Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Casliber
3. Coren
4. FayssalF
5. FloNight
6. Kirill Lokshin
7. Newyorkbrad
8. Risker
9. Roger Davies
10. Stephen Bain (bainer)
11. Wizardman
12. Sam Blacketer

Recused:

1. Cool Hand Luke
2. Jayvdb
3. Rlevse
4. Vassyana

Away or inactive:

none

Departing:

Note: These Arbitrators may activate themselves on this case should they choose to, as it was accepted before their term expired on January 1, 2009. However, in the absence of any formal declaration or action as to their activity on this case, they are deemed inactive and not counted towards the majority required for proposals.

1. Charles Matthews
2. Deskana
3. Jdforrester
4. Jpgordon
5. YellowMonkey

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Comments

Well done, Coren.

Grammar: "That coverage of a topic is primarily scientific does not prevent it from (nor obviates the need to) being neutral." could be changed to "That coverage of a topic is primarily scientific does not prevent it from being (nor obviate the need to be) neutral." (Much better, though I would still delete the "s" from "obviates".)^{(22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC))}

Typo: under "Baiting", Coren's comment reads "...even when face with bad faith attacks..."; perhaps a "d" needs to be appended to "face". (Fixed.)^{(22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC))} ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Coren, for getting the ball rolling. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed: "This includes topics that declare themselves outside, or on the fringe, of scientific understanding but are not generally accepted as such by the scientific community." Does "as such" mean "as scientific topics", or "outside scientific understanding", or what? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As outside; that reads clear and obvious to me— but I'm the one who wrote it so I have the unfair advantage of being able to guess at the author's intent.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second ... you mean there are topics where the proponents of the topic declare it to be outside scientific understanding, while the consensus of scientists is that the topic is scientific? I suppose you must mean that it's a topic that talks about the same things that science talks about (such as foo-ism explaining the motions of the planets), not that there is a consensus of scientists that the theories are correct.

How about "This includes topics that declare themselves to be outside, or on the fringe of, scientific understanding, but where the scientific community believes that science has something to say about those topics." Or "This includes topics that declare themselves to be outside, or on the fringe of, scientific understanding, but are not generally accepted by the scientific community as being something science cannot comment on."

That's harder to parse for me, and I think that actually aims a little off. For instance, some spiritual "Lovarian" movement might postulate that plants derive sustenance from "love fields" and that this belief isn't subject to scientific examination (I would rather not explicitly name fields in those examples). Certainly, the prominence of that view on plant life needs to be evaluated against the general views of biology, botanics and biochemistry at least; and could not be neutrally be expounded on as anything but marginal; even in articles that discuss the "Lovarian" movement. — Coren ^(talk) 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your sentence seems to mean one of two things, depending on what words earlier in the sentence "such" represents:

1. "such" means "scientific understanding"; the sentence means "This includes topics that declare themselves outside, or on the fringe, of scientific understanding but are not generally accepted as scientific understanding by the scientific community.", or
2. "such" means "outside, or on the fringe, of scientific understanding", and the sentence means "This includes topics that declare themselves outside, or on the fringe, of scientific understanding but are not generally accepted as outside, or on the fringe, of scientific understanding by the scientific community."

Neither of these sentences makes much sense to me. The second seems to be saying that the scientific community supports the theories.

How about "This includes topics that declare themselves outside, or on the fringe, of scientific understanding but are not generally considered by the scientific community to be beyond scientific scrutiny." or "This includes topics that proponents declare to be beyond scientific understanding but that the scientific community considers to be subject to scientific scrutiny."

(Note that I would move the comma to after the word "of"; though I just realized that the phrase "outside of" could be considered OK.) ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Or "This includes topics whose proponents believe not to be subject to scientific examination when scientists generally believe that it is subject to such examination." ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that thing is going to come back for clarification like lightening. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed: Under Supervised Editing, it says "then the mentor should be advised". I suppose this probably means that the supervised editor should advise the mentor, and if so perhaps it could be revised to say so.

Duplicate headings: There are two identical headings "Supervised Editing", making it impossible to section-link to the second one. This can be fixed by adding some punctuation to, or making the second word lowercase in, one of them. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SPOV

Science as an ideal has certain POVs, such as that more-valid data can be gained by application of the scientific method. The proposal doesn't even address the SPOV dragon, since what people mean by SPOV is the POVs of mainstream science as an institution which is derogatory towards fringe ideas. Alternately, they mean debunking. IOW, you're just getting confused by the vagaries of speech. I started the whole SPOV thing when people objected to pseudoskeptic. Since then, I've chosen debunker as a better word. I would choose a word which was even less potentially insulting, if I could think of one. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it's individual persons who have those points of view. Science can consider that X doesn't seem to work, and articles can't express that, but it will be either skeptics or individual individual scientists who will say that something is ridiculous, bad, evil, etc. Those are the statements that you have to be careful with, to separate the personal opinion from cold hard facts based on stuff

(for example, picking a non-controversial topic like Hongcheng Magic Liquid, its article can probably say that it's ridiculous for science but only when taking into account the current knowledge on physics and thermodynamics, it won't be ridiculous per se or because people find that it is so. If enough reliable scientific sources say that it's scientifically ridiculous, then that's not a POV either, like the proposed principle says, scientific method is, well, a method or a collection of methods). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that incident is interesting because it was a classic snake oil scam but on an extra-ordinarily large scale and the Chinese government itself was taken in. In fact, I'd say the statement "As of 2005, no working product has been released" may be subtly POV because it falsely implies that there was an underlying process, which there most certainly was not. It was a scam and it should be written up as a scam. This should be treated as a fact and not an opinion. Misunderstanding of NPOV has led to a very odd treatment of that case, I think. --TS 10:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

it never hurts to explain the scientific basis for rejection, as in Water-fuelled_car#Chemical_energy_content_of_water, or the social basis for fast wide aceptacion of a clearly flawed theory, like, in this case, the lack of basic scientific education on chinese people as explained by chinese government (and I think that a famous chinese skeptic also puts the blame on that, so it's government propaganda).

Summarizing, it's good to put mainstream science explanations (which may not be apparent to the less knowledgerable readers: teens, non-universitary, arts-oriented, in countries with bad education systems, non-schooled, etc.) and cultural and social underlying causes (it's amazing what sociologists can come up with, and it makes for interesing additions to articles).

I fixed the sentence, explanation on talk page here --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Time

I have more evidence to do- I hope you will give time. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I expect this will last at least another week. I've started with the proposed principles given that will color most everything else and may well direct some of the evidence. — Coren ^(talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I should be inputting something tomorrow or Thursday; I've been extremely busy or out of town, for the most part. seicer | talk | contribs 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, things are definitely still in process. For example, I'm trying to find a way to give the Arbs MrDarwin's (very good) credentials without revealing who he actually is. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Of course, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : we are just asking that it presents the current state of knowledge in a neutral way.[1] Pcarbonn (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant comparisons

Prominence of fringe views need to be evaluated against the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that evaluation against a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

I have advocated that Wikipedia go either NPOV or SPOV. Just so you know: there are two things here, first, you are allowing Wikipedia, rather than the sources available, to evaluate. This is what NPOV does not do, but it rather lets the sources speak for themselves. In practice on fringe views, this is SPOV, debunker POV, call it what you will.

You also allow original research. You allow synthesis of disparate sources to "evaluate" a fringe belief, even when the sources themselves are not evaluating said belief.

My own area -on Wikipedia- is parapsychology. Now, it will be argued that parapsychology is a subset of psychology. It's not. It grew out of psychology, but now has little to do with it. However, it often happens that psychologists have strong opinions about the paranormal, even though they know little or nothing of it. What this will mean is that most of the articles on parapsychology (Parapsychology, Ganzfeld experiment, Remote viewing, etc.) will be weighted toward what psychologists in general think. Most of the article will be evaluation from the standpoint of mainstream psychology.

That's fine. It will allow ScienceApologist and friends to have a completely free hand in these and every other fringe article, to do what used to be original research and to do what I call debunking. This is what they have been asking Wikipedia to do for years, and they have it now. It institutionalizes the fringe exception to NPOV. I do not condemn this, because I have long advocated that Wikipedia choose forcefully. With this, the ArbCom completes formally what it began in the Cold Fusion arbitration, making things crystal clear. Thank you, Coren (: ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It says we evaluate the prominence of the views, not that we evaluate the views themselves. I think that's an accurate description of what Wikipedian editors must do to enforce the NPOV policy.

For most fields of science, it's probably sufficient to give the consensus or range of views within the experts in the field (for example, molecular biologists for a topic in molecular biology). That's because scientists in general, and the educated public in general, has a certain degree of respect for such experts. However, if there is a consensus among parapsychologists that telekinesis can really happen, or if there is a significant minority of parapsychologists with that view, that cannot be presented as representative of NPOV in the same way, because there would not be a general scientific consensus among the broader scientific community that such views are reliable. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As Coppertwig noted above, evaluating relative prominence is what NPOV is all about. That's what a Wikipedia editor does to make a neutral article. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Coren, if that's all you mean by it, Coppertwig is right. I interpreted it the way ScienceApologist would -and I think he'd be right per the wording. So -and this is important- what you actually mean to convey by that is that we do what we always do under NPOV, and state the relative prominence of the fringe ideas in the articles, much as I did here: "According to the Parapsychological Association, Parapsychologists have come to the consensus that there is evidence for Extrasensory perception and Psychokinesis, but the scientific community in general has not accepted this work" [2]. (changed slightly for correctness from the diff)

Coppertwig, I agree that what you say is NPOV. My interpretation was based on the fact that evaluating the prominence is the same thing as evaluating the field because prominence determines WEIGHT. And then the "evaluation" part makes it clear that we are giving WEIGHT to the field in general, not the specialty and that we are evaluating each specialty from the outside whenever it comes to fringe ideas. Certainly, under NPOV you would explain the evaluations which have been published from the outside, but you wouldn't evaluate the fringe claim, nor would you give the greatest WEIGHT to the outside material- you would spend more of your time describing than evaluating. See, if WEIGHT is given to those outside the field, as with parapsychology, or to the greater field, you are specifically saying that non-expert opinion is given more WEIGHT. You are also giving more WEIGHT to the project of evaluation, automatically, because that is what you will find in the sources if you are writing from the POV of the outside looking in.

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" is sort of a non-entity from where I sit, because it's all a matter of attribution. I don't edit articles where you can legitimately -under NPOV- make many statements of fact.

I would put it thus, Coren:

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.

That's more in line with what I think you are now saying. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 02:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there were any ambiguities in "evaluating prominence", but your suggested wording is also acceptable. I've edited the proposed principle to match. — Coren ^(talk) 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful (wipes cold sweat off forehead, snatches despairing emails back from cyberspace). Nah. Really, I expect to lose this ArbCom, but I'll do my best.

(But you see how I got that out of your text. Because prominence determines WEIGHT. I advocate determining WEIGHT relative to the subject of the article, not how prominent a view is relative to other fields. The latter is SA's idea concerning WEIGHT.) ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't see arbitration as a "win" or "lose" situation. Some corrective measures may be put in place to make the encyclopedia "win", but we try to keep editor "loose" to the strict minimum (and tend to err on the side of caution). — Coren ^(talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I expected you'd say that, but the area has been a zero sum battle for years. The Paranormal ArbCom helped, but it was generally ignored. There have been a few times when it wasn't a battle, like dealing with Ryan Paddy on Parapsychology. It's hard to know more of the subject than the other people on an article when they think you're a POV pusher. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If it becomes less of a battleground, that is a loss for debunking. As I became a more sophisticated editor, I found that I could always form a consensus I could agree with if I could draw outside editors in. Even when the editor is skeptical, I often hear "I'm not going into that environment." If it isn't a battleground, there will be enough outside editors who don't refuse to get involved. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, you really need to clean up your POV pushing motivation for being here, amply demonstrated by your "... I could always form a consensus I could agree with ...". Your "sophistication" as an editor has amounted to becoming better at manipulating editors and the sytem to get your fringe POV included. Yes, you have proven that consensus can be manipulated and misused to violate NPOV and other policies here. That's very unwikipedian. I expect that you and a few other editors, including some skeptics, will soon become candidates for Supervised editing. It's just a shame that valuable time will thus be used to watch you day and night. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You expect wrong, because I'm retired unless the ArbCom does something STRONG about this kind of constant attacking and debunking.[3] [4] Isn't it funny, Coren, how he attacks me for learning how to draw in editors from outside the dispute?

I remember once how delighted I was when FT2 edited a fringe article, and made the lead NPOV. SA came right along and reverted him. I don't have to work to get outside editors to be NPOV- they already know what NPOV is. Here is Fyslee and others advocating OR for refuting fringe ideas [5] (and the question they're answering [6]). ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No Martin, no diversionary tactics from you. Your offense is not a good defense. I just pointed out the evidence you provided of your motivations for being here. Just looking at your subpages is an interesting experience that makes clear your fringe agenda here, and especially your attack page. That attack page should be deleted under WP:UP#NOT ("Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.") -- Fyslee (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really talking to you, but to the Arbs, merely using you as an example. You should have voted when you had the chance [7]. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I finally figured out what Fyslee was talking about:

I said "I found that I could always form a consensus I could agree with"

Fyslee assumed I was a POV pusher trying to form a POV consensus. I was assuming that I would accept any NPOV consensus. With that assumption, no wonder he thought it was a matter of Self-incrimination. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi, in the "Encouraged, discouraged and dismayed" section, you said, "The other diff, it's in the middle of things but I'm basically taking the argument that science=majority and saying, well if that's always the case then parapsychology is majority. I don't believe that, but if your argument is right, then mine is right". This seems to contradict what I said above, " However, if there is a consensus among parapsychologists that telekinesis can really happen, or if there is a significant minority of parapsychologists with that view, that cannot be presented as representative of NPOV in the same way, because there would not be a general scientific consensus among the broader scientific community that such views are reliable," which I thought you had said you agreed with. Maybe it's that you're quoting from what you had said earlier and you've changed your mind?

We report the opinions of molecular biologists on topics in molecular biology because those opinions are widely considered reliable sources on that topic, and not because it's the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia to report the opinions of molecular biologists about molecular biology and the opinions of parapsychologists about parapsychology.

You said "Certainly, under NPOV you would explain the evaluations which have been published from the outside, but you wouldn't evaluate the fringe claim, nor would you give the greatest WEIGHT to the outside material- you would spend more of your time describing than evaluating." I don't see why that should necessarily be the case. I see no reason why we can't spend more time describing the scientific evaluations of some topics than describing the topics themselves as seen by insiders. It depends on weight and reliability and what the sources spend time on. If the scientific evaluations are more notable in some way, we'll probably spend more time describing them. There may also be descriptions of the topic written from a scientific POV; we could spend time on that too. I think it makes sense to include some information describing the topic from the POV of insiders, but it doesn't necessarily always have to be the largest or most prominent part of the article. What is your basis for saying we would not give the greatest weight to the outside material?

The situation with a generally accepted science such as molecular biology is not the same as the situation with a fringe science such as parapsychology, so the same arguments do not necessarily apply. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

Those are expected remedies most likely to be applied, once case analysis is complete and findings of facts can be made. Nothing is set in stone, at this point, but this is the most likely form the proposed solution will take. — Coren ^(talk) 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Supervised Editing

Excellent concept. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does look good. It depends on who the Arbitrators accept as mentors: if they accept those who merely appear neutral, it will be a fiasco. Will the Arbitrators be fooled into non-neutral mentors- mentors who only pretend to feel neutral about the subjects? ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It will only work if the mentors are acting as prison guards. They are dealing with known offenders and their job is not to coddle their subject, but to guide and teach them to edit according to policy. If they start taking the side of their subjects, they are betraying the community's trust. That happened in the events leading up to the Barrett vs Rosenthal ArbCom, where User:Ilena's mentor defended her, encouraged her, and even aided and abetted her in continuing her disruption and BLP violations. His final misdeed was to start that ill-fated ArbCom as an attempt to punish me, one who was defending Wikipedia against her onslaught. Well, she is indefinitely banned, and her mentor has been silent since then. No, mentors for those under this sanction need to be chosen carefully for their ability to be wise, firm, and ready to hand out swift blocks and bans if necessary. They are not dealing with newbies. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Time will tell. It is hard for me to imagine why someone who has repeatedly insisted that they don't understand what it means to be civil would suddenly abandon their feigned ignorance because of this arrangement, but since there is no deadline, it doesn't really hurt to try. I'll be surprised, however, it this doesn't just turn out to be a way of postponing the inevitable. Dlabtot (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it may just turn out to be a way that POV pushers can learn to be more effective. The ArbCom hasn't elucidated anything which could really do anything about POV pushing. The fringe articles have been on restriction for a long time now. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Curious about some things: 1) What if the person doesn't get along with the mentor? Can he request a different one? 2) if so, is there a limit to the number of different mentors a restricted editor can have? 3) And what if the mentor decides the relationship isn't working and wants to bail; will ArbCom appoint someone else? TimidGuy (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The intent is that unless there currently is a mentor agreeable to both the editor and ArbCom, then the restriction becomes a simple topic ban. I suppose either the mentor can bail or the editor can boot them, but then the implicit topic ban kicks in until a new one is found. Finding a suitable mentor is, ultimately, the responsibility of the sanctioned editor but ArbCom will cooperate to help try find one. — Coren ^(talk) 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This won't work for SA; maybe for other editors. SA has repeatedly stated his intention to IAR and push the boundaries. He's also stated his disdain for civility itself, as well as arbitration. (All this is on evidence page.) What do you expect? Honestly, WP's refusal to do anything for real about SA is right up there with the Essjay fiasco.

This site really has jumped the shark. The difference between me and SA is that I'm not going to wreak havoc with the site because I'm dissatisfied, I'm just leaving. But I will say, Arbs are IMO self-deluding if they think anything less than a full site ban, along with a return to a civil environment AND expert oversight, will cure the problem. But that's not your department, is that it? Only Jimbo can change the rules? Then really, this whole thing is a sucker's gig. You should just abandon any pretense of academic substance and dedicate the site to trivia and entertainment (at which I must admit it excels). --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If this remedy is decided, a box should be inserted on top of the user Talk page. MaxPont (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy

This is really good. One thing I would ask of the Arbitrators: they have made it really clear that they believe that advocacy of fringe views has happened in the past. I would ask for a finding of fact that deriding of fringe views has also occurred. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if more evidence, or evidence against particular editors needs to be presented. If so, I'll work on that... but it will take a bit of time. As the case has evolved, it's looking to need more evidence that we've so far gathered, because the scope the ArbCom is willing to address is larger than I expected. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, from what you have just written, I'm wondering if it is now your intention to defend your long history of advocacy of fringe POV by attacking those who have resisted yours and other's advocacy of fringe POV? Is this a proper thing to do? It seems like you are dividing this issue into two parts: (1) the forbidden act of advocacy; (2) the act of opposing or ridiculing such advocacy. Then you seem to be intending to attack part 2 as a means of defending the commission of the forbidden advocacy named in part 1. This may seem like an assumption of bad faith, but the only reason I would ever think in such a manner is because of your track record here. How else are we to interpret your words, but by your writings and actions here? I AGF that you sincerely believe your POV are correct. You have written something to the effect that the NPOV policy needs to be changed in order to allow more inclusion of fringe POV. Those writings were forbidden here at Wikipedia, but are now housed elsewhere. Those are your sincere beliefs, but I also sincerely believe that those POV and attitudes towards NPOV as a faulty construct are inconsistent with an ability to edit constructively here. Why not just stop advocating for fringe POV? -- Fyslee (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are committing a logical fallacy, in fact the same one as above (I was taught it as assuming the antecedent which is a better description). Here is an article on it [8]. If I have committed the act of advocacy, as opposed the act of confronting debunkery, you have your chance in this ArbCom to present evidence against me. Please do so. I do not think the NPOV policy needs to be changed. If I said that, I was advocating it be changed to allow debunker POV, so that policy would be consistent with practice. I also tried to change policy to more obviously and consistently say that "Proper sourcing always depends on context". Since I am not a fringe advocate, but rather I have dedicated my time mainly to preventing the anti-Wikipedia activity of debunking, your questions don't have much meaning in reality. When one opposes debunking, one automatically gains the reputation of advocacy, but that is not the POV reflected in my edits. I have acted as an anti-debunker, not an advocate. This may particularly be seen in that I have no belief, but rather disbelieve, in most of the articles where I am labeled as being an advocate.

My greatest expertise, here, is in parapsychology, but I am not an advocate of it, and indeed I am not personally convinced by its data. However, you might think I was an advocate, as I would be interested in contributing information about its studies- if only the debunkers allowed me to contribute significantly at all.

Certainly, I do not hold the opinion that parapsychologists cannot be scientists: such is not an opinion supported even by the skeptical sources. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Our common aim should be to get the balance of sources right. Accusations of bias often fly thick and fast during editing of articles on controversial subjects.

A past arbitration case from November, 2007 found that, at that time, you had "engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([9]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([10], [11]), threatening disruption of the project ([12]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([13], [14])." In my opinion it would be reasonable, on that evidence, to characterize you as an advocate. --TS 11:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the above section, one aspect of this affair that strikes me is that it is quite similar to a couple of 2005 cases in which I was peripherally involved.

• Robert the Bruce
• Robert Blair

In the first case, the Committee dealt with an editor, Robert the Bruce, who had turned up to edit Wikipedia specifically to counter anti-circumcision advocates who had responded to an off-site "call to arms" issued by one User:Walabio. In the second, the conduct of a prominent anti-circumcision advocate (Robert Blair) was handled. Raul654 may remember both cases. We're still dealing with people (on all sides of all issues) who say they are here to counter the activities of abusers. Often it's difficult to tell who is in the rightand one has to look very carefully at an editor's conduct and statements and how they serve the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. --TS 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

for long-term, regular contributors (not spa's) it can be quite difficult to evaluate the advocacy portions of their contributions.--Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That ArbCom was pretty funny, because if they had noticed, the thing they were saying I soapboxed about was the very thing they had already accepted as true and foundational for the Paranormal ArbCom.

Compare: "I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study." [15]

To:

"In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way,"

Which is more "promotional" to parapsychology? Why, the text of the ArbCom. So while the ArbCom did find against me, and I did do a few disruptive things, I have real questions about what they were thinking. As to making provocative edits, you deal with people like ScienceApologist for a couple of years, and see if after a while when you get nothing but true hate you can act as well as I did. That's not an excuse; still, few could take it as well, I bet.

I change my position all the time, as Wikipedia changes. I refine things. I also change what I say relative to the listener [16]. It would not be appropriate to give the kid a Randi treatment, and I responded out of my general knowledge of parapsychology. To give him an answer about confirmation bias or something would not have helped.

So again, like I said above I have learned not to act in a disruptive, way, but that is a very sophisticated thing to do on Wikipedia, especially when everyone else on the page is a disruptor and had an advantage since their actions are immune from censure, but yours are not. If I emulated a tenth part of the tactics of ScienceApologist et al, okay that was bad, but it was the best I knew how to do at the time. If the admins at Wikipedia had been on the job and fair to us both, the situation would never have occurred. He would have been banned years ago, before I even came to WP, and I would have had my hand slapped and reformed my ways. Get your double standard gone. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What double standard do you mean? In the two ArbCom cases which centered on you and ScienceApologist (here and here), you two were treated to essentially parallel findings and remedies. Neither one of you has been blocked for any extended length of time, and you're both still doing your respective things. You two are actually much more alike then I think either of you would want to admit. Yes, from your perspective, you've been admirably forbearing in the face of abuse, and whatever disruption you've caused is minimal and in the service of a greater good. I can guarantee that ScienceApologist feels exactly the same way. Whatever; but I don't see a double standard here. Quite the opposite. MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good example. His behavior is about 50 times -without exaggeration- worse than mine. I mean, you could literally take each of his violations, and each of what my worst critic thinks are my violations, and put them side by side and you'd come up with something like this.

The double standard has been noted well by others. Here is just one quote [17]. It happens relative to POV as well.

Actually, the very worst thing that has happened to me at WP is having people think I am the opposite equivalent to SA. We don't use the same methods, and we don't have the opposite POV. His is against WP (I think it's Wikipedia's job to show people how kooky they are), mine -as an anti-debunker- is not. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I take that back: properly seen, we do have the opposite POV, debunker and anti-debunker. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, I think I agree with mastcell, I don't think there is much of a double standard regarding you v. SA. What has happened is that you have learned how to moderate your actions that seem to be disruptive to collegial editiing better than SA has. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about a Wikipedia wide, systemic bias, not mainly about me.

So, you dislike my anti-debunking stance, and don't see a difference between my behavior and SA's. My point. However, if you guys want to judge me, that's cheap, but why not do something about it, and get rid of an incredibly disruptive editor, who is indeed equal to SA in his destructiveness? Here's the challenge: I think there is plenty of evidence against SA- I assembled the Durga's Trident evidence [18], and have presented it at this ArbCom. So go present similar evidence for me, and you will, without doubt, get me banned. Indeed, if the Arbitration Committee sees a similar problem of disruptive editing, or that my purpose of anti-debunking is counter to the good of Wikipedia, I hereby ask them to create a finding of fact to that effect. If neither of these things happen, I hold you to be wrong. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I think at one point you were as disruptive as SA, but that you have learned how to work with everyone. SA has not learned that yet. I'm afraid he's still on the slow boat to site ban, whereas you certainly are not. Some users problems with you stem from their past interactions with you, and not recent activity (imo). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks, sorry I misunderstood ): ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem posed to us by Martin and ScienceApologist, both, is the same as that posed by Robert the Bruce. They are crusaders. To what extent does their crusade match the aims of Wikipedia? I hope the Committee will eventually find a way of saying to both that this kind of activity, overall, is not compatible with Wikipedia's aims. No matter how civilly one might be on the surface, campaigning against Wikipedia's purpose of providing the most neutral and complete encyclopedia is not permissible. This isn't the place to fight battles. --TS 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You can call me a crusader only in the sense that you could call the British crusaders in WWII. They were defending against a threat, and basically wanted to be left alone. In the same way, I would have written articles if I could, and since I can't I'm leaving after this ArbCom. The most obvious crusade here is against fringe ideas (or, from your perspective for science), and so you at least cannot say that crusading is necessarily negative. It depends on the method and the goal. When the ArbCom recognized that parapsychology could be science (and therefore was not to be treated as "obvious pseudoscience"), I got what I wanted. It turned out I wasn't asking for anything which NPOV could not grant. Since then, my only crusade has been against debunking, since I could not write articles without getting rid of the debunking first. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, when you wrote "... basically wanted to be left alone. In the same way, I would have written articles if I could, and since I can't I'm leaving after this ArbCom.", you triggered an old memory. We have had the same experience, but with a very different learning curve. When I first came here, I didn't understand how things worked, I was used to participating in discussion groups and making websites, and the description "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.", sounded like I had come to heaven. Wow, free webhosting! I didn't know about or understand the rules here, or about how collaborative editing works, or about consensus, and I was rudely (and appropriately!) notified that my first few edits and additions were against policy. What was my reaction? I tried to adapt and learn and immediately change my behavior by not doing those things I was informed weren't right. You still aren't willing to do that.

What counts here is not occasional mistakes, initial failure to understand often complicated policies and guidelines, or even occasional losses of temper that result in uncivil behavior to other editors. Even a rare block may not mean much in the long run. What counts is that we have a positive learning curve, and that we bow to the purpose of this place. It's not a place for us to write articles and be left alone, or to have them left alone to express our brilliant explanations of truth. No, we edit collaboratively and according to policies. We learn to write for the enemy, and even to support and aid the inclusion of things we find abhorrent and untrue. What counts is not if they are true, but if they are verifiably documented in V & RS. What counts is if they are what happens in the real world, and whether they are documented in V & RS. Our personal POV has to be laid aside when including stuff in articles. We follow the sources, including those we don't like.

Since you seem to be demanding "my way or (I'll take) the highway", IOW that if you can't write articles and expect them to be exempt from Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences, you will leave "after this ArbCom", that's too bad for you, but not a big minus for the project. Others will surely take your place and seek to push for the inclusion of fringe ideas as if they were mainstream ideas. We'll survive, and much easier at that. BUT, I will never forget you as an editor. You are an intelligent person who fights for his beliefs, and in the real world those are admirable qualities. Here they can interfere with editing articles according to policy, and you shouldn't attempt to manipulate and change good policies so it becomes a place where everything suits you. You know, a truly NPOV article (about a controversial subject) will usually have content that irritates editors of all persuasions. If it doesn't, something is likely very wrong. ;-) So good luck in real life. Just because we disagree here doesn't mean you aren't a good person. We would probably be able to have an enjoyable and stimulating time together in real life. (Two of my best friends in real life are chiropractors, even though I'm a chiroskeptic. Even I find that amazing!) I suggest you download the Wikimedia software and make your own wiki. It can be done. There you can write as you please. It's a free world, or so they say. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your unremitting personal attacks against Martinphi to be extremely distasteful. Dlabtot (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee does not appear to be making personal attacks. He is explaining his own personal perspective in editing problematic articles; his comments seem helpful. Mathsci (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, attributing views to someone that they have not stated, and then criticizing them for those views, not only constitute personal attacks, but weak and fallacious arguments. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Fyslee is trying to be nice, though it could be taken as condescending, and I'm sure we'd get along fine in real life. I agree with his take on proper conduct and editing, and how the content of NPOV articles will effect users. I simply disagree with his take on my conduct and his assumptions about what I think. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SPOV, Pseudoskepticism and exceptional claims

Science is indeed not a point of view. Scientists, when trying to practice science, can fall into 2 equally-dangerous traps : pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism. Pseudoscience has been widely discussed in previous ArbComm cases; pseudoskepticism may not have. Here is its definition : pseudoskeptics are those that "take the negative rather than an agnostic position". Science requires to take an agnostic view until data shows that a theory has been falsified. I contend that Wikipedia should take the same approach in science articles if it wants to keep its reputation.

This means that, unless proven otherwise, so called "fringe science" are simply minority views, not false views. A fringe theory becomes false only when proven so, ie. when another theory has been tested experimentally to be superior to the fringe theory. This has happen for N-ray. This has NOT happen for cold fusion : if there was a convincing non-nuclear theory to explain cold fusion, surely one third of the 2004 DOE panel of experts would not have found the evidence of nuclear reaction somewhat convincing.

I presume that reputable journals such as Science and Nature take the same scientific stance. That they don't publish articles on cold fusion only means that they remain agnostic about it, not that they are negative about it; to become sure that they are negative, we would need a negative statement from them, as the scientific method and WP:RS require. Where is the article that proposed a non-nuclear explanation of the effect that has been replicated so many times ? If someone came up with a definite non-nuclear explanation for the effect, don't you think that it would get published in those reputable journals ? The parity of sources works both ways : if critics can't publish in Nature, it means that they criticism is not up to the required level.

Science does not hold that "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence (otherwise they can be rejected off-hand)" : on the contrary, this is the perfect pseudoskeptical statement. "Exceptional" is a human construct, not a "physical reality" construct. The physical reality is what it is, and there is nothing intrinsically exceptional in what it does (or the whole reality is exceptional, depending on your belief system). Please provide a scientific, reliable source to support this exceptional statement that you make about the scientific method. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not an accurate presumption. There is such a thing as an "exceptional claim": conjecture that, if it were demonstrated correct, would contradict current understanding of the physical universe (as opposed to simply add to that understanding, mind you. Relativity didn't contradict mechanics, it refined it).

Agnosticism is only a valid scientific stance in the absence of contrary information; the default position on anything that would contradict thermodynamics, for instance, is that it is incorrect until proven otherwise— and no reputable journal will publish such claims unless some very compelling evidence is shown. — Coren ^(talk) 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems to me that relativity is not a good example here, as it does contradict Newtonian physics. It contradicts the Newtonian model of absolute space and time; kicks out the Newtonian "force at a distance" explanation of gravity; does away with the luminiferous aether, which was taken for granted by the scientific community throughout the nineteenth century. Until Eddington's Príncipe expedition provided hard evidence, both special and general relativity were seen as radical theories and attracted a good deal of scepticism (some of which was motivated by anti-German feelings in the English-speaking world caused by WW1). Gandalf61 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. It turns out that Newtonian mechanics is a pretty good approximation of general relativity at speeds substantially below C. In that sense, special relativity refines mechanics rather than invalidate it. I agree that the distinction is subtle, and that I could have picked a more black and white example, though.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Coren, you are a pseudoskeptics when you make these statemetns, giving you seem to give priority to theory over experiments. Again, this is a pathology of science, not true science. It would be a pity if Science and Nature magazines would think like you. Unless they made such statements, I like to think that they are true scientists, not pseudoskeptics. Please show me a source saying otherwise. Pcarbonn (talk)17:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, cold fusion is only "adding" data to the scientific body of experimental evidence. It also proposes a "new" way to achieve nuclear effects. It does not say that previous experimental data was wrong, nor that previous theory was wrong. It only says that it was incomplete, especially in terms of nuclear effects in condensed matter. This should not be a surprise. There are many other well-accepted experiments that current theory cannot explain (see this article in Phys Rev C, or Unsolved problems in physics). Pcarbonn (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On agnosticism and belief, it's perhaps appropriate at this point to wheel out Russell's teapot. Most people would probably agree that calling oneself a "Russell's teapot agnostic" would be absurd. Whilst there is no reason to believe that Russell's teapot does not or could not exist, the supposition that it does exist is absurd enough that the agnostic position on this proposition, although sound in most formal philosophical systems, is roundly rejected by most observers. Thus Russell effectively explodes Huxleyan agnosticism. --TS 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You must have misread the Russell's teapot article. It's about unfalsifiable statements from religion. There is no reason to believe that cold fusion falls into that category, as it is based on experiment, not beliefs. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood you when you said that pseudoskeptics are those that "take the negative rather than an agnostic position. Science requires to take an agnostic view until data shows that a theory has been falsified. Although there is some evidence to support cold fusion, it's weak evidence and a position of disbelief is perfectly compatible with the existing data. In particular, the experiments aren't conclusive. --TS 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me, and you still do. "Disbelief" = "mental rejection of something as untrue". This is not agnosticism. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. I reject the suggestion that agnosticism is a requirement. I cannot prove that there are no ghosts but I have no hesitation in stating, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that there are no ghosts. Fuck agnosticism. --TS 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike ghosts, there are enough evidence for cold fusion to make 1/3 of the 2004 DOE panel somewhat convinced of its nuclear effect. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pioneer anomaly is a good illustration of what agnosticism is. This anomaly suggests that our understanding of gravitation may be incorrect. Many would see this as an exceptional claim. Our article takes an agnostic view of it : it does not try to convey an opinion on what we should think. Why can't we do the same with cold fusion and other fringe science articles like homeopathy ? Could it be because there is so much interests at stakes ? Wikipedia should take the neutral view on such topics, as our policy requires. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Pcarbonn, I'm not sure that you know the exact origin of this sentence. See Marcello_Truzzi#Famous_quotes, it's the same person who created the term "pseudoskeptic", the one who said that, on the face of lack of negative evidence, a true skeptic should say "not proven" instead of "disproven". He recommends that extraordinary claims are graded [19] (on the last section) and I'm afraid that cold fusion falls under teh grade "suggestive, meaning interesting and worthy of attention but generally of low priority." The real problem, from your point of view, ought to be that most scientists will use instead the meaning given to it by Carl Sagan.

Also, if you want scientific sources holding that principle, then google scholar is your friend [20] and google books your second friend [21] --Enric Naval (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that we should say that cold fusion is "not proven". Unfortunately, many want our article to say that it is "proven false", and give too much wait to criticism while suppressing the favorable arguments, in violation of NPOV. See my evidence on SA. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the cold fusion article and see nowhere anything about it being proven false. I think that's a straw man. --TS 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the suppression of favorable arguments and the misrepresentation of the DOE panels by SA and others ? Pcarbonn (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific focus

Coren, could you explain what you mean by "best" scientific knowledge?

I also would hate to see articles which are only tangentially about science focus on science, when they should be more about culture etc. Take an article on angels, which of course pertain to natural science (as everything does). That is a subject which says it is outside scientific understanding. Do you really want to focus on science?

Do you really mean subjects which say they are outside science, but which mainstream science claims are part of mainstream science? If so, perhaps you are thinking of Creationism? Or what? "declare themselves outside... but are not generally accepted as such [outside]."

Really, I think you mean

"Focusing the coverage of articles whose topics are the natural sciences on the best available scientific knowledge is in line with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. This includes topics that are on the fringe of scientific understanding and are not generally accepted by the scientific community."

And I assume that Prominence defines "best" relative to sources. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's easier to clarify with an example. Many edge beliefs about various sorts of healing powers postulate that they cannot be examined by science; they nonetheless fall within the remit of medicine and biology. — Coren ^(talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I never heard of any, but okay. This looks much to me like a rule about the proper WEIGHT- focus on science, not culture. Yes, what you've done is to focus on science mainly. Like angel, would focus on science since the visions of angels relate to medical diagnosis. It has been argued that articles should focus on the entire impact, rather than do a focus specifically on science like that. If you had an article on prayer healing, you'd state that "there are no chemical mechanisms through which prayer can work at a distance," or some such, since it's within biology and medicine. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome - this article, though purportedly scientific, ends up by saying nothing. There is no scientific consensus in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on process

Say an editor is placed under supervision for a certain amount of time. They decide not to edit for that time. They then come back. Are they still under supervision, or did they avoid it entirely? ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 03:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They avoided it entirely, in a manner of speaking. The remedy is intended to prevent disruption; leaving entirely (albeit undesirable) does that. It's a self-imposed upgrade, I suppose. — Coren ^(talk) 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank, just wondering... It would allow him to skip the evaluation. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

For the record, I conceive mentorship as a different function from what Coren articulates. I'm a guide, not a cop. I will not fill the role described if the proposed decision passes. If someone else wishes to volunteer for the purpose Coren proposes then they are welcome to step forward. It might be helpful to come up with distinguishing terminology, though, to avoid confusion. With respect, Durova^Charge! 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a better term than "mentor" may be appropriate, albeit I'm not certain the parallels with "cop" are accurate or desirable. — Coren ^(talk) 05:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be best to continue to call all such roles "mentor", since there are many overlapping roles. Just because someone is willing to be a mentor but rejects one specific mentorship role doesn't necessarily mean a different word needs to be used. I appreciate the specificity of the description of the role. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the proposal's enforcement parameters as being compatible with mentorship, Coppertwig. It's not that I'm rejecting a mentorship role, so much as I think the additional functions would undermine mentorship itself. Call it what you will: supervisor or something else. Durova^Charge! 04:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm similarly puzzled here. You've described a parole officer. That's a sensible remedy and everything, but WP:SPADE. Cool Hand Luke 06:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguably, despite the best intentions and hard work of Durova, Jayvdb, and myself, our joint mentorship of Privatemusings has to be judged a failure, or at least it is by me at any rate. Part of the reason for that in my view (D and J may not agree, mind you, and I expect PM actually thinks it was a success from his perspective), was the lack of structure... when we found ourselves trying to get PM to do needful things and not do harmful things, we had no ground to stand on, lacking predefined principles and action boundaries, and no enforcement mechanism. This enforcement mechanism, call it what you will (Durova declines to call it mentorship, suggesting supervisor instead CHL says it is a parole officer role, I'd almost call it a nanny) does not suffer the same lack of structure. There may be other issues (I suspect it will not be a very pleasant process for either the mentor/supervisor/parole officer or the mentoree/supervisee/parolee at all. ) However I think it will be very interesting to see if it works. I applaud the ArbCom for coming up with this solution. It is likely to be so chafing, though, that I'd give 50-50 odds that the first parolee will decline to participate at all, electing instead to vanish for the duration (and thus probably keeping the CU's busy) ++Lar: t/c 06:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Very real possibility. I hope that the parties stay above ground for the duration of their restrictions. Whatever this arrangement is called, it'll be an interesting experiment. Cool Hand Luke 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I questioned that above, and Coren said that would be okey-dokey with him. However, there are certain admins who agree with SA but still have a good reputation, such as Shell Kinny, and I suspect one of them will take him on. Personally, I choose exile from the whole mess. I had what amounted to a similar setup with Vassyana, and the issues turned out to be too complex to agree on in terms of substance (he just didn't know the subject area sources well enough, we still disagree on this topic (; ). If the admin doesn't already agree and also understand the topic to begin with, the parolee won't be able to edit. That is to say, if the mentor has to agree on content. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova: I think your position is admirable and am not trying to persuade you; I'm just elaborating on my position. Parents somehow manage to fill both types of role; there is not necessarily always a clear distinction between the two, although trying to do both can introduce difficulties. Most of the description of supervised editing gives special powers to the whatchamacallems, but does not require them to use those powers nor specifically place responsibilities on them that would lead them to feel a need to use those powers. The process of choosing a whatchamacallem acceptable to the ArbCom might or might not implicitly or explicitly, or in effect, add such responsibilities. Therefore as far as that goes, it seems possible to me that one could follow some other role by just not using the special powers. The only part where the role is required to be something different is where people have to bring complaints to the whatchamacallem rather than to the supervised editor. That does change the roles, as well as perhaps adding to the whatchamacallem's workload and preventing the whatchamacallem from coaching the supervised editor on how to respond to complaints. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship works if the mentors aren't scared of their charge and the charge is reasonably cooperative. I was one of three mentors (the most active) for WhiteCat from the time when he was on the verge of being banned from Wikipedia up to the point, many months later, when he outgrew mentorship and became able to work reasonably cooperatively with others. I interpreted the mentorship generously and with originality, devising new solutions as the situation arose. Nobody told me I couldn't issue topic bans, so I just went ahead and did it.

As it turned out White Cat, having an unusual personality, had been targeted by bullies who all got their comeuppance in due course. Despite White Cat's unpopular political views, the community view eventually swung round to recognizing, as I had from the beginning, that he is a valuable editor with unique insights and enormous goodwill towards the project.

In my view a mentor should be vigilant and bold, like a referee or a neighborhood cop. The Committee should extend considerable latitude to his use of admin powers, and the community should be prepared to give it a go. The main purpose should be to ensure that all interactions between his charge and other Wikipedians are carried out with the interests of Wikipedia in mind. A mentor can issue topic bans and blocks if necessary, and it should not be forgotten that the voice of a mentor can be decisive in proposing a temporary sanction for others who have been involved in an unconstructive way. Mentorship implies a delegation of power and considerable trust from the arbitration committee, and if you use that immense power wisely anything is possible. A wise mentor with community confidence is the most powerful person on Wikipedia, in his field, next to Jimbo. He can solve problems even arbcom cannot. --TS 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... an interesting emphasis on power here. Somehow reminds me of the story of The Frogs Who Desired a King. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit of follow-up discussion here, but frankly nothing is vaguely persuasive. Some of you conceive of mentorship differently. By all means then, step forward. There's room for more than one. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help, Durova. But I'm probably seen as too sympathetic to SA's rationalistic viewpoint to act as a "parole officer", but I could certainly try to act as a resource for you, especially with trying to deal with the slippery arguments that abound in these topics when people differ in their interpretation of what "scientific consensus" is on a topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point on SPOV

Ok, as a biologist, I can only say, SPOV does exist. Very clearly even. Yes, science is a methodology and by itself it cannot have a POV. However, the methodology of science is based on a philosophical concept, namely methodological naturalism for the natural sciences and some other forms for social sciences etc. That is a POV, namely that you have to examine nature in a specific way. However, science is just one way to explain the world around us, others are religion and ideologies (like communism etc).

By addressing this case the way it is addressed, it is not going to be solved. It is just going to morph (like creationism), and the issues remains between editors who adhere to scientific naturalism versus religious people who adhere to a different philosophical approach. As long as you have enough people who share your POV, you can control the talk pages and avid consensus against your ideas. As long as you stay civil etc., you can prolong this discussion for years. I have experienced that with the natural selection article, that still has the wrong definition (evolution by means of natural selection is NOT natural selection), because a few people kept insisting on that faulty definition. What is needed is a way to break deadlocks, and we do not have anything to do that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is, fundamentally, a contents decision. ArbCom is not empowered to rule on issues regarding what, exactly, should go in the prose of an article beyond what is specified in the existing policies (on verifiability, sourcing, appropriate weight, and so on). What you are hoping for is a method to evaluate article correctness; something which is (by design) outside the remit of the Committee. At this point, I would recommend that the community sits down and find a way out of those recurring predicaments; but the Committee cannot to it in its stead. — Coren ^(talk) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the second point of my post. I agree, it will need the community at large to fix this, and that won't happen because there are way to many who benefit from the current situation where you can push your POV on articles by having enough people to block consensus building, whatever way you can go.

The more important point for me was the first, namely that the committee is going to miss the point on SPOV completely and make a bigger mess. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing about SPOV having no POV doesn't mean a thing: no one has anything against SPOV, only debunking, which is how I was using "SPOV" (I knew it wasn't correct, but used it because it's what they say of themselves, that they are defending science). The Arbitrators acknowledging that scientists, and thus their works, may have a POV is an important distinction to be placed in WP history. And you are right, in the absence of expert oversight, Wikipedia will remain a source only for a first take on things. It is too bad that such a take is usually the only or most important one. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this case would not have been needed if there was no objection against SPOV. It is what each and every pseudo-scientist tries to circumvent by claiming things as science that are not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You just said "Yes, science is a methodology and by itself it cannot have a POV" and that was what I was talking about when I said no one had objections to SPOV. Maybe someone has an objection to applying the methods of science, like those who say some things are sacred or taboo. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 07:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the method by itself has no POV. The choice to use a specific type of way to examine the world around us is POV, and in this case SPOV. You have also Religious point of view (RPOV) and Ideological Point Of View (IPOV). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't just one SPOV; there are multiple POVs each consistent with the scientific method but based on different values or on different a priori assumptions. There's the POV that we should act as if something is not true until it's scientifically proven up to a certain standard, and on the other hand there's the precautionary principle. Or, one person might accept a hypothesis based on some evidence, while another person would require much higher quality evidence because they consider, a priori, the hypothesis to be an exceptional claim. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, SPOV is based on what is actually known, and if there are conflicting ideas, they are both presented. As soon as one makes choices, it becomes POV based on a selection of scientific evidence, but it is not SPOV anymore. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Remedy 5

I'm minded to draft the following, as my reply:

I'd like something stronger here but I'm trying to think what. The community's patience has been very sorely tried in this area for a long time, and I feel we should respect that if possible. As the Findings of Fact make clear, a wide swathe of editors suffer due to the problems in the disputed area, are driven away, or worn down. This forms a further general issue in the disputed area, and "warned" is not (for me) quite sufficient to reflect the appropriate limits.

I would like a remedy that, if somehow possible, would mandate that any users (generally) wishing to edit the area should expect (and be expected) to take exceptional care with their editing and their compliance with norms, rather than just "normal (and at times substandard)" care. This area needs clear above average standards of collaboration and other matters; "routine" has evidently not proven sufficient. Possibly some editors would have to rapidly improve if that were the updated expectation. This would mean that the bar would be raised sufficiently to ensure an acceptable standard of behaviors at base, rather than wait until train wrecks to make any improvement.

Before I consider it further, I'd be interested in thoughts on this theme. It's not really a workshop idea yet as I don't have a formal specific proposal or even a single approach definitely in mind. But I do feel something more is needed.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Collegiality. It needs collegiality. Having thought of solutions for a couple of years now, I don't think there are any compatible with basic WP structure- that people would actually try. You could go to expert oversight. You could do article projects: Let two teams of editors, who share a vision, take a couple of weeks to make drafts. Then have several evaluators, each of whom is willing to say they are neutral toward the subject area and who are completely new to the debate, choose which gets put up as the real article. I think that would really motivate toward NPOV, and frustrate the hell out of POV pushers. The better article team could then accept suggestions from the losing team, or else the losing team could take a few more weeks and go through the process again relative to the real article. During the initial project, ban all debate parties from the main article, and put up a totally-disputed or custom made template. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a total case of WP:CREEP :D --Enric Naval (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, CREEPS are what we've already got :P ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice word game, I'll see that: what you propose is even more WP:CREEPy than the WP:CREEPs that we already have, even if you don't keep those CREEPS around :D --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Okay. So you propose something creative, that doesn't depend on jailing sending gangsters to training camp. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 21:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard that the Ludovico technique works quite well --Enric Naval (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not going to get improvement in both articles and behavior (together) if you don't bring outside, subject-neutral editors into the process, and protect them from the nastiness. You can improve behavior, by banning either everyone with the wrong POV or everyone disruptive. OR, you can improve the article content by allowing subject matter experts in- who are almost always POV. So you'll have all the information but a lot of bias. Only if the editors have to meet an outside standard for content (and don't have to interact directly with the opposite POV too much) will you get both full and NPOV content and good behavior. This is the only way I know to do that without putting experts in charge. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 07:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seldom edited articles in the disputed area, mainly because of the potential costs in time and effort of getting involved in a long and unproductive dispute with editors who are here only to advocate for a point of view. I am encouraged by this proposed decision, which seems to be gathering support within the committee. I will endeavor to devote more effort to the disputed area in a good faith effort to work with other editors to bring all articles up to the standards of the neutral point of view. I'm not a subject expert, but I'm a regular editor of some four years experience who feels enouraged by this proposed decision, having been frightened away from the area in the past.

It is easy to underestimate the powerful message that is sent to editors as well as to readers by the presence within Wikipedia of clearly biased content. It tells us that there are people who can get away with injecting extreme material into the encyclopedia, and a lack of will to deal with the problem and neutralize it. In this area in particular that's surprising, because it isn't nationalist politics or (for the most part) religion, so the feelings aren't that strong. The good news is that if just a few good editors are encouraged to work in these areas, the content will improve and the bias will be drowned out. Those who are here only to act as advocates will now, I hope, be aware that they are not welcome to do so in this encyclopedia. --TS 10:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Martinphi. I think that controlling disruptive behaviour will allow more editors to feel comfortable participating, which will in turn lead to improvements in content. Participation of more experts in an area would generally be helpful, I think; they would still need to discuss matters civilly with editors with a variety of POVs.

I suggest discretionary sanctions, as have been used in the past, with the scope and severity of such sanctions adjustable by administrators from time to time based on the degree of disruption at particular articles. It's important for such sanctions to be designed as much as possible to be POV-neutral and content-neutral, not giving admins special powers to decide content: for example, 0RR or 1RR imposed on all editors of a particular article tends to be pretty neutral. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They already have that and it doesn't work. And the discretion of admins, in my opinion, has been roundly condemned by the community, on both sides of the debate. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I just would like that admins would intervene before the situations become train wrecks. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds would they do that? ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what Jehochman and I have been suggesting: that behaviours be identified which, for example, if allowed to be repeated a large number of times, will cause serious disruption; and then action to be taken in the early stages, for example when the behaviour has been repeated a small number of times and may not actually be causing any disruption yet. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop#Disruptive editing and my suggestion at WT:Civil_POV_pushing. The authority for doing this comes from WP:DE and from any decisions of this ArbCom case that support such enforcement. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Encouraged, discouraged and dismayed

I am impressed and encouraged with many of the points being made in the proposed decision. They indicate a careful sifting through of the mountains of evidence /comments presented and clarify many critical issues - a huge task, and thank you for taking it on responsibly.

I am discouraged and dismayed by the suggested sanction to Martinphi. The diffs presented cannot be considered incriminating. For example: one diff is a year old. Two are three months old, taken out of context of a difficult discussion, are civil, and do not indicate any overarching POV any more than any other editor in most discussions and less than many. His sanctions are about editing. He hasn’t edited in several months. Why is he being sanctioned, and based on what if he hasn’t been editing? Martin was under a sanction, now expired. If there were debts to pay from the past they are paid.

I note that several of the points from the proposed decisions come out of Martin’s comments. Some of the language is strikingly familiar. How then can we turn around and say that same editor is not capable of editing policy pages. Multiple editors on this case have exhibited obvious POVs expressed in multiple ways. Not with standing the fact that in such discussions editors should be able to speak freely as long as they don’t hurt other editors, no editor should be singled out for a their perceived POV. As for talk pages - if sanctions were going to be laid on editors for opinions on talk pages, many Wikipedia editors would be considered incapable of editing neutrally.

There are many so-called fringe topics. Cold Fusion (and Pcarbonn) have been discussed very recently in a case of their own. Any further discussion or proposals here seems unnecessary and redundant and possibly a bit of an overkill.

Martin has no idea I am presenting this information and probably doesn’t care. Its not so much personal, but stems from a concern for the general Wikipedia environment. As a collective we are responsible for creating an environment that allowed Science Apologist to continue with behaviour that didn't work well with the community as a whole. Perhaps we should be asking why. With all respect, perhaps the same environment that couldn't help SA move into a more collegial editing manner is also responsible for condemning an editor where no clear present day evidence exists. Although Martin and I certainly don’t always agree, I do feel I want to comment on his behalf not only for his sake but also for editors facing the same kind of situation in the future. Thanks. (olive (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

I think it needs to be understood that, while Martinphi has significantly improved in his ability to stay within the confines of our behavioral policies and guidelines, many of the disputes in the area (and, indeed, some of the recent ones) revolve around attempts to reinterpret policy according to an agenda (and edit policy to match). This is a very bad thing; Wikipedia policy pages are not a proper field to make advocacy, and the repercussions and disruption by doing so are wide-ranging. This remedy does not hinder Martinphi's ability to participate in policy review, nor impact his ability to continue article work. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems involving policy pages may be considered more serious and therefore it may not be necessary for the evidence of problems to be quite as recent as with other behaviour problems. However, I didn't find in the Martinphi section of "findings of fact" on this page or by searching for Martinphi's username on the "evidence" page anything like a diff of Martinphi editing policy pages in a problematic way (or at all). ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look at the incident around [22], eventually cascading to [23]. They date a few months ago, but Martin's activity in the past three months has been pretty much restricted to arbitration. Part of the problem is that this particular incident caused a number of secondary disputes (some involving ScienceApologist) and a great deal of drama; this is the kind of spat this remedy seeks to prevent. — Coren ^(talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict...

Actually, you can't find a single diff where I changed policy in a way which made it easier for fringe advocacy. If you are listening to the emails sent to you by people such as Guy/JzG, they quite emphatically are not based on factual evidence (he lied about me, saying I attempted to rewrite NPOV to be more friendly to fringe stuff). Nor have I re-interpreted policy to fit an agenda: the agenda to not do stuff like the following is fully in accord with Wikipedia:

The film is controversial. It has been criticized as pseudoscientific docudrama,[5] a letter published in Physics Today notes that most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided.[6], and James Randi described it as a fantasy docudrama and [a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults.[7] Movie Gazette describes it as Creepy, distasteful cinematic propaganda, fronted and funded by a bunch of cults.[8] The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry dismisses it as a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense, where science [is] distorted and sensationalized.[9] A BBC reviewer described it as a documentary aimed at the totally gullible.[10] [24]

larding the lead with only negative quotes when the reactions encompass both positive and negative. That's not a re-interpretation. I do intend to leave Wikipedia, yet you are not doing anyone any good by making decisions which are opaque to understanding. I simply do not believe that I re-interpreted policy, nor that I attempted to rewrite it in a way more friendly to fringe. In fact, I did some rewriting which is less friendly to fringe. I also argued some points which would not allow such a loose usage of sources such as blogs. But that's not re-interpreting policy, it's making things coherent. ScienceApologist is the one who has re-written policy/guideline pages to favor lousy sourcing for debunking. I challenge anyone to come up with some actual diffs supporting the accusation that I rewrote policy to favor fringe. The only thing I can think of is that I argued that most of fringe articles should be about the fringe topic, rather than the mainstream reaction, although the mainstream reaction should be thoroughly explained. That's against debunker-POV, but it's not re-interpretation. If there are any diffs which look like that, you could allow me to explain them. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec; reply to Coren) Those aren't diffs of Martinphi editing policy pages in any way. If there is such evidence, you might want to find it and put it into the findings of fact section (if that's how this process works). I'm not committing a lot of time to investigating past situations; I'm just commenting on the lack of presented evidence. However, in many ways I'm very positively impressed with the various items you've added to this page. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe [25] is already in evidence, and I was under the impression that it was cited specifically in the FOF. I'll double check. — Coren ^(talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, [26] [27] [28] have all been disputed changes that let to escalating disputes. — Coren ^(talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The ban by Elonka, the other admins agreed, was unjustified. The other diff, it's in the middle of things but I'm basically taking the argument that science=majority and saying, well if that's always the case then parapsychology is majority. I don't believe that, but if your argument is right, then mine is right. What I believe is that we present all POVs per prominence. Don't take it as advocacy. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict To Coren:

I respect this point of course and your view on it. I would wonder how recent is recent if an editor hasn't edited in a couple of months.

My experience is that editors on both side of this dispute edit with an agenda whether they perceive it or not. Can we call that agenda an inherent POV, and note that no editor edits article and policy with out coming into the discussion/editing ring without those POVs. This decision singles out one editor based on the past. Below is another perspective:

There is no science on Wikipedia, there are articles, and articles only. Then and only after the subject matter of that article has been considered can an editor consider whether there is science related material that should be included in that article. Science is verb driven, a process, a methodology. Believing science to be noun driven, a thing, becomes ideology. My experience in watching Martin is not that he pushes a POV that is fringe topic driven . As a matter of fact I find he is highly skeptical of many of the fringe topics. He is driven to exclude science driven agenda when and if it supercedes information necessary for the article. Science driven editors describe such editing as editing for the fringe, rather than editing for a fringe topic article, a subtle distinction. I have been accused of being a fringe supporter when in fact although an artist and trained in the humanities, I also worked for a short time for one of the top corn botanists in the world , and have a great interest in physics. Labeling an editor is easier though, than treating each editor as an individual. My point is that these categorizations and perhaps the decisions based on them are often wildly inaccurate and unfair, and gross generalizations. Martin I think has been caught in this environment and judged unfairly. Its not what he can still do that is a concern its whether this is fair or not. I think you've made some excellent proposals on this case, though, so I'll sign off with that in mind. Just my opinions, and thanks again for engaging in this discussion.(olive

(talk) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Adendum on SPOV

There is much discussion on Wikipedia as to what science is and concerning SPOV. A comment:

Martin edits for the article. Others may edit with the view that there is a SPOV, and edit for science or rather the idea of science. Martin is not editing for fringe but rather against the SPOV edits. SPOV has become larger- more and more inclusive. If it actually exists as specifically definable which I would say it doesn't,(its a kind of sophisticated "weasel"), then attempting to edit from SPOV is a violation of NPOV. SPOV editing requires a view, a slant and a choice to edit from the "science" point rather than the neutral. Again and again, NPOV is the mother policy. Any view that undermines that or attempts to supersede that will mean big time trouble for Wikipedia because it cannot by definition be non-neutral.(olive (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

This and this was restoring some longstanding content which had been changed. IOW, I was on the side of the policy as it stood. I believe any changes I restored were not my changes, only ones I did not disagree with (and so would have been disruptive to revert out). this was part of SA + pals drive to use such sources as scientist's blogs to make absolute assertions of fact or scientific consensus. You are looking, I believe, at an attempt to maintain the status quo. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The policies -NOR especially- was being heavily disrupted to allow more OR in the Chiropractic article. IOW, they were trying to change the policy to get their way in an ongoing debate- at least they were using it that way. Please talk to Vassyana about the subject, as he and I were essentially attempting to the exactly the same thing. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, my position on policy has been to be a stick-in-the-mud along with a bunch of other editors like Blueboar and Vassyana, and say there is no change whatsoever necessary. And, to resist rewriting of policy, such as that done by ScienceApologist on the Fringe guideline. In a few cases, I attempted to clarify, but not change, existing policy. That's the full extent of it, as anyone will see who really goes through the discussions. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Coren, other Arbitrators, this is a table of changes I made to NPOV. It represents the main actual changes I ever tried to make to policy, and the ones I was very hotly attacked over. Especially the last section of the table represents an addition which is less favorable to fringe views. And, you just wrote the same thing in this ArbCom! [29] It's like, my policy positions and clarifications are right here in this ArbCom, yet I was wrong in my editing of policy? Absolutely weird. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Coren, you mention a diff which is an edit to Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The Martinphi section of the "Proposed findings of fact" on this page contains Item 11, with five diffs, and item 12, with no diffs. The five diffs in item 11 are edits to pages "Talk:What the Bleep do We Know!?" , "Talk:Psychic" (two diffs), "Paranormal primer", and "Pseudoscience". None of these are policy or guideline pages and they don't include the diff you cited on this talk page. Also, the wordings of those findings of fact say nothing about Martinphi's editing of policy or guideline pages. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

During the course of the case I had become increasingly concerned about Martinphi's seeming ease in interpreting policy and arbitration rulings in an idiosyncratic and self-serving way, no matter what the clear intent of a policy or ruling. I had considered adding this to my evidence, but on reflection decided that the Committee was unlikely to want to address this if Martinphi was, as he claimed, retired. It has come to my attention more recently that Martinphi has edited an article since this case began, and in the light of his extensive involvement on this case I question whether he can be considered to have truly retired, even on the most charitable view.

I welcome the proposed restriction. It is clearly Martinphi's intention to further an ideological crusade against the scientific consensus, and he frequently misreads Wikipedia's policies in order to justify his notion that an adversarial presentation is suitable for topics in fringe science such as cold fusion. His intention seems to be to water down our science coverage to the extent that the articles tip towards promoting fringe topics in science, at the expense of presenting the topics in a context that conveys to the reader why those topics are presently regarded as dubious.

In particular Martinphi's campaign against WP:PARITY, while not in itself problematic, seems to reveal an underlying commitment to an ideological crusade with the effect, if not the actual intention, of making it difficult to present reasoned opposition to ideas that are not generally accepted but are not extensively investigated by scientists, in the articles about those ideas themselves. It seems to be part and parcel of what Martinphi himself has termed a fight against the legitimacy of reliable sources whom he sees as debunkers. The scientific method is a tool for exposing poor thinking. Where fringe ideas are debunked using the methods of science, which are testable and reproducible, that is a point which should commend the source to us, not point towards rejection. They are biased sources, but they may be reliable. --TS 10:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"seeming ease in interpreting policy and arbitration rulings in an idiosyncratic and self-serving way,"

"It is clearly Martinphi's intention to further an ideological crusade against the scientific consensus, and he frequently misreads Wikipedia's policies in order to justify his notion"

"...seems to reveal an underlying commitment to an ideological crusade"

The above are personal attacks/comments based on opinion.'Nuff said.(olive (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

Well obviously they're statements based on opinion, which is in turn based on observation. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution, and in dispute resolution we discuss whether conduct meets community norms and policies. A proposal has been made to restrict an editor's editing, and I'm expressing my support for that restriction because of those personal observations. To characterize them as merely personal attacks is incorrect. --TS 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally such statements should be supported by diffs indicating where the problems are and moving the comments away from opinion and into the realm of evidence. Opinions, like noses we all have them, are no reason to restrict any editor from anything. Imagine the chaos if we all were restricted because of what someone else thought. Further no incivility is acceptable under our policy for any reason, protecting the editors and the editing environment.(olive (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

Stop wikilawyering. --TS 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what TS.... I am fed up with editors who think its fine to attack other editors and other people. You admit to a personal attack, so back off ... and when someone else comes in and indicates the problem assuming you might have missed it somehow ... well name calling just doesn't help anything for anyone. The Arbs need to be patrolling these pages. Be glad it was another editor who asked for civility and not an Arb (olive (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

You state falsely that I have made a personal attack and admitted to making a personal attack. I have done neither. Stop this pointless attempt to goad me. --TS 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I interpreted this, "To characterize them as merely personal attacks is incorrect" as a recognition of a personal attack. I have no intention to goad anyone nor the time, nor could I be bothered to, and apologize if my comments were taken that way. I am fed up with the personal attacks that I have been seeing and dealing with and that was and is my concern.(olive (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

If my interpretation of policy is idiosyncratic, well, it's too bad because this ArbCom reflects my interpretation. IPOF, my interpretation is mainstream Wikipeida, and therefore opposed to debunker-interpretations of policy. TS does seem to be on the attack. The ArbCom has no evidence to go on in its assertions that I tried to make policy more congenial to fringe, though if it were inclined it could get evidence to the contrary. PARITY is simply against RS: it allows using bad fringe and bad anti-fringe or mainstream sourcing.

Of course, the ArbCom is allowing Original Research in this decision, and that will come back at them for clarification, and they will have to either repudiate it or give some hocus-pocus redefinition of it. Because at this point they are creating policy. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When you're now willing to accept all principles that eventually pass I'll be happy. Your statements here are confusing. On one hand you say I'm "on the attack" because I say your interpretation of policy is idiosyncratic, on the other hand you're saying you have a mainstream view which conforms with that of arbcom, whilst simultaneously saying arbcom is going against policy. Can you not see that you have here demonstrated that your thinking on policy is, in fact, idiosyncratic? --TS 12:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On remedy 7 and stoking fires

ArbComm suggests that I should stop "needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science". Looking at recent history on wikipedia, here is what I should do instead : I should ignore this recommendation and continue editing cold fusion despite my being banned there; I should get banned further; I should edit war the WP:Fringe guideline to fight pseudoskepticism on wikipedia, get banned again; I should rally an army of the night against pseudoskepticism; I should seek the identity of my opponents and get them banned; I should jokingly issue death threats against them, ... The more outrageous I'll be, the more succesfull. At the end, ArbComm will get the message, and I'll get away with "supervised editing". This is what I should do, and I may even have fun doing it. But I won't, as I have other interests in life. Pcarbonn (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh, looks like we've got a scientific thinker on our hands.

"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." [30]. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, notorious for his gullibility over the claims of psychics and fairy photographers, probably isn't the best source to quote on this matter. --TS 16:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh ...lighten up TS. There are bigger issues at stake.:O)(olive (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

LOL! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, TS, Sherlock Holmes was a complete skeptic of the paranormal/supernatural. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes never existed. Conan Doyle lied to you. --TS 11:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiny example

You want a tiny example of debunking? [31]. Note that the revert is per WP:UNDUE. This is the general policy position of what I call debunking. Just state it as fact because it's true. But it creeps right back in [32], and even when it's a BLP violation, it's edit warred in again [33]. This is what the Paranormal ArbCom dealt with. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that every single medium, spiritualist and mentalist is, in fact, legit? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? This is why I'd fine it hard to respond to your evidence section: the statements you make don't match up with the data. They aren't even wrong, but more like trying to fit the color blue into a square hole. Just not in the same field of concepts. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold reading is a technique taught in mentalism, a form of illusionism that has long been part of the repertoire of stage magicians. The technique is also used by people who falsely claim to be doing it the hard way. There is no known case of somebody successfully and reproducibly performing the same feats the hard way (by actually reading minds), and nobody has credibly made such a claim. We should not give the false impression that the known facts are other than the facts we do in fact know. --TS 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It says it's a technique used by fortune tellers etc.; it doesn't even say that all fortune tellers etc. use the technique, so I don't see how the statement could be considered problematic.

By the way, if a Wikipedia article states that an individual such as Edgar Cayce or Marie Anne Lenormand "was a ... psychic" or "was a ... fortune-teller", is it asserting that the person actually had extrasensory powers? It could be interpreted as such by some people, I suppose. The first Wiktionary definition of "psychic" begins "A person who possesses, or appears to possess, extra-sensory abilities ...", and the definition of "fortuneteller" is "A person who professes to predict the future in return for money", so if people are assuming those definition then saying someone "is a psychic" leaves the possibility of pretense open, so that's good enough I guess. It might help to wikilink to the Wiktionary definitions when making such statements. In my intuitive understanding of the words without consulting a dictionary, "fortune-teller" tends to imply an assumption of pretense, while "psychic" tends to imply actual special abilities. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See the Paranormal arbitration, particular the principle on "Adequate framing" and the finding on "Cultural artifacts". --TS 15:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Suppose we had an article on tin openers, and we defined a tin opener as a device used to open a tin can. Now if somebody comes along and claims by psychokinetic powers to be able to get the contents out of a tin can without such gross mechanical means, do we now change the article to say it's a device by which normal, ungifted people open tin cans, or a device that skeptics claim is used to open tin cans? Of course not. Just because somebody makes an extraordinary claim does not mean we need to change the way we write about what is known. If they want to be taken seriously, the burden of proof is on them to produce reliable source that says what they claim to be possible. --TS 15:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim that this is a BLP violation is simply ridiculous; the fact that there are mentalists who use cold reading is clear. The notion that such a statement would be a BLP violation makes no more sense than claiming the statement "Some Catholic priests have molested altar boys" would be a BLP violation. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people here don't seem to have read all the diffs. Specific people were claimed to be using those techniques, which is calling them frauds without a source. TS should tell that to Ray Hyman, if he's refuted the Ganzfeld results- he's obviously done some studies which refute them, and therefore should publish. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ure. If you read the articles about every single one of those people their use of cold reading is already dicussed in their articles and well-sourced. It is book keeping more than anything else to move those sources into this article. It doesn't help matters that the first dif you complain about this one which doesn't involve anything other than you not liking the facts in question. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi, the ganzfeld results, at best, suggest a weak effect. To compare this to mind-reading, of the kind routinely faked on-stage by mentalists with no special powers at all, would be a gross exaggeration. --TS 00:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly see your point- Ganzfeld are weak. To focus better then, I do not think that you can make the claim you did without taking into consideration the early results up to about 1925, which refute your claim. Nor the ongoing studies by Schwartz and Beischel, for example. To say "There is no known case of somebody successfully and reproducibly performing the same feats the hard way" is a contested matter of opinion. I do not take a stand here, I just note that you are asserting your own opinion, contradicted by certain old and new studies. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I use the term "known" in the conventional sense. Something that is contested by most well informed observers is not known. --TS 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Block enforcement

While it has been traditional to do so, I strongly recommend that specified block periods be left out. There should be no way it takes five consecutive blocks to reach a one month maximum. Simply mention that repeat offenses will lead to blocks of increasing length, if length need be mentioned at all. Leave the rest up to the acting administrator. There's no reason the blocks should be subject to limiting conventions that will be used to lawyer out of legitimately longer blocks and prevent administrators from imposing longer blocks in circumstances that would normally warrant such action. Of course, that's just my perception of the matter and you're welcome to some grains of salt. Vassyana (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this - it seems odd to devolve to administrative discretion regarding whether a violation has occurred, but then strictly prescribe limits on the length of the resulting blocks. In addition, given the lengthy histories of involved parties here, I don't know that these length restrictions match up with standard or best practices. Why not just leave block length to administrative discretion, since the remedy already relies heavily upon such discretion? MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fringe science vs. pseudoscience

I'm concerned that finding 3.2.1 defines "fringe science" to mean effectively pseudoscience. There is a distinction between ideas that the overwhelming majority of mainstream scientists agree are nonsense (e.g. astrology, the archetypical pseudoscience), and ideas that the majority of mainstream scientists consider wrong, while still accepting their advocates as members of the scientific community (e.g. cold fusion). It's the latter subjects that I understand by the term "fringe science". Of course there is a grey area in between (e.g. homeopathy seems to be treated a bit more politely in France than in the UK); it seems a natural extension of WP:AGF to prefer "fringe" to "pseudo" when in doubt.

Eliding this distinction is a bad idea:

• Advocates of dubious theory foo can argue that it is not fringe since the subject is not generally regarded as quackery, just wrong (giving too much weight to probably defective experiments etc).
• If SA and friends insist on labelling foo as fringe science, orthodox scientists like me may be forced to come to its defence if we do not regard all of its advocates as quacks, even if we don't actually believe it.
• In most cases this is not really the issue; as always the question is how much weight they deserve in a given article. Sometimes culturally-significant nonsense (astrology) deserves more weight than little-known scientific-but-doubtful ideas.

PaddyLeahy (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The bounds of what constitute fringe science can be quite hard to define. To use one example I've heard someone label species selection as fringe. If the ArbCom is going to use the term fringe science to mean what they have it labeled as in this particular case they should make it clear that they are using a term-of-art defined for purposes of this ruling that does not have any broader implications or meaning in regard to how the term fringe science is usually used. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the purpose of Finding of Fact 1; to expressly define "Fringe" for the purposes of this ruling (and, indeed, the wording states explicitly that this is the case). The fact is, there are various levels of marginality from the generally agreed; from sound conjectures like supersymmetry which are viewed as promising at one end to Time Cube at the other end. This ruling carefully avoids trying to rank them, but sets out the principles by which their relative prominences can be gauged. So yes, in that case, we are simply putting for an operational definition for our purposes and not trying to make a substantive change. — Coren ^(talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But if we take your definition literally, you are ruling out a lot of the examples discussed in the evidence, since for instance cold fusion, acupuncture, SIDS, and various ill-advised plasma-physics theories are all studied by bona fide scientists, some of whom advocate theories which are fringe in my definition but cannot be by yours, since these people are considered to be doing science (badly, in the majority view). PaddyLeahy (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be misunderstanding the intent, then. (Or I have expressed it badly). Those theories would have their prominence evaluated against the general scientific understanding too, which would prevent our articles from expressing them otherwise than as minority views. — Coren ^(talk) 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I do think you have expressed it badly. The items I mentioned are not included in your definition as "matters which purport to be science...but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community." Science is by its nature a continuous debate and you can't have a debate if you won't talk to people you disagree with; hence "wrong" and "not science" are very far from synonymous. Maybe for you science = "established scientific knowledge" whereas I mean "the process of doing science"; on the other hand many mainstream theories are not really established (I speak as a cosmologist). Why not simply define Fringe science as theories which currently have a low level of support in the scientific community? The whole question of whether it is "science" or not is really a red herring. PaddyLeahy (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys must know something I don't- haven't seen any time when a fringe subject tried to make itself seem mainstream, or refused to have its level of acceptance defined relative to mainstream. But whatever. Coren, saying "evaluate" instead of "describe" disturbs me in general, it sounds like SYNTH and OR.

"If SA and friends insist on labelling foo as fringe science, orthodox scientists like me may be forced to come to its defence if we do not regard all of its advocates as quacks, even if we don't actually believe it." How sad :D ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wording is too open for interpretation

I just stumbled across this action. Three observations:

Considering Prominence: "...fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" [34] "significant" and "reliable source" are the kind of phrases that have been at the root of edit warring all along. This wording simply gives the dominant group of editors the "authority" to disallow virtually all frontier science literature, no matter how well considered it is.

I the same way, References beyond prominence: "References from poor quality or less reliable sources..." have been used to buttress the fringe science point of view. In addition, there is a repeated pattern of using citations from marginal sources in a quantity and manner disproportionate to the relative prominence of that view." [35] makes it a judgement call as to what is of sufficient quality. That judgment almost always goes in favor of the skeptics without anything to do with informing the public about the subject.

The fact is that Wikipedia is supposed to answer "What is" the subject, not what some skeptical editor wants it to be. It is impossible to correctly describe what some things are without use of literature that is easily excluded with this kind of direction.

I might add that you are effectively eliminated the last proponent for fair treatment of frontier subjects if you actually Restrict Martinphi.[36] Tom Butler (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you by any chance defining the word "skeptics" here to mean "people with high standards of sourcing?" --TS 00:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not true. The ArbCom also defined reliable sources for fringe science articles, which is definitely something which serves NPOV well. With RS better defined for fringe science articles, the debunkers will have a much harder time. "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." Isn't that what we've been saying all along? Let's not use these sources like blogs and personal rants or personal websites. Let's stick to RS. That is exactly what the debunkers have been militating most strongly against. They want to use bad sources.

"References from poor quality or less reliable sources have been used to buttress the fringe science point of view. In addition, there is a repeated pattern of using citations from marginal sources in a quantity and manner disproportionate to the relative prominence of that view."

This is certainly true of proponent sources as well as opponent sources. With both sides restricted to RS, NPOV can be maintained. Not otherwise. Remember, RS are relative to the topic, so if you need a debunker POV, you can still use Skeptic's Dictionary, and if you need the proponent POV, you can still use a book by a proponent. You just attribute, and if it is a science article you stick to the peer-reviewed literature.

You are right that per WP:GANG the article goes to the army with the greatest numbers. But this makes it much harder for them.

Certainly, evoip might go more toward discussion of Baruss's conclusions, but that is not really such a bad thing for the article. If one wishes to change that "inconclusive" verdict, more publication is necessary. With most fringe ideas, sticking to the reliable sources will give them decent coverage, whereas over-weighting the fringe component of skeptics like Randi just makes the articles into debunkery. Remember, this adds to the Paranormal ArbCom, it doesn't remove it from consideration. In the paranormal ArbCom it makes clear that there are several levels which might need to be considered per the sources, not just one [37] "A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." Yes, and we cover all of that, and we don't weight something which is not a RS above an RS source, as the debunkers would have it. This is generally an NPOV decision.

There is one wrong part of it, and that is they are allowing Original research to refute fringe claims[38]. They may not mean to. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I do hope the arbitrators have read your above declaration of intent to continue warring against those who you have decided are "debunkers", and will tighten their wording to ensure that you understand that such warfare is impermissible. --TS 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TS are you just tryimg to start a fight?

MartinPhi, how did you do evoip? Very cool!

I remember the arguments that were made against the Journal for the Society of Psychical Research, one of the "mainstream" journals of the paranormal field. [39] After it was excluded, they went after the author of article in the Journal. I know the previous arbcom was supposed to help there, but I continue to see such journals be rejected as fringe. This ruling seems to cast that in stone. Tom Butler (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

evoip? Good grief I used to get noises like this from the radio when I used to go down to the seaside. White noise + loudspeaker cone + gray matter = voices. It's really scraping the barrel to call that paranormal. --TS 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Tony, I've called you guys debunkers so you get to pronounce calumny against me some, but I do hope that the Arbs will read what I said and not just your reaction. They are no more for debunking that I am. They do not want Wikipedia to be a soap box for deriding and refuting fringe claims based on OR, SYNTH and inappropriate WEIGHTing of sources and use of non-RS. They have said this. TS, you've said outright that we do debunk fringe claims. That's where you're coming from. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've remarked several times now: a properly written, neutral point of view article about a fringe topic in science will necessarily inform the reader fully about why it is a fringe topic. Presenting such information in a neutral manner will tend to debunk the topic. In that sense and that sense alone, I am in favor of debunking on Wikipedia. In that sense and that sense alone, we are all debunkers. --TS 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In that sense, I agree with you. As long as there is no OR or SYNTH. Yet, in spite of the fact we agree on this, you keep acting like I'm an advocate. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true for the vast majority of ideas but not all of them. For example look at Electronic Voice Phenomena where part of the issue was for a long time that so few science sources bothered to even begin to consider it enough for a sourced debunking to exist. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've already remarked, the notion is ridiculous on its face. I'm sure there are plenty of reliable skeptical sources who have had a bit of fun with evoip. --TS 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There are now a few. But there are surprisingly few. And this is just one example of this issue; things that are as you put it "ridiculous on its face" don't get much attention from scientists. Extreme fringe ideas only get much attention after they become popular and if they have some very minimal plausibility. Thus, more popular fringe ideas will have much more systematic debunking. So for example, Cold Fusion which by most standards is not nearly as ridiculous as EVP has far more critical sources. This can lead to complicated issues about NPOV and undue weight. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What you need is proper framing. I don't start an article about Alice in Wonderland by saying it's a biographical account of a little girl's adventures down a rabbit hole. I make sure I start an article about some bit of fringe nonsense that would give the most po-faced grant committee a fit of the giggles by framing, as tactfully as possible, the fact that it's just some bit of nonsense that has attracted some self-styled paranormalists and that nobody has attempted any scientific research. Or if it's been taken seriously by parapsychologists, say that and, in as few words as possible, make sure that the status of the field of parapsychology is well understood before proceeding. --TS 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I have said, there is no reason not to use debunking sources. There never were too few sources for debunking on that article. The attempt to exclude sources was all on the debunker side. Also, they tried to act like Randi necessarily speaks for the opinion of all scientists- scientists who don't even know what evoip is. If we'd been simply allowed to say "Randi and Carroll say this, Baruss says this, the advocates say this, the history is this, and science in general doesn't even know the thing exists, that would have been fine. Instead, people wanted to do OR to debunk. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What other sources exist? Paranormalists? --TS 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an article that explains a subject in a way that leaves the reader with an understanding of the subject may "debunk" unsupported claims of people who advocate one position or another concerning the subject. However, that is not the role of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is to tell the reader what the subject is, and if there are contradicting arguments about what that is, then they should be represented.

Lets take the article on Orb (photographic). There is a whole lot more to orbs than is in the article. It is currently almost entirely a mainstream explanation of orbs, and looking at the older versions (say, February, 2008), I see that there used to be a lot more about the subject representing different viewpoints. The question is, "What are orbs?" The article does not answer the question except from the mainstream viewpoint. All other viewpoints have ben removed, including references to literature on the subject.

As I see it, this arbcom will only further solidify the ability of skeptics to use Wikipedia that sort of censorship. Tom Butler (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit rusty on it. There are plenty of fringe, news sources, and books by credentialed proponents, registered organizations of proponents etc. No lack of sources. It was purely a matter of presentation, and attempts to make statements which were either not in accord with sources. There was also no end of shit over getting a one sentence definition which was NPOV. It's nearly impossible. And they wouldn't let it be a two sentence definition, which would have presented both sides of it "EVP are controversial phenomena, said by paranormal researchers to be the voices of spirits, and by critics to be pareidolia. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm utterly flabbergasted that a mere photographic artifact has attracted people who think they need a paranormal explanation. I shouldn't be shocked, at my age, but I am. Since the only source for this is somebody on some website or other saying what nonsense it is, I suggest that the best thing to do would be to delete the paranormal reference, which only makes us look even sillier than the person who went to the trouble of saying how silly it was on another website. --TS 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Orb article is okay, Tom, because it is a mainstream article, and ITC is probably not notable in that context. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 02:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TS, okay, so that is two times you have discounted a subject in sarcastic terms and without even having a clue about the nature of the subject. That is simply prejudice. How do you know research will not eventually show that there is a previously undocumented near-infra red atmospheric artifact just being made visible by the new generation of CCD arrays? You do not because the research has not been done. If you say that it is not so, you must be doing so from the perspective of assumption. That is the danger of excluding non-mainstream thought. Or, ... are you psychic? :-) Tom Butler (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"near-infra red atmospheric artifact" is not the same as weird paranormal thing that people are claiming are ghosts. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this "previously undocumented near-infra red atmospheric artifact" have to do with orbs or evoip? This looks like a non sequitur. --TS 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Tom is suggesting this as an explanation of what orbs are. He may be trying to imply that such artifacts in the near-infra are being generated by spirits. I can't tell. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered similar thinking in the ropier Usenet newsgroups, but I never thought I'd see it in Wikipedia. --TS 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical note

Remedy #1 seems to be more like a principle (or something that should be merged with #3). Stifle (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be compared to enabling legislation. The Committee is deciding whether it has powers to perform certain acts that limit the way in which an editor can participate. The acts are quite complex and their rationale needs to be explained. If successful, the remedy will be refined and re-used repeatedly. --TS 13:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting procedural question which which I have struggled while crafting the proposed decision; in effect, this defines a new kind of remedy which may then be applied; I felt it important that it be defined independently of who (if anyone) it might apply to in the final decision. Indeed, if the remedy proves to be effective in practice having its definition ready for reuse would be an important detail. As to whether it should have been in one section or the other... I don't think that's a substantial question; it has the same value wherever it lies and I chose "Remedies" because, well, it defines a remedy.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes new principles have acted to enable remedies. I don't think it matters much but Fred Bauder is one former arbitrator whose view you might want to seek out on this. He is one of those whose decisions contributed most to the formal shape of our current arbitration procedures. I'm sure all the longer tenured arbitrators and Super Best Friends former arbitrators would have their own opinions, too.--TS 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting ban discussion of MartinPhi

Martinphi has been indef blocked. There's an ongoing discussion at AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Its so hard to find it in ANI arhcives[40] MaxPont (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Finding of facts : fringe science

In its finding of facts, ArbComm proposes that "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."

I'd like to inform ArbComm that there are plenty of evidence that the study of cold fusion is usually regarded as "science" by the scientific community : it is discussed at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society and the American Chemical Society (see sources in our article); papers are published in reputable scientific journals [41]; the DOE identified some topics of scientific research to help resolve the [scientific] controversy. The theory that the effect has a nuclear origin can be falsified, and falls thus within the confine of science. Some science magazine like to propagate the gossip that most scientists view it with skepticism, and there are probably some pathological scientists studying cold fusion, but it is still a valid scientific subject studied by reputable scientists.

Although it's not my field of expertise, I would think that whether homeopathy is as effective as a placebo, or more, is also a scientific question, and has been the subject of many publications. I would invite the arbitrators to read our articles to see the difference between fringe science and pseudoscience. I would encourage ArbComm to use the definition of fringe science given in its article. I don't see why it would need to use another one. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the definition currently presented under Proposed finding of facts is rather narrow, excluding much of what our Fringe science article gives as definition:

scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline.

Inasmuch as the proposed remedies refer directly or indirectly to "fringe science", in the process of enforcement you probably don't want to get drawn into arguments whether the topic of a contentious article is a matter that only purports to be science, or actually is science that happens to be marginalized by the mainstream.  --Lambiam 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Beware. This finding of fact is a content decision. If confirmed, it would be a bad decision as explained in this thread, and the Achilles' heel of this ruling. Since this case started with evidence on the cold fusion dispute, you unambiguously imply that cold fusion "purports to be science", i.e. is pseudoscience according to its definition. Nobody in this case has argued for that position. This decision is contrary to the consensus reached by the community of editors in a recent RfC.[42] Wouldn't it be ironic that ArbComm would espouse a minority point of view on this subject ? Pcarbonn (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think the term "fringe science" is characterized too narrowly in proposed finding 1 to support proposed findings such as 13, which apparently refers to wikilawyering and advocacy over cold fusion. Whilst cold fusion is definitely on the fringe, it is fringe science because the scientific community by and large disagrees with the optimistic interpretation put on the experimental results by cold fusion advocates. It does not in my opinion fit the definition "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." That seems to be more a definition of pseudoscience or quackery, though there is a lot of overlap.

I suggest that the Committee consider a more expansive definition. See our fringe science article, for instance. "scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline." Fits to a t! It would also apply, for instance, to parapsychology, wherein the existence of strange and weird powers is used to explain all kinds of clever tricks people play with cards, spoons, drawings and the like. --TS 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking the above, I'm not sure the words "narrow" and "expansive" really fit. But the Committee does really need to decide whether it means fringe science or pseudoscience, or both. The current proposed finding of fact 1 doesn't match cold fusion in my opinion. --TS 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Remedy #4

Martinphi has been community banned. If it's necessary to still consider him, I'd suggest that this should read:

4) Martinphi (talk · contribs) has been community banned. Should this ban be lifted in the future, he may not edit policy and guideline pages (widely construed) for six months after his return. He may still participate in discussion on the associated talk pages.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Prominence

This is nice, to re-affirm this. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" is somewhat ambiguous; does it mean "publications that are academic and peer-reviewed", or "academic publications and peer-reviewed publications", thus including publications that are academic but not peer-reviewed? The latter kind are in general less reliable than peer-reviewed publications. To avoid the ambiguity, I suggest to strike the word "and", resulting in: "Academic peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually ...". (As far as I'm concerned the judgement "highly valued" is furthermore irrelevant and not indisputably true. A lot of academic stuff gets published in peer-reviewed outlets that may be scientifically valid but is so marginal that it is not worth the paper it is printed on.)  --Lambiam 14:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

... highly valued as sources. Insofar as someone is talking about the topic on Wikipedia, those are prefered. — Coren ^(talk) 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Prominence section states that:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source".

But what if the article is about a particular viewpoint? Take for example, the article on the cosmological theory, the "Steady State Theory". Are we obliged to described the mainstream Big Bang theory (a) as well (b) and give it more prominence than the subject of the article? Or do we describe other viewpoints, only in relation to the subject of the article? Do we repeat describing the Big Bang theory in every fringe theory article on cosmology, or just tell the reader that there is a mainstream theory, and link to it?

What happens if there are no reliable sources that described the mainstream theory in relationship to the fringe theory? Do editors engage in original research and presume the mainstream theory must be right, even if there are no sources that say so?

The current proposed principle does not make this clear. --Pavlov2009 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking your points in order, my views:

• The discussion of the history of the steady state theory should include all scientific viewpoints, but a recapitulation of all alternative theories is not appropriate. In the case of steady state, for instance, the difficulty in explaining the microwave background signature should be discussed, and the role of this evidence in tipping the balance towards the big bang theory should be fully described.
• If a new theory turns up and it makes no novel predictions, it probably isn't worthy of an article. If it does, then the new theory can be reliably characterized by its predictions, so it's appropriate to discuss how those predictions differ from those of mainstream theories even if no scientific publication has yet formally distinguished it. For instance it isn't necessary to find a scientific source that specifically rebuts a novel theory that predicts a variable value for the speed of light in a vacuum--the general theory of relativity states as a postulate or axiom that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, and so this fact should be stated, and a citation to Einstein's paper provided.

--TS 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So while we discuss aspects of the fringe theory in relation to the Big Bang, we are not required to represent the majority viewpoint in proportion to its prominence, as described in this "proposed decision". This is consistent with WP:UNDUE:

"In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, [..] the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant,"

I mentioned this in contradiction to another editor in a section in "Workshop/Proposed Principals" --Pavlov2009 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a distinction between sources that describe a theory and those that support it or advocate it. The "Prominence" proposed principle applies to viewpoints. There is universal agreement on what the Steady State Theory is. There is substantial consensus that it does not account satisfactorily for the accumulation of observations of the microwave signature. So we can quote Hoyle, etc, as much as we like to explain it, but we shouldn't give undue prominence to sources that still adhere to the view. --TS 17:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Tony. For many fringe areas, there is practically a closed-circuit of publication: the proponents publish for fellow proponents with occasional forays into more mainstream (and similar occasional invasions by the skeptical). Thus, for any single fringe area that's been around for long enough, there is likely a sizable set of literature written by proponents from which to draw. However, in my view, proper NPOV application necessarily dictates analyzing the prominence of said fringe view in all relevant fields. As an example, there is a lot of literature promoting psychokinesis, largely within the general paranormal-promoting community. If we were to stack the pro-psychokinesis books and articles next to the anti-psychokinesis publications, no doubt the pro would tower over the anti. However, if one takes the wider view and incorporates the inescapable fact that high-quality scientific research in every scientific field (that would be presumably affected by the direct influence of mind on a physical system) practically never consider psychokinesis as a relevant hypothesis or explanation within any particular study (i.e., psychokinesis isn't considered important in any medical research: all 13 PubMed hits for the term are generalized to human psychology, never anything more reductionist...lather, rinse, repeat for particle physics or macroeconomics or geology or...). Thus, reasonably considering the entirety of man's scientific enterprise, psychokinesis is most confidently not considered a valid explanation for anything.

An appraisal of this reality in conjunction with WP:NPOV means that psychokinesis, as an example, can and should be completely and fairly explained on its subject pages. These explanations should, however, explicitly include the forthright reality previously discussed (i.e., psychokinesis is not considered a valid explanation for, generally, anything according to the scientific community at large), and the topic should be kept off pages not directly related to psychokinesis.

To take this out of the realm of science-paranormal, let's make up a parallel example in religion. A very minor religious group, the Church of Thunder, has 100 years of history of promoting its view that Jesus is the reincarnation of Thor, with many books and articles on the subject. Christian theologians have completely ignored this tiny group and its ideas, having published practically nothing on their ideas. I submit that it would be similarly correct to apply WP:FRINGE, clearly stating within Church of Thunder articles that its theological ideas have no weight in the overall sphere of Christian theology and prohibiting Church of Thunder claims from articles outside their dedicated area.

Martinphi's response to all this, if he were here, would likely be that to include a statement or general information of the form "[some claim] is not considered a valid explanation for anything according to the [scientific, theological, political, historical] community at large" requires ≥1 authoritative source(s) that express exactly that sentiment, otherwise it's a violation of WP:NOR. Perhaps that's correct, according to the current letter of the policy, but I counter that NOR does not (nor should) require one to play dumb or be disingenuous; the spirit of NPOV and NOR and V--more importantly, the overall goal of an encyclopedia--is to represent reality as accurately as possible, using reliable sources as proxies for that reality. This disconnect between reality and Wikipedia policy is all the wiggle room that fringe proponents have needed to demand undue weight of their preferred ideas. This, I believe, is the crux of the current content issues. — Scientizzle 18:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the No original research policy originated following statements like this and this by Jimbo Wales in reponse to a slew of articles like this, this and this. At the time it was felt that few enough editors possessed the background knowledge needed to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, and I think it's noteworthy that there was serious talk of recruiting editors from skeptical investigation forums and training them in the ways of the wiki.

Of course it's good that we have a policy against original research, but sometimes it is interpreted so tightly that even a statement as weak as "There are numerous newer theories that add onto general relativity or replace it outright, and some of these appear to allow anti-gravity-like solutions. However, according to the current widely accepted physical theories, verified in experiments, and according to the major directions of physical research, it is considered highly unlikely that anti-gravity is possible" is defensively sourced from no less than three separate reliable sources. We are probably taking things a little too far as a consequence of the battleground situation prevailing in our science coverage.

Overall I think the results have been good, and I express my admiration for those who have weathered the many storms that have, up to now, deterred me from engaging in editing science, fringe science and pseudo-science articles. However I think it's clear to the arbitration committee that in the long run this state of affairs is untenable, because it does deter so many of us from editing. --TS 19:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, do I read your post right? Are you suggesting that Plasma cosmology is "original research" or a "crackpot idea" or "pseudoscience"? Let me correct the misconception.

Plasma cosmology (aka the "Plasma Universe") is a peer reviewed area of scientific research. The first conference on Plasma Cosmology took place in 1989 and included contributions from Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén, and notable scientists Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Jean-Pierre Vigier, Halton Arp and others. A list of refereed papers on the subject can be found here. There are academic books on the subject,[43] popular books,[44] and recent papers.

This is not say, or imply, that the concept is in any way correct. But, as noted by iantresman,[45] that hasn't stopped ScienceApologist labelling the subject as pseudoscience,[46] twice,[47] with no sources, and adding judgemental statements such as "his theories have been for the most part dismissed as philosophical beliefs with no sound basis in science"[48] again with no sources. Without citations, the "original research" is ScienceApologist's.

It would be better to have an award-winning professional science writer (600+ articles) and expert on Plasma Cosmology, write the article. But when Eric Lerner contributed and came up again self-proclaimed "mainstream expert" ScieceApologist,[49] Lerner was blocked, later, ScienceApologist discredited Lerner of his peer-reviewed papers from the article,[50] and has now admitted that he has tried to get Plasma Universe expert, Tony Peratt,[51] fired from his job.[52] --81.131.42.25 (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you misread me. I state that on encountering articles about plasma cosmology and other subjects, "it was felt that few enough editors possessed the background knowledge needed to distinguish the wheat from the chaff." At the time, mainly because sourcing standards were not then anything like as tight as they are now, it was difficult for Recent Changes patrollers and other editors to distinguish good content from POV pushing. --TS 17:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology is a tricky one. It's a pretty minor theory - not on the level of supersymmetry or string theory, or even MOND, but nor is it considered intellectually bankrupt, simply less likely to have productive results than the ones more people are working on. So, it's quite a way above obvious pseudoscience like, say, homeopathy or creationism, but nor can we present it as a widely-believed theory at this time. This makes a difficult juggling act. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Departure of one arbitrator

I notice that a clerk has adjusted this case to account for the departure of an arbitrator. I've asked him what will be done about the votes (FT2 voted on all proposed principles except 12.1). I think it most likely that the votes will be struck. --TS 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

that was an avoidable mess. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Current consensus of arbitrators seems to be that the votes should be struck. So if you're looking at the page, remember to discount FT2's votes. --TS 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Principle: Science is not a point of view

I think the gist of principle is good, but I quibble with the wording that "[[scientific method|scientific inquiry]] is a methodology". As historians and philosophers of science have amply documented, scientific method is not a singular thing, and there have been, and continue to be, a lot of contradictory ideas about what, exactly, the scientific method is. Maybe "set of methodologies", rather than "a methodology", would be more appropriate wording. Of course, different scientific methods are associated with different philosophical points of view, but I think basic statement "science is not a point of view" stands.--ragesoss (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been using the term methodology myself, but agree and good point, set of methodologies is more accurate phrasing.(olive (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Would agree with both of the above that "methodologies" is more accurate, but there's a larger problem at work here. The statement "science is not a point of view" is absurd and, epistemologically speaking, rather naive. In a strict technical sense it is correct in that "science" (as an abstract concept) does not have a point of view, but nor does "science" collect and process data, come to conclusions, etc. What we are really talking about when we say "science" is an extremely broad field of inquiry invented and practiced solely by human beings which contains all sorts of assumptions about things like cause and effect, our ability to observe and measure aspects of the phenomenal world, and the value of "objectivity."

Now, like I'm sure most everyone here, I'm fine with all of that and am indeed a big fan of the "scientific method." But it is a human invented and in part socially constructed process, and as such is not inherently neutral in any way, which the principle stated seems to at least somewhat imply. A scientific experiment may proceed completely "objectively" in the sense in which we traditionally understand that word, but the assumptions built into the scientific method as a whole make any experiment far from neutral before it even begins.

This is not at all an attack on science and nor is it, I think, an idle point. This principle, while sounding perfectly fine on the surface, actually makes dramatic statements about knowledge and truth the like of which have been debated for millenia. It's the kind of statement that would be picked apart and shredded in an upper-level philosophy class, and I think my objection here is perhaps somewhat similar to the problem FloNight has with the principle (though I could be wrong about that).

I think what the committee is trying to do here is say that scientific inquiry is not just "another way of looking at things" like astrology or fortune telling or flipping a coin, and as such when a view is backed up by strong science, it's fine if we privilege such a view here at Wikipedia. I utterly and completely agree with that, but I think we can say that without bestowing upon scientific inquiry the sense of objectivity and neutrality (as though it did not spring from the minds of highly subjective humans) that is implied in the current formulation of the principle. Instead we should recognize that the scientific method is just one of many competing subjective systems humans have come up with, however it is one of the best (if not the best) for gathering and processing information about our universe and there is fairly wide agreement about that across cultures and time periods.

Sorry for being a minor pedant about this, I was a philosophy major years ago and can't help it, and also I do think this actually matters and should be reconsidered, because I think you're saying more here than is necessary or warranted.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist supervised

Coren suggests that "ScienceApologist supervised". How does this differ from:

• "ScienceApologist cautioned" (which did not work)
• "ScienceApologist counseled" (which did not work)
• ScienceApologist' mentored, (which appears not to have worked) --Pavlov2009 (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's different because a person under supervised editing will be topic banned "until and unless a mentor is found that is agreeable to both the editor and the Committee." Read proposed remedies 1 and 2 carefully. --TS 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. In some ways, this is the most stringent monitoring ever proposed. Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Any mentorship volunteers yet? I would be willing, preferably working within a mentorship team of 2 or more. In my view what is needed is somebody to provide guidance in interpreting policy based on relevant arbitration committee decisions and community consensus, to monitor editing and discussion and to switch the topic ban on and off as needed.

The other proposed powers (acting as an editing filter) are useful but not essential, and in most circumstances would be detrimental to efficient editing. They might work as part of a program of inculcating good cooperation skills. --TS 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering, Tony. I'm still willing to mentor SA in the traditional sense of neutral advisement. Would two of us do, if one isn't willing to cross the line into enforcement provisions? Durova^Charge! 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship teams are an interesting suggestion. I'm recused from this case, but I did send a link and summary of this section to the arbcom list just to ensure that it gets attention. Cool Hand Luke 07:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be a goer. I've got experience of mentoring and I expect Durova has, or if not at least equivalent experience in other relevant areas. --TS 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The arbitrators might (or might not) want to edit the description of "supervised editing" to allow for teams of mentors as a possibility, with each member of the team having the special powers (or with some specified members of the team having the special powers, presumably to be determined during the process of the Arbcom approving of the team of mentors). In this particular case, apparently Durova doesn't need the special powers anyway, so Tony Sidaway could just be officially named the mentor, but with other combinations of mentors it might make a difference. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst mentorship teams might seem like a novelty to some, I have personal experience of this in the Cool Cat (now known as White Cat) mentorship where I worked as part of a team of three. As a practical matter, having more than one mentor acts a sanity check, because the mentors can compare perceptions and discuss solutions. It also reassures the community, and if one mentor wanders off and does something else then there's still someone to take up the slack. I would be perfectly prepared to act as sole mentor, but this shouldn't be necessary. The community always has the reassurance that if arbcom loses confidence in the mentor or mentors it can fire or replace them. --TS 01:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to Coren's model of mentorship being adopted in conjunction with a different model, and wish to make it clear that although I will not be operating on that particular model, would be glad to interact collaboratively with Tony. In conjunction this could be interesting: one mentor on a strictly advisory capacity, and another with enforcement powers (long term and short term if you will). Re: Tony's comment above, some of the people I've mentored have become featured content contributors (which SA already is) and one has turned around from a lengthy block log to become an administrator on Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I see nothing wrong with a "joint" supervision; it opens up a few questions in the details, but nothing that could not be reasonably worked out. I beleive there is precedent for a "mentor" to be a team in the past as well; and I expect the committee to accept such arrangements provided one member of the team is unambiguously designated as the point of contact (so that we don't get into "ask the other parent" arguments). — Coren ^(talk) 14:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, Lar, and I were jointly appointed mentors for Privatemusings. The mentorship didn't work out, but 'point of contact' issues were not the problem. What proved to be more of a problem was that ArbCom structured the thing differently from how it was proposed, and as a result the mentors were not very free to exercise their own judgment. When ScienceApologist asked whether the current proposal meant I'd still mentor him I said 'absolutely'. That answer was based upon a proposal that I believed was stable. But if you try to tie my hands, Coren, I'll walk. Durova^Charge! 00:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are arbitrators who are unaware that joint supervision has been tried successfully in the past, I would say that it's a good indication that arbitration is about what will work now. Take your time. Do what you need to do. Wikipedia 2009 is not Wikipedia 2005. --TS 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're referring to White Cat, Tony? I'm referring to fall 2008. A significant contributing factor to the latter's failure were arbitrary provisions created by ArbCom in its attempt to structure the undertaking; I had previously mentored same editor successfully at a sister WMF site, without interference. In the latter attempt the mentors gained newfound respect for each other, but--to put it mildly--it is not a promising sign to see an arbitrator attempt to impose new arbitrary mentorship structures while demonstrating such obvious ignorance of recent history. I wasted two months last fall and I'm not going to repeat that mistake. Would be glad to collaborate with you, Tony, but not under the paternalistic terms Coren conceives. Durova^Charge! 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a mentorship can tie the mentor's hands. These are the powers proposed in the current case. The mentor may

at their discretion,

• revert or refactor any edit from that editor
• direct the cessation of a line or theme of discussion by that editor, or
• ban the editor for increasing periods of time from any or all articles

in the specified areas.

In addition the mentor may if he wishes impose himself as a filter between the editor and the community on the communication of concerns about content.

The mentor also handles all conduct complaints against the editor, on his behalf.

I find it very difficult to conceive of how a mentor could be given a freer hand. --TS 18:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the description allows the mentor freedom to define the role as they see fit, (since there is no requirement to use the special powers), but the part "Complaints ... further action" prescribes how some things are done, apparently not allowing the mentor to arrange things differently. I don't know whether this is what Durova is talking about. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Committee has been made aware of the problems it created when it structured the Privatemusings mentorship. Now it proposes not to under-empower a mentor but to over-empower one. Whether intentional or not, this would radically alter the mentor's position and all interactions. I embarked upon this to become a neutral point of contact for all parties--someone they can turn to for candid feedback. Under the proposed decision, those editors would no longer interact with the mentor as a peer. A mentor with power to impose sanctions becomes something more like a parole officer--and that reorients matters substantially away from long term stabilization and toward short term management. Regardless of what FloNight asserts at the concurrent PHG case, mentorship does not exist for the purpose of evading blocks or other sanctions. Mentorship is to help an editor adapt to site standards, not vice versa. No guarantees about the result, but unless any one of the arbitrators can demonstrate they mentored a turnaround more dramatic than Cirt's, their track record doesn't impress. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Baiting" v. "Past decisions are open to challenge": Pcarbonn

There is a clear tension between the proposed "Baiting" principle here ("Raising the same issues over and over despite consensus (or lack thereof) [is] disruptive") and the Wikipedia:Consensus policy, which states that past decisions are open to challenge and, "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the 'logic' (point of view) of the majority."

Where do we draw the line: At what point is civil consensus-building considered baiting?

It seems to me that Pcarbonn has been participating in the former, but is being accused of the latter. I would like to see his topic ban changed to supervised editing because he has been far more civil than ScienceApologist. Does anyone disagree? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Raising the same issues over and over despite consensus (or lack thereof)" is just a small part of the "Baiting" principle.

The behavior referred to is related to Wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:BATTLE). In internet forum sites and Usenet it's not unusual for determined flame warriors to spend months on end arguing without making concessions and without hope of changing minds, in a vain attempt to bludgeon everybody else with their opinions. Other patterns are the habit of introducing the same issue into multiple threads and forums. Such behavior (in which an accompanying proposed finding suggests Pcarbconn has engaged) is disruptive on Wikipedia (if not elsewhere) because it stands in the way of building genuine consensus and building an encyclopedia.

In general, if an editor finds that he's often raising the same issue over and over again but seldom finds consensus with his views, he is probably engaged in that kind of baiting. --TS 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

TS, let's not apply double standards. What you say about me can also be said about ScienceApologist. The difference is that he has been much worse at it than me. First of all, he has been much less civil in his battle to promote the "mainstream view", in violation of NPOV, as evidenced in this case. Then, he had been much worse at forum shopping, in order to ban me (see list below). So the question is, who is baiting who ? Who sees Wikipedia as a battleground ?

• July 2008 : Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive157#Cold_fusion
• Oct 2008 : Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor
• Nov 2008 : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#Please_review_this_case
• Nov 2008 : Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles

Pcarbonn (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with supervised editing. Seeing this editor engage in forum shopping to barber on and on ad nauseam about cold fusion has grown tiresome. Pcarbonn seems to hold a very strong opinion about cold fusion and is welcome to do so but the advocacy is unwanted and I find the forum shopping boorish. He may start a blog, start a 'zine, write for the Sunday supplement market, wear a sandwich board and hand out literature at Union Square but please keep him away from the topic on Wikipedia. L0b0t (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd Wiktionary definition of "bait" is "To intentionally annoy, torment, or threaten by constant rebukes or threats;" this is what I understand it to mean. In other words, it's intentional: one can't be baiting someone and not realize one is doing it. Tony Sidaway says "If an editor finds that he's often raising the same issue...", i.e. describing things from the point of view of the editor. I think the editor would know whether they were intentionally bothering someone or not. However, there may be other reasons one might raise the same issue: in an attempt to convince others, etc. Raising the same issue too many times can be disallowed, but calling it "baiting" may sometimes violate WP:AGF. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason I put it like that is that we react to the external effect, not the intention, and we tend to read undisclosed intentions from actions. If for instance I found that every time I went to talk:widget I ended up getting into a heated and ultimately unproductive argument about whether there should be a section on gidgets, I'd have to consider that this was a waste of time and effort and was probably making the article editing environment more difficult than it need be. If instead I continued on my path, without realistic hope of changing opinion, that would be baiting. Sometimes editors follow such a path, we have learned from experience, because they realise that it's one way of driving all but the most determined editors away. Thus editing an article becomes a war of attrition. If a non-intentional equivalent term can be dreamed up, we can use that name instead. --TS 04:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you could very well be talking of ScienceApologist. As you say : "we tend to read undisclosed intentions from actions", but that's a dangerous course for Justice. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not here to defend anybody's conduct. There have been some pretty grim moments all around. --TS 12:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and this case should help prevent this from happening again. Hopefully, ArbComm will provide a consistent approach, devoid of double standard. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is an important point. While we discuss this matter as interested individuals we must not prejudge the outcome of this arbitration, which is still in the voting phase. I hope that the outcome will be one with which all of us can live.

The remedies (and I speak as one who has had a remedy passed on me in one arbitration, and solicited a voluntary remedy on me--perhaps the only such case in the history of Wikipedia--in another) are important but really I think what are more important are the principles and findings of fact of the case, because it is those elements that help us to orient ourselves as a community going forward.

Editors like you, Pcarbonn, Martinphi, and Scienceapologist (and obviously I include myself) are what we used to call problem editors. Here to do serious work and make good contributions, but having experienced in the past a serious inability to work with other editors to the standards required of us. To help us to move forward, the committee tries to frame the case and tell us how we should all act in future.

One aspect of arbitration takes a bit of getting used to--that is that it isn't a court and it isn't overly interested in concepts like natural justice. Its proper focus is on the good of Wikipedia, not the interests of the individual. It's easy to misunderstand that, and if you go to arbitration in hopes of justice in the conventional sense you will be disappointed. If you look to it for a way out of difficult conflicts, that will require you to accept that a decision one way or another is sometimes better than an eternal battle for supremacy, then you won't be disappointed. --TS 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope "the good of Wikipedia" means the accuracy of the encyclopedia, and not appeasement of otherwise good editors who loose their tempers and start making threats. And by threats, I mean threats including satire which would tend to bring the project in to disrepute, even if they would be considered protected speech in a court of law. I do not mean reasonable and good-faith efforts at dispute resolution, which are not threats, or statements of fact which involved editors may subjectively interpret as threats. Constant "rebukes" (from the definition of "bait" quoted above) can be as disruptive as threats. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way I would understand that ArbComm applies double standard to ScienceApologist and me, would be to accept that this ruling is based on a content decision. I have argued for that, so I should not be disappointed. But it has now become much easier for me to imagine what others meant when they said that ArbComm has made disastrous content decisions in the past. Maybe it's time to think of another mechanism. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed finding of Fact #1

I just want to compliment Coren for "In this ruling" - had careful language like that been used in some previous decisions when setting out the terminology used to describe the dispute, a lot of problems would have been avoided. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Religion and intuition"?

FloNight and Roger Davies, in your dissent on "Science is not a point of view", do you really mean to equate science with religion and intuition? Science is a valid basis for making statements about the world in an encyclopedia; are you saying that it's equally valid to make statements based on one's religion or intuition? rspεεr (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely a properly sourced statement is valid in Wikipedia, whether it concerns a mainstream science theory, a pseudoscience theory or a religious or spiritual concept. Similarly, an unsourced statement is always open to challenge, even if concerns the most orthodox scientific view. In this sense, science and religion have equal standing in Wikipedia - we do not give a privileged position to the scientific world view. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Er... --TS 10:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, in a way you're right, but science tends to be better at coming up with reliable sources. "In the red corner, we have Bishop Ussher who rests his claim that the earth is 6,000 years old on genealogical analysis of the bible, and in the blue corner, we have a team of geophysicists from McGill University who have radiometrically dated a rock outcrop in Hudson Bay to about 4 billion years ago." No contest. Our article Age of the Earth doesn't even mention religious theories, and this is probably the right decision. --TS 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be a tad long, and you did say "probably", but bear with me!

I spent some time looking into the content and history of Age of the Earth, as some of the issues there resonate with some of what has been mentioned here. There are a lot of Young Earth Creationists (or those influenced by that) vandalising that article with "6000 years" stuff (example), but the reaction seems to have been to define the article tightly around science, and push all religious stuff somewhere else (see recent talk page discussion, recent attempt at a hatnote, older version of article, religious beliefs section from that older version). What is currently missing (probably because no-one has brought it up yet) is how the historical religious background (including Ussher in the 17th century, but not the modern-day YEC stuff) gives the context for the scientific geological developments that followed in the 18th and 19th centuries (remember that geology was still developing as a science at this point).

To cut a long story short, read this chapter, 'The Age of the Earth' (it's not long), from Making Modern Science, by Peter J. Bowler and Iwan Rhys Morus. Essentially, my point here is that the topic of the history of religion and geology (or indeed the history of religion in relation to any of the sciences) is a trivially easy one to find sources on ([53], [54]). It's just a question of what to put where and with what weight. But that's not a trivial question either. At the moment, though, getting from the current Age of the Earth article to any of the other articles is not easy. All links and mention of religion seem to have been carefully removed. When navigation between articles is being affected, I would personally say things have gone too far. If readers want to get from this article to ones like Dating Creation and Creation myths, to get the context if nothing else, we should be providing the links. Currently, there is nothing at all in our Age of the Earth article to even hint that such other articles might exist. Sure, you can go from that article to Age of the universe, Geochronology, and History of Earth without coming across even a hint that religion exists at all, or ever did exist before science did, but is that a good thing? My view is that separating science and religion into walled gardens is not the right way to go here. When the two topics overlap significantly, both need to be mentioned.

But I digress. Read that chapter I pointed you to, and then read the Age of the Earth article, and then consider which bits from the 'Age of the Earth' chapter should be in our article but aren't. In my view, our current article is good as far as it goes, but it doesn't tell the whole story. That article by a historian of science on 'The Age of the Earth' starts off by mentioning the biblical timescale, while our article does not mention it at all. At a more fundamental level, to understand where something came from or what it replaced, you have to know what came before it. And before the geological timescale was the biblical timescale (if people at the time even considered asking such questions about the ultimate age of the world around them).

Finally, going back to Ussher, I'll quote two bits from our article to counterbalance the view TS expressed above:

"By the end of the 18th century, Ussher's chronology came under increasing attack from supporters of uniformitarianism, who argued that Ussher's "young Earth" was incompatible with the increasingly accepted view of an Earth much more ancient than Ussher's. It became generally accepted that the Earth was tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of years old." - Ussher chronology

I'm currently looking for sources to confirm that bit, but that is a clear connection between Ussher and uniformitarianism that is omitted in Age of the Earth. The next bit is a crystal-clear quote and break from the normal position on Ussher:

"A different viewpoint comes from Stephen Jay Gould, who, while totally disagreeing with Ussher's chronology, nevertheless wrote.[9]: I shall be defending Ussher's chronology as an honourable effort for its time and arguing that our usual ridicule only records a lamentable small-mindedness based on mistaken use of present criteria to judge a distant and different past. [...] Ussher represented the best of scholarship in his time. He was part of a substantial research tradition, a large community of intellectuals working toward a common goal under an accepted methodology…" - Ussher chronology

To be fair to TS, the position of ridiculing Ussher has been established for a long time now, but I hope that what I've written above explains a bit more of the history than what he said, and helps to demonstrate what I mean when I talk about how "the history of a topic [can be] the prime example of a type of coverage [...] that is often lacking". In this case, the history of the science in the article is mostly fine, but it omits some crucial aspects, one of which is the biblical timescale. It should also say more about when people first started thinking about the age of the Earth, and why. What prompted people to start questioning the biblical timescales, or, to be more precise, what changes led them to even consider questioning previously accepted wisdom? Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't ridicule Ussher's chronology above. I demonstrate its inadequacy in the face of modern scientific knowledge. There are good in-Wikipedia precedents for relegating older historical context to separate articles. Origin of life currently redirects to abiogenesis, whose historical context starts at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It can also be seen that, for instance, the Encarta article on the age of the earth and the origin of life contain no older historical context.

Gould was a great thinker and essayist, and one of my scientific heroes, but his scholarship does not necessarily represent the mainstream view.

I also think this is getting a little off-topic. Religious assumptions about the accuracy of scripture don't carry any weight on Wikipedia. --TS 03:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes a bit off-topic. But I was talking about history, not religion. Not whether the scriptures are accurate (of course they aren't) but whether Ussher's chronology is part of the historical context of the science (it clearly is). I presume you didn't mean this Encarta article? Written by another "professor of history of science" I notice. My question is not whether we should have a similar article (it would be trivial to write and source such an article), but why there are no (or few) links from some of the science articles I looked at, to the wider social, political, religious and historical contexts? It could just be bad writing (lack of comprehensiveness), or systematic bias, or a focus on the science and defence against "fringe science" to the exclusion of all else, but when I see articles where I know there is more context than is being given, I ask myself whether the context can be provided by a link or short sentence explaining the history, providing a date, and so on. What you said above: "Our article Age of the Earth doesn't even mention religious theories, and this is probably the right decision" is something I disagree with, and I hope what I've said makes it clear why I think that. When "little mention" becomes "no mention" a big change has taken place. Deciding when something is so minor and fringe it needs no mention at all, is different from unnecessarily omitting informative context, historical or otherwise. Carcharoth (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be better organization in this area, but again we're veering off topic from the particular point of the discussion (and, I would like to add, seem to be in substantial agreement on this matter). Your comments are, of course, on topic for the arbitration, and I suspect there's been such a strong reaction to POV pushing in some cases that we've ended up with the historical aspects being inaccessible.

I think we disagree on nuance. I think the age of earth article is great, and only lacks a brief reference to older ideas which are really very, very irrelevant to current thinking, though not to the history of science. --TS 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree we are substantially in agreement. Thanks for raising the topic, and thanks for reading all of that! Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you all see why I supported Carcharoth in the election, even though he's never blocked anybody. I've been trying to make the same point for quite a while but have not found suitable words. We don't want people reading Wikipedia to think that science is the only thing that has ever existed. Complete coverage should include notable theories that have been discredited, supplanted or modified. Fringe ideas can be notable if they have been written about extensively. It is better to dispassionately explain why these theories have been rejected than to pretend they don't exist. Jehochman ^Talk 06:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion has strayed a bit from the point. Certainly you can talk about people's religious beliefs by couching them in the appropriate terms, but you don't need to use those terms for science. (I have no idea where "intuition" comes in.) You don't have to say "Scientists believe X" for every scientific fact, because it's not just scientists who believe that, it's anyone who believes in verifiable hypotheses, and that's anyone who can cope with a modern education without serious cognitive dissonance. (A few philosophers would probably be proud exceptions.) Wikipedia is part of such a modern education.

Religion gives us points of view -- and if you're not convinced of this, read a Wikipedia portal on any religion but your own -- but science gives us accurate descriptions of the world. Sometimes a paradigm shifts and the description becomes a historical belief, but only when science can give us a more accurate description in its place. And because of that, we don't have to wrap scientific facts in POV-insulating language, and to do so everywhere would be a tedious and unnecessary act of relativism.

Consider these four statements:

• 1a. The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current theory and observations suggest that this is between 13.6 and 13.8 billion years. [cite microwave probe observations]
• 1b. The age of the universe is considered by some to be the time elapsed since the Big Bang, which is how scientists believe the universe began. Based on current theory and observations, scientists believe that this is between 13.6 and 13.8 billion years. [cite microwave probe observations]
• 2a. The universe began when God created the heaven and the earth [cite Genesis]. Current theology suggests that this occurred between six and ten thousand years ago. [cite a creationist theologian]
• 2b. Creation according to Genesis is the creation myth found in the first two chapters of the Bible, Genesis 1-2. It describes the making of the heavens and the Earth over a period of six days through the spoken word of God. Young Earth creationism holds that the creation week occurred a mere six to ten thousands years ago. [cite a creationist theologian]

1a is from Age of the universe. 2b is made of two separate sentences from Creation according to Genesis (which actually describes many other interpretations before it gets to young-earth creationism). 1b and 2a are from a hypothetical bizarro Wikipedia where religion is a source of knowledge and science is a POV. (I tried Conservapedia but they actually weren't silly enough.) If science and religion (well, one particular religion) were considered equivalent bases for a Wikipedia article, you'd have to allow either 2a, which is frighteningly dogmatic, or 1b, which is silly and relativist.

Now, I didn't use Age of the Earth because it actually does have the silly relativist language at the beginning. I'm not a geologist or a geophysicist but I'm certainly willing to follow them in believing the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. But that's about a particular article, which again is not the point of this ArbCom-related discussion. ArbCom can't make the content decision of what certain articles should say, but they can and should establish the guiding fact that science is not a point of view. Science is not equivalent to religion or intuition, and believing they are equivalent is no way to write an encyclopedia. rspεεr (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Flo and Roger, but I think the approach of actually comparing examples of text like you do should be done more often. It really helps in getting a handle on this sort of thing. 1a is a great opening sentence for the Wikipedia article. It's what happens in the rest of the article after that which can be a problem sometimes. At what point do you raise the history of the research and the stuff other than "current theory"? And how much detail do you go into in this article, how far back in the history of the research do you go, and how much do you save for other articles? Sometimes it is a matter of aesthetics for the article as a whole (a good writer would try to make the article as complete, balanced and well-rounded as possible), and sometimes it is a matter of fierce battles over NPOV, with people demanding that X, Y, or Z get more or less room. Collaboration can work well for gathering facts and references for an article. For planning the overall composition and balance of an article it doesn't always work so well, especially when there are disagreements. As for your point: "because of that, we don't have to wrap scientific facts in POV-insulating language, and to do so everywhere would be a tedious and unnecessary act of relativism" - I agree, and am now trying to see how it relates to principle three. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support that version 1b is "silly relativist", and most definitely not the way to go on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what the wording of Principle 3 is meant to convey, but I hope that the consensus is that there is no need to ascribe mainstream consensus scientific opinion to "scientists" – almost as much a weasel word as "some" – as long as the information presented is verifiable from reliable sources. There must be no assumption of symmetry/equivalence between the presentation of mainstream science and fringe positions, let alone a requirement. Fringe positions must be clearly identified as such; the default assumption in articles on scientific topics is that the information given represents mainstream science.  --Lambiam 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points by Carcharoth. Those who see themselves as fighting against "POV-pushers" need to be careful not to go too far: up to NPOV, but not past it; and the "POV-pushers" can be seen as collaborators who help form articles that do have mentions of many POVs, such as the idea that there's such a thing as religion etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability of fringe topics

Wait a second. "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." (from point 11, Citations): I think this needs clarification; otherwise it could be interpreted to mean that articles about notable hoaxes, pseudoscience etc. should be deleted (e.g. homeopathy, flat earth, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, etc. A distinction needs to be made between presenting things as fact, and presenting things with prose attribution as ideas that are out there. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, I really like how Newyorkbrad said "...Wikipedia has no way of separating the one or two from the other 998 or 999." [55] in point 2.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The "in-universe" and "out-of-universe" terminology used in WP:WAF (writing about fiction) may help here. Consider the hoaxes to be fictional stuff. Don't write or source the article as if the hoax was not a hoax, but write them as a history about a cultural phenomenon. Wikipedia must avoid being misleading, but certain general sources writing about homeopathy and the moon landing hoax theories can be used to verify that these are phenomena that people write about, but not to deliver a verdict on the "truth". That requires a special sort of source, one that is reliable in delivering that sort of verdict. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest changing the words "the material should not be included", which don't seem to me to convey what you're saying here. That's my point. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal X3

"ScienceApologist has, from time to time, edited in such a way as to either promote or repudiate particular points of view, contrary to the neutral point of view policy"

With respect, I think that this is a slightly bad idea: EVERYONE has, from time to time, edited in such a way to promote or repudiate particular points of view. Sometimes, this may have been within NPOV, e.g., making it clear a Fringe theory is a fringe theory. Other times, maybe the person went to far.

But as a principle for basing sanctions upon I think we need less "from time to time" and more showing a pattern of clear abuse of NPOV (with examples), or perhaps a few specific incidents that were especially egregious. As it is, I'm sure that with enough research, such a finding could be made against any established editor, and with an editor with as many enemies as ScienceApologist, there's going to be a lot of people wanting to "get" him, and thus willing to do the research.

Caution is necessary in findings of this sort, since findings of rare events in the editor's career are particularly gameable to make them look egregious, when, in fact, a similar case could be made against any editor. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I don't mean to argue there aren't problems, simply that due process requires a bit more care in that specific finding. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I waiting for the FoF "Editors will note that, from time to time, the sky is blue". Shot info (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a hoary old chestnut. The sky at the moment where I am is black with pinpricks of light (campfires in the heavens, obviously). And it can be a range of other colours (mostly at sunset and sunrise). What point are you making here, Shot info? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

From time to time, the sky is blue - yes/no? If you can't see the point, your just reinforcing the reasons why I didn't select you to the ArbCom. Shot info (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are using "from time to time" in a different sense there. Compare the following: "Editors will, from time to time, note that the sky is blue" and "Editors will note that, from time to time, the sky is blue". In the former, the "time to time" bit applies to the editors. In the latter, it applies to the sky. In the FoF, the "time to time" bit applies to SA. Having said that, I've abstained from that FoF. And am following discussion here about it. I will try not to get sidetracked by discussions about blue skies. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No you are merely misinterpreting what I wrote. That's your choice of course but feel free to (re)review it in the context of Shoemaker's discussion above rather than independently in the context that you are applying. Shot info (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, if I understand Shot info correctly, he or she seems to be saying that this proposed finding has little utility because it appears to determine against an editor according to parameters that could be applied to nearly any active content contributor. That type of finding should not be written or passed because it opens the door to potential abuse of process. If ScienceApologist has erred, please take care to identify distinguishing traits between his contribution and that of normal editors, or else abandon the proposal. There's a blue sky quality to the proposal that dilutes out any utility, and may introduce harmful elements. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You got it. Of course, Shoemaker is the one who actually articulates the real point(s). Shot info (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't really noticed until Shoemaker pointed it out. He's got his finger on the pulse of something. Good post. Durova^Charge! 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I get you now. My abstention was based mainly on the actual diffs, but I see the general point now. Will consider my position. As for the wording here, I will mention any objections I still have when I update my position. Not sure what approach other arbitrators take to these talk page discussions, but also suggest approaching the bainer directly about the wording, or drawing his attention to this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern about this finding isn't about whether it might apply to anyone (I'm not sure I even really understand that argument) but about the diffs themselves; in each case I think any objective outsider who knows the topic would say that the edits SA made were much more NPOV than the material they replaced, which in each case gave undue weight to a fringe POV. If the decision is really saying that by improving the article he is somehow "promoting" one point of view (NPOV) and "demoting" (or giving proper weight to) another point of view (a fringe POV) then I'd have to say, "so what?" Isn't that exactly what we should be doing? And if that's really what's meant here, then I must agree with the users who are concerned about this wording.Woonpton (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

An obvious point but...

In several places in the workshop, evidence , and proposed decision pages the comment that the diffs don't work must mean that the comments, or decisions are inaccurate, fallacious and shouldn't be there in the first place (unless diffs can be found)... Without proof/diffs there is no comment or decision that is fair or accurate. In a large community hearsay is a stealthy, unobtrusive, and highly unfair element. Respectfully, just a note.(olive (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Not being obtuse, just don't understand. What are you saying? --TS 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Background: We have three editors who are being "reprimanded" in some way or other in the Fringe Science case.

• A diff = the symbol that designates a physical connection to a specific behaviour.
• Collect the diffs.(behaviours) and based on them construct a statement about behaviour.
• Then arbs may vote on the statement.

But the reverse is not a viable way of making statements/judgments

• Create a statement about a behaviour.
• diffs are not available or are not accurate descriptions of the behaviour.
• Arbs then vote on the statement.

Problem: The statement was not based on anything concrete, yet the statement (again not based on anything concrete) is now being voted on. No vote is appropriate, neither support, abstain or oppose... because in reality there is no statement. Yet what happens is that if there is a vote on this statement the statement begin to take on a life of its own though originally it has no basis in reality.

• An example: *A bank is robbed. *A short hairy person with a banana is noticed at the scene. *He is seen leaving with the money. *He fires the banana. *The banana skin has fingerprints on it traced to the short hairy person. These are the diffs. A statement is correctly crafted based on the diffs, that the short hairy person probably robbed the bank. The Arbs. can now vote.

• Another example: *Someone mentions that a bank has been robbed and short hairy persons may be robbing banks. A short hairy persons may have robbed banks in the past. *No one sees the short hairy person at the site of the robbed bank. There is a banana peel, but no evidence the banana was fired. *Thus, there is no concrete evidence of bank robbing behaviour = diffs, although there is hearsay. *Someone makes the statement that a short hairy person robbed the bank. The arbs vote and decide a short hairy person robbed the bank, some aren't sure and abstain, some oppose because there is no evidence. Now every one else is running around yelling the short hairy person robbed the bank. The short hairy person goes to jail (and does not collect two hundred bananas.)

Science Apologist, Martinphi, and Pcarbonn are real people with real reputations. In a BLP we do not allow anything about a person that is not very well supported, yet here in this case at different points there may be accusations with no evidence, poor evidence, evidence that does not carefully and explicitly point to the behaviour being described, or voted on, of very real people. Oppose, abstain or support are not correct responses to statements that have no proven basis. Heresay isn't good enough. Find very strong, very specific evidence = diffs, or strike the statement or decision. Anything else is not just. Note: Nothing here is meant to denigrate the difficult position facing the arbs in sifting through all of the evidence on any case, but is rather, a possible point of view, and possibly a suggestion to double check all diffs and statement to make sure both match up.(olive (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

"Here say" means hearsay. Art LaPella (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... sorry didn't catch that typo/error when checking through. (olive (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Just a small drive by observation: BLP does not apply to an Arbcom case per se. And there is a lot of evidence both presented, and available to anyone who knows how to use Special:Contributions/<foo>. If you know of specific examples of diffs which blatantly do not support what they claim to support, just point them out. Ironically, there was a controversial Arbcom case a year or two ago on a not totally unrelated topic in which the findings were perceived by much of the community to be at variance with what the evidence actually showed. Fortunately, from my reading of the proposed decisions I do not see that happening again. But please point out any discrepancies you see; we do not want to have it happen again. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks, of course BLP doesn't apply to ArbCom cases at all, but my point is that in both instances we deal with real people and we need to extend at least the same care we do in BLP articles as we do to a case involving our own editors-real people.(olive (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, still don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you just disputing the evidence? It would help if you could state what you think in a few, brief sentences. These long and obscure anecdotes involving bananas are not helpful to me. --TS 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tony ... I've explained short and I've explained long ... I'm talking about an over arching concern that has its basis in an incorrect logical progression ... This is my best effort .... with bananas to lighten the situation...(olive (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I could go to each aspect of this case and check diffs then present each one that doesn't match up with the statements being made/presented/proposed. My point is larger than that... If and editor or arb is presenting evidence and they don't have the diffs or they aren't exact or another arb comes along and says, where are the diffs .... then why not ask, why is that statement still there. Just check the points again and make sure. I mention it as a general point because its a general concern.

Listen ... some of us deal in point specific information and detail, others deal with the overarching views .... Its a different way of working/ seeing/thinking for anyone with an interest in brain function/learning .... Both are legitimate. Both are necessary. On Wikipedia the point specific way of thinking is dominant, I'd say off hand ....I'm looking at the big picture ... that's all...

There are behavioural patterns on Wikipedia as there are with any group. I'm looking at pattern, not so easy to explain, so I used a silly anecdote. If an editor or Arb can see the pattern in his or her own editing on such cases or in their proposed decisions then just fix it. Hey,that's my best effort guys.(olive (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

And none of this is meant to criticize.(olive (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

But I do think it is meant to dispute the evidence. "Firing the banana" means some accusations can't be true, and "fingerprints on the banana" means some accusations are irrelevant. I think. If so, maybe you should tell us which accusations are as impossible or irrelevant as bananas (although I think she believes that would be criticizing people too directly). Art LaPella (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you dispute evidence that was never presented? She's simply pointing out that some of the assertions in this case lack supporting evidence. Why this simple statement of fact would be controversial is puzzling to me. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My intent was to translate rather than to take sides, although I'm sure I could find examples where "evidence" amounts to "Hooray for our side". Art LaPella (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since olive wrote in English, there's no need to 'translate'. Dlabtot (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But Tony said there is. Art LaPella (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that settles it. If Tony said it, it must be True™. Dlabtot (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. If we Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and if Tony says he doesn't understand it, then it needs more explanation. Heck, these responses constitute giving you more explanation also. Art LaPella (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe somebody else could explain. Is User:Littleolive oil disputing the evidence or is there something more to it than that? If the former, well that's what the arbitration committee is there for--to settle the dispute. --TS 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, she's not disputing any evidence. Is there 'more to it' than what she actually said? No. Dlabtot (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If she isn't disputing the evidence, then I'm unsure what she said. --TS 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

TS, it seems clear to me. Littleolive oil is saying that for some of the findings of facts there are no diffs or evidence. Several arbitrators have raised this point and abstained. In the absence of redone FoFs that include diffs or links to the evidence in question, I suspect some of those arbitrators will switch to opposing, or propose their own FoFs. As the bainer has started to do. Is this clearer now, TS? Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, FoF 7, FoF 10 (need to scroll down in absence of a direct anchor link), and FoF 12 (again, scroll down a bit). Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is no evidence I trust that the Committee will not pass the related findings. This isn't rocket science. It seems to me that she could simply have said that she doesn't think the evidence supports some of the proposed findings, and then I could have assured her that they are still proposed findings. --TS 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact,(no pun intended), further than that, Carcharoth... There can be no findings of facts if there are no diffs. Without diffs where did the so called facts come from...Logically, without diffs those statements should be removed and non one should be voting on them in anyway. Any kind of vote gives credence to facts that could have just as easily been pulled out of thin air than from anywhere else. A statement like, snakes have armpits, has as much credence as any statement that has no diffs. No diffs , then don't even write the statement. Furthermore, make sure the diffs are clearly and exactly describing and supporting what is in the statement. Perhaps we have fallen into a pattern of creating statements without due care as to where those statements come from. As I said, obvious but...(olive (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)(

...and no, its not rocket science but patterns of doing and behaving are changed most quickly if they are identified.(olive (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

I forgot to mention that I also see your point, olive, about hearsay in FoFs. That takes place on the evidence and workshop pages as well, but I can understand your concern if this takes place on a PD page. I would suggest approaching Coren (who drafted the proposed decision) directly. At the end of the day, though, the arbitrators are more focused on getting a final decision, together with diffs and evidence, sorted out. If, along the way, some inaccurate or unsupported statements are made, that is a concern, but not the primary concern. When I come to draft a case, I certainly will be striving to ensure all FoFs have diffs or evidence links in them. But for this case, I'm mainly just voting. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes and this isn't meant to target anyone... I wonder though if just voting is good enough if any of the three editors reputations and editing are at stake. I guess I would be more severe, but then I don't have the material you do to sift through.(olive (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

and thanks all for the discussion. It helps me further understand where other editors are coming from on this.olive (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Status of Proposed enforcement 2

Under "Implementation notes" it is noted that "All enforcement pass". However, most of the support votes for Proposed enforcement 2 (Supervised Editing) are conditional on remedy 1 (also called Supervised Editing) passing, which appears not to be the case.  --Lambiam 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The implementation notes are temporary to help us see what still needs voting on. The point you make here is correct, and if remedy one fails, the enforcement will also fail. In other words, the remedy is still conditional, no matter what the implementation notes say, even if it could be phrased better. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban from "Fringe science"

Though "broadly construed", the small cadre of arbitration committee members who have voted to topic ban me have offered essentially no reliable means for demarcation of what is and is not a "fringe science" article. We have only the following insipid attempt saying that fringe science is either "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 "matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science." Here is a list of articles I was planning on editing in the next few months. If you can tell me which are "fringe science" articles and which are not, I would appreciate it:

• Loop quantum gravity
• Phlogiston theory
• Polywater
• Pioneer anomaly
• DGP model
• Modified Newtonian dynamics
• Tired light
• Steady State theory
• Psychoanalysis
• Human cloning
• Lysenkoism
• The Demon-Haunted World
• Paul Feyerabend

Essentially, those voting to "topic ban" me are setting up the remedy for horrible failure by falling squarely into the demarcation problem. This remedy will simply encourage endless debates at WP:AE over how to determine what articles are "fringe science" and what articles are not.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Demarcation is easy. Articles are tagged (or have been tagged) with the category "Fringe science", or with the category "pseudoscience". --61.175.232.126 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor above seems to have the right idea; of the articles SA has listed above, the only ones that would cause me concern would be Polywater, Tired light and Lysenkoism, all of which include pseudoscientific or fringe categories. This appears to be a good mix of articles for him to work on, otherwise. For the sake of any topic ban, I think we would consider it "fringe" if it is a) an existing article that includes a fringe science category as of this writing, b) is an article created after the close of this case that includes a fringe science category. ScienceApologist can of course discuss with other editors on the talk page of any article, and discussion could certainly include whether or not an article should be classified in a fringe category. If there is continued evidence of collaborative editing over the first few months, I would think consideration could be given to reducing the length of the topic ban, but it is important to show a sustained change in behaviour over time before this can be considered. Risker (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you understand that "broadly construed" is difficult to interpret. The three articles you list are interesting because only one is actually controversial on Wikipedia. Banning me from editing Lysenkoism seems particularly bizarre. As for a "sustained change in behaviour", I ask you to consider my contributions from the last month. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the improved behaviour for a couple of months and I'll certainly support relaxing the topic ban. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Risker and Roger. Use the talk page if there is any doubt, and use the talk pages to demonstrate productive and collaborative behaviour for those articles that cover fringe science topics. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose a topic ban at this time. ScienceApologist has been behaving well lately. The Committee's slow action on this case has obviated the need for a ban. Please reconsider. Jehochman ^Talk 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a "last chance saloon" remedy to cover this and switched to oppose. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Jehochman ^Talk 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Why should applications (to ArbCom for the topic ban to be imposed) only be considered if they're made by uninvolved 'administrators'? I would've thought that any uninvolved "user" should be given the same consideration if they made a request. While it may be necessary to confine it to uninvolved users, it is not necessary to confine it to uninvolved administrators. Note; this isn't a point I'd make in any particular case - it's a general point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a deliberate filter as motions take time to deal with. This is experimental so if it's adopted, the process may well evolve. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow - motions take time to deal with, so you don't want to give time to those who aren't admins? If you really wish for efficiency (and to extend another chance to the community to handle it), why not simply put him on fringe science topic probation? That way, a topic ban can be imposed by uninvolved admin or the community if needed. If there is subsequently no consensus either way by the community on imposing a topic ban, then it can come back to ArbCom so it can vote via motion. Of course, my suggestion is experimental too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a simplified type of probation, I suppose, but with a sunset clause and an opportunity for ArbCom to review before the ban is imposed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I find that it is more complicated. My suggestion to impose the broader topic probation was merely to save time from a future community discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. We'll have to wait and see if anything passes :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Arb Voting Behaviour

I've been fascinated by attempting to track Arb's voting behavior. Its amusing to think that even in arbcom, there are those that could be described as a "hangin' judge" and those that are softies.

One of the strangest things is what an Arb chooses not to do. Take this case, and Risker, as an example. He has voted on almost everything in the case. The notable exceptions are some specific (And overruled) items about SA... and oddly, priciples 5 and 6. I mean, he could have missed them, but who votes 1,2,3,4,7,8,9...?

I have seen written that a vote not case is a vote against. So how much do you read into that? If he diligently voted on every principle, save two, does that mean he is voting against the civility and disruptive editing principles? I mean, he voted for 2,3,4,7,8 and 9 all at the same time. Its not like he did 2,3,4 stopped, and started again in the wrong place. He appears to have specifically not voted for those principles.

Its easy to say I'm reading to much into this (because I probably am), but that certainly does present the appearance of being deliberate.

I guess my question to the arbs is, if the absense of a vote is concidered and oppose... does deliberately not voting on a principle mean you oppose it? (Not to be confused with an arb that voted on, say, half of the items and never got back to it... this is a lack of vote that is conspicious by its absense.) 198.161.174.194 (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're reading too much into this. Risker (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While I lament the fact that it did not answer any of my questions, my GF insists that I let you know your responce was, in fact, awesome. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Did Seicer just vote on a bunch of stuff and then revert himself[[56]]? What happened there? Does he think he's an Arb? I don't see his name on the list for active on this case. Am I missing something? This isn't one of those 'has two accounts and everyone knows it' kind of thing is it? 198.161.174.194 (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was just a mistake, seeing as he reverted himself. My thought is that he thought he was on the /Workshop page then once he noticed he was editing the /Proposed page he reverted himself. Not a big deal really. Tiptoety ^talk 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn you and your reasonableness. I had a perfectly good Seicer=Roger Davies conspiricy theory ready to unleash on the world and you just had to go and ruin it with logic and reason. How am I supposed to get banned as a political wikimartyr if I can't get any unfounded assertions based on dubious evidence off the ground? 198.161.174.194 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I know Seicer fairly well and I find it unlikely that he is the 'alter-ego' of one of the Arbs who has yet to vote. Looks like just a minor faux pas that was quickly self-corrected. Ronnotel (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom as the crank's last resort

ScienceApologist's ban would make another disgraceful entry in ArbCom's history. When I proposed WP:FTN to be instituted, I never thought that within several years we would find Mr Lokshin and Co fall this low. The committee has become a major hindrance to the project's development and should be called to account for that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Crankery will always be with us, so long as this remains an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. My hope for this case was that we'd think about better ways of dealing with it globally, because it's not going to go away. Currently the system looks like this:

• Politely and patiently explain Wikipedia's goals, policies, and mandates to each new agenda account.
• Ignore abuse and rise above baiting, because experienced editors need to set a better example than redlinked meatpuppet agenda accounts.
• Proceed stepwise up the ladder of dispute resolution; skipping to a topic ban proposal right off the bat will be met with the usual chorus of "But there hasn't been an RfC yet!"
• After 6 months or so of repeating the above steps, a drawn-out proceeding may eventually deal with the problem - though, of course, everyone who's ever had a cross word with you will show up to get a few kicks in during the process.
• Note that if the agenda account avoids gross violations of the personal-attacks and civility policies, none of the above steps will be effective in dealing with their advocacy, and they will find determined defenders who cast the issue as a suppression of minority opinion rather than a basic application of Wikipedia's content policies.
• Repeat the above steps ad infinitum for each new incident of crankery.

The problem, really, comes in only with the last step. A person with a reasonable reserve of equanimity can go through this process 5, or 10, or even 100 times. But no one can be expected to repeat it indefinitely and retain their politeness, poise, and sanity. I guess I'm still hopeful that the process can be streamlined somewhat, but this particular case is essentially Martinphi-ScienceApologist, round #29. Whatever. I don't really have any objection to proposed remedies. I guess I'm still wondering about the underlying problem, that's all. MastCell ^Talk 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This may not be the place for this discussion, but I think most of the worst offenders could be dealt with if we had a procedure for easily placing sanctions on single purpose accounts (i.e. those who edit one article or several very closely related ones). They cause most of the serious and hard to fix problems in this area. It would be similar to 3RR - they'd need to have more than a certain number/percentage of edits and evidence of acting against consensus multiple times. Phil153 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't the place to discuss this, and I can hardly figure out what ArbCom did here on what basis, but the anti-pseudoscientists on Wikipedia are out of control. They're ruining articles by interpreting any piece of scientific literature they can find to say that whatever pseudoscience they're against is bogus. They're not using science, like most agenda driven editors--they're promoting their agenda, to the detriment of article science and overall quality. I'm tired of dealing with them and their WP:POINTed attempts at dismissing pseudoscience in totally inappropriate articles and methods like editing the Atropa belladonna article to make it an anti-homeopathy front in any way they can. They have become the quacks they purport to be battling. It simply has to stop, because they are consuming the time needed to deal with their counter-quackery;; time that could be used to battle the pseudoscience that continues to slip into articles they've never seen or heard of, while they fight to insert their own non-science into articles as a means of fighting pseudoscience. You don't fight pseudoscience with pseudoscience, you quietly and accurately demote its importance with real science. --KP Botany (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're generalizing your extreme experience on Atropa belladonna far too broadly. The battle that has gone on in that article is ridiculous, and you are right to be thoroughly annoyed about it, especially given your botany contributions here. But my observations don't bear that out elsewhere, and from what I can see, you've done little writing or dealing with fringe articles generally.

Anyway, can this be moved somewhere for continued discussion? It would be useful to discuss this as community, because Arbcom isn't producing lasting remedies for these problems, and actual policy changes will need to happen for a long term solution here. Better sooner than later. Phil153 (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while I appreciate SA's goal of marking pseudoscience as such, his way (and that of his close collaborators) of pursuing this is in contradiction with the notion of an encyclopaedia. Take for instance the latest edit war on Orthomolecular psychiatry. I don't have an opinion on whether OMM and OMP should be merged. Pyroluria however was a short article that gave the reader a clear message what that was about: a failed scientific hypothesis that was notable enough for articles in Nature, American Journal of Psychiatry, and Biological Psychiatry (see Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine/Archive_8#Merge_discussion for WP:PMIDs). Based on the level of coverage, it's probably more notable than polywater. In the latest round of wikiwaring pyroluria has been merged, possibly against consensus, making it harder for the reader to actually find what pyroluria was about; the reader gets redirected to an article that has some edit warring banners since last year. I'm not sure what the average reader will learn from that, other than the topic is possibly part of something controversial. I don't care enough about pyroluria to start edit warring over the redirect. Presumably SA's ultimate goal is to merge all pseudoscience articles under a giant WP:TLDR article, titled P S E U D O S C I E N C E, in the hope that the reader, upon finding that the topic he's searching for redirects there will be instantly enlightened and won't feel like reading any further details. I think this approach is contrary to the idea of an encyclopaedia, especially one that's not WP:PAPER, in cases when the topic has been covered by mainstream sources, even when the outcome of experiments invalidated the hypothesis. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, right now on Atropa belladonna talk the anti-homeopathy part of SA's pseudoscience freak out crowd is battling to get an article used to support a quote that the article doesn't say or support. A well designed, small study, that looked at a single aspect of homeopathy has been inserted to support the statement that homeopathy is pseudoscience, essentially, courtesy of User:Orangemarlin. I'm sick to death of this crap. No science is used to take down the pseudoscience, and anything said by the anti-pseudoscience crowd to support their banner of anti-pseudoscience will be supported by other members of the crowd. Original research? No problem. Reference doesn't say that? No problem? Not relevant to the article? No problem?

Phil, it's not about the issue at Atropa belladonna, it's that any time the fringe scientists touch anything in the world of science, the whacked out anti-pseudo science crowd on Wikipedia will do or say anything, including ruin an article, in order to use it as a bandwagon against pseudoscience. They've elevated pseudoscience beyond its actual level of importance on Wikipedia because of their obsessive agenda.

I'm not the only editor on Wikipedia who can't write science articles because of the ridiculous, pointless, absurd obsession with fighting pseudoscience of this group of editors.

They're giving pseudoscience on Wikipedia a huge presence and prominence it has not earned, undue weight, while preventing science editors from contributing science to the encyclopedia.

SA is not the only problem editor. Others are keeping up his battle right where he left off. He won't even be missed.

And all the redirects and cover-ups and ridiculous attempts to create the ultimate anti-pseudoscience bandwagon out of Wikipedia? The readers aren't falling for it, they know it's 100% agenda driven, because is smells of the crap it is. --KP Botany (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, stuff like this creates a counterproductive environment. I just withdraw from articles like that; let the obsessed on both sides duke it out. The little time I can spend on this site is not worth wasting in endless warring that results in crap articles. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made the same kind of experience with the extreme anti-pseudoscience belief system, also in relation to homeopathy. On the other hand I have also experienced how frustrating it can be when you are basically the only one trying to contain and control a barely notable fringe topic. (In the case of Ra (channeled entity), for example, I have simply given up for now.) I think the truth is somewhere in between, and I really hope that whatever Arbcom decides will reflect this. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, ha. That article is so terrible that the only people to take it seriously probably already believe that the TV is talking to them; Wikipedia cannot really help with that. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It was really surprising, while dealing with the case of Ra (channeled entity), to discover that editors fighting against fringe can also be into homeopathy. However, in the end, we can't blame people for what they believe in, lots of different configurations are possible. I would propose rereading of wikipedia policies and guidelines, (and arbcom rulings as well) before engaging in nonsense, baseless disputes. As Hans Adler once proved here [57], rereading can be refreshing and illuminating. Logos5557 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is not supposed to figure out who is a crank and who isn't. The community is perfectly capable of making this distinction, or if not perfectly then several orders of magnitude better than arbcom. Arbcom is here to judge user conduct. Every time they try to go beyond that and try to judge on content they make a giant mess of things. --dab (𒁳) 13:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)