User:OrenBochman/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

1.1 My wife is not a coauthor
Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife. And suppose that this person also wrote 10 books on their own, and on this second group of 10 books, their wife is not listed as a coauthor. All 20 of these books are listed on a website belonging to the couple for sale, and on various other websites, with the authorship list for each book listing either the person, or the person and his wife. All of these websites and descriptions of these 20 books agree with each other. Suppose that in interviews, this person is quoted as saying that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and that this person listed this coauthorship in his autobiography.

Therefore, in the biography of this person on Wikipedia, we state that this person has coauthored some of his books with his wife. And then this person contacts WP, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Wikipedia for describing his wife as a coauthor of some of his books. He wants Wikipedia to assert that he wrote all the books himself and his wife was not involved.

What should Wikipedia do? Do we just state something that is contrary to more than a dozen reliable sources, which all agree with each other? Do we state something for which we have not a single source except a private email purportedly from the subject of the biography (but of course we do not know for sure)?


 * 1) What is the ethical thing to do?
 * 2) What is the encyclopedic thing to do?
 * 3) What precedent would your actions set, if any?
 * 4) How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

1.2 My town's library
You run across an article, created a few days ago, that reads:

You do some web searching, and find nothing about this library on the internet.
 * 1) What should Wikipedia do with such an article?
 * 2) How would you handle this situation?
 * 3) How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

1.3 I am the best
"Theobold Johnson III" is notable for having been involved in a football cheating scandal and also writes books about orchids, illustrated with beautiful pictures. Johnson has written several self-published books about orchids, and in their autobiographies and interviews he describes himself as "the greatest living orchid man" and "widely recognized by the academic world as the greatest orchid scholar in the world". Johnson refers to himself as "Dr. Johnson" or "Professor Johnson" frequently in print. Johnson also asserts in print that he is a professor in the Botany Department at the famous "Winthrop College" and has given his mailing address as "c/o Winthrop College" for many years. Johnson often writes that all other people studying orchids are morons and even all other botanists are stupid and vile disgusting fools who should be publicly flogged or worse.

In the course of writing a Wikipedia biography about Johnson, you start to uncover disturbing information. First, you are able to find a mention of a "Theobold Johnson III" on archived versions of the Winthrop College website from 1994-1997, but there is no mention of Johnson on earlier versions of the website, or later versions. A "T. Johnson, III" is listed as a visitor in the Computer Science Department of Winthrop College in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 versions of the website, and a phone number is given. You contact the President's office at Winthrop College and the Dean of Science office at Winthrop College and ask if Johnson is or was a faculty member there. Receiving no reply, you ask a friend who knows the Dean personally to ask the Dean privately. The word comes back from your friend that he has talked to the Dean privately, and that Johnson is an embarassment and never had a faculty appointment at Winthrop College and just has his mail forwarded from Winthrop College due to some arrangement he made with someone in the Winthrop College mailroom 25 years previously. Johnson never was on the payroll of Winthrop College and never had an official position at Winthrop College and has not been on campus for 10 years or more. Johnson was listed for a few years on the telephone list and was a short term visitor, but this was just a courtesy and he was one of 3500 visitors a year who get this courtesy. The Dean's office then, thanks to the probing of your friend, issues a very carefully worded "official statement" about Johnson, stating he was never a faculty member at Winthrop College and inviting further inquiries to their Press Office, and sends you a copy.

You do some more checking, and find no evidence that Johnson has a PhD or any degree in botany or science whatsoever, at least from Liberty Washington University, as he claims. You do find a record at Liberty Washington Community College that Johnson obtained a bachelor's degree in history 30 years previously. You also find a report in the local newspaper that Johnson was expelled from Liberty Washington Community College for theft while he was an undergraduate, and then was readmitted and eventually graduated. You look at various lists and directories of prominent orchid scholars and find no mention of a Theobold Johnson in any edition of these directories. You also dig up 5 reviews of Johnson's books on orchids in various scholarly journals from different botanists and orchid scholars from Harvard and University of Pennsylvania and Yale. These reviews are uniformly poor, and state that Johnson is a charlatan and a fraud and his books are replete with errors and the worst possible nonsense. You then find another interview of Johnson published in Sports Illustrated where it is stated that Johnson has no PhD or other Doctorate, but it is a title that people use for him out of respect for his tremendous knowledge and learning.


 * 1) How would you write a biography of this person on Wikipedia?
 * 2) What would be reasonable and accurate and ethical?
 * 3) What would be fair?
 * 4) What should Wikipedia do if this person contacts Wikipedia and demands that it write his biography the way he dictates?
 * 5) What if this person threatens legal action if Wikipedia does not do what he asks?
 * 6) How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

1.4 Arrow of Time
In the Young Earth Creationism article, an editor with a total of 47 edits to their credit repeatedly inserts the phrase

This appears to have little if anything to do with Young Earth Creationism. After all, the Big Bang produced time itself, according to the Big Bang theory, first advanced by Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. Discussions of whether time existed before the Big Bang have already discarded one of the main features of the Big Bang, and so are not about the Big Bang, and definitely not relevant to Young Earth Creationism, which does not have a Big Bang associated with most versions of it. It is a confused and somewhat nonsensical statement.

No sources or references are provided, although this editor is asked for sources dozens of times by several other editors. Other editors remove this phrase, and the new editor responds angrily that he is being censored. The new editor reinserts this phrase 38 times over the next 2 weeks, and never provides references or sources of any kind. When asked for sources, he states it is the responsibility of the other editors to provide them, not him.

On the talk page of the article, this editor posts vaguely obnoxious statements like

He states that since the other editors do not want to include his statement about the Arrow of Time without a reference, they will be sued:

Everyone is polite to this editor. No one threatens him. No one curses him. He is tolerated.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What is fair? What is the journalistic thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? Could someone like this demand that Encyclopedia Britannica include this kind of statement in one of its articles? The New York Times? What sort of chance of success would they have? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

1.5 Ghost in the machine
Some people have decided that sometimes ghosts call humans using cellular telephones (i.e., mobile phones). Strange anonymous cell phone calls are said to be caused by phantoms and spirits trying to communicate with the living. Ringing cellular phones during inopportune moments are believed to be caused by mischievous spirits playing tricks on humans. Static during cellular telephone calls is said to be the voices of those from beyond the grave, that can be heard if you listen closely enough. Crosstalk between calls and other phenomena are said to be the results of spectral beings and supernatural influences. Cats that get strange looks on their faces when cell phones ring, or run and hide, are said to able to hear the ghosts. It is claimed that sometimes cats look into the corners of empty rooms watching these phantoms that are present, and invisible to humans.

Several articles on this "Cellular Phantom Phenomenon" (CPP) are written for Wikipedia. Since there are no mainstream scientific studies of CPP, the editors demand that no negative material or mainstream material be presented in the Wikipedia articles on CPP, since there are no mainstream reliable sources. Conventional explanations for CPP and information about how cellular telephones work and the causes of crosstalk and static are dismissed by the proponents of CPP as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The proponents of CPP maintain that the conventional mainstream scientific explanation must be kept out of the articles on CPP, and refer to those trying to include them as "pseudoskeptics" and "not real scientists" and "close-minded". Efforts to try to balance the article lead to huge disputes about trying to distort WP:NPOV and make it WP:SPOV instead, which some claim is an abuse of the policies of Wikipedia.

What should these articles on CPP in Wikipedia look like? Does mainstream science have any place in these Wikipedia CPP articles? What should Wikipedia do in this case? Can the rules of WP:FRINGE be applied or is that inappropriate and unfair? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

Take me to your Leader Extraterrestrial Shape-shifting Reptile
David Icke is one of a suprisingly large group of people that believe that most of the world's leaders, from Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush to members of the British Royal Family, are blood drinking shapeshifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system. A little investigation reveals that there are literally dozens of books and videos on this subject, including a number that purport to present "proof" of the truth of these claims. There are also thousands of websites on this subject matter and many many people who believe this to be completely true, and supported by immense bodies of incontrovertable and irrefutable evidence.

An editor appears on Wikipedia and wants to include a paragraph or two in the biographies of many politicians around the world alluding to the fact that these politicians are in fact secretly shape-shifting extraterrestrial lizards of some kind. This editor links to one or more of the sources that are claimed to provide "proof" for these allegations. This editor wants to include this material in several hundred Wikipedia biographies. This editor protests vehemently about any efforts to remove this material from Wikipedia articles. This editor angrily denounces Wikipedia as unfair and biased, and the removal of this material as evidence that Jimbo and Arbcomm and many of the admins on Wikipedia are also shapeshifting extraterrestrial reptiles, conspiring to keep this information secret and from the public.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would be fair and reasonable? Should Wikipedia allow these claims only in the biographies of politicians and leaders that are already deceased, to avoid problems with WP:BLP? What is the best course of action, and most journalistic and encyclopedic and ethical? How does one avoid offending this editor? What if this editor is joined by 50 others with the same agenda so they can overwhelm any minor response by Wikipedia editors? What sort of precedent would this set? Are the rules of Wikipedia important in this situation or not? Should they be ignored? Whose rules should be applied and when, to which cases? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

1.6 Related to a saint
Oacan was an editor whose aunt compiled Oacan's family genealogical history in the 1950s. Oacan's aunt claimed that Oacan's family was descended from the brother of a well known 15th century saint. Oacan then altered the Wikipedia article about the 15th century saint drastically and aggressively, for over a year, to support the claim his aunt had made in the family genealogy. Oacan removed any discussion that was contrary to this claim of his aunt, and any sources that contradicted this claim. Oacan drove off several other contributors because he insisted on creating a biography that supported his aunt's claims and "altering" the Wikipedia articles to do so.

However, Oacan's aunt's genealogy was never published, or checked by a professional genealogist. It also appears to contradict several published reliable sources. In addition, Oacan's aunt's genealogy has gaps in it as long as 95 years.

In this case, what should Wikipedia do? What is fair to Oacan? What is fair to everyone else? Should Wikipedia go with the published material from reliable sources, even if it hurts this editor's feelings? What about the ethical issues? What would a good journalist do? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

1.7 I make my own rules
One editor who was fond of WP:FRINGE theories such as conspiracy theories and alien abduction theories, and edited articles on these topics on Wikipedia, decided that he disagreed with the standard interpretations of Wikipedia principles like WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:NPOV. So he wrote his own versions of these policies. He altered all these standard policies to make them more friendly to WP:FRINGE topics, contrary to community consensus and rulings of Arbcomm, etc.

Then this editor proceeded to send out his own "welcoming statements" to new Wikipedia editors, with links to his nonstandard altered versions of Wikipedia policies, similar to the procedure normally followed for new Wikipedia editors.

What is appropriate in this case? Can someone decide unilaterally to design their own policy statements, contrary to those of the community? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the reasonable thing to do in this case? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

2.1 Taking a Leak
Jack Leak is an author who is frequently in the news for his controversial theory that oil and gas are not the result of millions of years of decomposition of organic material. Leak has published a series of books describing his theories. Leak is a prominent faculty member at an Ivy League university. He believes that oil and gas are the result of inorganic processes deep within the earth's crust.

The faculty in Leak's department have put a statement on the department webpage stating they disagree with Leak's theory. Surveys of other scientists in his field show that over 99% of them think his theory is unscientific and contradicted by the evidence.

Almost every review of Leak's books by other scientists is negative. His work is quite popular among the public, however, who do not want to believe that the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and that we might run out of oil. Leak has testified as an expert witness during several legal trials where environmentalists were trying to block deep offshore drilling or drilling in the arctic. The opposing side in these trials has always ripped Leak's testimony to shreds, ridiculing him. However, he remains very popular with the majority of the public.

An article about one of Leak's books, Earth Juices, on Wikipedia includes links to several negative reviews. One prominent Wikipedia editor demands that these negative reviews be removed, since they violate WP:BLP. The claim is that anything negative about these books in the reviews reflects negatively on Leak's work, and on Leak himself, and therefore violates WP:BLP.

In addition, several editors on Wikipedia have objected to statements in Leak's biography on Wikipedia stating that the "scientific community disagrees with his theories". They claim that one cannot measure what the scientific community believes, so that this statement does not belong and is not valid.


 * 1) Do the negative reviews of Leak's work constitute a WP:BLP violation?
 * A: The reviews do not constitute a violation of WP:BLP.
 * 1) * The litmus test of these reviews is the quality of the sources.
 * 2) * Removing these would violate WP:N.
 * 3) * It is the job of the challenger to bring sources of equal quality if they can.
 * 4) * What seems to be the crux of the matter is WP:DUE - which advises the editors that the proportion of the coverage of the negative/positive POV must be proportional to the amount of sources in the best quality category or negative/positive sources.
 * 5) Can Wikipedia link to these negative reviews?
 * A: Wikipedia must link to these negative reviews - or better ones to demonstrate that this is a fringe theory. The alternative would be to betray the social contract made with the community and the public. Just a few fringe theories supported by en encyclopedia will ruin its credibility and damage the value of all the other articles.
 * 1) Can Wikipedia state that the "scientific community" agrees or disagrees with his theories?
 * A: It can - particularly if this statement comes from an existing source like a Nature article but it could also be based on sufficient secondary sources making this claim.
 * 1) Are articles on this author's ideas WP:FRINGE theories since most of the public subscribes to them?
 * A: WP:FRINGE is in case of pseudo science independent of popularity. Also Wikipedia is not a democracy.
 * 1) What does WP:NPOV state about how these ideas should be presented on Wikipedia?
 * A: WP:NPOV in this case means that if this material is included it must be made quite clear that this is a man who has made a career out of promoting a popular fiction.
 * 1) How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?
 * A: My POV is utilitarian - time spent on this should be enough to bring the article to good quality since that is the goal of Wikipedia on content and conflict can be useful in achieving this goal. OrenBochman 14:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

2.2 It is not free
The Institute for Quantum Healing (IQH) is a nonprofit organization that was founded in Los Angeles by several college dropouts and entrepreneurs. They maintain that rectally inserting a small 10 ml bottle of helium gas while humming a particular chant will excite the quantum energy levels of the helium, and create quantum entanglement between the helium gas atoms and electrons associated with human thought processes, called "thinkons". These thinkons can then be directed by assorted processes developed by the IQH to travel throughout the subject's nervous system and heal the body, as well as help the subject achieve optimum health.

The founders of the IQH have created a book called "Optimum health through Quantum Healing" with a picture of the founders of IQH wearing Einstein masks and wigs dancing the Macarena on a beach. This is a well known book and it is sold in every major bookstore. Billboards with this image are common throughout the US and internationally, and it is commonly featured on television as well.

Wikipedia uses an image of the book's cover in the article about the book, which features a distinctive design. Some Wikipedia editors also want to use an image of the book's cover in the article about Quantum Healing and possibly in the article about the Institute of Quantum Healing, on the grounds that this helps the reader to identify and recognize the movement, by including a picture of the main book associated with this institute and set of treatments. They seek to apply clause 8 of the NonFree Content Criteria:

to justify wider use of the image of the cover. Other editors dispute this and a huge battle ensues which spreads to dozens of other images of book covers on other articles, and other images. Things begin to escalate as the two camps become entrenched. All kinds of charges of violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are lobbed back and forth.

What does Clause 8 of NFCC really mean? Is it ever really right to use an image just because it is identifiable with a subject, to help increase audience understanding? Should nonfree images ever be used on Wikipedia, for any reason? Do images help or hurt Wikipedia articles, making them appear less serious? After all World Book Encyclopedia has many more pictures than Encyclopedia Britannica, a more serious encyclopedia. How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * In my opinion NFCC is a legal criterion and should be clarified by the WMF.
 * It is important because of its real world leagal nature to treat it conservitivly.
 * Non-free images are useful. However each new image being used presents an opportunity for legal challange by the copyright owner - who may if many of his images are used claim damages - without need to demonstrate these. Thus the wisdom is to avoid images of poplar nature and restrict use of non free images to those few cases where the matters
 * In this case I would not allow to expand the usage beyond the original article. So unless the article is merged with the others they should not use the book to image. WP:Not A Doap Box is also germaine.
 * I believe that the use in in many cases is indeed an abuse - but without legal clarification we must decide using consesus on a case by case  basis.  OrenBochman 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

2.3 Shockingly
An editor on climatology pages has been adding his own personal etymology for the term "cyclone". This editor claims that the term "cyclone" comes from the words "sigh" and "clone". That is, a cyclone is a big rush of air, like a sigh, and a cyclone is a copy of this rush of air, that is, a clone of a sigh, or a "sigh-clone" or "cyclone".

This editor has no sources for his folk etymology. He edit wars to insert it, and it is removed. He argues for it on the talk pages of the articles. People tell him it violates WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V repeatedly, which he ignores. After telling him this 28 times in a row, ZZ, a well known editor who writes about climatology on Wikipedia, and author of 26 pieces of featured content, tells him,

Several admins are outraged and claim that ZZ should be banned. The word that offends them the most is the word "shockingly" in ZZ's post. A very heated thread is generated on the Administrators' Noticeboard about this. Many are disgusted that ZZ would have committed such an egregious offense. No one asks why ZZ wrote this statement. No one chastises the editor who had been spamming the climatology pages with the unsourced etymology of "cyclone". In fact, many jump to the defense of the "sigh-clone" proponent, claiming it is unfair to insist on sources or to argue with this editor or to prevent this editor from including their unsourced etymology in the articles. A huge lynch mob assembles to drive out ZZ for such an uncivil comment and for his "personal attack" on the "sigh-clone" proponent. Some wonder if it will not be a net loss to protect the "sigh-clone" proponent, who has never made an unreverted edit to any article or written any content on Wikipedia, while removing the creator of 26 pieces of featured content. Jimbo's quote about how we do not want to keep jerks around just because they do good work is repeated over and over.


 * 1) What should Wikipedia do in this case?
 * A: as always find the answers according to the protocols of consensus. But also it is important to have the article reflect the facts according to WP:V.
 * 1) What would you do?
 * A: I would restore the article to its original form - the last consensus and protect it for 2 weeks. During this time the editors must discuss matters on the talk page.
 * 1) What is reasonable?
 * A: it would have been resonable to slap ZZ with a trout. Block his opponent and move on.
 * 1) What direction is Wikipedia heading in? It is clear that AGF has run its limit in this case - the question is only how to react.
 * A: There is clearly a grudge against ZZ - probably for his ascerbic tounge during his long tenure. Perhaps it is indeed time he learned a lesson. I would recommend a block on mainspace pending acknowldgment of the improprity and a work with an adopt-a-user volanteer to certify that he has absorved the finer point of wikiquette.
 * 1) Should it continue in that direction?
 * A: It is a matter of incentives. Since the question is so contrived there is no reasonable answer.
 * 1) What is the best way to create a respected reference work?
 * A: conviviality beats cynicism.
 * 1) How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?
 * A: As many or as few as they please.

2.4 The Naked Truth
Several Christian sects which are proponents of Christian naturism claim that a literal reading of the Book of Genesis means that it is forbidden by God to wear clothes, unless required as protection from the elements. One prominent sect, the Starkerites, have become more and more prominent in the UK in the last few decades. They are famous for their radio and television sermons promising that everyone who wears clothes is an affront to God and is going straight to hell. Some of the more extreme varieties of Starkerites, such as the Nakedites, even preach that people who wear clothes indoors should be summarily killed for their blasphemy. The Nakedites have tried to get laws passed requiring that all children attending government schools doff their clothes indoors. This measure is meant to avoid offending any Nakedite children. There have been some well publicized lawsuits trying to impose Nakedite requirements on various commercial enterprises and public institutions, which the Nakedites have always lost.

Lately a contingent of Nakedites have joined Wikipedia and are changing all the articles on Christianity to reflect Nakedite teachings. Huge edit wars break out, since Nakedites regard all those who do not follow indoor nudity and Nakedite philosophy as not real Christians and infidels. They therefore demand that the Wikipedia articles be written accordingly. Any efforts to stop them or slow them down are met with angry responses and a claim that they have a right to their religious freedom, which Wikipedia is suppressing.


 * 1) What should Wikipedia do?
 * 2) * A:
 * 3) Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia?
 * 4) * A:
 * 5) Do they have the right to not be offended? Should Wikipedia give in to their demands and remove pictures of clothed people worshiping in churches from all articles on Christianity?
 * 6) * A:
 * 7) Should Wikipedia remove all pictures of all clothed people indoors to try to assuage the Nakedites?
 * 8) * A:
 * 9) Should anyone from any FRINGE movement be allowed to show up on Wikipedia and demand to be able to dictate how all articles in some area are written?
 * 10) * A:
 * 11) What if they decry the definition of WP:FRINGE and try to rewrite WP:FRINGE and other policies to let them do whatever they want?
 * 12) * A:
 * 13) How much of the articles on Christianity should be devoted to describing Nakedite beliefs?
 * 14) * A:
 * 15) How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?
 * 16) * A:

2.5 How long is yours?
A commercially-available DVD is part of the evidence in a trial. The trial transcripts list the DVD as being 75 minutes in length. Amazon.com and several other sites that sell this DVD list it as 75 minutes in length. An editor appears on Wikipedia and claims that the copy he has in his possession is 51 minutes in length, and that Wikipedia must change its article accordingly.

When other editors on Wikipedia disagree with him, he becomes quite adamant about his demands and even combative. When people resist him, this becomes a major complaint at Wikipedia Review about the unfairness of Wikipedia and the bias of Wikipedia and the lack of ethics on Wikipedia.


 * 1) What should Wikipedia do?
 * 2) * A:
 * 3) How should Wikipedia describe the length of this DVD? What is most reasonable and fair?
 * 4) * A:
 * 5) What is encyclopedic? What policies are involved here?
 * 6) * A:
 * 7) Should anyone be allowed to edit Wikipedia according to what they have asserted is The TRUTHTM?
 * 8) * A:
 * 9) Is it a violation of WP:IAR to require that a WP:RS for this editor's claim of 51 minutes before it can be included in the article?
 * 10) * A:
 * 11) How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

2.6 The US is collaborating with space aliens
A prominent belief in certain Muslim countries that is spread in the mainstream Islamic media is that the United States has a secret program to collaborate with aliens from outer space to (1) scare Muslims and (2) build space weapons to attack Muslims. As proof, they often refer to the internet video called the Alien autopsy video which some "claim" was shown to be a hoax. Nevertheless, in the Muslim world, the "proof" that this video was a hoax perpetrated by someone trying to raise money is dismissed as US government disinformation, and the Alien autopsy video is said to be a leaked official US government video made at Area 51. It is repeatedly asserted that this video is obviously an official classified US government video.

Several editors create articles on Wikipedia propagating this theory. Text segments describing this concept are introduced in articles about the United States and UFOs and in several other articles as well. Sources are provided to articles in the mainstream Islamic media. Huge edit wars erupt.

What should be done? How should this topic be represented on Wikipedia? Are the mainstream Islamic media sources reliable sources for this subject? If mainstream European and American media sources ignore this rumor or dismiss it, should they be given more prominence than the mainstream Islamic media sources? If public surveys in Islamic countries show that 80-90 percent of the population of Muslim nations subscribes to this belief, does this subject qualify as a WP:FRINGE belief? How can one decide if this story qualifies as a WP:FRINGE story or not if Western media ignore this story completely, and there are no surveys of Westerners to compare? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

2.7 No original research!
User:AppleButtEr is editing an article about chihuahuas. A controversy develops about the colors of chihuahuas. AppleButtEr finds one source that states that 48 percent of chihuahuas are black according to one study. Another source claims that 65 percent of chihuahuas are black. A third reference alleges that 64 percent of chihuahuas are white or brown and the rest are black. Finally, one source describes a study where 5893 chihuahuas were examined, and 3482 were found to be black. AppleButtEr wants to convert all these figures into percentages of black chihuahuas so that they can be compared (48%, 65%, 36% and 59.1%) and then present the comparison in a table. Another editor, User:RunOff, who has never edited the article before, appears on the talk page. RunOff states that converting these numbers into percentages is forbidden because it constitutes WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. AppleButtEr quotes policies and papers that appear to be relevant such as and, but RunOff ignores these and continues to fight. AppleButtEr brings in others to help him, but RunOff reveals that he is an admin and makes it clear that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked. When RunOff is asked about WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, he states that those do not apply to experienced users, but only to newbies, and wikilawyers until everyone else gives up.

How would you analyze this situation? Is it WP:OR to convert numbers into percentages for comparison purposes? Does this constitute a violation of WP:SYNTH? What should AppleButtEr do when he encounters an editor or admin like RunOff? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

2.8 Sex and evolution
Several very complicated articles on a theory about the origin of sex are written on Wikipedia. For example:


 * The Evolutionary Theory of Sex was proposed in 1965 by V. Geodakian and now provides explanation of many sex-related phenomena such as sexual dimorphism, sex chromosomes, asymmetry of brain and hands, reciprocal effects, and congenital heart defects.


 * The theory was included in the textbooks,, college study programs,  was covered in numerous newspaper and magazine articles (two in the US  ) and TV programs.


 * The sex notion consists of two fundamental phenomena: the sexual process (conjugation of genetic information of two persons) and the sexual differentiation (partitioning this information into two parts). Depending on the presence (+) or absence (-) of these phenomena, the whole variety of existing reproduction models can be divided into three basic forms: asexual (-, -), hermaphrodite (+, -), and bi-sexual reproduction (+, +).


 * The sexual process and sexual differentiation are distinct, and moreover, directly opposite phenomena. Indeed, the sexual process diversifies genotypes, which is its objective in evolution, whereas differentiation halves the resulting diversity.


 * For instance, in an asexual population of size N, the maximum theoretically possible variability of offspring genotypes is N, given that the genotypes of all parents are different. Since the offspring of each asexual individual is a clone with the same genotype, the variability of the offspring σ is always lower than N.


 * In the sexual process, the variability of offspring is squared. In hermaphroditic organisms, each of N individuals can mate with all individuals except itself, i.e., N - 1; but, as the cross of individual A with individual B is the same as that of individual B with individual A (there is no reciprocal effect), at N >> 1, σ = N(N - 1)/2 ≈ N2/2; with the reciprocal effect, σ = N2.


 * In dioecious forms, sex differentiation that excludes same sex combinations (male-male, female-female), decreases the amount of diversity possible in hermaphrodites by at least two times: σ = N/2 x N/2 = N2/4 (each female with each male, with the same number of males and females equal to N/2). The offspring diversity in a population of dioecious organisms also depends on the sex ratio in the parental generation: it is the highest at a 1:1 sex ratio and decreases with any deviation from it.


 * The maximum progeny diversity of the asexual, hermaphrodite, and bi-sexual populations of the same size N are related as N : N2/2 : N2/4, i.e., the diversity is at least halved while passing from hermaphrodite to bisexual reproduction!  Then, it becomes completely unclear what the differentiation is intended for, if it halves the main bonus provided by the sexual process.  Why are all progressive species bi-sexual, since the asexual process is much more efficient and simple, and hermaphrodites produce a more diversified progeny?  This is the essence of the sex puzzle.


 * The fact that this problem is still unsolved is primarily due to the lack of a clear understanding that the sexual process and sexual differentiation are opposite phenomena. Researchers make attempts at understanding the advantage of the sexual reproduction (hermaphrodite and bi-sexual forms) over the asexual one, although it is necessary to understand the advantage of bi-sexuals over hermaphrodites.


 * The purpose of the sexual process is clear, and consists of diversifying. It is needed to comprehend the objective of the sexual differentiation.  Although it is recognized that, because bi-sexual methods have no visible advantages over asexual ones, bi-sexual reproduction should provide us with significant evolutionary bonuses, the sex problem is commonly considered as a reproduction problem but not an evolutionary one.


 * Sex differentiation is specialization in preserving and changing the genetic information of population. One of the sexes should be informationally more closely connected with the environment, and be more sensitive to the environmental factors.


 * Higher mortality and vulnerability of the males to all harmful factors of the environment make one believe that it is the operative, ecological subsystem of the population. While the females are the conservative subsystem that preserves the existing genotype distribution in the population.


 * A series of mechanisms were developed during different stages of sex evolution to provide this specialization. Compared to females, males experience more mutations, inherit fewer properties of their parents, have narrower reaction norm, higher aggressiveness and inquisitiveness, riskier behavior and other properties that move them closer to the environment. All these properties, moving the male sex to the frontline of the evolution, provide for receiving of ecological information.


 * The second group of properties includes great superfluity of male gametes, their small size and high mobility, the greater activity of mobility of males, their inclination towards polygamy and other ethologic and psychological qualities. Long periods of pregnancy, feeding and taking care of the descendants among the female population in reality increases the efficient concentration of the males, turning the male sex into superfluous, and thus cheap, while the female sex is turned into deficit and thus more expensive.
 * As a result of conservative-operative specialization of sexes, asynchronous evolution takes place: new characters first appear in the operative subsystem (males), are tested there, and then are passed on to the conservative subsystem (females).

Most of the references are in Russian. It is clearly a well known theory, but almost completely unknown in the West. The English in the articles is stilted.

What should be done? Is this article suitable for Wikipedia? Is it pseudoscience or science? Does it fall under WP:FRINGE? What would you suggest that Wikipedia do with the large number of articles on this topic? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?