Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 00:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

[edit]

Statement by seicer

[edit]

I believe that at this point, the community's patience has been exhausted of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), similar in nature to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), would be appropriate. As such, I proposed a community ban of ScienceApologist, threaded under WP:ANI#SA - once again.

Per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban, ScienceApologist has been proven repeatedly that he is disruptive in a specific area of Wikipedia, notably science/pseudoscience-related articles. A topic ban may be effective, but only if it is enforced, but that has thus far shown to be ineffective. He has also exhausted the community's patience to the point that multiple blocks and editing restrictions have not given the results desired.

SA is also under Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, although this has been proven ineffective. SA also has 14 blocks that I can count, that are not adjustments or refactors.

In reply to the "wikistalking" commentary, I was a mediator for Cold Fusion, and as such, I implemented editing restrictions for the duration of the mediation, and although SA initially agreed to be a participant of the mediation process, he refused to participate in a constructive manner, and was thus removed as a result of the mediation, and the disruptions that ensued post-mediation due to edit warring and general hostility, I have passively monitored SA's contributions, as has other administrators. He has been the subject at ANI/AN, RFC and etc. far too many times, and his general negativity, as expressed here and elsewhere, is not warranted.

In the past, SA has lobbed death threats, which are explicitly forbidden under policy.

At today's WP:ANI#SA - once again, SA has filed a retilatory and frivolous community ban request against myself, and by extension, Jehochman. He has also engaged in refactoring other editors comments or rendering them impossible to be threaded, such as this and this.

Relevant links may include:

List of blocks or notifications relating to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist can be found here. Another list relating to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience can be found here.

Statement by ScienceApologist

[edit]

This request was precipitated by a few comments on Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards which resulted in a Wikiquette alert which was immediately passed on to Wikipedia:ANI#SA_-_once_again which post-haste turned into a shitshow. User:seicer has been advocating for banning/blocking me for some time and decided to do this again at the urging of the newest hater-of-SA, Jehochman. That is the SUM TOTAL of what has transpired since the last arbcom case in which I was involved. All other "evidence" secier/jehochman point to was presented before arbcom in the cold fusion case as well as there being a request in the workshop for banning me. I take it on faith that the arbitrators considered this request. Of course, maybe the "new" arbcomm should take it. You know what they say, if you don't get the result you want, take it back to court until you do.

I recognize and take responsibility for the issues related to the findings of fact and principles that arbcom made in the cold fusion case. However, I think that in the interest of cleaning slates, and considering that arbcom has already looked at most of the evidence presented again (and again and again) by seicer, I believe it prudent that the decision as to whether to accept this case be judged on my activities solely today.

I think that there are three activities which people are upset about: me accusing another user of disrupting a Wikipedia page, me quoting a physicist who called cold fusion "shitty researchers doing shitty research", and me asking for a community ban of the user who brings this arbitration case before us today. Is this activity really enough to warrant an arbitration case? Or is this a case of users who want to see me gone looking for any and all dramatic excuses? I note that there is some disagreement over this matter in the community. Some people think the entire thing is overblown. Others think that I'm such a disruption to the encyclopedia that I shouldn't be allowed to stay.

I remind the committee that I am under certain arbitration restrictions in both the Pseudoscience and the Martinphi-ScienceApologist cases. I believe that this could be taken to WP:AE and sorted out there (possibly). Alternatively, the accusers could actually try to have a conversation with me, for once. There is no reason to take this back to arbcom and rehash the story again. I do not think that User:Seicer or User:Jehochman should be trying to police my actions as they have proven problematic at best in their interactions with me.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

[edit]

The community is deeply divided over this matter. SA aims to improve the encyclopedia and their editing improves many articles. However, their behavior drives away productive contributors,[1] leaving articles exposed to increased activity by advocates of fringe ideas. On balance, the time and disruption caused by SA are intolerable. Additionally, there has been a history of gaming the rules, including recent sock puppetry[2] Any attempts to control SA's behavior result in cataclysimic severe[3] disruption, including:

  • confirmed block evasion [3]
  • mock death threats, resulting in a call to the police [4][5]
  • a pointy request for community sanctions against Seicer [6]
  • crusading for opponents to be blocked or banned [7]
  • retaliatory editing of Elonka Dunin [8] (No comment on the validity of the edits, but they immediately follow Elonka's sanctioning of SA.[9])

Please help us resolve these matters. The community has repeatedly failed on its own. As you can see on this page, there are administrators who would oppose strong sanctions on SA. It is better to arbitrate before somebody applies controversial sanctions, rather than afterwards. WP:AE has no magical ability to create consensus where none is possible. A delay of one week is fine; queue it for processing. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC) and 10:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of parties needs to be trimmed to just the essential ones, please. Jehochman Talk 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SA, at Cold fusion the Committee chose not to rule on your behavior, and you chose not to answer the allegations. Your history has not been wiped clean. We have no rule against double jeopardy. No decision means that nothing was decided.
The latest WP:ANI thread could have ended pleasantly, SA, if you would have backed down and retracted your incivil remarks, rather than disrupting the discussion with a retaliatory proposal against Seicer. It is fully within your power to end this conflict. All you need to do is stop using incivility as a weapon against other editors, stop socking, and stop disrupting. As strongly as I try to prevent you from disrupting, I will support you if you renounce disruptive tactics. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC) and 10:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote
  1. ^ I personally find it impossible to edit any article where SA is hurling bile at other editors.
  2. ^ User:FT2 and User:Lar are familiar with the full details of the two most recent incidents.
  3. ^ SA frequently undermines the formation consensus with tactics like argumentum ad nauseum, incivility, sock puppetry and battleground tactics. When an editor's involvement is guaranteed to derail a discussion that is "cataclysmic" severe disruption.
Mentorship

SA mentoring with Durova is fine and may be a part of the resolution. However, I think we still need to have a case to produce 1/ principals for guiding similar situations 2/ findings of fact, and 3/ a plan for dealing with contingencies, such as relapses or the termination of mentorship. Jehochman Talk 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/3/0)

[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

Final decision

[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

[edit]

1) Wikipedia has, as its primary objective, the documentation of human knowledge. In order to do so, it relies on verifiability, neutrality and on existing, reliable sources.

Passed 12 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

[edit]

2) While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.

Passed 12 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Science is not a point of view

[edit]

3) While scientists have points of view, scientific inquiry itself is a methodology, and cannot hold one. That coverage of a topic is primarily scientific does not prevent it from being (nor obviates the need to be) neutral.

Passed 6 to 4 with 2 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Prominence

[edit]

4) 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.

Passed 12 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

[edit]

5) Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

[edit]

6) Behavior can be disruptive even when not outright grossly violating civility expectations. In particular, tendentious editing or repeatedly failing to engage in consensus building or accepting community input can disrupt good-faith editor attempts to write or improve articles.

Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Baiting

[edit]

7) Raising the same issues over and over despite consensus (or lack thereof), persistent low-level attacks and other continuous goading of specific editors in order to exhaust their patience and induce them to lash out in an uncivil manner are disruptive.

Passed 8 to 1 with 3 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

[edit]

8) Dispute resolution is not a weapon to be used in order to exhaust an editor's willingness or capacity to contribute. Frivolous reporting, raising the same issue despite it being dismissed repeatedly, forum shopping, and escalation disproportionate to the alleged misconduct are all abuses of the system that are disruptive in themselves and detrimental to the collegiate atmosphere required for building an encyclopedia.

Passed 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevant comparisons

[edit]

9) The prominence of fringe views need to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

Passed 12 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy

[edit]

10) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.

Passed 12 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations

[edit]

11) Citations should not be used disproportionately to the prominence of the view they are citing or in a manner that conveys undue weight. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Passed 12 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fanning the flames

[edit]

12.2) While wider community participation can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute.

Passed 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientific focus

[edit]

13.1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Passed 8 to 1 with 3 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact

[edit]

Fringe science

[edit]

1) 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.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed area

[edit]

2) The dispute concerns articles whose primary topic is fringe science and coverage of fringe science as a secondary topic within other articles.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy

[edit]

3) Advocacy of specific points of view has repeatedly taken place in the disputed area. Both promotion and suppression of fringe science have occurred.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith disputes

[edit]

4) Many of the disputes in the area do not appear to be good faith attempts to reach consensus on the proper neutral coverage, but attempts to promote or suppress points of view in articles. Accordingly, much of the discussion has been adversarial rather than collaborative and prevents reaching consensus rather than working towards it.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Chilling effect

[edit]

5) The vehemence, and far-ranging nature, of the disputes have had a strong negative effect on the ability of neutral editors to participate effectively in the editing process, and has driven away or pilloried editors who do not subscribe to either of the polarised points of view being warred over.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Generalized problem

[edit]

6) The warring over the disputed area of fringe science is endemic. A large number of editors have behaved inappropriately to various extent and to various degrees to support one of the two extreme positions.

Passed 6 to 2 with three abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

[edit]

8.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) has acted against consensus ([10] [11]), removed sourced statements appropriate to articles, and generally edited aggressively above and beyond what would be necessary and justified by a neutral point of view.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

X1) In the Pseudoscience case, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) was cautioned "to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science". In the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case, ScienceApologist was made subject to an editing restriction, expiring November 2008, in relation to any edits adjudged to be uncivil, personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith; ScienceApologist has been blocked on a number of occasions in relation to that editing restriction (enforcement log).

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

X2) ScienceApologist has often exhibited a combative approach to editing and to engaging with other editors (examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], example).

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

X4) ScienceApologist has been repeatedly warned and/or blocked in efforts to encourage him to reform his behaviour (block log; examples of discussions: Dec 2006, May 2007, Dec 2007, Mar 2008, Jul 2008), yet he has often resisted such efforts and persisted in his combative approach (examples, example).

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

X5) In November 2008, ScienceApologist responded to a page ban imposed by administrator Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) by editing Elonka Dunin, an article about that administrator, in what could, independently of the appropriateness or otherwise of the edits from a content perspective, reasonably be understood as an attempt at intimidation, or at least disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (noticeboard discussion, talk page discussion).

Passed 7 to 0 with four abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi

[edit]

11) Martinphi (talk · contribs) has engaged in advocacy of fringe views, and has repeatedly pushed towards promoting those views in Wikipedia articles above and beyond what can be justified by their relative prominence ([18] [19] [20] [21] [22]).

Passed 5 to 1 with 5 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

11A) Martinphi (talk · contribs) was community banned in January 2009, in part for publishing personal information about another editor involved in this case, and also for his combative attitude in disputes the subject of this case (ban discussion. block log).

Passed 10 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pcarbonn

[edit]

13.1) Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) has engaged, wittingly or unwittingly, in a pattern of incitement and escalation during the dispute by repeatedly raising the issue in multiple fora ([23] [24] [25]) in an emotive and disruptive manner likely to inflame the dispute further.

Passed 10 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

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.

ScienceApologist topic banned

[edit]

3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

Passed 8 to 3 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Superseded on 12 March 2009

Pcarbonn admonished

[edit]

7) Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors warned

[edit]

5) All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed.

Passed 12 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors encouraged

[edit]

6) Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

Passed 12 to 0, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Further motions following Request for Clarification

[edit]

Motion to sanction ScienceApologist

[edit]
information Note: A remedy was later passed by motion (click to view) that permitted ScienceApologist to edit certain pages through three designated proxies whilst the ban is in effect. AGK 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) ScienceApologist is banned from Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Passed 8 to 1 with 4 abstentions/recusals, 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators

[edit]

2) Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification.

Passed 10 to 0 with 3 abstentions/recusals, 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion regarding SirFozzie

[edit]

3) SirFozzie has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

Passed 10 to 0 with 3 abstentions/recusals, 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009)

[edit]
(Passed by motion following a Request to amend prior case.)

Proxies for ScienceApologist

[edit]

1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

Passed 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) on 13:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science&oldid=1142571548"