Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary Probation Request

1) User:ScienceApologist is placed on probation for the duration of these proceedings. Acts of incivility, WP:NPA, WP:GAME, WP:TE and other breaches of Wikiquette will result in site blocks a/o topic bans of increasing duration for science articles, broadly construed (including fringe science).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Jim Butler (t) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

comes across as punative, so I'm not infavor of this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am generally opposed, but if it's going to pass it needs a clause stating that admins taking the actions absolutely have to be neutral parties with no previous interaction or disputes with SA... and preferably in which any known friends/associates of those admins recuse themselves as well, since it'd be trivially easy for these admins to call in others that they'd expect to take their side sight unseen. One of the major problems SA has had is with overly aggressive admins making the problem worse through threats and bans. That problems needs to be de-escalated, not actively encouraged. DreamGuy (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Such a probation could be useful — if it were extended to include all editors of fringe science articles, and it incorporated explicit reference to WP:TE and WP:GAME via the tools of 'civil' POV-pushing (including WP:IDHT, WP:WEIGHT problems, etc.). A proscription on actions by previously involved admins (per DreamGuy) would be worthwhile as well. (Let's be honest here — mostly we're trying to keep Jehochman and SA from poking each other, and I don't care whose fault it is.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wholly unrealistic and immoral and wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

He has already had a 1 year civility parole. If that didn't work, how would this? If that did work, why is this needed? Either way, this is useless. (It didn't work, obviously, but this is useless even if someone thinks SA is civil.) GRBerry 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jim Butler

Proposed principles

Two wrongs don't make a right

1) Incivility is not a part of WP:DR, and is not an acceptable response to, or remedy for, civil POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems WP is so debased we have to ask the ArbCom to say this. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Jim Butler (t) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Golden rule

2) If everyone persistently violated Wikiquette, Wikipedia would collapse. Therefore, there are no exceptions to Wikiquette, no matter how noble an editor's agenda may be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Within reason. Editors should not degrade the collegial atmosphere. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Jim Butler (t) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious logical syllogism deduction. Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Both invalid and unsound. Invalid because the conclusion is not supported by the premiss. Unsound, because the premiss is false. Nor is it a syllogism, Mathsci. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Editorial process

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

But consensus does not mean "a small group of people hanging around the talk page of an article on a controversial topic banding together to vote to take actions that violate the clearly stated community wide consensus that built policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV" and so forth, which is unfortunately what is happening on many articles on fringe topics. Consensus on topics that effect hundreds of articles should not be fought on every single article one by one by whomeve happens to be hanging out there, especially as the people most likely to be hanging around a fringe topic article are followers of that fringe belief. We need consistent application of policies, not coordinated gaming of the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You forgot that at least as many debunkers hang around. I agree, this is very well put. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard, but so often used as a rod to beat the backs of those who are fighting to maintain scientific consensus. Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that endlessly pushing the same counter-encyclopedic agenda with the same cherry-picking from the same unreliable sources is not considered a breach of decorum. Expressing frustration at such tactics is, often, considered a breach of decorum. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I subscribe to Giano's version of civility where actions speak louder than words. Argumentum ad nauseum and the other polite, disruptive tactics are grounds for banning an editor from a locus of dispute. Perhaps I will rewrite this definition of decorum to include those thoughts. Jehochman ^Talk 22:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with mastcell. I think that repetitious argumentation is disruption, the challenge is getting enough attention from someone to show that, without creating a whole festival of dramatic activity. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In these debates, both sides, since they are ideologically driven, repeat ad nauseum. Further, those who are NPOV repeat ad nauseum, since they are talking to ideologues who won't compromise. Don't act like the debate is between NPOV and pro. It's between pro and con with NPOV caught in the middle- or leaving the article. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not proponents v. neutral point of view most of the time, but rather some mix of pro and con view points that struggle to be phrased neutrally. And anyone who repeats ad nauseum is distrupting and should be delt with appropriately. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was that repeating ad nauseum is not necessarily a bad thing, but a symptom. If you explain over and over to a non-NPOV editor what NPOV is, that isn't disruptive. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic coverage of science

3) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Under SPOV, we represent mainstream science. Under NPOV we present all sides of an argument according to WP:WEIGHT. The Committee has to choose which it means. If our editing must be "in line with" a particular POV, it cannot be NPOV. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

However, Wikipedia does this via the definition of 'reliable sources'. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts with 3 "Encyclopedic coverage of science," and with the comments of most editors here and the attitude of most editors presenting evidence. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Advocacy

5) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or propaganda.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From WP:NOT. Even if an idea is correct, Wikipedia is not for marketing ideas. Wikipedia reports; it does not argue. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Could you write it to make it better cover biased wording per WTA? That is one of the major problems. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

While true, based upon other comments it seems User:Jehochman has a peculiar way of interpreting that, as he has been labeling overwhelming scientific consensus as mere propaganda. Wikipedia reports and does it in a way the accurately represents both the arguments of various sides but also how seriously they are taken by the academic world at large. If a certain fringe theory is a fringe theory, someone reading the article needs to know that right away from something in the text of the lead or first subsection -- and of course doing so by appropriate sourcing and neutral language objectively describing the mainstream scientific opinion. Not including this information not only slants the whole context of the article but ends up being propaganda for the minority view. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be wikilawyering to suggest that this part of WP:NOT was applicable to mainstream science (see Jehochman's companion proposal below where he clarifies his use of the word "advocacy"). One of the goals of wikipedia is surely to promote an increase in the knowledge of mainstream science amongst its readership. Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately scientific consensus is not 'marketing ideas'. Wikipedia reports scientific consensus. What's the problem? Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is my understanding. I am not sure why others feel the need to battle over facts. Just spell them out, and if anybody is behaving unreasonably, use dispute resolution to stop them from disrupting. Jehochman ^Talk 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Debunking

6) Debunking is a form of advocacy that seeks to dismiss and damage the reputation of a subject through the use of rhetoric or argumentation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A novel proposal. A debunker may be correct in their assertions, but the tone of a debunking piece is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Our article on colon cleansing may report that the practice is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.[1] However, Wikipedia itself should avoid using a term like quackery to describe a subject.[2][3] (Reporting that X calls Y quackery may be appropriate sometimes.) We should use precise, accurate terminology, and avoid rhetoric. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Novel indeed. If I were to say I agree, I'd have to disrupt the wiki by putting it ten foot high letters. Also fully agree with Jehochman's comment. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This proposal seems poorly thought out and possibly tailor-made for SA. It goes completely against the method of checking wikipedia articles on fringe science. To see why it is flawed, please take a look at motionless electromagnetic generator and many other similar articles. Mathsci (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that this proposal (re)defines a widely-used term or concept in a particularly negative way. I fear that such a definition will be used to frame subsequent discussions or remedies in a harmful manner. Our article on debunker links to a neutral definition which accurately reflects the way that the term is actually used.

Debunk: verb...to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

...

Debunk: tr. v....To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. - Dictionary.com

Exposing claims and assertions which are false, pretentious, or exaggerated is a key part of evaluating sources for reliability, maintaining an appropriate perspective in articles, and avoiding overly-zealous reporting of fringe topics in Wikipedia. (If anything, the proposed (re)definition turns the situation on its head. Debunkers are often responding to advocates who have sought "to dismiss and damage the reputation of a subject through the use of rhetoric or argumentation".)

If there are specific user-conduct issues to be addressed, then describe them in a FoF. There's no need to create a label. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This proposal takes the side of fringe advocates by adopting the language of fringe advocacy, and seems to ignore the fact that articles are based on reliable sources and that we simply follow how the most reliable sources represent the subject. It might be an acceptable proposal, if it weren't for the fact that anyone trying to represent the mainstream view on a fringe subject, even if using measured and neutral language, is called a "debunker," in an attempt to dismiss, disallow, or discredit the mainstream scientific view of a fringe subject. I'm not sure I follow the example; it seems muddled. No, Wikipedia shouldn't call something "quackery" without sources, but if a source calls a subject quackery, and if that view represents the view of most objective experts on the subject, certainly it's encyclopedic to cite that source as written. The fringe element on Wikipedia has been working steadily to push the idea that fringe subjects should be exempt from core policy and should be represented from within the fringe universe, in other words from the POV of fringe advocates; if most sources that cover the topic are advocacy blogs and self-published books and pamphlets, those sources should be allowed for these fringe subjects and the view of the subject these inferior sources represent should dominate the article; any sources that present a more realistic point of view on the subject are dismissed as "debunking." This is not a good direction for the encyclopedia to go. There are some subjects that really need to be dismissed and discredited, if the encyclopedia doesn't care to be considered a laughingstock in the eyes of the world outside this particular wiki.Woonpton (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Debunking is a core concept to understanding mainstream handling of fringe science. Respected scientists doing nothing other than their jobs of science routinely debunk fringe claims as a matter of day to day operations. Trying to claim that debunking means ridicule or to suggest that by its very nature the act of debunking is hostile, uncivil, etc. is wikilawyering to a shocking degree. The idea that this would even be offered up seriously by someone who had some involvement in editing fringe-related topics and who took it upon himself to supposedly act as a neutral administrator capacity is, frankly, extremely troubling. It's essentially actively pushing an extreme anti-science and anti-rational thought agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

While rhetorical excess is to be avoided, there are ways to provide an neutral debunking of an idea. This proposal seems to be getting at the folks who spend time trying to 'debunk' other editors, which is a problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Debunking other editors is not a problem... in fact it is a vital process in the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. You might as well be saying that any attempt to prove that what another editor wants in the encyclopedia doesn't meet our criteria is automatically uncivil. A proposed finding has to be worded accurately and say what it means. We shouldn't have to peer under the hood to try to assume what he really means and approve that, especially when it seems likely from other comments that he means exactly what he says. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

when the 'debunking' is of editors and not their ideas it is a problem. I don't support this proposal as written. It doesn't deal with an actual problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are topics that are described by RS as "quackery" (Homepathy, by E. Ernst, comes to mind). Reporting that is not debunking. Echoing several high-quality notable scientific RS on how a certain theory is not, can not be and will never be valid is not debunking. Neither is explaining the relevant reasons given by those same RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Jehochman has a point. The Arbitration Committee overstepped its bounds by passing the fringe science definitions, and it's really made more heat than light, and FRINGE tends to be used more for demonising non-mainstream viewpoints than actually keeping neutral (e.g. the furore over the Rosalind Picard article a few months ago). It's really a problem in cases where there is a vocal yet minority viewpoint. Take for example, Scientology. While I take the side of 4chan in that it's a crackpot religion, our article shouldn't say that. Yet our article on Scientology isn't neutral. Suffice it to say that, if they came to GAC or FAC, I would not support any fringe articles because we focus too much on the scientific viewpoint (which is a viewpoint none-the-less, and shouldn't, per NPOV, be presented as the one and true viewpoint) which ends up on losing a lot of certainly historical and maybe sociological context, and ends up with really stunted writing, which, while passing NPOV, tends more-often-than-not to fail WEASEL. Take for example, the ID article. While it is an exemplary article in the FRINGE area of articles, it does betray our content policies in some places, even as early as the third paragraph. Remember what WP:MORALIZE (part of NPOV) says: "You won't even need to say [Saddam Hussein] was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary." While the ID article does do this, the other articles don't because of how FRINGE is used. We really need to retool FRINGE to be a useful subset of NPOV, and not just a weapon for silencing the unscientific minority or accusing administrators of POV pushing when they aren't. Discouraging people from the current obsession of lead-section vague debunking, and instead focusing more on the historical and social contexts of non-science, will yield better articles and a much more pleasant environment. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I said "cases where there is a vocal yet minority viewpoint", which encompasses things like Scientology. And the title of the guideline is fringe theories, not fringe science, which explicitly includes any article with minority viewpoints. It's all the same, really: proponents of leading theory vs proponents of challenging theory duking it out on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So if they're not viewpoints, why is it an NPOV issue? Hint: it wouldn't be. And this is really the problem with people like you and SA: you immediately label anyone who opposes you as trolls. I'm all for a scientific outlook, but not in the current way. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As said above, debunking is a side effect of science. It's science 101. To make up an example, if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the British National Health Service, and the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Canada all say a given homeopathic remedy has the same net effect on you as if you'd never consumed it, that's not negative. rootology (C)(T) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Those would be factual statements that we can repeat. I am concerned about statements like, "Homeopaths are charlatans who rob and put their clients lives at risk." That sort of rhetoric is not for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how this engages with the current issue. Exposing fraudulent or fringe views is of itself original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. Careful citation of authoritative sources (and, importantly, exposing poor or misleading or even fraudulent citation) should be enough. And the use of rhetoric and argumentation is poor encyclopedic practice. Neither of these are problematic in the case of ScienceApologist, who has an excellent grasp of how citation should work, and of assessing reliable sources. Peter Damian (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In my comment above, I cite a source, and show two edits I made. That's the point I am trying to make. It is not our purpose to expose, discredit or warn. We simply report what the reliable sources say. QuackWatch is not as good a source of medical information as the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance. I am making a simple point. Various folks are jumping to wild conclusions about what I mean. Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We should use, and adopt the tone of, the best (i.e. the best academic) sources available. Such sources are rarely written with an intent to expose, discredit or warn. Instead, they may be written from an anthropological, sociological, or psychological perspective. Such sources do make clear that the topic is a "fringe" topic, and indicate to the reader how far removed from the mainstream it is, but they are not in competition with the fringe world view. They simply study and describe it. Ideally, primary sources of opponents like QuackWatch should (almost) be treated the same way as primary sources of proponents: quoted only to the extent they are quoted by secondary sources which describe the conflict. Jayen466 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

7) In articles about science or fringe science academic works and mainstream peer reviewed journals are preferred as sources. Sources that engage in advocacy should be avoided, except when used as primary sources to establish their own views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For example, QuackWatch should not be used as a secondary source in our article about colon cleansing.[4] When people come to Wikipedia, they are looking for a neutral presentation of the facts, not hype. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Since WP "does not" (as they say) engage in advocacy, the fringe claims can be fully presented -not "represented"- under this proposal. Fringe views can be fully described in their own articles. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The basically turns reliable sourcing on its ear. QuackWatch is a highly respected website by respected sources that meets our citeria for reliable sources far better than a lot of the fringe journals out there that use scientific-sounding names but are advocacy publications with no peer review. A standard tactic of fringe true believers has been to go around presenting "peer reviewed journals" that are anything but and to remove any mainstream sources that disagree with them. On top of that, looking for true scintific journals on colon cleansing means our sources are going to be both very hard to find (most fringe science topics are never covered in mainstream science journals because they are considered so wacky) and very diffuclt for a lay person to follow. Encyclopedias are written for people off the street by people off the street. QuackWatch *IS* the facts, from the scientific view. Just calling the whole site "hype" shows an extreme POV, and one that absolutely CANNOT be pushed onto this encyclopedia. User:Jehochman seems to be actively promoting fringe topics, whether it be intentional, out of ignorance of the effects of what he is saying, or out of trying to get User:ScienceApologist any way he can and not worrying abut the collateral damage to this project. 17:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The issues with quackwatch, imo, are not so much the ordinary reliable source issues, but the polemical tone it's articles often take. So, while not an unusable source, for many articles it should not be the only or main one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

All fine and good that that's your opinion, but it's clear User:Jehochman doesn't want it used at all and I think it's perfectly fine as a main source along with some others. ArbCom should not endorse a proposed finding in which the person who wrote it clearly states that he interprets it a specific way that goes against Wikipedia policy, ESPECIALLY when current rules of ArbCom say any admin may interpret ArbCom sanctions against any editor any way and take whateve steps they think are necessary and that those actions cannot be undone by any other admin or group of admins without explicit ArbCom approval. If Jehochman states his intent to go around removing a reliable source because he doesn't like it, it's only natural to assume that he will, and the way things are going there'd be nothing anyone else could do about it without dragging it back to ArbCom every. single. time. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Barret he is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, and in quackery. From his own bio:

a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. [5]

but we can't use him as source because "he's engaged in advocacy"? No. (not to mention that there are not defined criteria to determine advocacy, so all sources showing a fringe belief in a negative light will inevitabily be accused of advocacy). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not say can't use. I said academic sources should be preferred. QuackWatch could be cited as an opinion of a notable expert in the field, but it is clearly a polemic source and should be identified as such. We cannot count on them providing a neutral, factual assessment. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A good idea, as per above. And if there is a lack of reputable archaeologists bothering to refute, say, Erich von Däniken, the very fact that the peer-reviewed journals that do cover Däniken's work are Journals of Religion speaks volumes. Jayen466 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, you need to be more careful about how you word things. You have made some statements above that need to be tweaked, since they are already giving ammunition to fringe POV pushers who wish to see Quackwatch and Barrett banned as sources here. A simple study of the many authoritative sources that recommend Quackwatch and Barrett (we only use a few in their articles) will give an idea of what mainstream science, medicine, universities, professors, librarians, consumer organizations, and governmental bodies, think of them, and it's very positive. They are considered authoritative and can be used as good opinions. Yes, attribution is a good idea, but don't give the impression that they shouldn't be used. Some of your previous statements give that impression.

I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up. Find anyone who is doing it, and you'll find such an editor....or someone who just doesn't have a clue, possibly because of ignorance of the issues regarding healthfraud, consumer fraud, and quackery. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principle

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principle

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:B

Proposed principles

Anti-science mischaracterization

1) Few, if any, editors are "anti-science".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's about time someone sought to curb the slanderous accusations of the debunkers. When I say "debunker," I am talking about a well defined set of behavior. When a person says "kook" "idiot" contrasts others with "reality based editors," or calls others "anti science," they are not talking about behavior, but assumed mental attitude. Further, any NPOV editor who comes and tries to curb debunking will have such epithets flung at him. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Maybe this isn't the best way to articulate this, but I am really tired of anyone who disagrees with the "scientific consensus" on a particular issue being dismissed as "anti-science". Nobody is anti-science any more than a politician voting against a particular Medicare bill wants senior citizens beaten up and left for dead on the streets. If this term would slip from the collective vocabulary of the "pro-science" (or whatever) editors, the probability of harmonious editing would increase by 21.3%. (That percentage is not based on a scientific study. Yes, this sentence is intended to be ironic.) --B (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But it has a decimal place, which makes it 37.7% more scientific. :) Yes, I think this would be a good general idea, if not necessarily an ArbCom finding. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To really be scientific, it needs some big words - "based on chi-square distribution analysis of the expected value and variance, with special emphasis on umbral calculus, of a stratified random sample gathered last Thursday, we infer a 37.7% increase." --B (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all it takes is a p-value to fool the masses. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside (I loved the gobbledeegook), I have modified my evidence in view of B's proposal, with which I agree. Mathsci (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, entirely. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-science" is an epithet, a slander, an insult. Using this term to describe editors is a violation of WP:NPA. Dlabtot (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Peter Damian

Proposed principles

Stricter enforcement of policy

1) There should be much stricter enforcement of policies on use of reliable sources. Editors who persistently cherry-pick primary sources against WP:DUE, or who cite unreliable sources, should be indefinitely blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It takes some fortitude, but I have had good luck using WP:AE to clear out such accounts from certain 9/11 articles, and I was able to use WP:RFAR to remove such an account from Cold fusion. There is no way to legislate common sense and backbone. We need to create a culture that rewards editors willing to do difficult work, even when such work causes "drama". Unfortunately, we have a fair number of sheeple who bleat "no drama, no drama". Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is administrative enforcement of content, which even the Arbitration Committee does not do. Such behavior is grounds for desysoping. I agree that one should be strict -much stricter- about sources. Unfortunately we have a fair number of Dirty Harrys who roar about "defending the wiki" by any means, "Well, do ya, punk?" This is just a civil means for an admin run the wiki ScienceApologist's way. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really; if a specific editor habitually pushes low-quality sources, ignores feedback, and refuses to heed WP:WEIGHT, then it's a behavioral issue of the sort that any admin is theoretically empowered to deal with. Blocks are intended to protect the encyclopedia from damage, and I would submit that this sort of behavior is at least as damaging, if not more so, then name-calling and silly GEORGE BUSH IS TEH GHEY vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Low quality sources" may be a fringe, but peer-reviewed journal put up against Quackwatch. Literally. People try to get editors banned for trying to push the peer reviewed journal while at the same time arguing that Quackwatch is a good source. And some admins happen to agree.... Thus I don't think admins should be enforcing content. Consensus can do that. Consensus is the mechanism WP relies upon for content enforcement. Now, if an editor is going against a clear consensus, that is different. The editor must form a new consensus, or they are being disruptive. The admin can use tools relative to disruption. But not relative to sources. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There should be much stricter enforcement of all policies. Disruptive editing - of whatever form - should be swiftly dealt with, especially through the use of topic bans. It's usually not really very hard when examining a dispute to discover the primary movers of that dispute. Ban those not working towards consensus from the area of dispute and let them edit articles about which they are less passionate. No one is indispensable. Dlabtot (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Committee or board to deal with sourcing

2) The process of identifying reliable sources should be assisted by establishing a committee or board to deal with the appropriate use of sources. The members of the committee do not have to be subject-matter experts, but they will have to be expert in the methods and procedures and principles used in the academic world to ensure that sourcing is reliable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We have WP:RSN. Let's not create another layer of bureaucracy. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal, per MBisanz below: I also liked it then. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I liked this idea at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed_decision#Sourcing_Adjudication_Board and I still think it could work if done correctly. MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

"Attack"

"I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned. That's my full and final goal." 01:08, 3 December 2008

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This was presented in evidence - could the users who presented this evidence clarify their interpretation? Also, without expressing my own view on this evidence at this point, I was wondering: is it really a bad thing when users are candid about their intentions? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• What's bad is having[6], and carrying out[7][8], bad intentions. When one's intentions are destructive, the "being candid" part is gratuitous. --Jim Butler (t) 13:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree; if one is clearly carrying out bad intentions, then there is no doubt that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But what of those who failed to make a statement of their bad intentions - would they get a lesser punishment because they were not candid? Something to ponder on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• When one says something foolish, it is a good idea to retract the statement so that others cannot continue to present it as evidence. I'll remove that bit from my evidence if the editor publishes a retraction. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this throws more light on the general theme. This isn't a new thing. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I suggest you delete that comment and the link. It was made by a sock, User:Durga's Trident, and his so-called "evidence" was deleted by MastCell. You need to stick to using legitimate evidence here. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: