Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Statements by non-parties

Comment by Sceptre

As some of the involved parties are outgoing arbitrators (e.g. FT2) and incoming arbitrators (Vass, Coren, Jay, and Rlevse), I reqeust that opening doesn't take place until the New Year; we are unlikely to settle an arbitration case in nine days. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, can't read (and was mistaken about FT2, but the peasants are revolting...). Ho hum. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by AGK

[In response to Sceptre:]

Two points:

1. FT2 is not an outgoing Arbitrator, insofar as I'm aware.
2. No cases will be opened until 1 January 2009, per my notice at the top of the page and my announcement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Moratorium on Request acceptance—even in the event the required majority of net support votes is reached.

AGK 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Now moot per Sceptre's response above. AGK 20:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rocksanddirt

I am unsure that this is a helpful way to resolve the ongoing dispute between SA and other users. SA has had numerous conflicts that follow some set patterns. The trouble begins when SA loses patience and becomes rude, and then editwars. There are several types of users that SA conflicts with 1) editors who are POV-pushing-fringe-science-nutters, 2) admins/editors who abhoor editwarring in all its forms, 3) admins/editors who like editors who are POV-pushing-fringe-science-nutters. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thought....I hope that this doesn't end up with a Giano solution, as that has worked not at all. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to JzG's comments - I don't participate in fringe articles as I find dealing with SA's rudeness and editwarring disruptive to my aggreement and participation with him on POV and sourcing issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to John Nevard's comments - SA has driven me away from articles he's invoved in for the most part. and I typically agree with his POV. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by William M. Connolley (talk)

S: I believe that at this point, the community's patience has been exhausted of ScienceApologist: clearly no: the only reason this has come here is because the community ban proposal failed. The comparison to GbD is unhelpful.

J: However, their [SA's] behavior drives away productive contributors. Disturbing if true. Who has been so driven? cataclysimic disruption - no; not even close; hyperbole won't help here.

However, SA's conduct is far from perfect. But one example: the "revenge" ban request on Seicer was wrong, and SA should realise this.

SA does valuable work holding back the tide of psuedoscience drivel that constantly assaults wiki, and deserves recognition for this, but desperately needs to learn to be civil.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Perhaps there are some problems to be addressed, but a hyperbole-laden RFAR is not helpful. Along with WMC's calling out of "cataclysmic disruption" note the accusation In the past, SA has lobbed death threats, which are explicitly forbidden under policy. If you really think "I'll put fluoride in ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont's water to poison them" is a serious threat, please watch Dr. Strangelove repeatedly until enlightenment is achieved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Shell Kinney

I'm a bit concerned by this request for a number of reasons. First, it consists mostly of material already reviewed by the Committee with a bit of hyperbole for flavoring. Second, since the proposed ban failed on ANI, it seems a bit like forum shopping to request the same here. And finally, using ScienceApologist's tongue in cheek (albeit pointy) counter community ban proposal as evidence is putting far more weight on the incident than deserves. I've advocated a bit more sense and civility from ScienceApologist for quite some time, but absent clear evidence that already existing sanctions aren't working, there's little the Committee can do here. However, if the idea is to look at the area as a whole and explore ways to remedy the limited avenues for dealing with persistent yet civil POV pushers, please, I beg you, have at it ;) Shell ^babelfish 22:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by (uninvolved) user Lambiam

Can we cut out the drama already, instead of magnifying it? ScienceApologist is to be commended for his continuing defence of the encyclopedic character of articles involving fringe science or pseudoscience, battling tenacious POV pushers, who may try to fight back by resorting to "process" if they can't get their way on content.  --Lambiam 22:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by user:Shot_info

Yep - here we go again. You would think that certain admins would have better things to do with their time (hint: go edit an article). But here we are - again... Shot info (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by (sticking his nose in) user:ThuranX

Round and Round until some folks get their way. This happens over and over, and the same result comes from the community. SA is brusque and coarse at times, but factually, he is, in an extraordinarily high percentage approaching, but not at, 100%, right about the facts in various articles. It's hard to write about the good he does without lionizing him, and seeming to ignore or trivialize his faults. However, he is quite often the bulwark against the raging stupidity that many fans of a pseudo-science try to add to articles. I'm not talking about people who want to add the history of an idea, or the faulty science behind such concepts, but the 'it really works and you're supressing it because you're the men in black/the man/the PTB/ blah blah blah' types. And to be clear, not all of that type wear tin-foil hats. Some write well, present their arguments with deceptive reasonableness and good salesmanship, heck, some are even professors and published authors. He fights all that down, and then we're surprised when he lashes out sometimes when he feels he's being unduly criticized or attacked on all sides. It's not hard to run a game on here against one or two editors, if you can communicate off-wiki; we've seen that before. The ArbCom should turn this down, stop wasting their time on this, and let the guy do what's needed here, which is prevent WP from becoming a bigger joke than it already is. ThuranX (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

Jehochman's evidence is slender (what is the relevance of the Dunin biography?). It seems to be a reiteration of his presentation in the cold fusion case. SA is often, without provocation, extremely uncivil; however he seems to have his heart in the right place and is a valuable asset to WP. Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Giano solution" would also probably be a recipe for disaster if used here. Equally this kind of confrontational method [1] has gone well past its sell-by date. Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

The community is indeed deeply divided here, and hence this is an appropriate situation for arbitration. I urge the committee to take the case.

Past arbitration gave SA a one year civility parole (since expired) that failed to achieve the desired result of SA becoming an editor who remains civil.

Discretionary sanctions exist in the topic area he is interested in editing, but the small set of admins regularly active at WP:AE is frankly out of ideas that they believe would be useful short of topic bans. SA has also developed a recurring pattern of retaliating against and/or attacking admins that have sanctioned him. And most or all of the WP:AE regulars have sanctioned SA previously, thus the community would have a major drama flare were any of them to actually do something significant. That is the reason why multiple incoming Arbs should probably recuse - because of their prior arbitration enforcement. Mentoring has been tried repeatedly - Jehochman was one of the mentors and now believes that SA should be banned.

The only discretionary sanction I would give a chance of working short of a broad topic banning would be prohibiting SA from interacting with users to whom he is regularly uncivil. The MartinPhi-SA community separation appears to be working, and the ArbComm has used similar sanctions recently (Abtract-Alistair Haines and others). But if this is done on a routine basis it will become a topic ban for SA. I urge the community to think creatively about ways to reform SA's unfortunate editing habits without a total ban. GRBerry 23:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Rschen7754

Honestly, I know nothing about the situation here. All I have to say is that proposing the community banning of an administrator is a bad idea, out of process (you should come to ArbCom first to request desysop), and disrupts Wikipedia. In addition this was after the administrator had requested a community ban on SA. This community ban request seemed to me to be disruptive. This is my reasoning behind my speedy closure of the community ban discussion on Seicer. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by DreamGuy

I don't have much experience with the articles SA is normally active on, but I can say with some experience that the administrators most often after SA's head have, from my experience with them, been admins of the "let's crack some heads and get things done" type, which causes more problems in the long run than it solves. As SA points out, it appears to just be some admins who didn't like that they didn't get their way the last time they complained and are complaining again without much having changed in the meantime. What I'd like to see is some genuine good faith efforts to solve the problems instead of just swinging the bat to try to get their own way. I've looked through the recent (i.e. new since the last time SA was brought here) threads linked to above, and while SA has been at times less than civil in speaking to others, the complainants in question have been less than civil in actions to him (assuming he's using sockpuppets despite lacking any proof of such, assuming bad faith, constantly bringing up old conflicts as reasons to threaten him/ignore what he has to say). Uncivil actions are worse than uncivil comments, but enforcement here seems to be just the opposite. And certainly people who are ostensibly here to help solve problems should be taking steps to do just that instead of escalating them all the time.

The thread where SA reported someone to AN (or ANI) was exactly what an editor should do, and he was right in that editor was abusing Wikipedia. Strangely things quickly devolved into calling SA into question instead of addressing the problem. SA's efforts to get the pseudoscience articles more in line with Wikipedia goals are exactly on track, and such effort tends to bring conflict with editors with a long history of POV-pushing and attempts to game the system. The mediator at cold fusion (complainant above) admits to making editing restrictions and forcing SA out... this is not how mediation standards work, or at least not in any fair real world mediations. Mediators do not set themselves up as WP:OWNers of an article and start making unilateral decisions, or they shouldn't be anyway. Every time I've seen someone try that here the results have been predictably disastrous.

Some people voting below have said they want to look at this to see how to deal with pseudoscience articles, as the way we've done it for years hs obviously failed. Someone else commented on whether we should look at if civility rules here do what they were intended to do or cause more problems as people try to game them (my apologies if I read too much into that statement), which I definitely agree with. I would suggest, however, that if arbitrators want to look at those issues they recommend opening up a new case specifically about those issues instead of voting to look at SA specifically, as the people who routinely practice bad faith here instead of good faith use the existence of ArbCom even looking into something (or sometimes the fact that anyone ever asked them to even if it was declined) as evidence that the editor is irredeemably bad and should be banned/ignored. In fact, it appears that that's already been going on in this case. DreamGuy (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Tarc

Having seen the name "ScienceApologist" frequently pop up at AN/I, today was (as far as I recall) the first time I have commented on any of it. Having browsed through the history provided, I voiced the opinion that a community ban was appropriate, and was of course (as is his right to defend himself, not contesting his right to respond) questioned by SA on this. The gist of his defense truly does boil down to, quote, "Jerks who do good work should be welcomed and channeled appropriately.", which then flowed into a bit of a soapbox on why I am "a very problematic Wikipedia user" for placing more of a value on civility than editorial experience. I have to ask, is there some reason why we cannot expect a user to possess both civility and expertise? Why must it be an either/or game?
What this appears to have come down to is that ScienceApologist expects to receive a wrist-slap ever time he acts uncivil, because that is all that has ever been done. His knowledge and perceived value to the Wikipedia as en editor has become a hardened, encrusted shield. This is a horrid precedent to set for others.

Statement by Elonka

I can't see as a new case is needed, since uninvolved admins are already authorized to block, ban, or otherwise restrict ScienceApologist (or any other editors disrupting the topic area), per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Implementing sanctions in the topic area does take a bit of backbone and fortitude, but that goes with the territory in ArbCom enforcement areas -- if the disputes there were easy to solve, they probably wouldn't have risen to the level of ArbCom cases to begin with. It should also be noted that administrators do have a bit more clout in dealing with ArbCom enforcement issues now, since the ArbCom recently passed a motion which prevents the overturning of enforcement actions: "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so." With this new motion, I am optimistic that it will be much more straightforward to implement discretionary sanctions in the future, and make them stick. --Elonka 03:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Note from Lar

Just as a note (and nothing more, difficulty in an area is not a reason to shy away, but it is a reason to be aware there is difficulty in an area) there have been a fair number of CU cases already. They tend to be fairly dramatic in their own right, and the outcomes sometimes are inconclusive. An outright ban may be problematic without some very creative enforcement strategies, or fairly high levels of collateral damage. So.... all that said, I sure wish there was a way to resolve this without needing a ban. ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

PS... what Cla68 said! I always recommend meatball:VestedContributor as good reading. Go reread your answer to my question about Vested Contributors if you need to. If this case is accepted it's as good a place as any to wrestle with this continuing problem (and better than some, it's not a Giano case, so that's something anyway.)... ++Lar: t/c 06:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68

One of the concerns that at least several of you new arbcom members are aware of and have discussed is what to do about "established" editors who build a lot of good content but at the same time and consistently break a lot of the rules/policies. This case fits that scenario. Please take the next week to consider how you're going to handle this in a way that is effective, benefits the project foremost, and sets a precedent for how these types of cases should be handled in the future. Cla68 (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Hipocrite

Arbitors should note that SA attempted multiple times to archive his ill thought-out attempt to ban Seicer here with an archiving template, again here via archiving template.

This was undone by Jehochman here - without any note made to SA that he had undone the archiving/collpasing, and without any notation made on the page that SA had, at any point, done the archiving/collpasing (only a small comment that Jehochman had undone the collpasing - without comment on the archiving), and without the insertion of any archival templates that would have redone the archiving but removed the collapse. Post the archiving/collpasing and removal of same, Smashville asked SA to archive the section. Jehochman responded, saying ""No, no. Don't delete anything. Leave it here for everyone to see. If SA wants to refactor their own comments, that is their choice, but they may not delete anybody else's remarks.". Jehochman was the one who, prior to his comment, removed SA's archiving/collpasing (not deletion). Jehochman did not comment on the page that he removed the archiving, merely the collapsing. Jehochman, in response to someone who requested deletion, neglected to state that SA had previously inserted hat/hab, the farthest it is appropriate to go on a notice board page towards content deletion, and that Jehochman was soley responsible for the removal of the hat/hab. This lack of transparency throws Jehochman into disrepute, and leads me to question if he is reliable enough to delete revisions or view deleted content.

I note that the distinction between archiving and collapsing may be confusing to some. I consider the addition of hat/hab to be both hiding from view and archiving. Removing hat/hab without the insertion of polltop/pollbottom or similar is the removal of both the archive and the collapse. Removing hat/hab and adding polltop/bollbottom is merely the removal of a collapse.

Statement by JzG

As I have said before, the problem here is that SA is single-handedly defending a large number of articles against long-term determined civil POV-pushing. We lack a good method for controlling long-term civil POV-pushing, as evidence the length of time it took to get Pcarbonn restricted. SA is, as a result, suffering burnout. The correct way to manage burnout is a Wikibreak, which appears to be what he's doing. Do we need to hang him out to dry in the mean time, or can we wait and see if a break helps? For the rest of it, what Cla68 said. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Caulde

Whilst, to an extent, this evidence has been presented and brought to the committee's attention before this date, I would think a proper exploration of actions involved would do no harm. Endorse Cla68's comments. Caulde 23:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Cosmic Latte

Endorse statement by ThuranX above. SA strikes me as a passionate, articulate, and highly intelligent editor who, despite his interesting temperament, is a clear net positive to the project. I fear that further, laboured discussion of his activities would have the primary effect of distracting all parties from the goal of encyclopedia-building, and I think that the quality of SA's work with respect to that goal should have earned him the community's patience, however begrudgingly it may have to be given.

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed

There are several problems with the way ScienceApologist approaches Wikipedia. First, he assumes bad faith of everyone who disagrees with him. If you're not with him, you're a crazy fringe lunatic true believer pseudoscientific crank, and he's not afraid to say it. Since this is often not true and inflammatory in any case, it's a problem. His tendency to characterize those who disagree with him as 'anti-science', while those who are not are 'pro-science', helps to divide Wikipedia into a dramatic battleground. In reality, most long-term contributors here are not 'anti-science'. Since on average people most people on Wikipedia are reasonable, the correct decisions are not terribly complex, and most of these questions can be yes/no, Condorcet's jury theorem generally applies. Anti-science is a vicious word that gets thrown around far too often, and it is certainly insulting. There are people who have different interpretations of neutrality than ScienceApologist. In some cases his scientific views may not be reflected in reliable sources, or contrary to them. Other people simply like to see Wikipedia reflect a diverse amount of topics.

WP:FRINGE is a well-written, neutral guideline. It includes statements such as "a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources ... ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy". Obviously the reverse also holds: fringe theories should not be promoted. Neither is acceptable. WP:FRINGE includes, as an example, that the Port Chicago disaster could mention a notable conspiracy theory even though it hasn't received mainstream coverage. I agree. This is something that I would be very surprised to see ScienceApologist support, yet it remains as a testament to the fact that Wikipedia covers a lot of information.

ScienceApologist's methods are often crude. In my experience, he rarely uses noticeboards (at a recent NOR/N, all 3 uninvolved editors, and 2 involved, concluded he was wikilawyering). In many cases he would probably receive support at noticeboards or through RFCs, but apparently they are either too slow, or he doesn't want to risk it. In my experience he rarely adds sources or copyedits, instead preferring to simply delete large amounts [2] (over 20k deleted). With more precise deletions, he would be more effective, but he has so far not learned this. Often he will precede an AFD with a pointless redirect [3][4], and his AFD record is not great (50% kept), reflecting a fair amount of POINTy AFDs -- GRBerry points out that 50% is not bad if targeting borderline cases, and looking through the list I can understand most of them. I'm not sure why he does things which he knows aren't going to last, and I can only conclude that he is addicted to drama. He enjoys engaging in petty edit-wars; for example, adding unsourced trivia to the lead of an article he doesn't like [5][6]. Similar petty edit-wars happened recently at Cold Fusion over the use of "two-thirds" vrs majority. Most experienced editors would try to get support.

Although ScienceApologist could be a good contributor, and probably was in the past when he worked on mainstream articles, he's devolved into making scenes, which make him the center of attention in things like this. Most people learn. For whatever reason, SA doesn't. It's as if he's escalating the situation so that at some point he can be banned and then make a huge fuss about how Wikipedia is "anti-science". He should at least be banned from Rational Skepticism articles, since he doesn't seem to have the demeanor for it. II | (t - c) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by peripherally-involved Jim Butler

I've had limited interaction with ScienceApologist and in my experience his methods of interacting vary from trenchant-but-civil to outright tendentious, edit-warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc. I'll add diffs and evidence and so on soon on the appropriate pages. But I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.

• On the one hand, I applaud the effort, by anyone, to keep bullshit (whether fringe or highly notable pseudoscience) out of Wikipedia. I have no personal animus toward SA and I'm not out to "get" him and push through a ban.
• On the other, I've noticed that SA's mission, more and more, seems to have become something of a righteous jihad. (Just read his user page as of today.) With an "ends justify the means" mentality, he's been crossing all kinds of Wikiquette lines for a long time... see block log. We have a lot of scientist-editors who don't get all dramatic like that. I summarily reject the notion that because SA is on some special mission, it's OK for him to play bad cop. What if everyone acted that way? The collaborative glue holding WP together would fall apart.
• Finally, to invoke WP:SPADE, he's simply not as smart (relative to his peers here) as he seems to believe he is; he tends to spout Science 101 type bromides in discussion. But the truth is, fer cryin' out loud, that lots of us have advanced degrees and are advocating a little more nuance, a little more attention to the demarcation problem, than SA generally thinks is necessary.

Not sure what to do: perhaps he could use some protracted disengagement... go for a nice long walk on the beach, play with a puppy, get some therapeutic touch done, relax with an orgone generator (kidding).

This I do know: When one editor feels that he's fighting a lone fight on WP, something is wrong either with that editor, or WP, or both. Maybe he could hook up with some relevant Wikiproject and accept some degree of mentoring and gently-enforced toning down of edits. If his content edits really are good, and he's receptive, then that ought to work. OTOH, if his edits lack support from other scientist-editors, then he is a one-man tendentious editing factory and certainly needs to be reined in. regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Deep thought

I don't see why we can't make WP safe for science AND stop ScienceApologist's bad conduct (and the double standard that goes with it). Framing it as either/or is misguided.

Let's create or revamp some sort of scientific oversight board, perhaps a special subsection of adequately credentialed editors (whether they're admins or not; create a new class of editor). Let's have scientifically literate editors, starting now, volunteer to help SA in articles where he feels like he's the sole defender of mainstream/NPOV. For SA's part right now, disengage, disengage, disengage. --Jim Butler (t) 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Badger Drink

Do we not remember what it was like being 8 years old? Are we all only children? Have none of us memories of taunting our sibling into losing his or her cool in front of our parents to "win" an argument?

Being an encyclopedia, and not a social-focused contraption for nerds of various persuasions to hang out and make like-minded friends on, I believe it's in the project's best interests to keep ScienceApologist around. If and when the time comes that we decide it's best to become Wiki Soup for the Web, then perhaps we should consider whether the extreme emotional sensitivity of certain fringe-area contributors outweighs the project's need for academic reliability and credibility.

ScienceApologist - like many of us - is human, and to treat him like a first grader for expressing perfectly natural frustration in response to the never-ending, repetitive setlist of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT → WP:WQA is utterly reprehensible - it's chaining the project to a tree to protest deforestation while the entire forest is burning. Handing out speeding tickets in the middle of a Blitz. Ignoring the cause, treating the symptom. It is, I imagine, privately humiliating to him, it is definitely embarrassing to those watching from the sidelines, and it is yet another reason for teachers, professors, and those outside the "drama circle" to continue to regard Wikipedia as the "middle school newspaper" of encyclopedias.

Are his methods as polished as other men of science around these parts? Perhaps not. Perhaps, as Mr. Butler above says, ScienceApologist's average level of discourse is closer to Science101 than not. But I am not altogether convinced that Science201 and above connects with the fringe-pushers and other assorted miscellany. To frame it in another light: collegiate English allows us a much broader range of emphasis and precision, but when dealing with a non-native speaker, it's best to Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Similarly, while civility is something we all feel most comfortable with, I believe there comes a point where excessive civility gives the false impression that these beliefs are valid, or that they are gaining validity. It is important to keep in mind that most fringe-pushers do not have the frame of historical-academic reference that the "pro-science" (as ridiculous a phrase as "pro-breathing", perhaps, but the most simple delineating term I can manage) crowd has. To the fringe-pushers, these theories of controlled demolition, intelligent creation, and homeopathetic wonders are brand new and cutting edge - which is why, so often, they feel it important to remind us of Galileo the mocked-but-eventually-vindicated astronomer, Edison the elementary-school retard, or Einstein the beyond-the-fringe-of-audience-comprehension genius. At some point, as troubling as this may seem to those entrenched in the habit, it is utterly necessary to drop the gentility and make it quite clear where these ideas stand - not just in the parlance of the oftentimes-obtuse and impenetrable men of academia, but in the clear (and perhaps bomdrastic) English of the crude, average bub on the street (Stephen Hawking vs Penn Jilette, if you will). For the sake of the children getting tinctures instead of vaccinations, if nothing else.

I urge ArbCom to send a clear message to all fringe-advocates and Fringence Nightingales alike that a) some contributors are more equal than others, and b) gaming the system through the typical loop of the Civil POV-pusher is flat-out not to be tolerated - that is to say, even humored - any longer. Whether ArbCom feels that would be best displayed by declining this case outright, or accepting it to consider the actions of all involved parties, is a decision best left up to the committee itself. Badger Drink (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Brothejr

Looking over the various statements here and also the comments within the recent and past AN/I cases against SA is rather troubling. First, I've noticed all sorts of people saying that he is the only one battling the fringe and that if he is banned the fringe will take over. The problem with that statement is that there are all sorts of people out there battling the fringe who do it with way more civility then SA. The only reason why we never hear of them is because they handle it way better then SA does. Second, another troubling aspect I find with this whole affair is how the community looks the other way when it comes to SA's attitude, actions, and incivility, because of the thought that he is the only one taking it to the fringe. (For examples, just take a look at the past AN/I case and some of the comments above.) The result of this is instead of helping to council him to act better and more civil, he is emboldened to act ruder and more aggressive because he knows that nothing will be done to him. In past arbcom cases, mediation cases, and other dispute resolutions, he has said that he does not think to well of those [7]dispute resolutions and will most likely ignore them when he can get away with it. Third, if any other editors or fringe POV pusher had acted the way he does, then they would have been blocked or even indef blocked a long time ago. Yet, we never see that with SA? It seems that the community has turned a blind eye towards SA, his actions, and his incivilities. That, to me, seems the most troubling of all. It is one thing to discount accusations from fringe POV's on AN/I against those who are keeping them in check, but it is another thing to be continually shown evidence of actual misconduct and then ignoring it. It smacks of a double standard being applied to this editor. I would think that if we do not tolerate incivility from fringe POV pushers, then we should tolerate it even less and expect far better civility from those who are working against the fringe. Brothejr (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Writing to inform the Committee and the community that ScienceApologist has entered voluntary mentorship with me. Although the timing is oddly coincidental, the current RFAR actually had little to do with it. No opinion on whether arbitration should open; this just appears to be a good place to let people know. Best wishes to all, Durova^Charge! 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Damian

I don't know if my support will help: I hope it will. I have a high regard for the writing of this editor, and for the logical approach he takes to the problem of pseudoscientific promotion on Wikipedia. Having experience battling this myself (mostly in the area of 'pseudophilosophy' - philosophy is as 'hard' and logical a subject as physics or mathematics) I sympathise with his position. It is a Sysiphean task, occasionally you drop the boulder and you lose control. We should not regard that as a problem: it should be occasion for renewing our support for this brave man. I can say no more. Peter Damian (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Nevard

I'm disappointed in not seeing some more substantive evidence regarding productive users SA has driven off Wikipedia - the only editor I could think of who could even approach the description was Martinphi, who is still slightly active. If ScienceApologist gets more attention than other editors who work to stop fringe theories being promoted as science, it is because of differences in how he operates.

He works on a wide range of pages with few allies to aid him in opposing those who push a more fringe POV. He focuses less on creationism and politicized science, mainstream topics that many understand, and more on the fringe views held by the credulous, whether spiritualists or perpetual-motion believers. And because these opponents of Wikipedia's purpose are less well equipt to argue in an intelligent forum, instead of fighting POV-pushing editors to a stalemate, he wins. Naturally that can't go down well with fringe believers or those who believe in a faux-even handedism. Nevard (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Gandalf61

I think the focus of this arbitration case should be ScienceApologist's recent interactions with other editors, set against the background of his past behaviour and his history of contributions to Wikipedia. Any discussion of wider issues and general principles quickly becomes academic and theoretical unless it is informed by specific instances. And the case at issue here is ScienceApologist.

That SA is frequently rude and uncivil does not seem to be in dispute. So that leaves two questions on the table:

• Are there any valid mitigating arguments to excuse or even justify his behaviour ?
• If not, what actions, if any, should the community take ?

Some say that SA is single-handedly protecting Wikipedia from being overrun by a wave of fringe theories and pseudoscience. If this were true then during SA's recent break from editing (Dec 3 to Dec 19), WP:FTN would have been awash with a backlog of reports and requests for assistance. I count 11 reports to FTN during this period - less than one per day. The image of SA as a lone, brave hero holding back the forces of chaos does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Some say that SA only directs his aggression towards "fringe advocates" and "POV-pushers", so these are the only editors who take issue with his behaviour. I think my own experience with SA shows that this is not true. When SA was repeatedly uncivil to me at Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards, and finally called for me to be admonished for "obsessive disruption" and implied that I am a "wikistalker" and a "content-hater"[8] he was not combating pseudoscience or defending Wikipedia. He was lashing out at an experienced and reasonable editor who just happened to have politely disagreed with him.

Some may say that belligerent editors like SA are needed to defend the values of Wikipedia which the more peace-loving editors such as myself enjoy, and we should not expect such editors to always conform to policies such WP:CIVIL, any more than we expect guard dogs to behave like the sheep that they protect. The question of whether Wikipedia really needs such guard dogs is a philosophical debate which could run and run - but it is irrelevant to this case. The simple fact is that this guard dog is out of control. He has started attacking the sheep, and this needs to be dealt with.

Given all this, some still say that SA's positive contributions to the project outweigh his rudeness. Speaking from my own experience, SA has gone a long way beyond the point at which this "on balance" argument can hold water. His rudeness is not an occasional lapse - it is deliberate, calculated, repeated and unrepented. Unlike almost all other experienced editors, SA seems to be unable or unwilling to control himself and to conform to the accepted standards of Wikipedia behaviour.

Everything else I wanted to say has already been covered by ImperfectlyInformed in his statement above, which I completely endorse.

I believe an appropriate community action would be to find some way to enforce a cooling off period on SA whenever he starts to be aggressive. For example, once he has been uncivil on a page, in article talk space or elsewhere, then he could be prohibited from editing that page again for a period of one month. At best that would encourage him to interact politely with other editors; at worst it would at least act as a brake on the extent of his rudeness.Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by MaxPont

For uninvolved editors and admins I would like to point out that it is proven far beyond any reasonable doubt that ScienceApologist is a highly disruptive editor who blatantly disrespects the community rules. Just look at this compilation of evidence from the recent Arbcom (the fourth where ScienceApologist was a named party. MaxPont (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Cyde Weys

I am conflicted. On the one hand, we need every single editor we can get who will write and maintain articles from a scientific point of view (which is the only neutral point of view in articles on pseudoscientific subjects). Pseudoscientific bullshit creep is a big problem, and there are far more pushers than defenders. On the other hand, we also do not need editors who create more drama than is necessary, and it appears, according to many other users who agree with ScienceApologist on the issues, that ScienceApologist is one such individual. It may be enlightening to draw a comparison with Giano here. He's a good article writer, but it doesn't justify his continuing incivility and disruption (I believe Giano owes us 20 more featured articles to break even at this point). The same may well be true of ScienceApologist. I'm conflicted. And I cannot fathom why ScienceApologist is still having these same old issues, just like with Giano. --Cyde Weys 19:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Rootology

Completely uninvolved here, but I ask that the Committee expand this to look at ALL the people involved; suggestions to limit this to "recent" and "interactions" with SA is like saying the people that beat NPOV with a stick and also beat SA with a stick should get a free pass. Nonsense, and this would be a grand chance for the new AC to do something right, right off the get-go, against the leaking sewer drain that is the pseudoscience stuff. Focusing just on SA would be a mistake. He's often the lone voice of NPOV reason, so half the cranks out there have targeted him. Who wouldn't and with justification at some point lash out? Civility doesn't exist in a vacuum; it doesn't for SA, or for Giano, who other people have invoked above. It would be preposterous and wrong to consider it in such a vacuum for any established user.

Discussion

Arbcom amendments requested on previous case

I have filed a request for amendment related to the Paranormal arbitration case. All interested parties are invited to respond. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)