more recent sources of higher quality. This RFC is shut down by JzG after about 12 hours. [22]

• 3-5 May 2021: Shortly after the RFC has been shut down, a discussion begins about opening a new RFC which would examine this question of sourcing. [23] However, while that discussion is still underway, NightHeron opens a new RFC on the article's talk page which avoids the question of sourcing. [24] He explains that he is opening this RFC in order to prevent anyone else from opening one that examines the sourcing question. [25] [26]

• 9 May 2021: AndewNguyen tries to open a separate RFC to examine the sourcing question. This RFC is immediately shut down by an uninvolved user, with the explanation that it is inappropriate to open a new RFC in addition to the one that is already open. [27] [28] Thus, NightHeron was successful in the strategy he described in the two comments linked above: that he could prevent the community from discussing his misrepresentation of sources by opening an RFC which avoided this question.

Something I should point out about this sequence of events is that since March 2020, the race and intelligence article has had a special restriction (implemented by you) saying that anyone who misrepresents a source will be subjected to "escalating topic bans". But no admin has been willing to enforce this restriction, and during the year and a half that it has existed, no one has ever been sanctioned under it. However, editors who tried to raise the issue of misrepresented sources have been threatened with topic bans for doing so, JzG's response to Stonkaments that's linked above being one example. In summary, this is a behavioral issue (misrepresentation of sources) that the community has persistently been unable to address, in part because the sourcing restriction that you imposed turned out to be unenforceable.

Finally, let me call attention to the previous arbitration request last year about more or less the same issue (see Literaturegeek's summary). In that discussion, user:SMcCandlish predicted that if Arbcom declined to act on the earlier request, the same issue would inevitably come back to Arbcom again. That's exactly what has happened. This time could Arbcom please deal with the issue, so that it won't have to be brought back to Arbcom a third time in 2022? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Would Arbcom like me to send them a scan of the relevant part of Hunt's textbook, so they can see for themselves what it says about this matter? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

Speaking as an editor who works in WP:FRINGE-plagued areas and is a regular participant in WP:RSN: This request needs more details on precisely what requests were the issue, and precisely how the present rules resulted in a bad outcome. I recall several cases where editors brought fringe conspiracist views on COVID-19 to WP:RSN claiming that mentions in the popular press meant they belonged in more medical articles as supported views, or conversely, where questionably-reliable journals were being used to claim academic imprimatur for a fringe conspiracist view; but, rather than second-guessing the proposer's intent, I would like to know the precise difficult cases that would convince someone who thinks the present rule works very well in practice (e.g., me) that normal processes had clearly failed disastrously enough there was a problem needing action. I'm willing to be convinced, but I would have to be convinced - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@DGG fair enough, it just seems to me a claim that could really benefit from clear examples - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

additional note: in fairness, I can see a case in principle for bring the question back to the arbcom - I have referenced the arbcom decision myself in disputes over WP:FRINGE issues, to indicate the issue has teeth - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

another note: if this is prone to be seized upon in an attempt to relitigate the race and intelligence RFC yet again, that's an excellent worked example of why not to change anything - David Gerard (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

yeah, it looks like that's precisely what it is. I suggest closing this as a waste of everyone else's time and presumption of good faith, as jps has noted - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

I have a sidebar but important point. Fringe is MUCH broader than fringe science (which the current scope wording pretty well defines....e.g. purports to be science...) Introducing the much broader wp:fringe into the arbcom scope statement would make a mess out of the scope definition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Has anyone at RSN ever cited the Fringe science arbitration case? I am looking for examples and finding none. WP:FRINGE is cited frequently, but I haven't found anything referencing the case and I'm 2/3 of the way through the search results. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: you asked "Does anyone have examples where the principles have been specifically called out in recent discussions?". DGG claims this has happened at RSN. There's plenty of evidence that this has not happened:

• These search results show 117 uses of the word "fringe" at RSN, if "WP:FRINGE" is excluded. I've looked through them all, and it's clear that none are referencing the Fringe science arbitration case.
• WP:ARBFS is the only shortcut to the case, and it's never been used at RSN.

If the principles of this old case are not being cited, what benefit could there be to changing them? On the other hand, WP:FRINGE itself is cite ubiquitously, but there's no evidence to show that debate over WP:FRINGE requires an ArbCom case. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by jps

Oooh! I'm a party to the original case! Do I get extra points for that? Anyhoo... I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie. In this case, I have not seen much in the way of misuse of these particular rulings. I am actually much more concerned with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science which has been used to tie the hands of editors over at psychoanalysis, but last I brought that up, the committee demurred for much the same rationale as they seem currently wont to offer. Fair enough. Let's preserve the history and move on. jps (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that the context that has now been provided for this request makes me feel a bit like this is a WP:GAME on the part of the requester and allies who have been collaborating both on and off-wiki apparently to win a fight. I feel a bit like our good faith has been taken advantage of. jps (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Generalrelative

Anyone who is perplexed by DGG's request may want to take a look at this discussion on a user talk page for background. I’ll ping Stonkaments as a courtesy since it’s their page. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point the only thing in Ferahgo's statement I think I need to respond to is the pronoun she uses to refer to me. They/them for me please. Happy to discuss the proper interpretation of Hunt if called upon to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that Ferahgo has now edited her statement, changing my pronoun to "they". I appreciate it, though in the future please remember to make it visible when you alter a comment that has been responded to, e.g. by striking deleted words. Generalrelative (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Since a couple of uninvolved parties here appear to give some credence to Ferahgo's accusation of misrepresentation of sources, I suppose it's time for me to state my side of things. The distinction between primary and secondary material within a single source which SMcCandlish brings up gets to the heart of the issue surrounding how to use and interpret Hunt –– which is, in turn, key to unraveling Ferahgo’s accusation. Indeed, I made a similar point on the R&I talk page almost a year ago,[29] though any observer of this case could be forgiven for not having read through the extensive archived discussions there. The bit that Ferahgo describes as Hunt’s actual position is clearly a statement of opinion, and not even an expert opinion at that since it is a psychologist opining about what is likely to be the case in the field of genetics. As was argued on the talk page (apparently persuasively to the majority of page watchers) this makes it UNDUE for inclusion, especially if it represents a FRINGE position. On the other hand, where Hunt acts as a secondary source –– and I credit him for making the distinction relatively clear –– he indicates that no evidence has ever emerged to support the speculations of racial hereditarians. The full quote, which appears in the Hunt citation I added to a number of articles, is: It is worth remembering that no genes related to difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now. The question of how to interpret this statement was thoroughly discussed by Hob Gadling, MrOllie, NightHeron, an IP, a sock of MIkemikev, Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, Aquillion and myself, with MrOllie remarking (again, apparently persuasively to the majority) that This is scientist for 'no evidence' the same way that 'works as well as placebo' is medical researcher for 'it doesn't do anything'.[30] After this I considered the matter essentially settled, since no new objections were ever raised, as far as I could tell –– only old ones repeated. Generalrelative (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian

From a quick read, this looks like "overriding established policy [including NPOV] via ArbCom". Not only is this usually something entirely out of the scope of ArbCom (whether via an amendment request or otherwise), but this hasn't even been attempted through the regular channels. Bradv's summary seems correct, and "we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" smells like an absolutely horrible idea (we really want to give equal weight to recognised experts and to Johnny Idiot writing in conspiracy theorist sham journal?) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by XOR'easter

Regarding the proposed addition Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science: this is a highly touchy point, and a matter where lines of demarcation are difficult to draw. People advocate fringe science for political, social, and/or religious reasons; sometimes, a view could reasonably be called all of those things. I think it's a bad idea to try separating them with the force of wiki-law, as it were. Doing so would deprive editors of the freedom to address thorny questions and gray areas on a case-by-case basis as necessary.

The second bullet point proposes a modification in order to match the guideline at WP:FRINGE, but the current text seems entirely in accord with WP:FRINGE, while the replacement is less so. WP:FRINGE says, If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. And, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal (emphasis added). In other words, peer-reviewed articles are always to be preferred when the subject is within the purview of the regular academic literature. WP:FRINGE doesn't say material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas; it says they may be the best available option outside of these areas.

The third bullet point suggests adding the instruction Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent. This seems an unwarranted restriction that would, on the face of it, make many discussions at RSN invalid. Perhaps it is not always a good argument, but it is not a genre of argument that should be forbidden by wiki-law. Again, we should not deprive editors of the ability to discuss their way through gray areas on a case-by-case basis. XOR'easter (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

I will analyse the statements one-by-one, in some cases from a potential Wikilawyering standpoint.

• Amendment 1. Fringe science is what I believe to be a rather obvious term that does not need additional explanation. Linking it to WP:FRINGE would actually distort the sense normally being put in these words. Since the definition goes that the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field, it has also to do with WP:DUE than simply BS science, which is how the term "fringe science" is commonly understood.
• Amendment 2. While the additional clause makes the judgment more in line with WP:FRINGE, sort of, I side with Pyrrho the Skeptic in that additions from "fringe theories" guideline text is incompatible with "fringe science" judgment for WP:MEDRS reasons. For broad definitions of science as "knowledge about something" and not simply "hard sciences" (it seems to be the interpretation as "history" is also mentioned in the rule), there might be additional conflicts in ArbCom's rulings rising from the anti-Semitism in Poland case, or any other similar ruling where heightened requirements for sourcing have been set. Namely, the change might encourage those in the dispute in the area topics related to the area to challenge WP:APL, or any ruling with similar sourcing requirements, by citing the amended ruling and then insisting that any history article in the mass media, so long as it clears the RS bar, is permissible; thus unnecessarily escalating the case again to ArbCom, which would then have to determine which ruling is the controlling one. First, that's too much SCOTUS, too little Wikipedia; secondly, non-academic sources are a whole tier below academic ones, so we shouldn't encourage parity between the two.
• Amendment 3. I see problems with sentence two of the addition. In some areas, it is often thanks to the viewpoint that we know that the article is of low quality (as anti-vaxxer "studies" almost always are, or, as from my edit history, studies purporting to say that the Warsaw concentration camp had a giant gas chamber that killed 200K Poles), so it might provoke an argument by which a person who might want to promote fringe views refers to the amendment and says "but hey, you only said that this paper is anti-vax but we are expressly discouraged to judge the paper only by the viewpoint of the author", which would lead to some tedious discussions about why most, or all, anti-vax papers are not acceptable. Also, from the last sentence it would appear that so long as the material is supported by sources, one can introduce whatever material communicating The Truth® (that "if" condition is problematic); but what is needed here is simply a stern warning against POV-pushing + a separate warning to correctly interpret each source at hand.
• Amendment 4. If you remove "The above definitions do not apply" sentence, which might encourage people to promote fringe views that the filer proposes to exempt from the ruling, take into account the Amendment 3 remarks and the XOR'easter's remarks, para 1 and 3 (see section above), that might be fine, but then I'd like to see the modified proposal.

While the intent of the author is well-understood ("don't dismiss science you don't like if it is prevalent enough"), the wording weakens the sourcing requirements too much, makes the ruling incompatible with the more recent resolutions and might encourage tedious Wikilawyering disputes where there are more than enough disputes to begin with in the topic area. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NightHeron

Ferahgo has now made a series of false or misleading accusations against me and other editors (without notifying me, by the way). A year-and-a-half ago I was the OP of an RfC on Race and Intelligence at WP:FTN that was closed with a determination that racial hereditarianism (the view that certain races are genetically endowed with less intelligence than others) is a fringe view. Ferahgo is one of a small number of editors who have refused to accept that consensus and since that time have been forum-shopping in an attempt to reverse or circumvent it. After the RfC closure was upheld on appeal at AN, AndewNguyen appealed to ArbCom, making misconduct accusations against editors who'd participated in the RfC. An IP who had participated extensively in the RfC advanced an absurd conspiracy theory, accusing me of being a false-flag right-winger disguised as a left-winger in order to embarrass Wikipedia. A similar conspiracy theory is again advanced by an IP (perhaps the same one) in the user-page discussion that is linked to in Generalrelative's comment here.

This is not the place to refute all of Ferahgo's allegations claiming misuse or misrepresentation of sources. These matters have already been discussed at talk-pages, RSN, and elsewhere, and the consensus of editors has not supported those allegations (which is what Ferahgo seems to mean by saying that the community has been unable to resolve the content and sourcing issues). I'd like to just respond to Ferahgo's claim that I acted improperly in starting an RfC at the R&I talk-page in response to the claim by these editors that the outcome of the earlier RfC on R&I had been implemented wrongly, and that, if the community had only known about the nefarious way that I and others would edit the R&I page, they never would have voted the way they did. Ferahgo neglects to mention that the reason for the speedy closure of Ferahgo's RfC by an admin was that Ferahgo's RfC statement was lengthy, complicated, and tendentiously worded in an obvious attempt to skew the outcome -- in blatant violation of policy, which says that an RfC statement should be neutrally worded, short and simple. The short and neutrally worded RfC that I started at the R&I talk-page ([31]) ended in a snow-close reaffirming the consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. Both RfCs on race and intelligence had extensive participation by many editors -- over 50 in 2020 and about 35 in 2021. About 90% of the participating editors in the second RfC did not buy the claims of the disgruntled editors.

There has been no failure of policy or failure of the community that needs to be addressed by ArbCom. NightHeron (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph's comment below misstates the issue. The journal Intelligence was not rejected as a source when we edited Race and intelligence in accordance with WP:FRINGE. It's in fact cited 6 times in the R&I article. However, Intelligence is the official journal of the International Society of Intelligence Research, which is probably the most active organization promoting racial hereditarianism. The articles in that journal are not RS for the purpose of determining scientific consensus on race and intelligence or for refuting the conclusions of the 2020 and 2021 RfCs that the theory of genetic inferiority of certain races in intelligence is a fringe POV. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Gardenofaleph

I recommend that ArbCom read the discussion here for additional background. High-quality sources that have been declared non-RS on the basis of the viewpoints they present have included several books from Cambridge University Press; Papers published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, Human Nature, and the Journal of Biosocial Science, and one entire academic journal (Intelligence). Some of the time, the decisions to reject these sources have been based on sources of lower quality as defined as WP:SOURCETYPES, such as articles published in The Guardian and New Statesman, while in other cases Wikipedia editors have come up with their own justifications for rejecting these books and papers, in the absence of any reliably published criticism.

The conclusion that these sources are unreliable has not been supported by any decision at the RS noticeboard. Every attempt to discuss the issue there has either been shut down as in this case, or ended without concluding anything as in the more recent case. So the rejection of these sources does not appear to be supported by the broader community or by RS policy, but several editors have acted as though it's required by policy.

DGG's proposed amendment would possibly solve this issue, by defining a set of principles about the circumstances where it's acceptable to reject a source for this type of reason. Opening a new case could address it, too. But there is next to no chance the community could resolve this without some intervention by ArbCom. Every recent attempt to discuss the issue at the RS noticeboard has failed to reach any conclusion, and that will likely continue to be the case going forward. Gardenofaleph (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll

Quoting Worm That Turned below: I'm concerned that what is being asked for is the committee to make "a statement" about the Fringe topic area which would then influence future content decisions. Yes, this is exactly what is being requested, and per David Gerard and jps this request should be dismissed with prejudice. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Stonkaments

On multiple contentious topics, WP:FRINGE has been cited as justification for excluding reliable sources, misrepresenting sources, and making unsupported claims about the scientific consensus. This is not a content dispute; it's a broader issue of editors misinterpreting FRINGE in a way that is inconsistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and has caused harm to the project. As such, I believe the community would greatly benefit from ArbCom clarification that FRINGE does not preempt other policies. This does not mean de-prioritizing academic sources or giving fringe views undue weight, but simply handling fringe views in a manner that is consistent with all other policies—DUE, NPOV, V, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

I generally agree with this request, except all this clarification that an RS cannot be excluded because of its viewpoint badly needs a reminder codicil that opinion/op-ed material in a generally reliable source is still a primary source not secondary even if most of what it publishes is secondary. There is a lot of confusion about this, all the time. E.g. a journal or newspaper that usually has literature reviews or proper news, respectively, gets cited for an editorial stance it has taken and then is claimed to be a reliable source for the truth of that stance. It is not. It is just a WP:ABOUTSELF-reliable source that the publication's editorial viewpoint is that viewpoint and that they did say what they did. (This comes up beyond WP:FRINGE contexts but also often in WP:MEDRS and in politics. I just now ran into it yet again only a few minutes ago in a socio-political RfC, for example.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Principles and FoFs from old cases probably shouldn't be changed. IME ArbCom only interacts with DS at a high level, setting out the procedures and then largely letting admins manage it's running in practice. Perhaps there would be scope for ArbCom to set high-level subject-specific guidance. For example, in APL there is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations which is guidance at a high level. Similarly, there could be scope to add a remedy to the referenced case (titled "Interpretation" or some such) with high level guidance, assuming the substance of this request would improve enforcement in the manner DGG describes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

The very first sentence of this request is "The reason for this request is the arguments on sources that keep occurring on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, when dealing with minority views, where the arbcom rulings have been used to prevent the inclusion of reasonably reputable sources.". Yet apart from one tangentally related issue that has been raised in the conversation above, I don't see any evidence of these occurrences of the arbcom ruling being used at RSN, let alone "keep occurring". I would be interested to see some. Also, we should absolutely not be considering any modification which would cause WP:FRINGE to be made weaker - the third change in particular would effectively do this. If people are misusing FRINGE in rare cases, that can be dealt with through our regular processes; but FRINGE is there for a very good reason (as is WP:PSCI, which is policy). Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

I agree with Alexbrn; the first two requested amendments are puzzling, but the second two are ghastly. The summary of them directly misrepresents both the relevant policies and the impact they would have. WP:NPOV,WP:GEVAL, WP:DUE, and most of all WP:FRINGE specifically instruct us to, in certain circumstances, weigh inclusions and therefore sources based on the views they represent; DGG's suggestion here, if taken seriously, is effectively asking ArbCom to rewrite longstanding core policy by fiat in a way that would completely defang WP:FRINGE and weaken core parts of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:GEVAL. I understand that it is frustrating to be told that you that you can't add something to an article you consider true and important and well-cited because your addition would gives a particular view more prominence than it is WP:DUE, because it promotes or relies on WP:GEVAL, or because it is WP:FRINGE; but those have been central pillars of Wikipedia since long before even the ancient case in question and are absolutely vital parts of how we write articles. If you think people are abusing those arguments, bring cases focused on those individual abuses and individual editors; but trying to completely defang WP:FRINGE like this is not the way to go. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

"in particular, WP:NPOV requires that sources should not be excluded from articles on the basis of the viewpoint they represent." I don't think this would be acceptable without also mentions of WP:GEVAL, WP:PRIMARY, WP:PARITY, WP:NOTNEWS... The same sentence also admits that it's about fringe topics. I've argued myself at FTN at times that a religious doctrine simply had to clearly be defined as such in cases where it is very distinct to pseudoscience. Sometimes I'll also remind that ARBPS was an important historical precedent, but that its clauses applied to that particular case; that current policy is what matters for editorial judgement. —PaleoNeonate – 20:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoting David Gerard: "if this is prone to be seized upon in an attempt to relitigate the race and intelligence RFC yet again, that's an excellent worked example of why not to change anything", or COVID-19 misinformation, 9/11 conspiracy theories, or questionable medicinal treatments. WP has been reported by some sources as exemplary in its treatment of such topics, despite the repeated attempts to push such misinformation. Accusations that WP's reputation is instead tarnished for not catering to those are nonsense: I'd personally long have left WP for more reality-based projects if it generally fell into clickbait scandal, pr-ad traps, journalistic false-balance, political disinformation and science-denial by design. Fortunately there are policies against it, like WP:FRINGE, WP:PARITY, WP:RS, WP:FRIND, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT... And no, WP:FRINGE is not "abused" in relation to COVID-19-related fringe claims (just read WP:MEDRS to have an overview of the topic instead of unreliable sources or clickbait news written by people who don't understand the science). —PaleoNeonate – 07:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Fringe science: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Fringe science: Arbitrator views and discussion

• If I understand this request correctly, we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources. I welcome statements from the community on whether these changes are desirable, what impacts they would have, and whether they would be consistent with the principles and findings of the Fringe science case in question. – bradv^🍁 17:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  On second look, this is even more confusing. The items we're being requested to adjust here are not remedies, but principles and findings of fact which informed the outcome of the case. These principles make reference to and contain quotations from the NPOV policy, but we're being asked to instead make them dependent upon the FRINGE guideline, which presumably existed in a different form 12 years ago when this case was written. Furthermore, there are several comments here about how these intersecting policies and guidelines have been misused in various fora, which in my opinion is a reason to investigate those instances and patterns rather than reform the underlying principles without analysis or investigation. In other words, if revising this case is going to affect the intersection of fringe science with any of the topics listed in this filing, we should examine those topics one at a time, either in the form of an ARCA or a case request, rather than trying to argue the general without knowing the specifics. – bradv^🍁 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused tbh. Requests for amendments are usually for the addition, change or removal of sanctions (as the red box on top says). This request seems to ask for the change of principles and FoF from the old case. But they just reflect the principles that existed at the time of the decision and the facts that the decision was based on. Principles are based on policies and guidelines and those can change over time. Maybe those colleagues who were on the Committee back then can shed some light on why WP:FRINGE was not referenced explicitly despite already existing as a guideline? That said, correct me if I'm wrong but the decision contains to authorization for DS or similar, so shouldn't it be sufficient to declare that ArbCom does not rule on content and the FoF and principles from the old case thus cannot override a guideline on the topic that has community approval? Regards SoWhy 18:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to examining how WP:FRINGE, a content guideline, interacts with Discretionary Sanctions around a particular case at AE or better yet a pattern of cases/sanctions. As has been mentioned there has been communication with the committee and with me specifically about this and so that is what I had been expecting to see. However, as SoWhy points out the FoF that were found at that time is what was found at that time. Changing anything but a remedy 12 years later strikes me as something that would be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, while this (how to handle FRINGE/minitory views in contentious areas) seems like a regular ordinary difficult content problem. The sense I get is that I'm being asked to amend a case because some people are quoting from it at RSN and that doesn't seem like the right basis for an amendment request. People can quote what they want and anything that is not a policy or guideline (that is something with predetermined community consensus) only matters as much as others in the conversation agree that it does, that is it gainsconsensuss of the participating editors. Essays get quoted approvingly all the time and form the basis of consensus for instance. To the extent that this understanding of the request is wrong, please correct me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Except @DGG that's not quite true either. We have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles for a reason. I know drafters, including me with IRANPOL, make an effort to reuse those. Of course sometimes the principles are slightly different which is why you see a million variations on that page. But ultimately I go back to what I said before: people are welcome to quote whatever they want. It only has weight if other people agree it does - either by making it into a policy/guideline or by agreeing it matters in the context of a discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Ferahgo: I don't want to divulge what all you sent in email to me and to the committee but in re-reading that I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts that. Specific evidence of something in our remit (i.e. not just a content dispute) is generally needed. That is what I'm looking for here regardless of the scope of what we're talking about. Obviously amending a case is in our remit but besides thinking it's a bad idea in general, I'm also not seeing evidence as to why it's needed now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks to @CaptainEek for those comments. I agree with them and desire to really think through what @Ferahgo the Assassin has provided though I am currently having to prioritize some other wikiwork. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm with bradv on this one - if a case is being improperly referenced or referred to, that is an issue with the editor(s) providing that link. As stated both here and in recent ARCAs, we should not be changing anything other than Remedies from past cases; the FoF and Principles reflect Wikipedia at the time and we should not be changing them just to keep them current. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm struggling with the idea of altering findings or principles of a 12 year old case. I'm quite happy to "clarify" to anyone that Principles and Findings reflect the state of the encyclopedia at the time, and since the encyclopedia has continued to develop, it may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia - but I'm not happy to amend old cases in that way. If it's causing widespread problems, then the best solution would be a fresh arbitration request, for up to date findings and principles - but I'm not seeing that there are sufficient problems in the area that we need such a case.
  Does anyone have examples where the principles have been specifically called out in recent discussions? I'm concerned that what is being asked for is the committee to make "a statement" about the Fringe topic area which would then influence future content decisions, and while that might happen to an extent in a case - we should do what we can to minimise it, and should not be doing it here. Worm^TT(talk) 11:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  @DGG: - my point with respect to "may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia" was that old principles and findings should not be used to argue present decisions, as consensus can change. However, since I'm seeing no evidence that present discussions are being directly influenced by the old case, the point is moot. At any rate, I'm at the point of decline with respect to the request. Worm^TT(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• While the use of sources in the topic area is concerning, the link between the problems and the case seem tenuous at best. I will not support changing the principles or FoF of any case, absent some obvious mistake on our part. Seeing as these have stood for over a decade, it appears they were correct and factual. If folks think we need to approach the issue again, then perhaps a case request is in order. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  @DGG@Ferahgo the Assassin Well, it looks like the proposed amendments won't pass, seeing as we won't amend past principles. But it appears there remains an underlying issue. I can't help but wonder: is the right case to focus on Race and Intelligence, not Fringe Science? We seem poised to close this ARCA, but I don't want this issue to go and simmer more. Could y'all (and others) comment on the value of an ARCA focused on R&I, a new case request, or perhaps some kind of brainstorming session leading up to an ARCA? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Editing guidelines cover the areas - no need for arbcom involvement or amendment, particularly as the case has not been invoked in a discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues that there is no need to amend old principles and findings of fact to reflect changes in policy or practice; if we did that, we'd be amending old cases every time any policy changed. This Committee is not in the business of maintaining an accurate current compendium of community norms and consensus on every principle previously stated in an arbitration case, or in "ratifying" shifts in community sentiments by amending those old principles. (I can imagine two exceptions: (1) where a finding of fact directly affects a remedy, e.g., if a finding of fact defines a term used in a remedy; or (2) in extreme circumstances, if a prior decision was so contradictory to the principles of the encyclopedia that to keep it would be undignified. These should be rare and neither apply here.) I would therefore decline the request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'll also echo others here, that this is not one of the very rare cases where amending old principles or findings is worthwhile, and that the reliability and weighting of sources is generally not something ArbCom should be deciding. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• A little late here, but I would also be very reluctant to start altering old FoFs or principles unless there is some reason to believe they were entirely in error at the time they were passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

---